id
stringlengths 40
40
| text
stringlengths 101
3.75M
| source
stringclasses 1
value | added
timestamp[s]date 2025-03-31 00:00:00
2025-03-31 00:00:00
| created
timestamp[s]date 2025-03-31 00:00:00
2025-03-31 00:00:00
| metadata
dict | attributes
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ccc48d5dae948fe13f4826249a4aa3c206215a31 | This document is no longer current. Please go to the following URL for more information:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/electronicrecords/advice/default.htm Good practice in managing electronic documents
using Office 97 on a local area network Contents
Section One : What is the purpose of this toolkit? ................................................. 4
1 : Summary introduction .................................................................................. 4 1.1 : The problem .............................................................................................. 4 1.2 : Best practice ............................................................................................. 4 1.3 : Summary of contents ............................................................................... 4 1.4 : Relation to 2004 ...................................................................................... 5 1.5 : Is it worth the effort to do this now? ......................................................... 5
2 : Purpose and scope ...................................................................................... 7 2.1 : Aims and intended use ............................................................................. 7 2.1.1 : Audience ............................................................................................ 7 2.2 : Software environment ............................................................................. 7 2.3 : Toolkit products ...................................................................................... 8 2.3.1 : Guidance on best practice for users .................................................. 8 2.3.2 : Preparation for full ERM system ....................................................... 9 2.3.3 : Contribution to cultural change ......................................................... 9
Section Two : What practical steps can be taken? ............................................. 10
Section summary .............................................................................................. 10
3 : Naming conventions : documents and folders ............................................. 11 3.1 : Standard terms ....................................................................................... 11 3.2 : Structured titles ...................................................................................... 12 3.3 : Document version control ..................................................................... 13 3.4 : Folder titles ............................................................................................ 13 3.5 : Use of a thesaurus .................................................................................. 14 3.6 : Usability : length and readability ............................................................ 14
4 : Standard settings : profiles, templates and formats .................................... 15 4.1 : Document properties ............................................................................. 15 4.2 : Standard templates ............................................................................... 16 4.3 : Dynamic updating - dates ..................................................................... 16 4.4 : Storage and distribution formats ............................................................ 17 4.5 : Embed rather than link .......................................................................... 18
5 : E-mail and messaging ................................................................................. 19 5.1 : E-mail usage policies ............................................................................ 19 5.2 : Managing within the e-mail system ....................................................... 20 5.3 : Saving to a shared drive ........................................................................ 20 5.4 : Creating and replying to messages ....................................................... 21 5.4.1 : Addressing messages ....................................................................... 21 5.4.2 : Message length and attachments ................................................... 22 5.4.3 : Managing dialogues ......................................................................... 22 5.4.4 : Use of categorisation and optional flags ....................................... 23 5.5 : Managing the InBox .............................................................................. 24
6 : Use of shared network drives ..................................................................... 26 6.1 : Publish and point .................................................................................. 26 6.2 : Filing structures ..................................................................................... 27 6.3 : Relating to paper filing system .............................................................. 27 6.4 : Control over folder creation ................................................................. 28 6.5 : Balancing drive usage ........................................................................ 29 6.6 : Disposing of documents ..................................................................... 29 6.7 : Secure shared drive ........................................................................... 30 6.7.1 : Sensitive information .................................................................. 31 7 : Agenda for action : identifying steps to practical implementation .......... 32
Section 3 : How to start putting these steps into practice? ......................... 35
8 : Stakeholders .......................................................................................... 35 8.1 : Corporate IT infrastructure ............................................................... 35 8.2 : Business managers .......................................................................... 36 8.4 : End Users ......................................................................................... 36
9 : Prioritisation : planning a way forward ................................................. 37 9.1 : Identifying key target areas ............................................................... 37 9.2 : Local and central records control .................................................... 37 9.2.1 : Local document/records officers .............................................. 38 9.2.2 : Workgroup mentors ................................................................. 38 Section One : What is the purpose of this toolkit?
1 : Summary introduction
This toolkit describes good practice for the management of electronic documents in an operating environment typical of many government departments and agencies – using the MS Office 95/97 application suite and MS Exchange/Outlook on a Local Area Network – with organisation-wide e-mail and shared network drives, but without the assistance of any more specialised document or records management software.
It is not a substitute for full electronic and document records management (EDRM). It should be used to prepare for full EDRM by introducing guidance, rules and procedures for the creation, organisation and sharing of electronic documents which may or may not be printed and filed as formal records. The toolkit asks the question: “What can we start doing now to improve current practice?” and proposes some answers as a good first step in the transition.
1.1 : The problem
- Staff are using office software and e-mail to create and exchange electronic documents; but the organisation is attempting to manage these documents as corporate records in a paper format, with a general ‘print to paper’ policy for any document or e-mail which relates to departmental business.
- Unfortunately, on the one hand, documents are often not actually printed and placed on a paper file, because this is seen as increasingly burdensome by the end user at the desktop.
- On the other hand, the electronic version of the document is not consistently managed either; documents may be stored unpredictably in a variety of locations and under varying names, and with no guarantee of lasting access or accuracy.
1.2 : Best practice
The toolkit suggests some areas where good practice can be developed, but it is not completely prescriptive in defining what these should be. A particular operating environment, established ways of working, and other factors, will influence decisions on those areas that are the most important to address, and those where practical outcomes can actually be achieved, in any specific department or agency. The toolkit is intended for the records or information manager to use in developing a statement of best practice for their own organisation; it is not in itself a statement of best practice that can be passed directly on to end users.
1.3 : Summary of contents
Section 1 covers:
- the nature and purpose of this toolkit
- the reasons why action is worthwhile Section One: What is this toolkit about?
- the audience, scope and outcomes
- the relationship to the 2004 target.
Section 2 covers:
- practical steps that can be taken in influencing the creation and filing of electronic documents
- basic methods for managing e-mail messages
- shared network drives
- organised filing structures for electronic material.
Section 3 covers:
- stakeholders that will need to be consulted in taking this approach forward
- prioritising the parts of the organisation to tackle first
- developing commitment and expertise at the local level.
1.4: Relation to 2004
This toolkit supports achievement of those milestones given in the 2004 route map which deal with issues of bringing existing electronic documents and records under managed control. It aims to:
- provide mechanisms for the better management of existing material identified as important by the inventory and appraisal strategy
- help feed information into the strategic plan and detailed requirements for corporate electronic records management
- map out links with paper records that will be needed in constructing an electronic fileplan
- help determine appropriate policy and guidance for electronic document and records management (EDRM)
- support and encourage changes in end users habits, practices, and understanding that any successful EDRM implementation will require.
1.5: Is it worth the effort to do this now?
The move towards fully integrated electronic working methods, and the consequent need for fully integrated electronic records management, will inevitably involve many changes in approach, practices, attitudes and behaviour – for both end users and for records and information managers – that will be vital for success. One simple answer to the question “Why is it worth bothering with all this now?” is that these changes will have to take place in any case, in the longer term; and it is better to start the process early and in a controlled manner than to be forced by circumstance. Section One: What is this toolkit about?
The case For
- Practical developments can be achieved now to deliver rapid improvements in the quality and reliability of documents and records, for both current business and long-term corporate memory.
- A business case for electronic records management can be developed from a practical base, and within the context of document and information management.
- The profile of records managers within the organisation as the responsible role for delivering those benefits can be made explicit.
- Other legislative drivers, such as Freedom of Information, will require all kinds of information to be recognised and managed, including both paper and electronic copies of records even where paper files are kept conscientiously; as well as documents that may not have been classified as corporate records.
These will only be achieved in the longer term by promoting good habits and practices in the end user community.
The case Against
- Improving local conditions for information and record access may be detrimental to the achievement of organisation-wide records management in the long term by making the move from local to corporate control appear to offer less ‘value for money’ once there is an evident improvement at the local level.
- A direct move from little or no control to corporate level electronic records management may seem more attractive.
- The introduction of intermediate stages that are not carefully thought out may introduce extra complexities for migration of records and procedures, and confuse the end user in the long term.
The extent to which an individual organisation will draw on the proposals in this toolkit will depend on its own situation, relationships with other electronic initiatives, and its strategy for achieving 2004, for example where good practices are being introduced:
- in preparation for an already identified solution
- where a longer-term solution is not yet identified
In general, the current recommended good practice for major projects in a government IT environment is to take a modular and/or incremental approach wherever possible, to improve control and lower project risk.
The key point is to recognise that the transition to full electronic document and records management is a wider programme which must start from the situation the organisation is currently in, and is more than the implementation of a piece of software. This toolkit describes one approach which can be taken in the early part of that transition. Section One: What is this toolkit about?
2: Purpose and scope
This toolkit supports the achievement of the 2004 target by focusing on actions and activities that can be initiated now – prior to the implementation of full EDRM systems, software and procedures.
The toolkit aims to support two general purposes:
- developing good habits and user practices in the creation and organisation of documents, as a platform for the introduction of more formal document and record management software in the medium term
- taking initial steps in the development of electronic records management control, working from a base within the current information architecture.
2.1: Aims and intended use
The toolkit identifies common ground between records management and information management – areas where relatively minor developments in practice and procedures can benefit both. Good practice in managing information, at the personal, workgroup and corporate level, will support good records management, and vice versa. Toolkit users should identify those areas in which smaller changes can be leveraged to greater overall benefit. The toolkit is not intended to be completely prescriptive, and it is certainly possible to put into practice some but not all of the measures described. It is more important to be clear, cogent and consistent in promoting good practice to end users than to be completely comprehensive.
Over time, the toolkit will be supported by examples and case studies of challenges and successes in actual practice, both through the medium of RM Forum (the Community of Practice for government record managers) and by other publications from the Public Record Office. In addition, the toolkit itself will be updated to reflect this growing practical knowledge from time to time.
2.1.1: Audience
The toolkit is primarily addressed to records managers in government and to others, such as information managers or IT managers, who have records management responsibilities. It assumes a reasonable level of general IT and information literacy, including a broad familiarity with standard office software and an e-mail client; it does not assume a specialist IT knowledge or familiarity with ‘back office’ software.
2.2: Software environment
The toolkit assumes use of MS Office 95 or MS Office 97 office application suite, and MS Exchange client or MS Outlook 97/98 for e-mail messaging, running under Windows 95/98 or Windows NT4. The specific examples given may not always be transferable to other software environments.
This toolkit does not cover the additional issues stemming from use of MS Office 2000 / Windows 2000 / Exchange 2000 operating environment, in particular those relating to the management of electronic documents and records in Intranets and Websites – this will be addressed in a separate publication. Section One: What is this toolkit about?
Electronic documents and records
Many electronic documents are produced in the course of departmental business, with varying degrees of value and longevity. These can be in various versions – working documents, draft documents, finalised documents – and formats: conventional text-based documents, e-mail messages taking the place of memos or phone calls, e-mails commenting on attached text documents; spreadsheets, multimedia documents, linked and embedded documents. In this toolkit, the term ‘document’ refers to any digital object commonly found in office systems: spreadsheets, word processed files, discrete databases, and presentations are examples.
Not all documents will acquire the status of formal records, but it is of course important to ensure those that should do, do so and are managed as such. In practice, there is not always a clear distinction made between electronic documents and electronic records, because of a growing gap between record-creating and record-keeping technologies. As people become more used to working electronically, the gap between the documents which a user creates and the records which are managed widens: because users do not ‘print and file’ documents systematically: because of the difficulty of printing some types; because they mean to but forget; because they are inconsistent, and so on.
This toolkit is aimed at those electronic documents which are more formal and that would be expected to be kept as records in one form or another, narrowing the gap by better management of all these documents whether declared as a formal record copy or not. Some may have a paper equivalent, some perhaps should have but do not. In the medium term, we will expect to manage all this material in electronic form in any case.
2.3: Toolkit products
There are three main products which can be produced from this toolkit:
- guidance on best practice in managing electronic documents, for end users
- contribution to plans for moving to full electronic records management across the organisation
- contribution to a strategy for culture change, moving towards thinking and working electronically.
2.3.1: Guidance on best practice for users
The toolkit is for use in producing guidance for end users. This should be expressed in the terms understandable in a familiar work environment, and provide concise, practical and clear procedures to follow, aiming to help users easily to identify the right actions to be taken in commonly recognised situations. It should set out roles and responsibilities in terms which can be understood by, and are meaningful to, the end user.
All best practice documentation must be consistent with all relevant corporate policy documents, particularly the corporate policy on electronic records. It is particularly important that any ‘print to paper’ policy is clear and unambiguous; changes to this policy should establish precise conditions for its operation. Section One : What is this toolkit about?
2.3.2 : Preparation for full ERM system
This toolkit will assist planning the introduction of full electronic records management by 2004 by:
- using the inventory of electronic record collections to identify and prioritise collections that should be brought into a more managed environment using methods from this toolkit
- developing document collections which may be candidates for migration into a managed ERMS, or which at least provide compatible legacy data
- supporting an analysis of the structure and nature of documents that are actually being produced in the electronic environment, rather than those typically produced in a paper environment
- feeding into the strategic planning for EDRM, guiding decisions on implementation such as: which areas to address first, which are most receptive, and which give the best examples to follow?
2.3.3 : Contribution to cultural change
Practical application of the steps set out in Section 2 of this toolkit have potential for enabling the cultural change process by:
- initiating or strengthening change in habits and perceptions in the end user population
- encouraging the sharing of documents, and demonstrating the value-added and business benefits of high quality corporate level information
- demonstrating to the individual the value of better personal organisation in creating and capturing documents and records
- supporting the convergence of electronic records management with information and knowledge management systems. Section Two : What practical steps can be taken?
Section summary
This section deals with some specific steps towards good practice that can be developed within the typical local network / shared drive environment assumed by this toolkit. While the specific practices that are appropriate for any particular organisation will vary, and will themselves develop and extend over time, the general principles are constant. The aim is to establish practices which support a better corporate organisation of electronic documents and records, and which the end user will find helpful in organising their own work and their interaction with documents produced by others.
In deciding which methods to introduce to the organisation, identify and consider steps which:
- are consistent with the strategy for introducing electronic records management, and which prepare the ground for this
- will be most successful in achieving rapid results, and which work well together to greater overall effect
- will build commitment from end users and business managers.
A useful model for thinking about the best point to apply good practice is referred to throughout this section:
- corporate workspace, which contains formal corporate documents that are shared across all, or a significant part, of the organisation
- workgroup workspace, which contains operational documents in use by a workteam, and which are shared at least between that team
- personal workspace, which contains documents that are (at present) only of interest to the individual.
A document – for example, a text document or e-mail – will usually move between different workspaces during its lifecycle.
This section covers:
- naming conventions for documents and folders
- document metadata, templates and formats
- managing e-mail
- shared network drives
- building corporate filing structures 3 : Naming conventions : documents and folders
Summary : naming conventions
- at a basic level, use standard forms of names and avoid redundancy
- develop standard ways of ordering elements in more complex titles
- establish standard ways to identify document versions
- apply consistent conventions to both document and folder titles
- keep conventions as simple as possible and easy to use
Naming conventions are standard rules to be applied to documents, and to electronic folders that contain these documents, in order to enforce consistency in the form of name and in the words and phrases used. Essentially, naming conventions have two related functions:
- bringing related items together under a common label – such as for a folder or set of documents
- distinguishing similar items by naming in a consistent, logical and predictable way.
In the context of this document, the term *folder* refers to a Windows operating system folder unless otherwise specified.
Rules for naming documents and folders should be kept simple and clear, so that they can easily be introduced and followed. It is preferable to compromise on a broader approach that can be clearly understood and remembered, than a more detailed and sophisticated structure that is less likely to be used in actual practice.
The value of naming conventions lies in the few simple rules that take away the burden of decision and encourage consistent practice. Naming rules should follow the same logic and consistency across different types of items, following the same pattern for similar situations – so that, once learned, the user can reasonably predict how it will apply in a new situation.
Conventions for naming electronic documents should be co-ordinated with those for naming folders, so that a document title does not contain unnecessary general information already present in the folder in which it is filed: for example the name of a project or organisational division.
3.1 : Standard terms
Standard terms and forms of name should be used wherever it is sensible to do so. In particular, this can apply to:
- names of organisations and people
- names of projects and activities
- logical document types.
At this basic level, names should consist of sensible, short phrases. Proper names should always use *either* the full form of the name *or* the acronym. Section two: What practical steps can be taken?
**Example of rules for standard name forms**
- use GSI not Government Secure Intranet, *or*
- use Government Secure Intranet not GSI
- use e-government not electronic government
- use standard common terms across units, such as: *budgets; progress report*
Logical document types should also use standard terms. It is usually not necessary to repeat information in the document title which is already available from the directory display. The physical form of a document is held in the file extension, or displayed as a directory icon, and the date of creation/modification is also available.
**Example of rules for standard terms for document types**
- use these standard terms for: agenda; report; letter; project schedule; minutes
- do not use initial terms such as *Presentation on …* in a title because physical types such as a PowerPoint presentation are already held as .ppt in the directory display
- do not use the document creator’s name in the title – a signed letter, for example, will give this information in the content.
### 3.2: Structured titles
The naming convention approach can be developed into a more detailed structuring system for the individual elements of document titles. The general principle is to identify the logical aspects of a document type, and to list these in the most effective order for access, rather than to use a looser ‘narrative’ form.
Examples are:
**Examples of structured titles for documents**
- consistently structure personal names in *surname, forename* order
- arrange *document* titles which reflect organisational structure in reverse hierarchical order (most specific first) as in *Training Unit: Personnel*, but do not repeat elements already in the *folder* title in which the document will be filed
- where a date is necessary in the document or folder title, order the elements so that they display chronologically, for example in a *YYYYMMDD* pattern; months spelled alphabetically do not file in chronological order
- for standard document types, combine elements of a title to give the most useful information first, bearing in mind the folder structure and titling; for example, for a letter: *topic – recipient – letter type.*
Document titles should contain enough information to identify them if they become detached from the correct folder – a large number of documents entitled *2000-04 Minutes* is not helpful. Naming conventions should aim to strike the right balance between:
- *brevity*: keeping titles short; and *usability*: usefully describing the content Section two: What practical steps can be taken?
- **specificity**: using very precise terms; and **collocation**: grouping under broad headings
that will assist effective management and retrieval.
### 3.3: Document version control
Consistent naming rules can link different versions of the same document, by including a version number as part of the title. This will also help to provide an audit trail for future tracking of document development; but does depend for success on disciplined use and careful tracking of versions. There is a danger of inconsistency if a document version is updated separately by different users without co-ordination, so that varying versions may exist each with different parts, but neither with all, of the full updated content. Well-developed and robust procedures are important for control of document versions in a multi-user environment.
The document name, and not the document extension, should be used to indicate the version number. Use of document extensions for version control will immensely complicate the mapping of document extensions to applications that can read them, creating a complex management overhead and the potential for conflict with later applications which may expect to use already allocated file extensions.
**Example of version control information**
Show document versions by structuring the title as:
\[ \\text{<document name> - <version number>- \<draft/final>.extension} \]
as in:
**Managing electronic documents - 0.4 - draft.doc**
A common method for version control numbering is to use the ordinal number (1, 2, 3, etc) for major version changes and the decimal number for minor changes, as in:
[ \\text{ver: 0.5; ver. 1.0; ver. 2.7} ]
A version 1.0 normally denotes a first document version given wider circulation – a document moving from personal to corporate workspace.
Footer information in documents is also useful for showing version information, and the location of equivalent paper documents.
### 3.4: Folder titles
Naming principles can be applied to folders. Two ways in which this can be done are:
- using standard terms for themes and activities which recur across the organisation: for example, project organisation structures that are common despite differences in project focus
- using consistent logical labels to describe business activities and functions which are common across an organisation.
Standard folder titling can be applied at:
- the corporate level, applying organisation-wide rules Section two: What practical steps can be taken?
- the workgroup level, where more specialised rules reflecting local conditions may be appropriate
- the personal level, to assist the individual with organising and developing working documents.
Standard folder titling may be developed into a structure which aims to mirror appropriate parts of the established paper filing structure, where this is desirable. This approach is dealt with in section 6.2 and 6.3.
3.5: Use of a thesaurus
A thesaurus is a structured list of preferred terms arranged in a logical relationships with each other, more formal than a simple list of keywords. Many new information management initiatives tend to make use of standard structured terminology. Where a department or agency has established use of a standard or specialist thesaurus, consider using these preferred terms in folder titles. It may be helpful to develop stronger links with other information and knowledge management initiatives, such as the Knowledge Network Research Online system (which is located at http://www.knowledgenetwork.gsi.gov.uk).
3.6: Usability: length and readability
In the electronic environment, folder structures tend to contain more folders each containing fewer documents than occurs in the paper environment. This may lead to a greater depth in the folder structure itself. The length of folder (and document) titles can become an issue where a long pathway is built up through the folder hierarchy.
In most cases, an average of about 16 – 20 characters will be adequate, if care is taken to avoid repetition and redundancy. Long folder titles lead to very long pathways for an individual document, with the possible result that the relevant application is unable to open the document successfully.
**Example of titling usability**
An example of poor usability in a pathway name is:
Electronic Records \\ Office Systems(EROS) \\ Surveys of Government Departments \\ 1999 – 3RMG 13.11 \\ EROS Survey 1999 – Analysis and Results Process – 3RMG 13.11.2 \\ Survey Forms Returned
better to use:
Electronic Records \\ Survey 1999 \\ Survey Forms Returned
and reference the file numbers elsewhere, if they are needed.
A balance must be struck between emulating the paper system, and recognising the different demands of usability and practical use which operate in the electronic environment. Section two: What practical steps can be taken?
4: Standard settings: profiles, templates and formats
Summary: standard settings
- use the Document Properties box for metadata, but sparingly
- design standard templates for very common document types
- standardise storage and distribution formats
- avoid using dynamic dates and linked documents
This section deals with standard settings that can be used with document-creating applications, such as MS Word 97, to control variations in the documents which are generated. Standard settings can be built into templates, including the basic Normal.dot Word template, so that all documents based on that template use these settings. Standard settings should always be used with caution, since they can generate unexpected results, and may place unacceptable burdens on the end user.
Decisions on when to use standard settings, and which to use, should be based on a balance between:
- keeping it simple: too much complexity will confuse and alienate the end user, and lead to potential misinformation
- keeping it useful: only those standard settings which have a demonstrable value should be used
- keeping it flexible: where it is hard to anticipate all valid variations, it is usually better to adopt a minimal approach that can be adapted case-by-case.
There are many potential metadata characteristics and template features that can be used in the MS Office application suite. Only a few of these can sensibly be put into practice in most government environments, unsupported by sophisticated EDRM systems. This section deals only with those which may be the most useful.
4.1: Document properties
Most standard Windows applications contain some form of Properties area, which contains a set of fields that can be filled in as metadata, either by hand or automatically by the software application.
Example of Document Properties dialogue box in Word 97
In this example, the Author and Organisation fields are filled automatically from information accessible to the application; other fields can be filled in for individual documents at the time of creation or further editing. The Document Properties box can be set to appear automatically on first saving the document (and can also simply be dismissed by pressing the Cancel button).
Some advantages of using Properties are: Section two: What practical steps can be taken?
- standard key metadata terms accompany the document at all times
- support for document history tracking (although the level may be quite detailed)
- support for later migration to an EDRMS which is capable of capturing metadata from document properties information (many cannot do this).
Some disadvantages are:
- more work for the end user
- potentially misleading metadata where document production is shared: for example, where the Author field takes the last named editor, but the Organisation field remains the same
- in practice, no-one may bother to use the metadata gathered in this way effectively.
Though attractive at first sight, use of the Properties facility should always be well thought through and carefully justified – ask the question: "why is this metadata necessary and what use will it be put to?"
4.2: Standard templates
Templates can be designed as basic standard forms for document types such as: letters, memos, requests, reports. They will:
- ensure a greater level of consistency in document (and record) production
- enable documents which should be kept as corporate records to be more readily identified
- support a closer integration of document production with line-of-business operations.
It is not feasible to attempt to design templates for every identified document type, or to construct variants for different folders. Only those document types which are in common use across the whole organisation should be candidates for a standard template.
Example of standard template settings
While the design of more specialised templates will depend on the nature of the document type and the business activity which it supports, there are some basic features which can be used for all types of document. Some of these features can be incorporated into the basic template for all documents generated by an application:
- headers can show a title taken from the Title field of the Properties
- header or footer can show organisational unit or workteam
- footers can show pathname, version number, and various forms of date.
4.3: Dynamic updating - dates
In MS applications, it is possible to insert a generic date field which can be updated automatically by the application. These are convenient when used carefully, but will provide false information if used indiscriminately, particularly where different types of date are not clearly labelled and identified.
**Example of dynamic dates**
A *Date of Saving* field is updated each time the action takes place, and may be confused with other types of date. Use of these fields in a template should always be preceded by an appropriate phrase, as in:
```
Last edited on : {SAVEDATE}
```
so that its use for tracking edited versions is made clear, appearing in the document as:
```
Last edited on : 07/11/00
```
Use of a *{Today’s Date}* field which is dynamically updated is not recommended.
### 4.4 : Storage and distribution formats
Where more than one version of a particular software application is in use, the physical format in which documents are saved should be defined. It is always preferable to limit the number of formats as far as possible, so that current access and future migration problems are reduced.
The basic options are:
- **Standardise on a single application version** when one is in use across the whole organisation to provide complete access.
*For example use MS Word 97 to save all documents in the current .doc format. Legacy documents will probably need to be migrated to a future application version at some point.*
- **Standardise on an exchange format**, when multiple application versions are in use.
*For example, use the Microsoft version of RTF, by saving all corporate documents in a .rtf format (which the application can be set to do automatically). These documents will be accessible by different application versions (e.g. MS Word 97 and MS Word 95) and by other word processors; but some formatting information may be lost in certain circumstances.*
- **Standardise on a distribution format**, where documents are finalised and will not be changed in content.
*For example, a PDF rendition has the advantage of making documents effectively read-only, but requires the necessary Acrobat software to produce the rendition. This option is unlikely to be cost-effective for a large number of direct users, and will depend on some form of centralised or clustered storing function.*
- **Standardise on an Internet format**, where an Intranet is the main distribution channel, supported by good document control facilities.
*For example, an HTML format makes the documents very widely accessible through a standard browser; but Office 97 products are unsophisticated at producing html renditions, the html syntax may contain proprietary elements, and it is harder to control document versions.* 4.5 : Embed rather than link
Where it is desirable to include the contents of one document in another – for example, to include the contents of a spreadsheet in a text document - embed the content rather than using dynamic linking. While the latter approach will give a more up-to-date view of the information, it is extremely difficult to capture and manage changing versions of the document effectively over time.
If dynamic linking is unavoidable to provide up-to-date operational information, take a copy of the document at significant points of change and retain as a formal document version. 5 : E-mail and messaging
Summary : e-mail
- develop policies clarifying which e-mails should be kept
- develop procedures for managing messages within the e-mail system
- extend procedures to include use of shared drive folders when feasible
- develop guidance for managing e-mail composition and dialogues
- help individuals to manage their own mailbox
E-mail messages should always be treated as potential corporate records of the organisation. More and more departmental business is conducted by e-mail, replacing the conventional memo and, increasingly, the formal letter. Valuable material will be lost if e-mail is not managed in some way; but this can be difficult to do because:
- e-mail is not a simple record series, but a mechanism for transmission, so an e-mail system cannot be scheduled in its entirety
- retention depends on the content and context of the message, and is different for different messages sent or received by the same user, which must be treated separately
- essentially, e-mail is an individual channel, and is managed by the end user, or not at all.
There are three main approaches to managing e-mail records without the support of EDRM software:
- by a ‘print-to-paper’ policy – but this tends to work even less well than with word processed documents
- by managing within the e-mail system
- by saving messages to a shared drive.
Each approached is discussed below in more detail.
5.1 : E-mail usage policies
Develop clear policies to guide users on which types of e-mail message should be retained in the medium to longer term. These should cover:
- which messages a user sends that should be retained
- which messages a user receives that should be retained
- which dialogues should be recorded
- where drafts should be retained
- requirements for access to all these types of messages.
In addition, organisational policies should emphasise:
- an assumption that any e-mail message relating to departmental business may be kept as a record Section two: What practical steps can be taken?
- care in composing and expressing content
- expectations of privacy
- avoidance of inappropriate content.
5.2: Managing within the e-mail system
The types of folders within an e-mail system follow the three-level workspace model described in the section summary for this section:
- **personal** folders are limited to individual access only, and cannot constitute a corporate record
- **shared** folders are a workteam space, where messages within an organisational unit can be stored and shared
- **public** folders are equivalent to corporate space.
The aim is to encourage users to store messages appropriately in one of these three areas. To be successful, the co-operation of the individual in regularly moving relevant messages from the personal mailbox to shared or public folders is required. Guidance should therefore always stress the benefits to the individual as well as the organisation.
**Advantages** of managing messages within the e-mail system are:
- all metadata relevant to the record is captured and preserved
- within a manageable environment
- with built-in filtering and deletion facilities available.
There are some **disadvantages**:
- e-mail messages are not integrated with other relevant documents or records in one structure
- so that parallel filing structures will develop, potentially including an individual’s personal folder structure
- in addition, deletion does not ensure destruction, since the e-mail will be retained on back-ups.
Although probably not the ideal solution in the long term, this approach will provide valuable groundwork for the move to corporate level EDRM, by establishing good habits and practices in individual and team handling of e-mail as well as demonstrating the value of well-organised records.
5.3: Saving to a shared drive
The option of saving messages to a shared drive has the advantage of bringing together all documents and messages relevant to a theme or activity in the same folder, and making this available for corporate access. It is, therefore, closer to the way in which e-mail messages would be managed in a full EDRMS. Unfortunately, the process of manually saving to a shared drive is rather cumbersome. This option would be best suited to a user population which has already developed good practices in handling e-mail. User guidance will be needed on the appropriate save format and method to use:
- when to use the *Save as …* command and when to *Save attachments* separately. Where any significant information is contained in the body text of the e-mail itself, both the message and any attachments should be saved together in one operation.
Messages can be saved in various formats:
- a *.msg* format is convenient for use within the Outlook environment, but is proprietary and may be difficult to migrate over time
- a *.rtf* format is a (fairly) standard exchange format, which will embed any attachments within the message body, but will usually take a greater amount of disk space
- use of a *.html* format is not recommended here.
Message formats:
- transmission data, showing fields such as date of sending and receipt, recipients, subject title, should always be saved with the message text
- messages should not be saved to a shared corporate drive in any encrypted formats.
### 5.4 : Creating and replying to messages
User guidance on the composition of e-mail messages should cover:
- rules for addressing to main recipients and to c.c. recipients
- message length and use of attachments
- managing dialogues
- use of categories and labelling.
#### 5.4.1 : Addressing messages
The basic rules for responsibility in filing an e-mail message are:
- the sender files a message sent within the organisation
- the recipient files a message sent from outside the organisation
- recipients marked as c.c. do not need to file the message.
**Example of rules for addressing messages**
- Limit main recipients to those who are expected to take action or decisions based on the message content.
- Add c.c. recipients for information only.
- Use the ‘reply to all’ function with care, balancing open communication against message overload – consider the recipient.
- Avoid sending global messages to all users – post on an Intranet or Public Folders instead.
- Consider whether e-mail is the appropriate channel to communicate this message. 5.4.2: Message length and attachments
There are two broad approaches to the use of e-mail for formal business:
- using the e-mail purely as a wrapper for the substantive text, which is contained in an attached document, so that only the document need be saved
- composing longer text messages, which contain the text directly; the message itself is kept as a record.
The former approach requires management of the native document over time, and is unwieldy in many situations. The latter has the advantage that the message is plain-text based, and is easier for the user to produce.
The most appropriate form to use will vary according to the nature of the communication, but it is often better to encourage direct use of e-mail where appropriate, rather than extensive use of attachments – and this format is easier to maintain over time.
5.4.3: Managing dialogues
E-mail messaging is an unstructured medium which will tend to become disorderly and tangled unless guided by disciplined procedures. Confused e-mail threads and much repetition of previous message text in dialogues will produce confused and repetitious records. Disjointed replies and the use of embedded messages are also sources of poor structure that are difficult to manage.
**Examples of rules for managing dialogues**
- Use clear and descriptive subject lines
- Indicate if no reply is needed
- Do not *re-send* attachments with a reply unless necessary.
- Resist the tendency to drift away from the precise topic of a thread of discussion by introducing material on an unrelated topic.
- Do not bundle together several topics in one physical e-mail. It is better to create separate messages for separate topics, in the same way that a text document should have a single central focus.
- The organisation should consider making a business rule on the use of *reply with original text* feature. The two options are:
- to turn off the *reply with original text* feature, so that each sent message contains the text of the reply only; and should (if it is a significant message) be saved as a separate record
- to include previous text in replies, and identify a significant point at which the whole dialogue is saved as a record in one physical message – often, though, it can be hard to identify this point until some time has elapsed.
- Do not reply by annotating the original text at various points – it is better to group all reply text together in one place.
- Do not embed earlier e-mail messages within the current e-mail messages, since this makes the physical object difficult to file and manage. Section two: What practical steps can be taken?
5.4.4: Use of categorisation and optional flags
MS Outlook contains a Master Category list of category terms, which can be attached as labels to an individual e-mail message. The standard terms can be adapted by adding and removing terms from the list. These terms can be used to identify categories of messages which should be handled in particular ways.
Categorisation can be used to:
- help the individual manage and respond to their e-mail at a personal level
- help to identify important messages that should be filed, from ephemeral messages that should not.
Example of use of categories
A list of terms such as: For Decision, For Information, Directive, Personal can be easily constructed. Terms added to a message by the sender will be displayed in the recipient’s mailbox (as long as the appropriate current view is set up).
Other message options that can be set to help distinguish important and unimportant material are: Sensitivity level – Normal, Private, and Confidential; and Expiry date – after which display of the message will be struck through. Section two: What practical steps can be taken?
5.5: Managing the InBox
User guidance on managing a personal mailbox should cover:
- the value-added benefits of structuring any personal folders within the individual mailbox to be consistent with folder structures used to store documents in both personal and corporate workspace drives. This will help to integrate different filing structures at the logical level, and is a useful step towards integration at the physical level; as well as introducing personal information management disciplines.
- the need to delete messages and working copies, where these have been saved into a corporate filespace and are no longer of local interest. This will help to ensure that in the longer term, duplicate copies of information items are destroyed – important for managing freedom of information – and to reduce the likelihood of alternate versions arising.
- the potential for automatically routing incoming and outgoing mail to nominated folders, using the InBox Assistant, where standard types of message can be pre-determined according to characteristics recognisable to MS Outlook. Section two: What practical steps can be taken?
This can help to build structured sets of records, but should only be used with material that can reliably be identified by metadata characteristics.
- caveats on using the auto-archiving facility, which automatically archives (i.e. removes from the InBox) messages after a set period – to be used with care! 6 : Use of shared network drives
Summary : shared drives
- encourage ‘publish and point’ rather than multiple duplication
- develop logical and useful filing structures for shared drives
- develop common terminology and links to the paper filing systems
- establish control over folder creation
- consider use of electronic zero files
- develop ‘good housekeeping’ for synchronising and deleting documents
This section deals with the use of shared drives for managing corporate documents. In most local area network architectures, network drives appear to the user as various logical drives, typically arranged as:
- a corporate-wide shared drive, containing documents relevant to the whole organisation
- a branch, or divisional shared drive, containing documents relevant to a single organisational unit
- a personal drive (for example, a P: or U: drive), containing documents relevant only to the individual.
In all cases, it will be necessary to identify clear and acceptable use policies for all three categories of drive. Good practices in managing electronic documents should be initiated in both the user workspace and the corporate space – good practice starts with the individual.
6.1 Publish and point
A publish and point policy is a method of controlling the duplication of a document which is being widely circulated. Instead of attaching the document to an email message, which gives each recipient an individual copy, a read-only version of the document is placed on a shared drive – published – and a pointer or shortcut is e-mailed to alert intended recipients. Recipients can then retrieve the document from the shared drive as required.
This policy will:
- help to encourage a culture of sharing documents, within a forum and as an organisational resource, rather than as individually owned items
- encourage users to think more carefully about the most appropriate method for publishing information to recipients and to treat these consistently as formal corporate documents
- reduce keeping of multiple working copies in the folders of many individuals.
A publish and point policy will tend to decrease the requirements for individual document storage, but increase the need for network bandwidth by generating more traffic from common storage. 6.2: Filing structures
Where there is a significant number of electronic documents stored on a shared network drive, a basic general filing structure should be established. Where a division or branch (and any project-based structures) has specific filing structures, these should aim to conform to the principles of a general filing structure to prevent divergent practices and application.
Basic filing structure on shared drives should
- use simple but logical structures which meet the needs of both the organisation and the users
- *not* use individual names or position titles for directory or folder names
- use names which identify logical elements, such as business functions and activities or theme: sub-theme relationships
- have an established responsibility for creating and naming folders.
While the need for good filing structures in a shared network drive is primary, end users should also be encouraged to use consistent filing structures in their own group and personal workspaces. This will help with the co-ordination between working papers and formal finalised documents, and will ease retrieval and access across all workspaces for the individual.
**Common terminology**
Use of a common terminology is essential to integration; planning the use of shared drives should be done in conjunction with thinking about naming conventions, as described in section 3.
- work towards consistent use of common terminology across all departments and units of the whole organisation
- develop formal liaison mechanisms between those responsible for records at the local level to establish and enforce these conventions
- where feasible, make terminology in the shared network folder structure consistent with terminology in the paper filing system
- make links with entries in the inventory of record collections.
6.3: Relating to paper filing system
The organisation of a shared network drive can usually be made to reflect the paper filing structure so that electronic documents are stored in a manner compatible with their paper counterparts. This may be achievable by building a hierarchical ‘folder within folder’ structure using Windows, to simulate the structure of a paper fileplan.
Some considerations are:
- there is little point in building a paper-based structure in electronic folder form which is not working well in the paper environment; and in most cases, a formal move towards implementation of EDRM will probably require some re-thinking of the approach and structure which is most appropriate for the new environment Section two: What practical steps can be taken?
- Electronic structures tend to be broader and flatter—have less depth—than their paper counterparts; it is important to control the number of levels to retain usability; carefully consider the categories and terminology used at higher levels—in general, more than about 4/5 levels to a hierarchy can quickly become confusing and cumbersome.
- Alphabetical folder titles are generally more usable (in the electronic environment) than numerical fileplan/classification reference numbers and using both together will produce very long folder titles.
- Paper filing systems tend to use longer names than are comfortable in a Windows environment, resulting in file directory displays where the relevant, lowest part of the hierarchy is off-screen and not visible; in these circumstances it is also possible, when the full pathway of a document is constructed, to exceed the limit with which a software application can deal and thereby render the document apparently unusable.
6.4: Control over folder creation
Where the folder structure on shared drives is formalised in this way, clearly set out rights and responsibilities for folder creation and, where this is restricted, allocate these to specific roles. Consider:
- The extent to which a formal link to paper filing control systems, and the information which they contain (such as retention and disposal information) is desirable.
- The role of local records officers in maintaining electronic filing structures.
- The extent to which workgroups are able to create electronic folders themselves.
- Mechanisms for guiding and controlling the use of terminology.
Use of Zero files
A Zero file is a file which contains metadata about a series of folders, recording common information about that series, including its history, retention and disposal, opening and closing dates, and relationships to other record series. A zero file is sometimes used in paper filing systems, and can be adapted to the electronic environment. Potential uses include:
- As a link to the entry in the inventory of record collections for a set of electronic folders.
- As an updateable link to parallel paper series structures, to maintain integrated control, whether the electronic or paper version is considered to be the formal record copy.
- Recording any access restrictions.
- Identifying users who are responsible owners.
- Retention beyond the life of the electronic folders, to document actions taken on the material (important for Freedom of Information). 6.5 : Balancing drive usage
Gradual extending records management disciplines to the shared network drive environment will eventually involve decisions on technological support platforms and network bandwidth; complementary technical policies and procedures will need to be developed. Consideration should be given to:
- the risks of lost documents in a shared network environment, where more reliability is expected
- the need to provide back-up and (perhaps) mirrored storage
- the implications of shared storage for network traffic and bandwidth requirements
- clear identification of material that should be entrusted to a shared drive and material that should be entrusted to the non-shared environment (and therefore printed to paper).
The move to full EDRM will require decisions on these kinds of issues in any case.
6.6 : Disposing of documents
In all cases, ‘good housekeeping’ of both shared and personal drives is essential to maintaining long-term viability, removing material which should no longer be kept, whether classed as document or record. Since good management in this semi-structured environment depends largely on the application of developed procedures and is not supported by corporate-wide document management software systems, some duplication and redundancy will probably be necessary to ensure good access for business purposes. Guidance should aim to reduce this to the right balance for the organisation – excess redundancy also works against usable access.
Guidance is needed for removing:
- unnecessary duplicates of final documents
- working copies which are no longer required
- documents which have no continuing value.
Users of local drives and personal areas of a network drive should also be encouraged to perform basic housekeeping. Regular use of the Windows Explorer Find facility for documents created and modified in a given period of time, will help ensure that locally held files are deleted or copied to the relevant shared drive as appropriate. Local drives should not be used for long-term storage of corporate level documents.
Laptops and synchronisation
Laptop and handheld computers are now widely used, at all levels of an organisation. These can cause particular difficulties when used in conjunction with a standard desktop PC, where documents are duplicated for working on in a different location. Lack of proper procedures may result in documents existing in different and potentially conflicting versions; it is particularly important to
- maintain a working structure on a laptop which is consistent with that visible from the main desktop machine
- develop a disciplined approach to updating document versions Section two: What practical steps can be taken?
- nominate a single storage location for documents in development, to hold the primary version and later updates.
File synchronisation facilities such as Windows Briefcase, which keep track of changes to particular files, can help to manage this duplication, as long as use of the facility is clearly understood. Windows is not designed as a robust medium for handling file conflicts, and will not substitute for sound agreed working procedures, particularly where several members of a workteam are working on the same documents.
A similar synchronisation facility is often used with MS Outlook and MS Exchange to synchronise folders in a local copy of an e-mail mailbox held on a laptop, with the same recipient’s primary network mailbox. Many people use this facility to create and reply to e-mails using the local laptop copy, that are later uploaded to the main mailbox for despatch. The synchronisation facility harmonises changes in both main and local mailbox versions. Potential difficulties can arise where two separate copies – local and main copy – of a message have been separately edited producing conflicting versions. Careful following of a procedure to ensure that all local changes have been uploaded to the main mailbox before editing existing main mailbox versions will minimise potential replication conflicts.
6.7: Secure shared drive
A secure record drive is a shared network drive which has been configured in such a way as to prevent the amendment or unauthorised deletion of documents which have been saved to the secure drive. With such a mechanism, organisations may feel able to treat the electronic documents stored in this way as the formal corporate record, even though a paper copy may also exist. Where this is the case, they should be stored within a separate structure from electronic documents which are not treated as corporate records; with clear definition of who has the right to add to, or delete from, the drive.
- Use a separate logical hard drive with read-only settings to prevent any changes being made to documents which have been saved to the drive.
- Users should be able to read and create documents, but not be given edit rights to existing documents.
- Ensure appropriate back-up and recovery procedures, and maintain the necessary level of access security at the operating system level.
- Assess the criteria and risks involved in this approach and clearly identify the types of document which it may be acceptable to manage in this way; a secure drive does not provide the same level of assurance as a fully managed EDRMS.
Departments and agencies should be aware that, although this method can provide reasonable sound storage of documents in the short term, there may be problems with migrating the material to a full EDRMS in due course. The Windows directory structure does not easily provide document and folder level metadata that will support a structured migration to an EDRM system; and although migration can be achieved it may be a relatively expensive process. 6.7.1: Sensitive Information
The shared drive areas where corporate documents are made available should be capable of control by read/write permissions and by password control. Password control will enable control of user access to certain documents, either by:
- saving the document with password control if the application software supports this (as for example MS Word does) and copying the documents to the drive in this form
- placing password control on the entire logical drive.
This may provide some basic access control, but the method has limitations:
- application software password control is not particularly sophisticated
- circulating a password to a number of different people is inherently insecure
- in a read-only drive, the document cannot be easily changed to amend or remove the password, because it is tightly bound with the contents.
In practice, documents containing any sensitive or classified information should probably not normally be storage on a secure shared drive.
### 7: Agenda for action: identifying steps to practical implementation
| Action step | Who should be involved? | Does a policy exist? | Build on existing practice? | Initial ‘To do’ List | |-------------|-------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------| | | | Is it explicit? | Adapt existing practice? | | | | | Is it followed? | Borrow from elsewhere? | |
**Naming conventions**
- Establish standard name forms and terms
- Develop rules for structuring titles
- Establish document versioning
- Consider use of a thesaurus
**Standard settings and templates**
- Identify uses of Document Properties | Action step | Who should be involved? | Does a policy exist? | Build on existing practice? | Adapt existing practice? | Borrow from elsewhere? | Initial ‘To do’ List | |-------------|-------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------|---------------------| | Identify potential standard templates | | | | | | | | Standardise on distribution formats | | | | | | | | Standardise on storage formats | | | | | | | | **E-mail management** | | | | | | | | Develop rules governing keeping of e-mail | | | | | | | | Develop structures for public/shared folders | | | | | | | | Action step | Who should be involved? | Does a policy exist? | Build on existing practice? | Adapt existing practice? | Borrow from elsewhere? | Initial ‘To do’ List | |-------------|-------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------|---------------------| | Develop guidance for composing messages | | | | | | | | Consider possible uses of shared drive storage | | | | | | | | *Shared network drives* | | | | | | | | Promote a ‘publish and point’ policy | | | | | | | | Build links to paper filing | | | | | | | | Consider use of zero files | | | | | | | | Develop mechanisms for document deletion | | | | | | | Section 3 : How to start putting these steps into practice?
Summary : practical steps
- identify and consult all relevant stakeholders
- consider the impact on business and IT management
- prioritise key areas where results can be achieved
- develop local experience and commitment
This section deals with:
- consulting the range of stakeholders
- prioritising and planning
- developing local expertise.
8 : Stakeholders
Although the topics covered here are of primary interest to records and information managers, there are a range of stakeholders who will have an interest in the areas covered in this toolkit:
- several aspects involve the use of technical resources – in particular drawing on network resource – which are resource elements within the corporate IT infrastructure
- the implications for creating, organising and using information may have an impact on working practices and the way business processes are carried out
- end users will need to be engaged from a personal perspective because success depends on compliant behaviour which cannot be policed.
All these groups will need to be consulted in developing practical working procedures, and may need to be drawn directly into the process of development at the appropriate point.
8.1 : Corporate IT infrastructure
Corporate and local IT staff and network administrators will need to be involved with decisions which have implications for:
- network infrastructure and network bandwidth
- provision of drives, servers and back-up mechanisms
- configuration of back office software
- configuration of operating systems
- configuration and provision of desktop applications. Section Three : How to start putting steps into practice?
8.2 : Business managers
Business managers will be concerned about the implications for:
- the application of business rules
- the development of procedures and the effect on the business processes
- the implications for operational practice
- the information needs of operational staff.
8.4 : End Users
End users are primarily concerned with the earlier parts of the document lifecycle: creation and operational use. This is the main group which needs to be convinced of the value in following good practices as outlined in this toolkit, by demonstrating:
- the value of managing documents at the personal level, making information easier to find and reducing information overload
- the responsibilities in creating and capturing organisational information
- the advantages of establishing a custodian for certain types of document – e.g. project documentation
- the advantages of maintaining co-ordinated or integrated filing structures, for example, between e-mail folders, personal drive folders and shared network folders. 9 : Prioritisation : planning a way forward
Except in the very smallest organisations, it is unlikely that the measures described here can be put into place across the whole organisation in one process. Initially, significant effort will need to be put into:
- establishing overarching corporate level policies and standards (which should be transferable to the full EDRM environment)
- building local commitment and agreement from users to putting these measures into practice
- developing local expertise through training and organisation.
A strategy for building commitment across the organisation is to identify key priority areas that will provide high profile examples to encourage others to follow, and that offer a platform for developing transferable policies and procedures. Such a phased approach will enable proper consideration to be given to local conditions within a corporate context.
9.1 : Identifying key target areas
In identifying key target areas, consider:
- the need to tackle key business processes and transactions which are important for accountability, for example: the interactions between policy advisors; primary line-of-business processes
- the feasibility of establishing good practices in these areas, including the internal political issues
- the relative enthusiasm of end users in putting measures into practice
- the type of documents which are generated, and the technological environment in current use
- the ability to generate ‘quick wins’ with most effective use of effort.
At the level of the whole organisation, consistent corporate level standards should be developed as a framework for local implementation, including:
- guidance on what types of document should be kept in a formal manner as corporate information and records
- agreement on quality standards
- clear co-ordination with the existing ‘print to paper’ policy to guard against loss of paper records where these are still required, whilst taking forward the electronic agenda
- consistent strategies on the larger questions, such as a risk analysis of the use of shared network drive filing structures for the storage of authentic corporate documents.
9.2 : Local and central records control
In extending central principles to local branches, there needs to be a clear understanding on the implications of adopting wider corporate policies and standards, and of the relative roles and responsibilities. Local agreement will need to be established branch by branch; within this process, there may be scope for incorporating more specialised branch and workgroup standards.
Once the scope and purpose is understood and agreed with staff, such local agreements should be formalised and published locally, on an Intranet or similar mechanism. An document which explains the local benefits on offer by agreeing to follow the practices outlined, and the responsibilities inherent in doing so, is one mechanism that can be used – sometimes this is called an Offer document because it shows what is on offer.
9.2.1 : Local document/records officers
Where possible, establish local document/records advisor or business records officers, who have responsibility for setting up and maintaining local filing structures and acting as local centres of expertise. This role requires:
- a sound understanding of business objectives, corporate records policies and procedures
- knowledge of the office systems and software in general use
- responsibility for ensuring security and access
- the ability to create and maintain directories in a shared network space, and to maintain and review working procedures and naming conventions
- the ability to promote good practice to users.
It will be essential to ensure that these local officers build and retain strong links with corporate records management structures and with broader information management strategies.
9.2.2 : Workgroup mentors
Workgroup mentors are end users who have acknowledged best practice skills and can act as initial points of advice for their colleagues, and as localised channels for promoting cultural change in the end user population as a whole. A good strategy for establishing best practice in managing documents will encourage peer mentoring, where mentors can act as ambassadors for good practice.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3774-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 39,
"total-input-tokens": 70688,
"total-output-tokens": 15863,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
162,
1
],
[
162,
250,
2
],
[
250,
5019,
3
],
[
5019,
6643,
4
],
[
6643,
9110,
5
],
[
9110,
11116,
6
],
[
11116,
13639,
7
],
[
13639,
16478,
8
],
[
16478,
19456,
9
],
[
19456,
20990,
10
],
[
20990,
22845,
11
],
[
22845,
25191,
12
],
[
25191,
27776,
13
],
[
27776,
30278,
14
],
[
30278,
32643,
15
],
[
32643,
34980,
16
],
[
34980,
37298,
17
],
[
37298,
39878,
18
],
[
39878,
40478,
19
],
[
40478,
42462,
20
],
[
42462,
44825,
21
],
[
44825,
46862,
22
],
[
46862,
49450,
23
],
[
49450,
50569,
24
],
[
50569,
51704,
25
],
[
51704,
52063,
26
],
[
52063,
54336,
27
],
[
54336,
56892,
28
],
[
56892,
59449,
29
],
[
59449,
62130,
30
],
[
62130,
65212,
31
],
[
65212,
66215,
32
],
[
66215,
67002,
33
],
[
67002,
67651,
34
],
[
67651,
68345,
35
],
[
68345,
69995,
36
],
[
69995,
71086,
37
],
[
71086,
73460,
38
],
[
73460,
75374,
39
]
]
} |
9af0c3228f68f26b7750505b397842ef7f23dc3a | ## Contents
| Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Foreword | 3 | | Chapter 1 Responsibilities | 5 | | Chapter 2 Use of Public Funds | 9 | | Chapter 3 Accounting Officers | 15 | | Chapter 4 Governance and Management | 21 | | Chapter 5 Funding | 33 | | Chapter 6 Fees, charges and levies | 41 | | Chapter 7 Working with others | 47 | | Annex 1.1 The Comptroller and Auditor General | 57 | | Annex 2.1 Treasury approval of legislation | 59 | | Annex 2.2 Delegated authorities | 63 | | Annex 2.3 PAC Concordat of 1932 | 67 | | Annex 2.4 New services | 69 | | Annex 3.1 The Governance Statement | 73 | | Annex 4.1 Finance Directors | 77 | | Annex 4.2 Use of models | 81 | | Annex 4.3 Risk | 83 | | Annex 4.4 Insurance | 89 | | Annex 4.5 Senior Responsible Owner Accountability | 95 | | Annex 4.6 Procurement | 97 | | Annex 4.7 State aids | 103 | | Annex 4.8 Expenditure and payments | 105 | | Annex 4.9 Fraud | 107 | | Annex 4.10 Losses and write offs | 109 | | Annex 4.11 | Overpayments | 115 | | Annex 4.12 | Gifts | 121 | | Annex 4.13 | Special payments | 125 | | Annex 4.14 | Remedy | 131 | | Annex 4.15 | Asset management | 135 | | Annex 5.1 | Grants | 141 | | Annex 5.2 | Protecting the Exchequer interest (clawback) | 145 | | Annex 5.3 | Treatment of income and receipts | 149 | | Annex 5.4 | Contingent Liabilities | 151 | | Annex 5.5 | Lending | 159 | | Annex 5.6 | Banking and managing cash | 165 | | Annex 6.1 | How to calculate charges | 171 | | Annex 6.2 | Charging for Information | 175 | | Annex 6.3 | Competition law | 178 | | Annex 7.1 | Forming and reforming ALBs | 180 | | Annex 7.2 | Drawing up framework documents | 184 | | Annex 7.3 | Trading funds | 202 | | Annex 7.4 | Using private finance | 204 | | Glossary | | 206 | Every government needs credibility. Without it, no government can raise the funds it needs for its policies – from taxpayers, from charge payers, or from borrowers. Recent international events have provided object lessons in how fragile sovereign credibility can be.
This handbook helps the UK government maintain public trust. It explains how to handle public funds with probity and in the public interest. There is a lot of common sense, with a little protocol about how to respect parliament’s requirements.
The origins of this document trace back through the Bill of Rights to Magna Carta. These events brought the monarchs of their day up against the demands of those they governed that the funds they provided should be used wisely. The principles which emerged also underpin the rule of law, for which the UK gains international respect and trust.
In modern times it is the elected government that must account to parliament; but the theory is the same. Integrity is the common thread. Transparency and value for public money are the essential results.
Since I joined the Treasury three years ago I have come to realise how often the basic principles in this handbook provide the answers to old and new problems in government. The Treasury has long regarded upholding standards of public administration as one of its fundamental responsibilities.
I urge everyone who works with public money to read, and to use, this handbook. My staff are ready to help anyone who needs help in thinking through the issues.
Danny Alexander Chief Secretary to the Treasury about this document
i. This document updates the version published in 2007. Like the original, it sets out the main principles for dealing with resources in UK public sector organisations. Some of the specifics, especially those in the annexes, relate to England rather than the devolved administrations, which have their own detailed rulebooks. But the same basic principles generally apply in all parts of the UK public sector, with adjustments for context.
ii. The key themes also remain. They are the fiduciary duties of those handling public resources to work to high standards of probity; and the need for the public sector to work in harmony with parliament.
iii. While these principles are invariant, the advice in this document cannot stand forever. The law, business practices, and public expectations all change. So public sector organisations can and should innovate in carrying out their responsibilities, using new technology and adopting good business practice. Throughout parliament always expects the government and its public servants to meet the ethical standards in this document and to operate transparently.
iv. As before, the main text of the document is intended to be timeless. The Treasury will revise the annexes from time to time as the need arises. All the text is available freely on the gov.uk website.
v. Above all, nothing in this document should discourage the application of sheer common sense. Responsibilities
The relationship between the government, acting on behalf of the Crown, and parliament, representing the public, is central to how public resources are managed. Ministers implement government policies, and deliver public services, through public servants; but are able to do so only where parliament grants the right to raise, commit and spend resources. It falls to the Treasury to respect and secure the rights of both government and parliament in this process.
1.1 Managing public money: principles
1.1.1 The principles for managing public resources run through many diverse organisations delivering public services in the UK. The requirements for the different kinds of body reflect their duties, responsibilities and public expectations. The demanding standards expected of public services are set out in box 1.1.
Box 1.1: standards expected of all public services
- honesty
- impartiality
- openness
- accountability
- accuracy
- fairness
- integrity
- transparency
- objectivity
- reliability
- carried out
- in the spirit of, as well as to the letter of, the law
- in the public interest
- to high ethical standards
- achieving value for money
1.1.2 The principles in this handbook complement the guidance on good governance in the Corporate Governance Code applying to central government departments. Some of the detail applies to England only, or just to departments of state. There is separate guidance for the devolved administrations. Where restrictions apply, they are identified.
1.1.3 Much of this document is about meeting the expectations of parliament. These disciplines also deliver accountability to the general public, on whose behalf parliament operates. The methods of delivery used should evolve as technology permits. Public services should carry on their businesses and account for their stewardship of public resources in ways appropriate to their duties and context and conducive to efficiency.
1.2 Ministers
1.2.1 In the absence of a written constitution, the powers used to deploy public resources are a blend of common law, primary and secondary legislation, parliamentary procedure, the duties of ministers, and other long-standing practices. This mix may of course change from time to time.
______________________________________________________________________
1 The Corporate Governance Code – see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/corporate-governance-code-for-central-government-departments 1 Responsibilities
1.2.2 As the Corporate Governance Code makes clear, the minister in charge of a department is responsible for its policy and business as part of the broad sweep of government policy determined in Cabinet. He or she:
- determines the policies of the departmental group;
- chairs the departmental board;
- allocates responsibilities among the ministers in the department;
- chooses which areas of business to delegate to officials, and on what conditions;
- looks to the department’s accounting officer (see chapter 3) to delegate within the department to deliver the minister’s decisions and to support the minister in making policy decisions and handling public funds; and
- also has general oversight of other bodies on whose behalf he or she may answer in parliament, including the department’s arms length bodies (ALBs).
1.2.3 The Ministerial Code requires ministers to heed the advice of their accounting officers about the proper conduct of public business. See section 3.4 for how the minister may direct the accounting officer to proceed with a policy if a point of this kind cannot be resolved.
1.2.4 The minister in charge of a department may delegate defined areas of its business, or of its parliamentary work, to his or her junior ministers. Ministers have wide powers to make policies and to instruct officials.
1.2.5 Only ministers can propose legislation to parliament to raise public revenue through taxation, or to use public funds to pursue their policy objectives. Specific primary legislation is normally required to spend public funds (see section 2.1). Similarly, taxes may be collected, and public funds may be drawn, only with parliamentary authority; and only as parliament has authorised.
1.2.6 It is not normally acceptable for a private sector organisation to be granted powers to raise taxes, nor to distribute their proceeds. Parliament expects these responsibilities to fall to ministers, using public sector organisations.
1.2.7 The House of Commons (and not the House of Lords) enjoys the financial privilege to make decisions on these matters.
1.3 Parliament
1.3.1 Parliament approves the legislation which empowers ministers to carry out their policies. It also allows finance for services when it approves each year’s Estimates. See the Estimates Manual for more.
1.3.2 From time to time parliament may examine government activity. Select committees examine policies, expenditure, administration and service delivery in defined areas. The Committee of Public Accounts (PAC - see section 3.5) examines financial accounts, scrutinises value for money and generally holds the government and its public servants to account for the quality of their past administration.
______________________________________________________________________
2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministerial-code 3 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supply-estimates-guidance-manual 1.4 The Treasury
1.4.1 Parliament looks to the Treasury to make sure that:
- departments use their powers only as it has intended; and
- revenue is raised, and the resources so raised spent, only within the agreed limits.
1.4.2 Hence it falls to the Treasury to:
- set the ground rules for the administration of public money; and
- account to parliament for doing so.
1.4.3 This document sets out how the Treasury seeks to meet these parliamentary expectations. The key requirements are regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility (see box 3.2). The Treasury:
- designs and runs the financial planning system(^4) and oversees the operation of the agreed multiyear budgets to meet ministers’ fiscal policy objectives;
- oversees the operation of the Estimates through which departments obtain authority to spend year by year;
- sets the standards to which central government organisations publish annual reports and accounts in the Financial Reporting Manual (FReM). This adapts International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) to take account of the public sector context;
- sets Accounts Directions for the different kinds of central government organisations whose accounts are laid in parliament; and
- may also work through the Cabinet Office to set certain standards applicable across central government(^5).
1.5 Departments
1.5.1 Within the standards expected by parliament, and subject to the overall control and direction of their ministers, departments have considerable freedom about how they organise, direct and manage the resources at their disposal. It is for the accounting officer in each department, acting within ministers’ instructions, and supported by their boards, to control and account for the department’s business.
1.5.2 A departmental board, chaired by the senior minister, leads each department. Boards can bring to bear skills and experiences from elsewhere in, and outside of, the public sector (see section 4.1).
1.5.3 Within each department, there should be adequate delegations, controls and reporting arrangements to provide assurance to the board, the accounting officer(^6) and ultimately ministers about what is being achieved, to what standards and with what effect. These arrangements
______________________________________________________________________
(^4) See the Consolidated Budgeting Guidance for more - [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consolidated-budgeting-guidance](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consolidated-budgeting-guidance)
(^5) See [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-office-controls-guidance-version-3-1](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-office-controls-guidance-version-3-1)
(^6) If there is a change of Accounting Officer in the course of the year, the Accounting Officer in place at the year end takes responsibility for the whole year’s accounts, using assurances as necessary. should provide timely and prompt management information to enable plans to be adjusted as necessary. Similarly ministers should have enough evidence about the impact of their policies to decide whether to continue, modify or end them. This is discussed further in chapter 4.
1.5.4 In supporting ministers, civil servants should provide politically impartial advice. Should they be asked to carry out duties which appear incompatible with this obligation, the accounting officer should take the matter up with the minister concerned (see also the Civil Service Code7).
1.5.5 Departments often operate with and through a variety of partners to deliver their ministers’ policies. It is important that these relationships operate in the public interest: see chapter 7.
1.6 The Comptroller and Auditor General
1.6.1 Supported by the National Audit Office (NAO), the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) operates independently to help parliament scrutinise how public funds have been used in practice. Further information about the role of the NAO is available on their website8 and in annex 1.1.
1.6.2 The C&AG provides parliament with two sorts of audit:
- financial audit of the accounts of departments and ALBs, covering:
- assurance that accounts have been properly prepared and are free of material misstatements9; and
- confirmation that the underlying transactions have appropriate parliamentary authority;
- value for money reports assessing the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which public money has been deployed in selected areas of public business. A programme of these reviews covers a variety of subjects over a period, taking account of the risks to value for money and parliament’s interests.
1.6.3 The C&AG has a general right to inspect the books of a wide variety of public organisations to further these investigations. When the NAO investigates any public sector organisation, it should get full cooperation in provision of papers and other oversight. It is good practice to draw the NAO’s attention to the confidentiality of any sensitive documents provided in this process. It is then for the independent C&AG to judge what material can be published in the public interest.
1.6.4 In addition, the C&AG publishes other independent reports to parliament. The PAC (see section 3.5) may hold hearings to examine evidence on any of these reports and on other related matters.
Annex 1.1 The Comptroller and Auditor General
______________________________________________________________________
7 http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/values 8 The NAO website address is http://www.nao.org.uk 9 See Audit Practice Note 10 of the Audit Practices Board on the FRC website at http://www.frc.org.uk This chapter explains the process for parliamentary authorisation of public resources. Parliament consents in principle to the use of public funds through legislation to enable specified policies. It then approves use of public resources to carry out those policies year by year by approving Estimates. Only rarely can lesser authority suffice. At the close of each financial year, parliament expects a clear account of the use of the public funds it has authorised. Parliament expects the Treasury to oversee the operation of these controls. The PAC may investigate specific issues further.
2.1 Conditions for use of public funds
2.1.1 Ministers have very broad powers to control and direct their departments. In general, they may do anything that legislation does not prohibit or limit, including using common law powers to administer their operations or continue business as usual.
2.1.2 Ministers also need parliamentary authority for use of public funds before each year’s expenditure can take place. The full list of requirements is set out in box 2.1.
Box 2.1: requirements for use of public funds
- budget cover in the collectively agreed multi-year budgets
- with a few exceptions, parliamentary authorisation for each year’s drawdown of funds through an Estimate, which is then approved as a Supply and Appropriation Act (see section 2.2)
- adequate Treasury consents (see section 2.3)
- assurance that the proposed expenditure is regular and proper (section 2.4)
- sufficient specific legal powers - though see section 2.5 for some limited exceptions
2.1.3 The Treasury runs the control process because parliament expects the Treasury to control public expenditure as part of fiscal policy. The primary means through which the Treasury controls public expenditure is multi-year budgets, agreed collectively at spending reviews. The Consolidated Budgeting Guidance sets out the rules for their use. (See also chapter 4).
2.2 Using the Estimate
2.2.1 The requirements in box 2.1 are to some extent interrelated. The accounting officer of a department (see also chapter 3) is responsible for ensuring that:
- the Estimate(s) presented to parliament for the department’s annual expenditure (consolidating its ALBs) are within the statutory powers and within the government’s expenditure plans; and
- use of resources is within the ambit of the vote and consistent with the Estimate(s)-
1 See section 5.3 and must answer to parliament for stewardship of these responsibilities.
2.3 Treasury consents
2.3.1 Departments also need Treasury consent before undertaking expenditure or making commitments which could lead to expenditure (see annex 2.1). Usually the Treasury agrees some general approvals for each department subject to delegated limits and/or exclusions.
2.3.2 Some common approaches to setting delegations are shown in box 2.2 and are discussed further in annex 2.2. It is good practice to review delegations from time to time to make sure that they remain up to date and appropriate. Delegations can be tightened or loosened at reviews, depending on experience.
Box 2.2: examples of approaches to delegated authorities
- objective criteria for exceptions requiring specific Treasury scrutiny or approval
- a sampling mechanism to allow specimen cases to be examined
- a lower limit above which certain kinds of projects must achieve specific consent
2.3.3 In turn departments should agree with each of their arm’s length bodies (ALBs - the public sector organisations they sponsor or finance) a similar set of delegations appropriate to their business2 (see also chapter 7).
2.3.4 There is an important category of expenditure commitments for which the Treasury cannot delegate responsibility. It is transactions which set precedents, are novel, contentious or could cause repercussions elsewhere in the public sector. Box 2.3 gives examples. Treasury consent to such transactions should always be obtained before proceeding, even if the amounts in question lie within the delegated limits.
Box 2.3: examples of transactions requiring explicit Treasury consent
- extra statutory payments similar to but outside statutory schemes
- ephemeral ex gratia payment schemes, eg payments to compensate for official errors
- special severance payments, eg compromise agreements in excess of contractual commitments
- non-standard payments in kind
- unusual financial transactions, eg imposing lasting commitments or using tax avoidance
- unusual schemes or policies using novel techniques
2.3.5 It is improper for a public sector organisation to spend or make commitments outside the agreed delegations. The Treasury may subsequently agree to give retrospective consent, but only if the expenditure in question would have been agreed if permission had been sought at the right time.
2.3.6 Sometimes legislation calls for explicit Treasury consent, eg for large or critical projects. There are also Whitehall wide controls on key progress points for the very largest projects.3
______________________________________________________________________
2 Delegations to ALBs should never be greater than the delegated limits agreed between the Treasury and the sponsor department.
3 Through the Major Projects Authority, [http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/major-projects-authority], using powers delegated by the Treasury. such cases it is unlawful to proceed without Treasury consent - and Treasury consent cannot be given retrospectively.
2.4 Regularity and propriety
2.4.1 The concepts of regularity and propriety, fundamental to the right use of public funds, are set out in box 2.4. The term regularity and propriety is often used to convey the idea of probity and ethics in the use of public funds – that is, delivering public sector values in the round, encompassing the qualities summarised in box 1.1. Supporting this concept are the Seven Principles of Public Life - the Nolan principles⁴ - which apply to the public sector at large. In striving to meet these standards, central government departments should give a lead to the partners with which they work.
Box 2.4: regularity and propriety
Regularity: compliant with the relevant legislation (including EU legislation), delegated authorities and following the guidance in this document.
Propriety: meeting high standards of public conduct, including robust governance and the relevant parliamentary expectations, especially transparency.
2.4.2 Each departmental accounting officer should make sure that ministers in his or her department appreciate:
- the importance of operating with regularity and propriety; and
- the need for efficiency, economy, effectiveness and prudence in the administration of public resources, to secure value for public money⁵.
2.4.3 Should a minister seek a course of action which the accounting officer cannot reconcile with any aspect of these requirements, he or she should seek instructions in writing from the minister before proceeding (see chapter 3).
2.4.4 Should departments need to resolve an issue about regularity or propriety, they should consult the relevant Treasury spending team. Similarly, ALBs should consult their sponsor departments about such issues, and the department concerned may in turn consult the Treasury.
2.4.5 Neither improper nor irregular expenditure achieves the standards that parliament expects. So any such expenditure must be noted in the department’s annual report and accounts. If the discrepancy is material it can result in a qualification to the accounts. When any expenditure of this kind comes to light, it should be drawn to the attention of both the NAO and the Treasury. The immediate follow up action is to identify the source of any systematic problems so that there is no recurrence. The PAC may also call the accounting officer to explain the matter at a public hearing.
2.5 Securing adequate legal authority
2.5.1 Parliament usually authorises spending on a specific policy or service by approving bespoke legislation setting out in some detail how it should work. It is not normally acceptable to use a royal charter as an alternative to primary legislation, for this approach robs parliament
⁴ http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/ ⁵ A more detailed description of value for money is at annex 4.4 of its expectations for control and accountability. Departments should ensure that both they and their ALBs have adequate legal cover for any specific actions they undertake.
2.5.2 The Treasury takes this requirement seriously. It is fundamental to the trust and understanding between the government and parliament on which management of the public finances is founded. In the Concordat of 1932 (see annex 2.3), the Treasury undertook that departments would not spend without adequate legal authority.
2.5.3 There are some general exceptions. These kinds of expenditure do not require specific legislation in order to avoid burdening parliamentary time:
- routine matters covered by common law (the main examples are in box 2.5);
- a very limited range of Consolidated Fund Standing Services (see section 5.3);
- projects or services which are modest or temporary (see box 2.6)
Box 2.5: expenditure which may rely on a Supply and Appropriation Act
- routine administration costs: employment costs, rent, cleaning etc
- lease agreements, eg for photocopiers, lifts
- contractual obligations to purchase goods or services (eg where single year contracts might be bad value)
- expenditure using prerogative powers such as defence of the realm and international treaty obligations
2.5.4 In all the three cases in paragraph 2.5.3, departments may rely on the sole authority of a Supply and Appropriation Act (the culmination of the Estimates process) without the need for specific legal authority, provided that the other conditions in box 2.1 are met.
Box 2.6: modest or temporary expenditure which may rely on a Supply and Appropriation Act
either services or initiatives lasting no more than two years, eg a pilot study or one off intervention or expenditure of no more than £1.75m a year (amount adjusted from time to time) provided that there is no specific legislation covering these matters before parliament and existing statutory restrictions are respected.
These conditions are demanding. Treasury consent is required before they may be relied on.
2.6 New services
2.6.1 When ministers decide on a new activity, all the conditions in box 2.1 must be met before it can begin. In practical terms this means that most significant new policies which are intended to persist require specific primary legislation.
2.6.2 Sometimes ministers want to start early on a new policy which is intended to continue but whose enabling legislation has not yet secured royal assent. It may be possible to make limited preparation for delivery of the new service before royal assent, but to do so it will usually be necessary to consider borrowing from the Contingencies Fund (see annex 2.4). Access to this Fund is controlled by the Treasury, subject to the conditions in box 2.7. Specific Treasury consent is always required. Box 2.7: conditions for access to the contingencies fund (see also annex 2.5)
- the proposed expenditure must be urgent and in the public interest, ie with wider benefits to outweigh the convention of awaiting parliamentary authority (political imperative is not enough)
- the relevant bill must have successfully passed second reading in the House of Commons
- the legislation must be certain, or virtually certain, to pass into law with no substantive change in the near future, and usually within the financial year
- the department responsible must explain clearly to parliament what is to take place, why, and by when matters should be placed on a normal footing.
Annex 2.1 Treasury approval of legislation Annex 2.2 Delegated authorities Annex 2.3 The PAC concordat of 1932 Annex 2.4 New services 3 Accounting Officers
This chapter sets out the personal responsibilities of all accounting officers in central government. Essentially accounting officers must be able to assure parliament and the public of high standards of probity in the management of public funds. This chapter is drawn to the attention of all accounting officers when they are appointed.
3.1 Role of the accounting officer
3.1.1 Each organisation in central government – department, agency, trading fund, NHS body, NDPB or arm’s length body – must have an accounting officer. This person is usually its senior official. The accounting officer in an organisation should be supported by a board structured in line with the Corporate Governance Code.
3.1.2 Formally the accounting officer in a public sector organisation is the person who parliament calls to account for stewardship of its resources. The standards the accounting officer is expected to deliver are summarised in box 3.1. The equivalent senior business managers of other public sector organisations are expected to deliver equivalent standards.
3.2 Appointment of accounting officers
3.2.1 The Treasury appoints the permanent head of each central government department to be its accounting officer. Where there are several accounting officers in a department, the permanent head is the principal accounting officer.
3.2.2 Within departments, the Treasury also appoints the chief executive of each trading fund as its accounting officer.
3.2.3 In turn the principal accounting officer of each department normally appoints the permanent heads:
- of its executive agencies, as agency accounting officers for their agencies; and
- of other ALBs (including all NDPBs), as accounting officers for these bodies; and
- at his or her discretion, additional accounting officers for defined part(s) of the department’s business.
3.3 Special responsibilities of accounting officers
3.3.1 It is important that each accounting officer takes personal responsibility for ensuring that the organisation he or she manages delivers the standards in box 3.1. In particular, the accounting officer must personally sign:
- the accounts
- the annual report
- the governance statement (see annex 3.1); and having been satisfied that they have been properly prepared to reflect the business of the organisation, must personally approve:
- voted budget limits; and
- the associated Estimates Memorandum.
**Box 3.1: standards expected of the accounting officer’s organisation**
Acting within the authority of the minister(s) to whom he or she is responsible, the accounting officer should ensure that the organisation, and any ALBs it sponsors, operates effectively and to a high standard of probity. The organisation should:
**governance**
- have a governance structure which transmits, delegates, implements and enforces decisions
- have trustworthy internal controls to safeguard, channel and record resources as intended
- work cooperatively with partners in the public interest
- operate with propriety and regularity in all its transactions
- treat its customers and business counterparties fairly, honestly and with integrity
- offer appropriate redress for failure to meet agreed customer standards
- give timely, transparent and realistic accounts of its business and decisions, underpinning public confidence;
**decision-making**
- support its ministers with clear, well reasoned, timely and impartial advice
- make all its decisions in line with the strategy, aims and objectives of the organisation set by ministers and/or in legislation
- take a balanced view of the organisation’s approach to managing opportunity and risk
- impose no more than proportionate and defensible burdens on business;
**financial management**
- use its resources efficiently, economically and effectively, avoiding waste and extravagance
- plan to use its resources on an affordable and sustainable path, within agreed limits
- carry out procurement and project appraisal objectively and fairly, using cost benefit analysis and generally seeking good value for the Exchequer as a whole
- use management information systems to gain assurance about value for money and the quality of delivery and so make timely adjustments
- avoid over defining detail and imposing undue compliance costs, either internally or on its customers and stakeholders
- have practical documented arrangements for controlling or working in partnership with other organisations, as appropriate
- use internal and external audit to improve its internal controls and performance.
**3.3.2** The accounting officer of a corporate arm’s length body should arrange for a board member to sign the accounts as well as signing them himself or herself, if (unusually) he or she is not a member of the board.
**3.3.3** There are several other areas where accounting officers should take personal responsibility:
- *regularity and propriety* (see box 2.4), including securing Treasury approval for any expenditure outside the normal delegations or outside the subheads of Estimates; 3 Accounting Officers
- **affordability and sustainability**: respecting agreed budgets and avoiding unaffordable longer term commitments, taking a proportionate view about other demands for resources;
- **value for money**: ensuring that the organisation’s procurement, projects and processes are systematically evaluated to provide confidence about suitability, effectiveness, prudence, quality, good value judged for the Exchequer as a whole, not just for the accounting officer’s organisation (e.g., using the Green Book(^1) to evaluate alternatives);
- **control**: the accounting officer should personally approve and confirm their agreement to all Cabinet Committee papers and major project or policy initiatives before they proceed;
- **management of opportunity and risk** to achieve the right balance commensurate with the institution’s business and risk appetite;
- **learning from experience**, both using internal feedback (e.g., through managing projects and programmes using techniques such as PRINCE2), and from right across the public sector; and
- **accounting accurately for the organisation’s financial position and transactions**: to ensure that its published financial information is transparent and up to date; and that the organisation’s efficiency in the use of resources is tracked and recorded.
3.3.4 In the case of principal accounting officers, these responsibilities apply to the business of the whole departmental group.
3.4 Advice to ministers
3.4.1 Each departmental accounting officer should take care to bring to the attention of the minister(s) to whom he or she is responsible any conflict between the minister’s instructions and his or her duties. The accounting officer cannot simply accept the minister’s aims or policy without examination. There is no set form for registering objections, though the accounting officer should be specific about their nature. The acid test is whether the accounting officer could justify the proposed activity if asked to defend it.
3.4.2 Accounting officers should routinely scrutinise significant policy proposals or plans to start or vary major projects and then assess whether they measure up to the standards in box 3.1 so that they can identify any discrepancy(^2). The accounting officer should draw any such problems to the attention of the responsible minister to see whether they can be resolved.
3.4.3 If the minister decides to continue with a course the accounting officer has advised against, the accounting officer should ask for a formal written direction to proceed. An oral direction should be confirmed in writing quickly. Examples of where this procedure is appropriate are in box 3.2.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) to [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent)
(^2) The Treasury or the chair of the relevant Cabinet Committee may also ask for the accounting officer’s assessment of any novel proposal. Box 3.2: when accounting officers should seek a direction
- **Regularity**: if a proposal is outside the legal powers, parliamentary authority, or Treasury delegations; or incompatible with the agreed spending budgets.
- **Propriety**: if a proposal would breach parliamentary control procedures or expectations.
- **Value for money**: if an alternative proposal, or doing nothing, would deliver better value, eg a cheaper, higher quality or more effective outcome for the Exchequer as a whole.
- **Feasibility**: where there is a significant doubt about whether the proposal can be implemented accurately, sustainably, or to the intended timetable.
3.4.4 Directions of this kind are rare. It is good practice for accounting officers to discuss the matter with the Treasury if time permits. The ultimate judgement in each case must lie with the accounting officer personally.
3.4.5 When a direction is made, the accounting officer should:
- copy the relevant papers to the C&AG and the TOA promptly. The C&AG will normally draw the matter to the attention of the PAC, who will attach no blame to the accounting officer;
- follow the minister’s direction without further ado;
- if asked, explain the minister’s course of action. This respects ministers’ rights to frank advice, while protecting the quality of internal debate;
- arrange for the existence of the direction to be published, no later than in the next report and accounts, unless the matter must be kept confidential.
3.5 Public Accounts Committee
3.5.1 The PAC may hold public hearings on the accounts of central government organisations laid in parliament (see section 1.6). In practice most PAC hearings focus on NAO value for money studies. NAO seeks to agree the text of these reports with the accounting officer(s) concerned so there is a clear undisputed evidence base for PAC scrutiny.
3.5.2 When a hearing is scheduled, the PAC normally invites the accounting officer(s) of the relevant institution(s) to attend as witness(es). An accounting officer may be accompanied by appropriate officials. Where it is appropriate, and the PAC agrees, an accounting officer may send a substitute. The PAC may also invite other witnesses who may not be public servants to give insight into the background of the subject in hand.
3.5.3 In answering questions, the accounting officer should take responsibility for the organisation’s business, even if it was delegated or if the events in question happened before he or she was appointed accounting officer. In response to specific PAC or Select Committee requests, previous accounting officers may also attend relevant PAC hearings. Recalls of this kind should be assessed case by case, depending on the circumstances. They are acceptable if the business in issue was fairly recent, and where the former accounting officer has had an opportunity to comment before publication on any NAO report which the PAC is to investigate.
3.5.4 The PAC expects witnesses to give clear, accurate and complete evidence. If evidence is sensitive, witnesses may ask to give it in private. Witnesses may offer supplementary notes if the information sought is not to hand at the meeting. Any such notes should be provided within one week unless the PAC is willing to grant an extension. They should do so without delay. 3.5.5 The TOA (or an alternate) attends all PAC hearings. This enables the PAC to explore any more general issues arising out of the hearing.
3.6 When the accounting officer is not available
3.6.1 Each public sector organisation must have an accounting officer available for advice or decision as necessary at short notice.
3.6.2 When the accounting officer is absent and cannot readily be contacted, another senior official should deputise. If a significant absence is planned, the accounting officer may invite the Treasury (or the sponsor department, as the case may be) to appoint a temporary acting accounting officer.
3.7 Conflicts of interest
3.7.1 Sometimes an accounting officer faces an actual or potential conflict of interest. There must be no doubt that the accounting officer meets the standards described in box 3.1 without divided loyalties. Possible ways of managing this issue include:
- for a minor conflict, declaring the conflict and arranging for someone other than the accounting officer to make a decision on the issue(s) in question;
- for a significant but temporary conflict, inviting the Treasury (or the sponsor department, as the case may be) to appoint an interim accounting officer for the period of the conflict of interest; or
- for serious and lasting conflicts, resignation.
3.8 Arm’s length bodies
3.8.1 The responsibilities of accounting officers in departments and in arm’s length bodies (ALBs) are essentially similar. Accounting officers in ALBs must also take account of their special responsibilities and powers. In particular, they must respect the legislation (or equivalent) establishing the organisation and terms of the framework document agreed with the sponsor department. See chapter 7 for more.
3.8.2 The framework document (or equivalent) agreed between an ALB and its sponsor always provides for the sponsor department to exercise meaningful oversight of the ALB’s strategy and performance, pay arrangements and/or major financial transactions, eg by monthly returns, standard delegations and exception reporting. The sponsor department’s accounts consolidate those of its ALBs so its accounting officer must be satisfied that the consolidated accounts are accurate and not misleading.
3.8.3 Overall, the accounting officer of a sponsor department should make arrangements to satisfy himself or herself that that the ALB has systems adequate to meet the standards in box 3.1. Similarly, the accounting officer of an ALB with a subsidiary should have meaningful oversight of the subsidiary. It is not acceptable to establish ALBs, or subsidiaries to ALBs, in order to avoid or weaken parliamentary scrutiny.
3.8.4 Exceptionally, the accounting officer of a sponsor department may need to intervene if an ALB drifts significantly off track, eg if its budget is threatened, its systems are badly defective or it falls into disrepute. This may include replacing some or all of the leaders of the ALB, possibly even its accounting officer. 3.8.5 There are sensitivities about the role of the accounting officer in an ALB which is governed by an independent board, eg a charity or company. The ALB’s accounting officer, who will normally be a member of the board, must take care that his or her personal legal responsibilities do not conflict with his or her duties as a board member. In particular, the accounting officer should vote against any proposal which appears to cause such a conflict; it is not sufficient to abstain.
3.8.6 Moreover, if the chair or board of such an ALB is minded to instruct its accounting officer to carry out a course inconsistent with the standards in box 3.1, then the accounting officer should make his or her reservations clear, preferably in writing. If the board is still minded to proceed, the ALB accounting officer should then:
- ask the accounting officer of the sponsor department to consider intervening to resolve the difference of view, preferably in writing;
- if the board’s decision stands, seek its written direction to carry it out, asking the sponsor department to inform the Treasury;
- proceed to implement without delay; and
- follow the routine in paragraph 3.4.5.
3.8.7 This process is similar to what happens in departments (see section 3.4), allowing for the special position of the organisation’s board, which is often appointed under statute.
3.9 In the round
3.9.1 It is not realistic to set firm rules for every aspect of the business with which an accounting officer may deal. Sometimes the accounting officer may need to take a principled decision on the facts in circumstances with no precedents. Should that happen, the accounting officer should be guided by the standards in box 3.1 in assessing whether there is a case for seeking a direction for any of the factors in box 3.2. It is essential that accounting officers seek good outcomes for the Exchequer as a whole, respecting the key principles of transparency and parliamentary approval for management of public resources.
3.9.2 Where time permits, the Treasury stands ready to help accounting officers think such issues through. It is good practice to document decisions where the accounting officer has had to strike difficult judgements, especially where they break new ground.
Annex 3.1 The Governance Statement Public sector organisations should have good quality internal governance and sound financial management. Appropriate delegation of responsibilities and effective mechanisms for internal reporting should ensure that performance can be kept on track. Good practice should be followed in procuring and managing resources and assets; hiring and managing staff; and deterring waste, fraud and other malpractice. Central government departments have some specific responsibilities for reporting, including to parliament.
4.1 Governance structure
4.1.1 Each public sector organisation should establish governance arrangements appropriate to its business, scale and culture. The structure should combine efficient decision making with accountability and transparency.
4.1.2 In doing so, central government departments should be guided by the Corporate Governance Code. Each public sector organisation needs clear leadership, normally provided by a board. Box 4.1 sets out best practice for departmental boards.
Box 4.1: best practice for boards in central government departments
- chaired by the department’s most senior minister, with junior ministers as members
- comparable numbers of official and non-executive members, including a lead non-executive and a professionally qualified finance director (see annex 4.1)
- meeting at least quarterly
- sets the department’s strategy to implement ministers’ policy decisions
- leads the department’s business and determines its culture
- ensures good management of the department’s resources – financial, assets, people
- decides risk appetite and monitors emerging threats and opportunities
- steers performance to keep it on track using regularly updated information about progress
- keeps an overview of its ALBs’ activities
4.1.3 It is good practice for ALBs to use similar principles. In many ALBs some structural features, such as board composition, derive from statute but considerable discretion may remain. In some organisations it is usual, or found valuable, for the board to include members with designated responsibility or expertise, eg for regional affairs or for specialist professional skills.
4.1.4 In order to carry out its responsibilities each board needs to decide, and document, how it will operate. Box 4.2 outlines the key decisions. It is not exhaustive. Once agreed, the working rules should be reviewed from time to time to keep them relevant. Boards should
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/corporate-governance-code-for-central-government-departments for both the code and the good practice guidance challenge themselves to improve their working methods, so that their processes can achieve and maintain good modern business practice.
**Box 4.2: key decisions for boards**
- mission and objectives
- delegations and arrangements for reporting performance
- procedures and processes for business decision making
- scrutiny, challenge and control of significant policies, initiatives and projects
- risk appetite and risk control procedures, eg maintaining and reviewing a risk register
- control and management of associated ALBs and other partnerships
- arrangements for refreshing the board
- arrangements for reviewing the board’s own performance
- accountability – to the general public, to staff and other stakeholders (see section 4.13)
- how the insights of non-executives can be harnessed
- how often the board’s working rules will be reviewed
### 4.2 Working methods
#### 4.2.1 The accounting officer of each organisation is accountable to parliament for the quality of the administration that he or she leads. The administrative standards expected are set out in the Civil Service Code and the Ombudsman’s Principles of Public Administration. They allow considerable flexibility to fit with each organisation’s obligations and culture. It is against these standards that failure to deliver is assessed.
#### 4.2.2 Another fundamental concept is the Treasury’s leadership position in managing public expenditure, and setting the rules under which departments and their ALBs should deploy the assets, people and other resources under their control. In turn each public sector organisation should have robust and effective systems for their internal management. Box 4.3 outlines the key decisions each organisation needs to make.
#### 4.2.3 To help the Treasury carry out this task properly:
- departments should provide the Treasury with accurate and timely information about in-year developments - their expenditure, performance against objectives and evolution of risk (eg serious unforeseen events or discovery of fraud);
- ALBs should provide their sponsor departments with similar information; and
- the established mechanisms for controlling and reporting public expenditure, including Treasury support or approval where necessary, should be respected.
#### 4.2.4 In particular, departments should consult the Treasury (and ALBs their sponsor departments) at an early stage about proposals to undertake unusual transactions or financing techniques. This applies especially to any transactions which may have wider implications elsewhere in the public sector (see paragraph 2.3.4 and box 2.3).
______________________________________________________________________
2 [http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/values](http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/values) 3 [http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving-public-service/ombudsmansprinciples](http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving-public-service/ombudsmansprinciples) 4.2.5 Working with the accounting officer, the finance director of each public sector organisation has special responsibility for seeing that the standards described in this chapter are respected. Annex 4.1 sets this out in more detail.
Box 4.3: essentials of effective internal decision making
choice
- active management of the portfolio of risks and opportunities
- appraisal of alternative courses of action using the techniques in the Green Book, and including assessment of feasibility to achieve value for money
- where appropriate, use of models (see annex 4.2) or pilot studies to provide evidence on which to make decisions among policy or project choices
- active steering of initiatives, e.g., reviews to take stock at critical points of projects
operation
- appropriate internal delegations, with a single senior responsible officer (SRO) for each significant project or initiative, and a single senior person leading each end to end process
- prompt, regular and meaningful management information on costs (including unit costs), efficiency, quality and performance against targets to track progress and value for money
- proportionate administration and enforcement mechanisms, without unnecessary complexity
- use of feedback from internal and external audit and elsewhere to improve performance
- regular risk monitoring, to track performance and experience and make adjustments in response
afterwards
- mechanisms to evaluate policy, project and programme outputs and outcomes, including whether to continue, adjust or end any continuing activities
- arrangements to draw out and propagate lessons from experience
4.3 Opportunity and risk
4.3.1 Embedded in each public sector organisation’s internal systems there should be arrangements for recognising, tracking and managing its opportunities and risks. Each organisation’s governing body should make a considered choice about its desired risk appetite, taking account of its legal obligations, ministers’ policy decisions, its business objectives, and public expectations of what it should deliver. This can mean that different organisations take different approaches to the same opportunities or risks.
4.3.2 There should be a regular discipline of reappraising the opportunities and risks facing the organisation since both alter with time and circumstances, as indeed may the chosen responses. This process should avoid excessive caution, since it can be as damaging as unsuitable risk taking. The assessment should normally include:
- maintaining a risk register, covering identified risks and contingent risks from horizon scanning;
- reputational risks, since poor performance could undermine the credibility, and ultimately the creditworthiness, of the Exchequer as a whole;
- consideration of the dangers of maintaining the status quo;
- plans for disaster recovery; • appraisal of end to end risks in critical processes and other significant activities.
4.3.3 In making decisions about how to manage and control opportunity and risk, audit evidence and other assurance processes can usefully inform choice. Audit, including internal audit, can provide specific, objective and well-informed assurance and insight to help an organisation evaluate its effectiveness in achieving its objectives. It is good practice for the audit committee to advise the governing board of a public sector organisation on its key decisions on governance and managing opportunities and risks. It is also a good discipline for this process to include evaluating progress in implementing PAC recommendations, where they have been accepted.
4.3.4 In turn the board should support the accounting officer in drawing up the governance statement, which forms part of each organisation’s annual accounts. See annex 3.1. Further guidance about managing risks is in annex 4.3 and the Orange Book.
4.4 Insurance
4.4.1 In the private sector risk is often managed by taking out insurance. In central government it is generally not good value for money to do so. This is because the public sector has a wide and diverse asset portfolio; a reliable income through its ability to raise revenue through taxation; and access to borrowed funds more cheaply than any in the private sector. In addition commercial providers of insurance also have to meet their own costs and profit margins. Hence the public purse is uniquely able to finance restitution of damaged assets or deal with other risks, even very large ones. If the government insured risk, public services would cost more.
4.4.2 However, there are some limited circumstances in which it is appropriate for public sector organisations to insure. They include legal obligations, and occasions where commercial insurance would provide value for money. Further information about insurance generally is in annex 4.4.
4.5 Control of public expenditure
4.5.1 The Treasury coordinates a system through which departments are allocated budget control totals for their public expenditure. Each department’s allocation covers its own spending and that of its associated ALBs. Within the agreed totals, it has considerable discretion over setting priorities to deliver the public services for which it is responsible.
4.5.2 Each public sector organisation should run efficient systems for managing payments (see box 4.4). It should also keep its use of public resources within the agreed budgets, take the limits into account when entering into commitments, and generally ensure that its spending profile is sustainable.
4.5.3 Any major project, programme or initiative should be led by a senior responsible owner (SRO). It is good practice to aim for continuity in such appointments.
______________________________________________________________________
4 eg ALBs should insure vehicles where the Road Traffic Act requires it 5 eg where private sector contractors take out single-site insurance policies because they are cheaper than each individual party insuring themselves separately. 6 See annex 4.5. Box 4.4: essentials of systems for committing and paying funds
- Selection of projects after appraisal of the alternatives (see the Green Book), including the central clearance processes for larger commitments.
- Open competition to select suppliers from a diverse range, preferably specifying outcomes rather than specific products, to achieve value for money (see annexes 4.6 and 4.7).
- Where feasible, procurement through multi-purchaser arrangements, shared services and/or standard contracts to drive down prices.
- Effective internal controls to authorise acquisition of goods or services (including vetting new suppliers), within any legal constraints.
- Separation of authorisation and payment, with appropriate controls, including validation and recording, at each step to provide a clear audit trail.
- Checks that the goods or services acquired have been supplied in accordance with the relevant contract(s) or agreement(s) before paying for them.
- Payment terms chosen or negotiated to provide good value.
- Accurate payment of invoices: once and on time, avoiding lateness penalties (see annex 4.8).
- A balance of preventive and detective controls to tackle and deter fraud, corruption and other malpractice (see annex 4.9).
- Integrated systems to generate automatic audit trails which can be used to generate accounts and which both internal and external auditors can readily check.
- Periodic reviews to benefit from experience, improve value for money or to implement developments in good practice.
4.6 Receipts
4.6.1 Public sector organisations should have arrangements for identifying, collecting and recording all amounts due to them promptly and in full. Outstanding amounts should be followed up diligently. Key features of internal systems of control are suggested in box 4.5.
4.6.2 Public sector organisations should take care to track and enforce debts promptly. The presumption should be in favour of recovery unless it is uneconomic to do so.
Box 4.5: essential features of systems for collecting sums due
- Adequate records to enable claims to be made and pursued in full.
- Routines to prevent unauthorised deletions and amendments to claims.
- Credit management systems to manage and pursue amounts outstanding.
- Controls to prevent diversion of funds and other frauds.
- Clear lines of responsibility for making decisions about pressing claims increasingly more firmly, and for deciding on any abatement or abandonment of claims which may be merited.
- Arrangements for deciding upon and reporting any write-offs (see annex 4.10). Audit trails which can readily be checked and reported upon both internally and externally.
4.7 Non-standard financial transactions
4.7.1 From time to time public sector organisations may find it makes sense to carry out transactions outside the usual planned range, eg:
- write-offs of unrecoverable debts or overpayments; • recognising losses of stocks or other assets; • long term loans or gifts of assets.
4.7.2 In each case it is important to deal with the issue in the public interest, with due regard for probity and value for money. Annexes 4.10 to 4.12 set out what is expected when such transactions take place in central government, including notifying parliament.
4.7.3 Where an organisation discovers an underpayment, the deficit should be made good as soon as is practicable and in full. If there has been a lapse of time, for example caused by legal action to establish the correct position, it may be appropriate to consider paying interest, depending on the nature of the commitment to the payee and taking into account the reputation of the organisation and value for money for the Exchequer as a whole (see also section 4.11).
4.7.4 Similarly, public sector organisations may have reason to carry out current transactions which would not normally be planned for. These might be: • extra contractual payments to service providers; • extra-statutory payments to claimants (where a similar statutory scheme exists); • ex gratia payments to customers (where no established scheme exists); or • severance payments to employees leaving before retirement or before the end of their contract and involving payments above what the relevant pension scheme allows.
4.7.5 Again it is important that these payments are made in the public interest, objectively and without favouritism. The disciplines parliament expects of central government entities are set out in annex 4.13, which explains the notification procedure to be followed for larger one-off transactions of this kind. The steps to be considered when setting up statutory or extra-statutory compensation schemes are discussed in annex 4.14.
4.8 Unusual circumstances
4.8.1 Sometimes public sector organisations face dilemmas in meeting their commitments. They may have a legal or business obligation which would be uneconomic or inappropriate to carry out assiduously to the letter. In such cases it can be justifiable to seek a pragmatic, just and transparent alternative approach, appropriately reported to parliament in the organisation’s annual accounts. One-off schemes of this kind are always novel and so require Treasury approval, not least because they may also require legislation or have to rest on the authority of a Supply and Appropriation Act (see section 2.5). Box 4.6 suggests precedented examples. Box 4.6: examples of one-off pragmatic schemes
- A court ruling could mean that a public sector organisation owed each of a large number of people a very small sum of money. The cost of setting up and operating an accurate payment scheme might exceed the total amount due. The organisation could instead make a one-off payment of equivalent value to a charity representing the recipient group.
- A dispute with a contractor might conclude that the contractor owed a public sector organisation an amount too big for it to meet in a single year while staying solvent. The customer might instead agree more favourable payment terms, with appropriate safeguards, if this arrangement provides better value for money.
4.9 Staff
4.9.1 Each public sector organisation should have sufficient staff with the skills and expertise to manage its business efficiently and effectively. The span of skills required should match the organisation’s objectives, responsibilities and resources, balancing professional, practical or operational skills and policy makers, and recognising the value of each discipline. Succession and disaster planning should ensure that the organisation can cope robustly with changes in the resources available, including unforeseen disruption.
4.9.2 Public sector organisations should seek to be fair, honest and considerate employers. Some desirable characteristics are suggested in box 4.7.
Box 4.7: public sector organisations as good employers
- selection designed to value and make good use of talent and potential of all kinds
- fairness, integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity
- professionalism in the relevant disciplines, always including finance
- arrangements to make sure that staff are loaded cost effectively
- management techniques balancing incentives to improve and disciplines for poor performance
- diversity valued and personal privacy respected
- mechanisms to support efficient working practices, both normally and under pressure
- arrangements for whistleblowers to identify problems privately without repercussions.
4.9.3 Similarly public sector employers have a right to expect good standards of conduct from their employees. The qualities and standards expected of civil servants are set out in the Civil Service Code. Other public sector employees should strive for similar standards, appropriate to their context.
4.10 Assets
4.10.1 All public sector organisations own or use a range of assets. Each organisation needs to devise an appropriate asset management strategy to define how it acquires, maintains, tracks, deploys and disposes of the various kinds of assets it uses. Annex 4.15 discusses how to set up and use such a strategy.
4.10.2 It is good practice for public sector organisations to take stock of their assets from time to time and consider afresh whether they are being used efficiently and deliver value for public funds. If there is irreducible spare capacity there may be scope to use part of it for other government activities, or to exploit it commercially for non-statutory business. 4.11 Standards of service
4.11.1 Poor quality public services are not acceptable. Public sector organisations should define what their customers, business counterparties and other stakeholders can expect of them.
4.11.2 Standards can be expressed in a number of ways. Examples include guidelines (e.g. response times), targets (e.g. take-up rates) or a collection of customer rights in a charter. Even where standards are not set explicitly, they may sometimes be inferred from the way the provider organisation carries out its responsibilities; so it is normally better to express them directly.
4.11.3 Whatever standards are set, they should be defined in a measurable way, with plans for recording performance, so that delivery can be readily gauged. It is good practice to use customer feedback, including from complaints, to reassess from time to time whether standards or their proxies (milestones, targets, outcomes) remain appropriate and meaningful.
4.11.4 Where public sector organisations fail to meet their standards, or where they fall short of reasonable behaviour, it may be appropriate to consider offering remedies. These can take a variety of forms, including apologies, restitution (e.g. supplying a missing licence) or, in more serious cases, financial payments. Decisions about financial remedies – which should not be offered routinely - should include taking account of the legal rights of the other party or parties and the impact on the organisation’s future business.
4.11.5 Any such payments, whether statutory or ex gratia, should follow good practice (see section 4.13). Since schemes of financial redress often set precedents or have implications elsewhere, they should be cleared with the Treasury before commitments are made, just as with any other public expenditure out of the normal pattern (see sections 2.1 to 2.4).
4.12 Complaints
4.12.1 Those public sector organisations which deal with customers directly should strive to achieve clear, accurate and reliable standards for the products and services they provide. It is good practice to arrange for complaints about performance to be reviewed by an independent organisation such as an ombudsman.
4.12.2 Often such review processes are statutory. The activities of central government departments and the NHS are open to review by the PHSO(^7), whose *Principles of Good Complaints Handling*(^8) sets out generic advice on complaints handling and administration of redress (see also annex 4.14). After investigation of cases of specific complaint, the PHSO can rule on whether injustice or hardship can be attributed to maladministration or service failure, and may recommend remedies, either for individual cases or for groups of similar cases. If departments decline to follow the PHSO’s advice, they should lay a memorandum in parliament explaining why.
______________________________________________________________________
(^7) [http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/](http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/)
(^8) [http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving-public-service/ombudsmansprinciples](http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving-public-service/ombudsmansprinciples) 4.13 Transparency
4.13.1 All public sector organisations should operate as openly as is compatible with the requirements of their business. In line with the statutory public rights(^9), they should make available timely information about their services, standards and performance. This material should strike a careful balance between protecting confidentiality and open disclosure in the public interest.
4.13.2 All public sector organisations should adopt a publication scheme routinely offering information about the organisation’s activities. They should also publish regular information about their plans, performance and use of public resources.
4.13.3 The published information should be in sufficient detail, and be sufficiently regular, to enable users and other stakeholders to hold the organisation and its ministers to account. Benchmarks can help local users to evaluate local performance more easily.
4.13.4 The primary document of record for central government departments is the report and accounts, which should consolidate information about the relevant ALBs. It should include a governance statement (see annex 3.1).
4.13.5 In addition, the Treasury is responsible for publishing certain aggregate information about use of public resources, for example Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) consolidating all central and local government organisations’ accounts and comparisons of outturn with budgets. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) also uses input from data gathered by the Treasury to publish the national accounts.
4.13.6 In certain areas of public business it is also important or desirable to provide adequate public access to physical assets. Unnecessary or disproportionate restrictions should be avoided. Managed properly, this can be a valuable mechanism to promote inclusion and enhance public accountability.
4.14 Dealing with initiatives
4.14.1 Public sector organisations need to integrate all the advice in this handbook when introducing new policies or planning projects. Each is unique and will need bespoke treatment. The checklist in box 4.8 brings the different factors together. It applies directly to central government organisations but the principles will be of value elsewhere.
______________________________________________________________________
(^9) Eg Freedom of information act 2000, Data protection act 1998, Environment information regulations 2004 and the Re-use of public sector information regulations 2005. Box 4.8: factors to consider when planning policies or projects
design
- Has the proposal been evaluated against alternative options, including doing nothing?
- Should there be pilot testing before full roll out?
- Are the controls agreed and documented clearly? Have the risks and opportunities been considered systematically? Is the change process resilient to shocks? What contingencies might arise?
- Is the intended intervention proportionate to the identified need?
- What standards should be achieved? How will performance be tracked and assessed? Could the proposal be simplified without loss of function?
- If partner(s) are involved, is the allocation of responsibilities appropriate?
- Will the proposal be efficient, effective and offer good value for money?
- Is the policy sustainable in the broadest sense? Should it have a sunset clause?
- Does the planned activity meet high standards of probity, integrity and honesty?
- Will the proposal deliver the desired outcome to time and cost?
- Does the accounting officer assess the initiative as compatible with the public sector standards?
control
- What prior agreement is required, if any?
- How will internal governance and delegation work? Will it be effective? Is it transparent? Should there be an SRO?
- Is there adequate legislation? If not, what is needed to make the action lawful?
- Is there any conflict with European law, including limits on state aids?
- How will the proposal be financed? Is there budget and Estimate cover? Is it appropriate to charge to help finance the service? Are charges set within the law?
- Is the proposed action within the department’s delegated authorities?
- What financial techniques will be used to manage rollout, implementation and operation?
- Are project and programme management techniques likely to be useful?
- How will the intended new arrangements be monitored and efficiency measured?
- How will feedback be used to improve outcomes?
- Does the design inhibit misuse and counter fraud? What safeguards are needed?
- How will the associated risks be tracked and the responses adjusted?
- What intervention will be possible if things go off track?
- Would it be possible to recover from a disaster promptly?
accountability
- How should parliament be told of the proposal and kept informed of progress?
- What targets will be used? Are they sufficiently stretching?
- Is public access called for? How?
- Is the policy or service fair and impartial?
- Will its administration be open, transparent and accessible?
- Should there be customer standards? How are complaints used to improve performance?
- Should there be arrangements for redress after poor delivery?
- Is enforcement required? If so, is it proportionate?
- Is an appeal mechanism needed?
- Is regulation called for?
learning lessons
- What audit arrangements (internal and external) are intended?
- What information about the activity will be published? How and how often?
- When and how will the policy or project be evaluated to assess its cost and benefits and to determine whether it should continue, be adjusted, replaced or ceased? Annex 4.1 Finance Directors Annex 4.2 Use of models Annex 4.3 Risk Annex 4.4 Insurance Annex 4.5 Senior Responsible Owner Accountability Annex 4.6 Procurement Annex 4.7 State aids Annex 4.8 Expenditure and payments Annex 4.9 Fraud Annex 4.10 Losses and write-offs Annex 4.11 Overpayments Annex 4.12 Gifts Annex 4.13 Special payments Annex 4.14 Remedy Annex 4.15 Asset management This chapter explores the means by which central government organisations may obtain funds in order to finance public expenditure. The Treasury operates disciplines to respect parliament’s concern to prevent unauthorised expenditure.
5.1 The framework for public expenditure control
5.1.1 Most public expenditure is financed from centrally agreed multi-year budgets administered by the Treasury, which oversees departments’ use of their budget allocations. In the main, departments have considerable discretion about how they distribute these budget allocations, which are expressed net of relevant income. The main source of receipts to be netted off is fees and charges (see chapter 6).
5.1.2 The Treasury oversees and directs the rules that departments should respect in managing their budgets. Departments are expected to live within their allocations for each financial year, with some limited exceptions, eg for certain demand led services. The budgeting framework is explained in the Consolidated Budgeting Guidance, which is refreshed each year.
5.2 Grants
5.2.1 Each central government department decides how much of its budget provision it should cascade to its ALBs in each year of the multi-year agreement. Departments may pay them grants (for specific purposes) and grants-in-aid (unspecific support) to finance their spending; though it is the net spending of the ALB that scores in the departmental budget. Annex 5.1 explains more about grants.
5.2.2 Budgets and Estimates plan net spending and include all spending of ALBs however it is financed. In general it is sensible to consider arrangements for protecting the Exchequer interest through clawback of specific grants should the purposes for which they are agreed not materialise (annex 5.2).
5.3 Estimates
5.3.1 The multiyear departmental budgets agreed collectively among ministers do not of themselves confer authority to spend or commit resources. Parliamentary agreement, usually through the Supply Estimate process, is also essential (see box 2.1).
5.3.2 Departmental Estimates are put to parliament covering one financial year at a time, in the spring. Each covers the net expenditure of a department and its ALBs (ie all spending in budgets and any voted spend outside of budgets). For the year ahead, the provision sought should be taut and realistic, without padding. The Supply and Estimates Guidance Manual has more detail.
5.3.3 Before the summer recess, the provision sought in the Estimate is formally authorised in a Supply and Appropriation Act, which sets net expenditure limits for the year. The Act is then the legal authority for public expenditure within the ambit of the Estimate. The ambit itemises a specific range of permitted activities and income streams for the year. 5.3.4 Within a financial year, there is some scope for transferring (through virement) provision from one section or subhead to another within any of the control limits in the same Estimate. There is scope for adjusting Estimate provision through a Supplementary Estimate late in the year if circumstances change. A Supplementary Estimate should show all movements between sections, even if they would otherwise have been dealt with through virement.
5.3.5 Departmental Select Committees may examine departmental witnesses on the plans contained in Estimates. Usually such hearings take place after Estimates are laid in parliament but before they are voted into law.
5.3.6 If there is underspending against Estimate provision in one year, it cannot automatically be carried forward to a later year. If a department wants to spend resources it did not consume in a previous year, it needs Treasury approval and must also obtain fresh parliamentary authority to spend in the year(s) concerned.
5.3.7 Like budgets, Estimates are set net of income. But parliament needs to be made aware of receipts since Estimates authorise gross expenditure, normally using statutory powers. Annex 5.3 explains more about types of receipt. Chapter 6 contains guidance about setting and adjusting fees and charges.
5.3.8 Occasionally an Estimate sets a negative limit for permitted resources. This happens if income is expected to exceed the relevant gross expenditure. Similarly a Supplementary Estimate can be negative if provision for spending is to fall within a given year.
5.3.9 A department’s Estimate for a year includes all spending within its agreed budget for that year, as well as any voted non-budget spending. Not all of this amount requires voted parliamentary approval since some items, such as Consolidated Fund Standing Services, are paid direct from the Consolidated Fund. Hence only the voted parts of the Estimate requiring parliamentary approval appear in the Supply and Appropriation Act. Of course the disciplines on public funds (box 3.1) apply to all the activities described in the Estimate and accounts whether within the Act or not.
5.4 Excess Votes
5.4.1 Accounting officers have an important role in overseeing the integrity of the Estimates for which they are responsible. In particular, accounting officers are responsible for ensuring that Estimates are in good order (see section 2.2).
5.4.2 The Treasury presents parliament each year with a Statement of Excesses to request retrospective authority for any unauthorised resources consumed above the relevant limits or outside the ambit of the Estimate. Parliament takes these excesses seriously. The PAC or departmental select committee may call witnesses to account in person or ask for a written explanation.
5.4.3 The Statement of Excesses includes two kinds of excess:
- spending above the amount provided in an Estimate; and
- irregular expenditure outside the ambit, eg on an unauthorised service. 5.4.4 Parliament usually regards the latter as particularly unsatisfactory because it means that the department concerned has flouted parliament’s intentions and may have defective systems of control. The auditor may identify such excesses as spending not covered by statutory powers, even if the total amount spent does not exceed the voted limit.
5.4.5 Expenditure in excess of provision on an activity agreed by parliament is also to be avoided since the authority of a Supply and Appropriation Act is just as essential as specific statutory authority (box 2.1). It is possible, with Treasury agreement, to raise the amount in an Estimate during the course of the year in a Supplementary. But otherwise accounting officers should reduce, reprioritise or postpone use of resources to keep within the provision parliament has agreed for the year.
5.5 Commitments
5.5.1 Parliament is not bound to honour ministers’ commitments unless and until there are statutory powers to meet them and it authorises public funds to finance them (through an Estimate) in a given year. This discipline is especially important when ministers plan a new service.
5.5.2 Because commitments can evolve into spending, they should always be scrutinised and appraised as stringently as proposals for consumption (box 4.8 may help). Some departments may agree with the Treasury blanket authority for defined and limited ranges of non-statutory commitments, eg indemnities for board members and commitments taken on the normal course of business. All other non statutory commitments are novel, contentious or repercussive, so Treasury approval is always essential before they are undertaken.
5.5.3 Public sector organisations should give parliament prompt and timely notice of any significant new commitments, whether using existing statutory powers or to be honoured through future legislation. Non statutory contingent liabilities (above a specified threshold) should always be notified in this way. The process is set out in annex 5.4.
Box 5.1: contingent liabilities: notifying parliament
- Parliament should be notified of uncertain liabilities in a meaningful way without spurious accuracy. It is good practice to notify parliament if a previously notified liability changes significantly, or can be clarified, eg if the timing can be firmed up.
- If a contingent liability affects several departments but cannot confidently be allocated among them, the relevant ministers should inform parliament in a pragmatic way. A single statement may well suffice.
- If, exceptionally, a new liability needs to remain confidential, the minister should inform the chairs of the relevant select committee and the PAC; then inform parliament openly when the need for confidentiality lifts.
- Ministers should inform parliament if an ALB assumes a contingent liability which it could not absorb within its own resources, since the risk ultimately lies with the sponsor department’s budget.
______________________________________________________________________
1 Ie has breached the Concordat – see annex 2.3 2 Under the Concordat 5.5.4 The general rule is to err on the side of caution in keeping parliament informed of emerging contingent liabilities. It is impossible to generalise about every possible set of circumstances but some guidance is in box 5.1.
5.6 Tax
5.6.1 Public sector organisations should not engage in, or connive at, tax evasion, tax avoidance or tax planning. If a public sector organisation were to obtain financial advantage by moderating the tax paid by a contractor, supplier or other counterparty, it would usually mean that the Exchequer as a whole would be worse off – thus conflicting with the accounting officer’s duties (section 3.3). Thus artificial tax avoidance schemes should normally be rejected. It should be standard practice to consult HMRC(^3) about transactions involving non-standard approaches to tax before going ahead.
5.6.2 There is of course no problem with using tax advisers to help meet normal legitimate requirements of carrying on public business. These include administration of VAT, PAYE and NICs, where expert help can be useful and efficient.
5.6.3 Proposals to create new taxes in order to assign their proceeds to new spending proposals are rarely acceptable. Decisions on tax are for Treasury ministers, who are reluctant to compromise their future fiscal freedom to make decision.
5.7 Public dividend capital
5.7.1 Certain public sector businesses, notably trading funds and certain Health Trusts, are set up with public dividend capital (PDC) in lieu of equity. Like equity, PDC should be serviced, though not necessarily at a constant rate.
5.7.2 PDC is not a soft option. In view of the risk it carries, it should deliver a rate of return comparable to commercial equity investments carrying a similar level of risk. There is scope for the return to vary to reflect market conditions and investment patterns; but persistent underperformance against the agreed rate of return should not be tolerated.
5.7.3 A department needs specific statutory power to issue PDC, together with supply cover to pay it out of the Consolidated Fund. Sometimes instead of a specific issue of PDC, the legislation establishing (or financially reconstructing) a public sector business deems an issue of PDC to the new business. Dividends on PDC, and any repayments of PDC, are paid to the sponsor department of the business.
5.7.4 Further information about the use of PDC is in section 7.8 (trading funds).
5.8 Borrowing by public sector organisations
5.8.1 Some public sector organisations, eg certain trading funds, are partly financed through loans provided through the sponsor department’s Estimate; or from the National Loans Fund (NLF). In these cases Treasury consent and specific legal powers are always required. Limits and other conditions are common. See annex 5.5 for more.
5.8.2 NLF and Voted loans can only be made if there is reasonable expectation that the loan will be serviced and repaid promptly. Similarly, when ALBs borrow, their sponsor departments
______________________________________________________________________
(^3) HMRC customer relationship manager or customer co-ordinator explicitly stand behind them and so should scrutinise borrowers’ creditworthiness, not just relying on their track records, in order to satisfy themselves that such loans are sound. For NLF loans, if timely repayment could not realistically be expected, the loan would be unlawful.
5.8.3 Should a department become aware of concerns about the security of outstanding loans (either its own or an ALB’s), it should warn the Treasury promptly and consider what action it can take to reduce or otherwise mitigate any potential loss. If a loan becomes irrecoverable, remedial treatment should be agreed with the Treasury and then notified to parliament.
5.8.4 The NLF cannot make a loss. So the interest rates charged on NLF loans, whether fixed or variable, must be higher than the rates at which the NLF could raise funds for a similar period. Early repayment is sometimes possible, eg if the borrower has windfall receipts, but never simply to refinance on terms more favourable to the borrower because a fee is charged to match the Exchequer costs when a loan ends early. This is because the NLF finances the amount outstanding using money market instruments sold at the time the loan was made, and must continue to service those instruments. So the Exchequer as a whole would make a loss if the NLF offered cheaper replacement loans.
5.8.5 While NLF loans are repaid to the NLF, voted loans are repaid to the Consolidated Fund. The treatment of repayments and interest payments in Estimates and accounts is discussed in the Consolidated Budgeting Guidance, the Estimate Manual and the FReM. The Treasury accounts for NLF transactions in the NLF’s accounts. Any proposed write-offs must be notified to parliament after obtaining Treasury agreement: see annex 5.5
5.9 External borrowing
5.9.1 Public sector organisations may borrow from private sector sources only if the transaction delivers better value for money for the Exchequer as a whole. Because non-government lenders face higher costs, in practice it is usually difficult to satisfy this condition unless efficiency gains arise in the delivery of a project (eg PFI). Treasury agreement to any such borrowing, including by ALBs, is also essential. Nevertheless it can sometimes be expedient for public sector bodies to borrow short term, for example by overdraft.
5.9.2 When a sponsor department’s ALB borrows, the department should normally arrange to guarantee the loan to secure a fine rate. This is not always possible, eg when a guarantee would rank as a state aid (see annex 4.7). A department which guarantees a loan normally needs a specific statutory power as well as Estimate provision. On exceptional occasions temporary non-statutory loans may be possible.
5.9.3 The case for a guarantee should be scrutinised as thoroughly as if indeed a loan were made. Since guarantees always entail entering into contingent liabilities, parliament must be notified when a loan guarantee is given, using the reporting procedures in annex 5.4.
5.9.4 Occasionally there is a case for an ALB to borrow in foreign currency in its own name rather than the government’s. Because this can affect the credit standing of the government as a sovereign borrower, and may well cost more, it is essential to consult the Treasury beforehand. The same principles apply to the borrowing of any bodies, such as subsidiaries, for which a department’s ALBs are responsible.
______________________________________________________________________
4 The Concordat applies here in just the same way as to spending – see annex 2.3 5.10 Multiple sources of funding
5.10.1 Sometimes public sector organisations derive funding from more than one source. Examples of funding other than voted funds include national insurance contributions (which are dedicated to the National Insurance Fund), lottery funding and charitable funding. All of these alternatives usually come with specific conditions attached.
5.10.2 Organisations in this position should segregate and account separately for the different streams of funding so that they can apply the relevant terms and conditions to each. In particular, where a source of funding is designated to a particular purpose, it is rarely appropriate to use another instead. In those circumstances switching is novel and contentious and thus requires Treasury approval.
5.10.3 When there is doubt about how to handle multiple streams of funding, it is good practice to consult the Treasury.
5.11 Cash management
5.11.1 The various organisations in central government together handle very large flows of public funds. At the end of each working day, the Exchequer must either borrow from the money market or place funds on deposit with the money market, depending on the net position reached after balancing outflows to finance expenditure against inflows from taxes and other sources.
5.11.2 So there is considerable advantage to be gained for the Exchequer as a whole by minimising this net position. In practice this means gathering balances together at the end of each working day. In aggregate all these accounts make up the Exchequer Pyramid, managed by the Treasury. Most funds are held with the Government Banking Service.
5.11.3 It is essential for central government organisations to minimise the balances in their own accounts with commercial banks. Were each to retain a significant sum in its own account with such banks, the amount of net government borrowing outstanding on any given day would be appreciably higher, adding to interest costs and hence worsening the fiscal balance.
5.11.4 Each central government organisation should establish a policy for its use of banking services. See annex 5.6 for guidance. Sponsor departments should also make sure that their ALBs are aware of the importance of managing this aspect of their business efficiently and effectively (see box 7.2).
5.12 Other financing techniques
5.12.1 Depending on its circumstances, purposes and risk profile, a public sector organisation may consider using financial instruments provided by the commercial markets. Among these techniques are foreign currency transactions and various hedging instruments designed to control or limit business risks, for example those arising out of known requirements for specific future purchases of market priced commodities. Mundane possibilities are use of credit or debit cards, in order to secure faster settlements.
5.12.2 As with making decisions about other policies and projects, an organisation considering using unfamiliar financing techniques should evaluate them carefully, especially to assess value for money. The checklists in boxes 4.5 and 4.6 have reminders of factors that may need to be considered. As such transaction(s) are almost always novel, contentious or repercussive, it is essential to consult the Treasury. 5.12.3 Any organisation using a new or non-standard technique should ensure that it has the competence to manage, control and track its use and any resulting financial exposures, which may vary with time. In particular, departments should consult the Treasury before using derivatives for the first time (and ALBs their sponsoring departments).
5.12.4 When assessing an unfamiliar financing technique, it is important to remember that providers of finance and complex financial instruments intend to profit from their business. And providers’ costs of finance are always inferior to the UK government’s cost of borrowing. So it is usually right to be cautious about any novel techniques. The Treasury will always refuse proposals to speculate. Offers which appear too good to be true usually are.
5.12.5 As with managing other business, parliament may ask accounting officers to justify any decisions about use of financial transactions, especially if with hindsight they have not achieved good value for money.
Annex 5.1 Grants Annex 5.2 Protecting the Exchequer interest (clawback) Annex 5.3 Treatment of income and receipts Annex 5.4 Contingent liabilities Annex 5.5 Departmental lending Annex 5.6 Banking and cash management 6 Fees, charges and levies
Charges for services provided by public sector organisations normally pass on the full cost of providing them. There is scope for charging more or less than this provided that ministers choose to do so, parliament consents and there is full disclosure. Public sector organisations may also supply commercial services on commercial terms designed to work in fair competition with private sector providers. Parliament expects proper controls over how, when and at what level charges may be levied.
6.1 Why charges matter
6.1.1 Certain public goods and services are financed by charges rather than from general taxation. This can be a rational way to allocate resources because it signals to consumers that public services have real economic costs. Charging can thus help prevent waste through badly targeted consumption. It can also make comparisons with private sector services easier, promote competition, develop markets and generally promote financially sound behaviour in the public sector.
6.1.2 There are unavoidable reasons why policy on charging is important:
- charges substitute for taxation (or, in the short term, borrowing) as a means of government finance. Decisions on charging policy should therefore be made with the same care, and to similar standards, as those on taxation;
- for this reason, parliament expects to consider legislation on whether charges should be levied; how they should be structured; and on charge levels;
- international standards determine how income from charges is classified in the national accounts. Certain charges are treated as taxes.
6.1.3 As in other areas of managing public funds, parliament expects the Treasury to make sure that its interests are respected, including pursuit of efficiency and avoidance of waste or extravagance. Because Estimates and budgets are shown net of income, special effort is required to give parliament information about both gross and net costs, and about the sources and amounts of income.
6.2 Basic principle
6.2.1 The standard approach is to set charges to recover full costs. Cost should be calculated on an accruals basis, including overheads, depreciation (eg for start up or improvement costs) and the cost of capital. Annex 6.1 sets out how to do this.
6.2.2 This approach is simply intended to make sure that the government neither profits at the expense of consumers nor makes a loss for taxpayers to subsidise. It requires honesty about the policy objectives and rigorous transparency in the public interest.
1 The Treasury and public accounts follow classification decisions taken by the Office for National Statistics, an independent organisation which is guided by the international standards set out in the European System of Accounts 6.2.3 As elsewhere, organisations supplying public services should always seek to control their costs so that public money is used efficiently and effectively. The impact of lower costs should normally be passed on to consumers in lower charges. Success in reducing costs is no excuse for avoiding the principles in this guidance.
6.2.4 This chapter applies to all fees and charges set by ministers and by an extensive range of public bodies: departments, trading funds, NDPBs, the NHS, non-devolved services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and most public corporations. Departments should be able to satisfy themselves that their ALBs can deliver the financial objectives for the services they charge for. This chapter also applies when one public organisation supplies another with goods or services; and to certain statutory local authority charges set by ministers.
6.3 Setting a charge: standard practice
6.3.1 When a charge for a public service is to be made, it is normally necessary to rely on powers in primary legislation. The legislation should be designed so that ministers decide, or have significant influence over, both the structure of the charge and its level. It is common to frame primary legislation in general terms, using secondary legislation to settle detail.
6.3.2 Treasury consent is required for all proposals to extend or vary charging schemes. This holds even if the primary legislation does not call for it, or the delegated authorities within which the organisation operates would otherwise allow it.
6.3.3 It is sometimes possible to rely on secondary legislation rather than primary to determine charges:
- an order under s2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 can introduce the substantive policy for certain implementing EU legislation. Or if it is possible, an order under s56 of the Finance Act 1973 can be used;
- restructuring of charges can sometimes be achieved by an order under s102 of the Finance (no 2) Act 1987 (see box 6.1).
Box 6.1: restructuring charges using S.102
- A s102 order can extend or vary powers in existing primary legislation.
- It can permit restructuring by specifying factors to be taken into account when setting fees.
- Explicit prior Treasury consent is always essential.
But
- A s102 order cannot create a power for new charges where no primary legislation exists.
- Nor can it lift restrictions in (or in any other way undermine) primary legislation.
- Parliament is usually sceptical because s102 substitutes secondary for primary legislation.
6.3.4 When deciding the level of a charge, it is important to define:
- the range(s) of services for which a charge is to be made;
- how any categories of service are to be differentiated, if at all, in setting charges.
6.3.5 The standard approach is that the same charge should apply to all users of a defined category of service, so recovering full costs for that category of service. Different charges may be set for objectively different categories of service costing different amounts to provide. Box 6.2 shows how this can work.
**Box 6.2: how different charges can apply to different categories of service**
Different categories could be recognised by:
- distinguishing supply differences, eg in person, by post or online
- priorities, eg where a quicker service costs more
- quality, eg charging more for a premium service with more features
- recognising structural differences, where it costs more to supply some consumers.
6.3.6 However, different groups of customers should not be charged different amounts for a service costing the same, eg charging firms more than individuals. Similarly, cross subsidies are not standard practice, eg charging large businesses more than small ones where the cost of supply is the same.
6.3.7 Charges within and among central government organisations should normally also be at full cost, including the standard cost of capital. Any different approach would cause one party to make a profit or loss not planned in budgets agreed by ministers collectively; while the customer organisation(s) would conversely face charges higher or lower than full costs. A number of objectionable consequences might flow from this. For instance, a question of state aid could arise; or private sector consumers of the customer organisation might be charged distorted fees.
6.3.8 Shared services (box 6.3) are a special case of charging within the public sector.
**Box 6.3: shared services**
It is often possible to make economies of scale by arranging for several public service organisations to join together to deliver services cheaper, eg by using their joint purchasing power. One organisation supplies the other(s). Since all the parties should lower their costs, the accounting officer of each organisation should have no difficulty in recognising improved value for money for the Exchequer as a whole and so justify going ahead.
Public sector organisations supplying (or improving) shared services should consult the Treasury at an early stage of planning. Typically supplier organisations face the cost of setting up provision on a larger scale than they need for their own use. As with setting up any new service, plans in budgets should amortise initial costs so that they can be recovered over an appropriate period from the start of the service. More detail on shared services is in section 7.5.
It is not acceptable for supplier organisations to plan to profit from, or subsidise, supply to customer organisations in the public sector. Nor is it acceptable for accounting officers to resist shared services just because the impact on their own organisation is not perceived to be favourable.
6.4 Setting a charge: non-standard approaches
6.4.1 Ministers’ policy objectives for a service where a charge is levied may not fit the standard model in section 6.3. In such cases it may be possible to deliver the policy objective in another way. Some ways of doing this are described below. Explicit Treasury consent, and often formal legal authority, is always required for such variations. It is desirable to consult the Treasury at an early stage to make sure that the intended strategy can be delivered. Charging below cost
6.4.2 Where ministers decide to charge less than full cost, there should be an agreed plan to achieve full cost recovery within a reasonable period. Each case needs to be evaluated on its merits and obtain Treasury clearance. If the subsidy is intended to last, this decision should be documented and periodically reconsidered.
Charging above cost
6.4.3 ONS normally classifies charges higher than the cost of provision, or not clearly related to a service to the charge payer, as taxes. Such charges always call for explicit ministerial decision as well as specific statutory authority. The Treasury does not automatically allow departments to budget for net expenditure associated with above cost charges. Netting off, or netting off up to full costs, may be agreed in certain instances, considering each case on its merits.
6.4.4 Sometimes when a change of this kind is classified as a tax, departments also propose to assign its revenue. The Treasury always treat such proposals with caution (see 5.6.3).
Cross subsidies
6.4.5 Cross subsidies always involve a mixture of overcharging and undercharging, even if the net effect is to recover full costs for the service as a whole. So cross subsidised charges are normally classified as taxes. They always call for explicit ministerial decision and parliamentary approval through either primary legislation or a s102 order.
Information services
6.4.6 In the public interest, information may be provided free or at low charge. This approach recognises the value of helping the general public obtain the data they require to function in the modern world. There are some exceptions - see annex 6.2.
6.5 Levies
6.5.1 Compulsory levies, eg payments for licences awarded by statutory regulators, or duties to finance industry specific research foundations, are normally classified as taxation. Such levies may be justified in the wider public interest, not because they provide a direct beneficial service to those who pay them. Depending on the circumstances, the Treasury may allow regulators to retain the fees charged if this approach is efficient and in the public interest.
6.5.2 As with other fees and charges, levies should be designed to recover full costs. If the legislation permits, the charge can cover the costs of the statutory body, eg a regulator could recover the cost of registration to provide a licence and of associated supervision. It may be appropriate to charge different levies to different kinds of licensees, depending on the cost of providing different kinds of licences (see box 6.2).
6.6 Commercial services
6.6.1 Some public sector services are discretionary, ie no statute underpins them. Services of this kind are often supplied into competitive markets, though sometimes the public sector supplier has a monopoly or other natural advantage.
6.6.2 Charges for these services should be set at a commercial rate. The rate should deliver a commercial return on the use of the public resources deployed in supplying the service. So the financial target should be in line with market practice, using a risk weighted rate of return on capital relevant to the sector concerned. The rate of return used in pricing calculations for sales into commercial markets should be:
- for sales into commercial markets, in line with competitors’ assessment of their business risk, rising to higher rates for more risky activities; or
- where a public sector body supplies another, or operates in a market without competitors, the standard rate for the cost of capital (see annex 6.1).
6.6.3 If a publicly provided commercial service does not deliver its target rate of return, outstanding deficits should be recovered, eg by adjusting charges. Any objective short of achieving the target rate of return calls for ministerial agreement, and should be cleared with the Treasury. But discretionary services should never undermine the supplier organisation’s public duties, including its financial objective(s).
6.6.4 It is important for public suppliers of commercial services to respect competition law. Otherwise public services using resources acquired with public funds might disturb or distort the fair operation of the market, especially where the public sector provider might be in a dominant position: see annex 6.3.
6.7 Disclosure
6.7.1 It is important that parliament is fully informed about use of charges. Each year the annual report of the charging organisation should give:
- the amounts charged
- full costs and unit costs
- total income received
- the nature and extent of any subsidies and/or overcharging
- the financial objectives and how far they have been met.
6.7.2 To keep parliament properly informed, Estimates should display details of expected income from charges. The Estimates Manual explains how the controls work.
6.7.3 The FReM sets out the information public sector organisations should publish in their accounts. It should include analysis of income.
6.8 Taking stock
6.8.1 As with any other use of public resources, it is important to monitor performance so that the undertaking can be adjusted as necessary to stay on track. It is good practice to review the service routinely at least once a year, to check, and if appropriate revise, the charging level. At intervals, a more fundamental review is usually appropriate, eg on a timetable compatible with the dynamics of the service. Box 6.4 suggests some issues to examine. Box 6.4: reviewing a public service for which a charge is made
- Is it still right for a public sector body to use public resources to supply the service?
- Are there any related services for which there might be a case for charging?
- Does the business structure still make sense? Are the assets used for the service adequate?
- How can efficiency and effectiveness be improved so that charges can be lower or offer better value?
- Is the financial objective right?
- For a statutory (or other public sector) service, if full costs are not recovered, why not?
- For a commercial service, does the target rate of return still reflect market rates?
- Is it still appropriate to net off against costs any agreed charges above cost?
- Is there scope to secure economies of scale by developing a shared service?
- What developments might change the business climate?
- Do any discretionary services remain a good fit for the business model and wider objectives?
- Should any underused assets be redeployed, used to make a commercial return, or sold?
- Would another business model (eg licensing, contracting out, privatising) be better? It often makes sense for public sector organisations to work with partners to deliver public services. This chapter outlines how sponsor departments should keep track of their ALBs, and where necessary control their activities. It is important that the public interest and the need to keep parliament informed are given priority in setting up and operating these relationships.
7.1 The case for working in partnership
7.1.1 Public sector organisations may be able to deliver public services more successfully if they work with another body. Central government departments may find it advantageous to delegate certain functions to ALBs that can be free to concentrate on them without conflict of interest. Or it may be helpful to harness the expertise of a commercial or civil society sector organisation with skills and leverage not available to the public sector.
7.1.2 Any such relationship inevitably entails tensions as well as opportunities. The autonomy of each organisation needs to be buttressed by sufficient accountability to give parliament and the public confidence that public resources are used wisely.
7.1.3 It can be important that an ALB is demonstrably independent. This in itself does not determine the ALB’s form or structure. Independence is achieved by specifying how the ALB is to operate. Functional independence is compatible with financial oversight by the ALB’s parent department and with accountability.
7.1.4 It is generally helpful to deal with any potential conflicts head on by deciding at the outset how the relationship(s) between the parties should work. The key issues to tackle are set out in box 7.1.
Box 7.1: Issues for partnerships with public sector members
- The decision to engage with a partner should rest on evaluation of a business case assessed against a number of alternatives, including doing nothing.
- Conflicts of interest should be identified so that handling strategies can be agreed, eg by establishing early warning processes or safeguards.
- The cultural fit of the partners should be close enough to give each confidence to trust the other.
- Accountability for use of public funds should not be weakened.
The terms of engagement, including governance, should be documented in a framework agreement or equivalent (see box 7.2).
7.2 Setting up new arm’s length bodies
7.2.1 When a sponsor department sets up a new ALB, the nature of the new body should be decided early in the process. It is sensible for the functions of the new body to help determine this choice. Annex 7.1 offers advice and sources of guidance on setting up a new ALB and compares the characteristics of agencies, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and non-ministerial departments (NMDs). Departments should consult the Treasury and the Cabinet Office about making the choice.
7.2.2 In general, each new ALB should have a specific purpose, distinct from its parent department. There should be clear perceived advantage in establishing a new organisation, such as separating implementation from policy making; demonstrating the integrity of independent assessment; establishing a specialist identity for a professional skill; or introducing a measure of commercial discipline. It is sensible to be sceptical about setting up a new ALB, since it will often add to costs.
7.2.3 ALBs cannot be given authority to make decisions proper to ministers, nor to perform functions proper to sponsor departments. Only rarely is a non-ministerial department the right choice as NMDs have limited accountability to parliament. Nor is it acceptable to use a royal charter to establish a public sector body since such arrangements deny parliament control and accountability.
7.2.4 A sponsor department cannot relinquish all responsibility for the business of its ALBs by delegation. It should have oversight arrangements appropriate to the importance, quality and range of the ALB’s business. Normally new, large, experimental or innovative ALBs need more attention from the sponsor than established or small ALBs doing familiar or low risk business. And the sponsor department always needs sufficient reserve powers to reconstitute the management of each ALB should events require it (see section 3.8).
7.2.5 The sponsor department should plan carefully to make sure that its oversight arrangements and the internal governance of any new ALB are designed to work together harmoniously without unnecessary intrusion. The ALB also needs effective internal controls and budgetary discipline so that it can live within its budget allocation and deliver its objectives. And the sponsor department must have sufficient assurance to be able to consolidate its ALBs’ accounts with its own.
7.2.6 There is a good deal of flexibility about form and structure. It may be expedient, for example, to set up an organisation which is eventually to be sold as a Companies Act company. Or certain NDPBs may operate most effectively when constituted as charities. Mutual structures can also be attractive. Innovation often makes sense. The standard models are all capable of a good deal of customisation.
7.2.7 If the PAC decides to investigate an ALB, the accounting officers of both the ALB and its sponsor department should expect to be called as witnesses. The PAC will seek to be satisfied that the sponsor’s oversight is adequate.
7.3 What to clarify
7.3.1 When documenting an agreement with a partner, public sector organisations should analyse the relationship and consider how it might evolve. The framework document (or equivalent) should then be kept up to date as the partnership develops. Box 7.2 contains terms which should always be considered for inclusion. The list is not exhaustive.
______________________________________________________________________
1 The sponsor department also has less control as each NMD has its own budget, Estimate and annual accounts. So if a ministerial department transfers work to an NMD, there is a greater risk of excess votes in each. 7.2: framework terms for partnership agreements
**purpose**
- The aims of the relationship and its working remit.
- Its standards, key objectives and targets.
**governance and accountability**
- The legal relationship, including any financial or other limits.
- Any statutory requirements relating to the functions of the partnership.
- The governance of any ALB: its board structure, how its members are appointed (and disappointed). How the partnership should work, eg regular meetings of senior people.
- The extent to which any department is responsible to parliament for the conduct of a partner (essential for partnerships between departments and ALBs).
- Any other important features of the sponsorship role of the public sector partner, eg acting as intelligent shareholder or consulting third parties.
- How any relationships with departments other than the sponsor should operate.
- Any arrangements for regular reporting on performance to the public and/or parliament.
- Plans for any evolution (eg into a mutual) after a period of ALB status.
- Any arrangements for successor activity, eg establishing similar partnerships elsewhere.
**decision making**
- How strategic decisions about the future of the partnership will be made, with timetable, terms for intervention, break points, dispute resolution procedures, termination process.
- How the chain of responsibility should work, eg stewardship reporting, keeping track of efficiency, risk assessment, project appraisal, management of interdependencies.
- How the partnership will identify, manage and track opportunities and risks.
- The status of the staff; and how they are to be hired, managed and remunerated.
- How any professional input (eg medical, scientific) is to be managed and quality assured.
- Arrangements for taking stock of performance and learning lessons from it.
- Arrangements for intervention when necessary.
**financial management**
- The financial relationship of the partners, eg:
- any founding capital (including assets, goods, financial sums or other valuables)
- any periodic grants and their terms
- how the partnership’s corporate plan and annual target(s) are to be agreed
- how asset management and capital projects are to be decided and managed
- how cashflow is to be managed, and current expenditure financed
- the distribution of income and profit flows
- any financial targets, eg return on capital employed (ROCE)
- how any charges to customers or users are to be set
- any agreed limits on the partnership’s business.
- Monitoring, financial reporting, regular liaison and any other tracking arrangements.
- Internal and external audit arrangements, with any relevant accounts directions.
- Arrangements for consolidation of accounts (essential for ALBs) 7.3.2 In framing founding documentation, the partners should adopt a proportionate approach. Parliament expects that public funds will be used in a way that gives reasonable assurance that public resources will be used to deliver the intended objectives.
7.3.3 In this process the aim should be to put the accounting officers of the parties in a position to take a well informed view on the current status of the relationship, enabling timely adjustments to be made as necessary. It is good practice to develop structured arrangements for regular dialogue between the parties to avoid misunderstandings and surprises.
7.3.4 Further advice about framework documents is in annex 7.2. It is important that such documents fit the business to which they relate (rather than following precedent or copying a standard model).
7.4 Agencies
7.4.1 Each agency is either part of a central government department or a department in its own right. Agencies are intended to bring professionalism and customer focus to the management and delivery of central government services, operating with a degree of independence from the centre of their home departments. Some are also trading funds (see section 7.8).
7.4.2 Each agency is established with a framework document on the lines sketched out in box 7.2. With the exception of those agencies which are trading funds (see section 7.8), they are normally funded through public expenditure supplied by Estimates. Departments should consult the Treasury and Cabinet Office about the preparation of their framework documents.
7.5 Departments working together
7.5.1 To promote better delivery and enhance efficiency, departments often find it useful to work with other government departments (or ALBs). This can make sense where responsibilities overlap, or both operate in the same geographical areas or with the same client groups - arrangements loosely categorised as joined up government. Such arrangements can offer opportunities for departments to reduce costs overall while each partner plays to its strengths.
7.5.2 Such relationships can be constituted in a number of different ways. Some models are sketched in box 7.3. The list is not exhaustive.
**Box 7.3: examples of joined up activities in central government**
- one partner can act as lead provider selling services (such as IT, HR, finance functions) to other(s) as customers, operating under service level agreement(s)
- cost sharing arrangements for common services (eg in a single building), allocated in line with an indicator such as numbers of staff employed or areas of office space occupied
- joint procurement using a collaborative protocol
- a joint venture project with its own governance, eg an agency or wholly owned company, selling services to a number of organisations, some or all of which may be public sector
- an outsourced service, delivering to several public sector customers
7.5.3 Shared services often need funding to set up infrastructure, eg to procure IT. This could be agreed in a spending review, or customers could buy in to the partnership by transferring budget provision to the lead provider. Each of the accounting officers involved should be satisfied that the project offers value for money for the Exchequer as a whole. The provider’s charges should be at cost, following the standard fees and charges rules (see chapter 6).
7.5.4 In any joint activity, there must be a single accounting officer so that the lines of responsibility are clear. If the PAC decides to investigate, the accounting officers of each of the participants should expect to be summoned as witnesses.
7.6 Non-departmental public bodies
7.6.1 Non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) may take a number of legal forms, including corporates and charities. Most executive NDPBs have a bespoke structure set out in legislation or its equivalent (eg a Royal Charter(^2)). This may specify in some detail what task(s) the NDPB is to perform, what its powers are, and how it should be financed. Sometimes primary legislation contains powers for secondary legislation to set or vary the detail of the NDPB’s structure. Annex 7.1 has links to more about NDPBs.
7.6.2 Each NDPB is a special purpose body charged with responsibility for part of the process of government. Each has a sponsor department with general oversight of its activity. The sponsor department’s report and accounts consolidates its NDPBs’ financial performance.
7.6.3 NDPBs show considerable variety of structures and working methods, with scope for innovation and customisation. Some NDPBs may also need to work with other organisations as well as with their sponsor. All this should be documented in the framework document (see annex 7.2).
7.6.4 NDPBs’ sources of finance vary according to their constitution and function. Box 7.4 shows the main options available.
**Box 7.4: sources of finance for NDPBs**
- specific conditional grant(s) from the sponsor department (and/or other departments)
- general (less conditional) grant-in-aid from the sponsor department
- income from charges for any goods or services the NDPB may sell
- income from other dedicated sources, eg lottery funding
- public dividend capital
7.6.5 In practice NDPBs always operate with some independence and are not under day-to-day ministerial control. Nevertheless, ministers are ultimately accountable to parliament for NDPBs’ efficiency and effectiveness. This is because ministers: are responsible for NDPBs’ founding legislation; have influence over NDPBs’ strategic direction; (usually) appoint their boards; and retain the ultimate sanction of winding up unsatisfactory NDPBs.
7.7 Public corporations
7.7.1 Some departments own controlling shareholdings in public corporations or Companies Act companies, perhaps (but not necessarily) as a step toward disposal. Public corporations’ powers are usually defined in statute; but otherwise all the disciplines of corporate legislation
(^2) This route is no longer used - see Section 2.5. apply. The Shareholder Executive, which specialises in strategic management of corporates, may be a good way of managing departments’ responsibilities as shareholders.
7.7.2 Sponsor departments should define any contractual relationship with a corporate in a framework document adapted to suit the corporate context while delivering public sector disciplines. The financial performance expected should give the shareholder department a fair return on the public funds invested in the business. Box 7.5 offers suggestions. This approach may also be appropriate for a trading fund, especially if it is to become a Companies Act company in time.
7.7.3 A shareholder department may also use a company it owns as a contractor or supplier of goods or services. It is a good discipline to separate decisions about the company’s commercial performance from its contractual commitments, so avoiding confusion about objectives. So there should be clear arm’s length contracts between the company and its customer departments defining the customer-supplier relationship(s).
Box 7.5: outline terms for a relationship with a public corporation
- the shareholder’s strategic vision for the business, including the rationale for public ownership and the public sector remit of the business
- the capital structure of the business and the agreed dividend regime, with suitable incentives for business performance
- the business objectives the enterprise is expected to meet, balancing policy, customer, shareholder and any regulatory interests
- the department’s rights and duties as shareholder, including:
- governance of the business
- procedure for appointments (and disappointments)
- financial and performance monitoring
- any necessary approvals processes
- the circumstances of, and rights upon, intervention
- details of any other relationships with any other parts of government
7.8 Trading funds
7.8.1 All trading funds are public corporations. Their activities are not consolidated with their sponsor departments’ business. They must finance their operations from trading activity.
7.8.2 Each trading fund is set up through an order subject to affirmative resolution. Before an order can be laid in parliament, the Treasury needs to be satisfied that a proposed trading fund can satisfy the statutory requirement that its business plan is sustainable without additional funding in the medium term. A period of shadow operation as a pilot trading fund may help inform this assessment.
7.8.3 Each trading fund must be financed primarily from its trading income. In particular, each trading fund is expected to generate a financial return commensurate with the risk of the business in which it is engaged. In practice this means the target rate of return should be no lower than its cost of capital. The actual return achieved may vary a little from one year to the next, reflecting the market in which the trading fund operates.
7.8.4 The possible sources of capital for trading funds are shown in box 7.6. They are designed to give trading funds freedom from the discipline of annual Estimate funding. The actual mix for a given trading fund must be agreed with the sponsor department (if there is one) and with the Treasury, subject to any agreed limits, eg on borrowing.
7.8.5 Further detail about trading funds is in annex 7.3. Guidance on setting charges for the goods and services trading funds sell is in chapter 6.
**Box 7.6: sources of capital for trading funds**
- public dividend capital (equivalent to equity, bearing dividends - see annex 7.4)
- reserves built up from trading surpluses
- long or short term borrowing (either voted from a sponsor department or borrowed from the National Loans Fund if the trading fund is a department in its own right)
- temporary subsidy from a sponsor department, voted in Estimates
- finance leases
7.9 Non-ministerial departments
7.9.1 A very few central government organisations are non-ministerial departments (NMDs). It is important that there is some clear rationale for this status in each case.
7.9.2 NMDs do not answer directly to any government minister. They have their own accounting officers, their own Estimates and annual reports, and settle their budgets directly with the Treasury. However, some ministerial department must maintain a watching brief over each NMD so that a minister of that department can answer for the NMD’s business in parliament; and if necessary take action to adjust the legislation under which it operates. A framework document should define such a relationship.
7.9.3 This limited degree of parliamentary accountability must be carefully justified. It can be suitable for a public sector organisation with professional duties where ministerial input would be inappropriate or detrimental to its integrity. But the need for independence is rarely enough to justify NMD status. It is possible to craft arrangements for NDPBs which confer robust independence. Where this is possible it provides better parliamentary accountability, and so is to be preferred.
7.10 Local government
7.10.1 A number of central government departments make significant grants to local authorities. Some of these are specific (ring fenced). Most are not, allowing local authorities to set out their own priorities.
7.10.2 Nevertheless parliament expects assurances that such decentralised funds are used appropriately, ie that they are spent with economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and not wasted nor misused. The quality of the assurance available differs from that expected of central government organisations because local authorities’ prime accountability is to their electorates.
7.10.3 For these relationships a framework document is not usually the most fruitful approach. Instead. Central government departments should draw up an annual account of how their accounting officers assure themselves that grants to local government are distributed and spent appropriately; and how underperformance can be dealt with. This account forms part of the governance statement in the report and accounts of each department affected (see annex 3.1).
7.10.4 Similar considerations apply to the NHS and centrally funded schools. 7.11 Innovative structures
7.11.1 Sometimes central government departments have objectives which more easily fit into bespoke structures suited to the business in hand, or to longer range plans for the future of the business. Such structures might, for example, include various types of mutual or partnership.
7.11.2 Proposals of this kind are by definition novel and thus require explicit Treasury consent. In each case, proposals are judged on their merits against the standard public sector principles after examining the alternatives, taking account of any relevant experience. The Treasury will always need to understand why one of the existing structures will not serve: eg the NDPB format has considerable elasticity in practice. Boxes 4.8 and 7.2 may help with this analysis.
7.12 Outsourcing
7.12.1 Public sector organisations often find it satisfactory and cost effective to outsource some services or functions rather than provide them internally. Candidates have included cleaning, security, catering and IT support. A wider range of services is potentially suitable for this treatment. Innovative approaches should be explored constructively.
7.12.2 The first step in setting up any outsourcing agreement should be to specify the service(s) to be provided and the length of contract to be sought. At that stage it is usually desirable to draw up an outline business case to help evaluate whether outsourcing makes financial and operational sense. Any decision to outsource should then be made to achieve value for money for the Exchequer as a whole.
7.12.3 It is good practice to arrange some form of competition for all outsourcing, as for other kinds of procurement. In most cases, it is legally essential to open the competition to all firms in the EU (see annex 4.7). If services are likely to be required at short notice - for example legal services for advice on opportunities, threats or other business pressures which emerge with little warning - it is good practice to arrange a competition to establish a standing panel of providers whose members can be called upon to deal with rapidly emerging needs.
7.12.4 Contracting out does not dissolve responsibility. Public sector organisations using a contractor should set in place systems to track and manage performance under the contract. It may be appropriate to plan for penalties for disruption and/or failure if the contractor cannot deliver. The PAC may need to be satisfied that the arrangements for contracting out entail sufficient accountability for the use of public funds.
7.13 Private finance
7.13.1 Where properly constructed and managed, public sector organisations can use private finance arrangements to construct assets and/or deliver services with good value for money. Structured arrangements where the private sector puts its own funds at risk can help deliver projects on time and within budget.
7.13.2 It is important to carry out a rigorous value for money analysis to determine whether these benefits are likely to exceed the additional cost of using private finance. Contracting organisations should also make sure that they are able to afford such arrangements over their working lifetimes, taking account, as far as possible, of the risk of difficult future financial environments. It is not good practice to embark on a private finance arrangement if it is dependent on other separate financial transactions taking place during the project’s lifetime. 7.13.3 Procurement using private finance is a flexible, versatile and often effective technique, so it should be considered carefully as a procurement option. Contracts should normally be built up using standard terms and guidance published by the Treasury (see Annex 7.4). Departure from standard guidance needs to be approved by the Treasury.
7.14 Commercial activity
7.14.1 When public bodies have assets which are not fully used but are to be retained, it is good practice to consider exploiting the spare capacity to generate a commercial return in the public interest. This is essentially part of good asset management.
7.14.2 Any kind of public sector asset can and should be considered. Candidates include both physical and intangible assets, for example land, buildings, equipment, software and intellectual property (see annex 4.15). A great variety of business models is possible.
7.14.3 Such commercial services always go beyond the public sector supplier’s core duties. Because these assets concerned have been acquired with public funds, it is important that services are priced fairly: see chapter 6. It is also important to respect the rules on state aids: see annex 4.7. Central government organisations should work through the checklist at box 7.7.
Box 7.7: planning commercial exploitation of existing assets
- define the service to be provided
- establish that any necessary vires and (if necessary) Estimate provision exist
- identify any prospective business partners and run a selection process
- if the proposed activity is novel, contentious, or likely to set a precedent elsewhere, obtain Treasury approval
- take account of the normal requirements for propriety, regularity and value for money
7.14.4 While it makes sense to make full use of assets acquired with public resources, such activity should not squeeze out, or risk damaging, a public sector organisation’s main objectives and activities. Similarly, it is not acceptable to acquire assets just for the purpose of engaging in, or extending, commercial activity. If a public sector supplier’s commercial activity demands further investment to keep it viable, reappraisal is usually appropriate. This should consider alternatives such as selling the business, licensing it, bringing in private sector capital, or seeking other way(s) of exploiting the underused potential in the assets or business.
7.14.5 It is a matter of judgement when departments should inform parliament of the existence, or growth, of significant commercial ventures. It is good practice to consult the Treasury in good time on this point so that parliament can be kept properly informed and not misled.
7.15 Working with civil society bodies
7.15.1 Central government organisations may find they can deliver their objectives effectively through relationships with civil society bodies: ie charities, social, voluntary or community institutions, mutual organisation, social enterprises or other not-for-profit organisations. Such partnerships can achieve more than either the public or the civil society sector can deliver alone. For example, using a civil society sector organisation can provide better insight into demand for, and suitable means of delivery of public services. 7.15.2 It is good practice to plan relationships with civil society partners through a framework document, as with other partnerships. Some guidelines on how these relationships can work well in harmony with policy and spending decisions are in the Civil Society Compact³.
7.15.3 In this kind of relationship a public sector organisation may fund activities, make grants, lend assets, or arrange other transfers to a civil society sector body performing or facilitating delivery of services. It is desirable to build in safeguards to ensure that resources are used as intended (see annex 5.2). This gives parliament confidence that voted resources are used for the purposes it has approved.
7.15.4 The safeguards to be applied should be agreed at the start of the relationship. Customisation in nearly always essential. It is often right to require clawback, ie to agree terms in which public sector donors reclaim the proceeds if former publicly owned assets are sold.
______________________________________________________________________
Annex 7.1 Forming and reforming ALBs Annex 7.2 Drawing up framework documents Annex 7.3 Trading funds Annex 7.4 Using private finance
³ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/compact-the-agreement-between-government-and-the-voluntary-community-sector Annex 1.1 The Comptroller and Auditor General
Supported by staff of the National Audit Office (NAO), the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) is the independent auditor of nearly all central government institutions. Using extensive statutory rights of access to records, the C&AG provides direct advice and assurance to Parliament.
A1.1.1 The C&AG is an officer of the House of Commons appointed by The Queen. He or she is responsible for the audit of most central government institutions. This work is carried out under his or her direction by NAO staff (see www.nao.org.uk) or by contracting out. NAO is in the public sector but independent of central government.
A1.1.2 The C&AG is appointed for a single non-renewable term of ten years; and can only be removed from office by The Queen on an address by both Houses of Parliament. In carrying out the statutory duties of the post, the C&AG is supported by the NAO’s statutory board, which sets the strategic direction of the NAO. But the C&AG makes independent judgements, including on which studies to carry out and how.
A1.1.3 The NAO is financed by an Estimate presented by its board to the Public Accounts Commission (TPAC), a select committee of the House of Commons. NAO’s expenditure may include some non-statutory functions, if TPAC approves them.
Audit
A1.1.4 In order to carry out financial audit work, the C&AG has extensive statutory rights of access to information held by a wide range of public sector organisations. This material is also required to compile Whole of Government Accounts, and extends to the records of many contractors and recipients of grants. The C&AG also has a right to obtain information about, and explanations of, any of this evidence.
A1.1.5 The C&AG is responsible for the financial audit of virtually all central government organisations, both their expenditure and revenue, and reports on them to Parliament. The C&AG’s audits may include corporate organisations, where appropriate. Financial audits are carried out in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland).
A1.1.6 In addition, the C&AG may carry out audits of particular areas of central government expenditure to establish whether public funds have been used economically, efficiently and effectively. Selection of these value for money (vfm) studies is the responsibility of the C&AG alone. The C&AG has the same level of access for vfm examinations as for financial audit.
A1.1.7 The C&AG does not normally need access to policy papers such as Cabinet, or Cabinet Committee, papers. Public sector organisations should cooperate with NAO requests for access to information, irrespective of its classification or other sensitivity. It can be important to work closely with NAO to avoid publication of any information too sensitive for publication.
A1.1.8 The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) may decide to examine witnesses on both financial and vfm studies. The PAC may also initiate other hearings on related matters. The Comptroller function
A1.1.9 A small but important part of the C&AG’s responsibilities is oversight of payments from the Consolidated Fund and the National Loans Fund. In response to requests from the Treasury, NAO staff establish that the sums paid out of these funds each business day are made in accordance with legislation. Once the authorisations (credits) are given, the Treasury may make drawings from these funds to finance the Exchequer’s commitments. Annex 2.1 Treasury approval of legislation
This annex sets out how departments should clear proposed legislation with the Treasury where there are financial implications, either for expenditure or raising revenue. More detailed guidance on the preparation of legislation and the legislative process should be sought from departmental parliamentary clerks.
Consulting the Treasury
A2.1.1 When preparing legislation, departments must consult the Treasury:
• before any proposals for legislation with financial implications are submitted to ministers collectively for policy approval; • about any provisions included in legislation with financial and public service manpower implications; • on the terms of Money Resolutions and Explanatory Notes; and • subsequently about any changes that are proposed to the agreed financial provisions, eg during the legislation’s passage through Parliament.
A2.1.2 Departments should make sure that they achieve Treasury agreement early in the process and in any event before drafting instructions to Parliamentary Counsel are prepared.
Treasury consent
A2.1.3 All legislation with a financial dimension should provide for specific Treasury consents to any key changes in the implementation of the powers it contains. Examples of such triggers, all requiring ministerial decisions, are in box A2.1A. Treasury consent is required to protect the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in matters of finance or establishment.
A2.1.4 In principle, the Chancellor’s authority is protected by:
• the doctrine of the collective responsibility of ministers; • the need for Treasury approval of Estimates before they are presented to Parliament and before resources consumed or expenditure incurred can be charged on the Consolidated Fund;
but providing for statutory consent avoids any danger that the Chancellor might be committed to legislation he or she would not have agreed. Money resolutions
A2.1.5 A money resolution is required for legislation which creates a charge upon public funds, either by way of new resource expenditure or by remission of debt. Further advice on money resolutions should be sought from Parliamentary Clerks.
A2.1.6 The responsible department should clear the draft with the Treasury at official level. When agreed, the Treasury will arrange for a copy initialled by the Financial Secretary to be returned to Counsel.
Box A2.1A: examples of legislation matters which require explicit Treasury approval
- as a direct charge (a Consolidated Fund standing service), or
- indirectly, ie “out of monies to be provided by Parliament” (through Estimates):
- expenditure proposals affecting public expenditure as defined in the current public expenditure planning total, eg rates of grant
- contingent liabilities, including powers to issue indemnities or to give guarantees
- loans taken from the National Loans Fund (NLF)- provisions for writing off NLF debt
- use of public dividend capital (PDC)- provisions involving the assets and liabilities of the CF and NLF- borrowing powers
- fees and charges, including changes in coverage
- the form of government accounts and associated audit requirements
- public service manpower
- pay and conditions (eg superannuation and early severance terms) of civil servants pay and conditions of board members of statutory organisations
- creation of (or alteration to) new statutory bodies and related financial arrangements
- provisions affecting grant recipients, including grants in aid
- provisions on audit usually giving the C&AG right of access
Ways and Means resolutions
A2.1.7 A ways and means resolution is required in the House of Commons where legislation directs the payment of money raised from the public to the Consolidated Fund (this technically constitutes the raising of money for the Crown to spend). Some legislation may require both a money resolution and a ways and means resolution.
A2.1.8 Departments should clear ways and means resolutions with the Treasury. Further advice should be sought from parliamentary clerks.
Explanatory Notes
A2.1.9 Except for finance, consolidation and tax law rewrite bills, departments should prepare explanatory notes for all government bills. The main items to be covered are set out in box A2.1B. Guidance on preparation is on the Cabinet Office website.
______________________________________________________________________
1 By virtue of Standing Order 49 of the House of Commons 2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-making-legislation Box A2.1B: legislation authorising expenditure: explanatory notes
1. financial effects of the legislation: • estimates of expenditure expected to fall on
- the Consolidated Fund (CF), distinguishing between Consolidated Fund standing services and
- charges to be met from Supply Estimates; or the National Loans Fund (NLF) • estimates of any other financial consequences for total public expenditure (i.e. in addition to costs which would fall on the CF or NLF) as defined in the current public-expenditure planning total; • estimates of any effects on local government expenditure
2. effects of the legislation on public service manpower: • forecasts of any changes (or postponement of changes) to staff numbers in government departments expected to result from the legislation; • forecasts of the likely effects to other public service manpower levels, for example in non-departmental public bodies and local authorities. Annex 2.2 Delegated authorities
This annex expands on the requirement for departments to obtain Treasury consent to their public expenditure and the process of delegated authorities.
A2.2.1 Treasury approval for expenditure is one aspect of the established understanding convention that Parliament expects the Treasury to control all other departments in matters of finance and public expenditure. Accounting officers are responsible (see first bullet of paragraph 3.3.3) for ensuring that prior Treasury approval is obtained in all cases where it is needed.
A2.2.2 The need for Treasury approval embraces all the ways in which departments might make public commitments to expenditure, not just Estimates or legislation, important as they are. Box A2.2A identifies the main ways in which the need can arise. It may not be exhaustive.
Box A2.2A: where Treasury approval is required
- public statements or other commitments to use of public resources beyond the agreed budget plans
- guarantees, indemnities or letters of comfort creating contingent liabilities
- any proposals outside the department’s delegated limits
- all expenditure which is novel, contentious or repercussive, irrespective of size, even if it appears to offer value for money taken in isolation
- where legislation requires it
- fees and charges
Where Treasury approval has been overlooked, the case should immediately be brought to the Treasury’s attention.
A2.2.3 Treasury approval:
- must be confirmed in writing, even where initially given orally;
- cannot be implied in the absence of a reply;
- must be sought in good time to allow reasonable consideration before decisions are required.
A2.2.4 Departmental ministers should be made aware when Treasury consent is required in addition to their own.
Delegation
A2.2.5 Formally, Treasury consent is required for all expenditure or resource commitments. In practice, the Treasury delegates to departments’ authority to enter into commitments and to spend within predefined limits without specific prior approval from the Treasury (but see A.2.2.12 for exceptions). Delegated authorities may also allow departments to enter into commitments to spend (eg contingent liabilities) and to deal with special transactions (such as some write-offs) without prior approval.
A2.2.6 Such delegated authorities strike a balance between the Treasury's need for control in order to fulfil its responsibilities to Parliament and the department's freedom to manage within its agreed budget limits and Parliamentary provision.
A2.2.7 Departments should not take general Treasury approval of an Estimate as approval for specific proposals outside delegated limits even if provision for them is included in the Estimate.
A2.2.8 The Treasury may also work through the Cabinet Office to set certain expenditure controls applicable across central government.
Setting delegated authorities
A2.2.9 The standard terms for inclusion in delegated authorities are set out in box A2.2B. It is best to set these out in a single document. Departments should appreciate that delegated authorities for certain kinds of expenditure can be modified or removed entirely if the Treasury is not satisfied that the department is using them responsibly.
A2.2.10 In establishing delegated authorities, the Treasury will:
- agree with the department how it will take spending decisions (e.g. criteria and/or techniques for investment appraisal, project management and later evaluation);
- establish a mechanism for checking the quality of the department's decision-taking (e.g. by reviewing cases above a specified limit, or giving full delegation but requiring a schedule of completed cases of which a sample may be examined subsequently); and
- encourage delegation of authority within the department to promote effective financial management. In general, authority should be delegated to the point where decisions can be taken most efficiently. It is for the accounting officer to determine how authority should be delegated to individual managers.
Box A2.2B: standard terms for delegated authorities
- a clear description of each item delegated
- the extent of each delegation, usually in financial terms, but potentially also in qualitative terms, eg all items of a certain kind to require approval
- any relevant authorities, eg the enabling legislation or letter from a Treasury minister
- the relevant budget provision
- the relevant section of the department’s Estimate
- any effective dates
- arrangements for review.
A2.2.11 In turn departments should agree delegated authorities with their arm’s length bodies. Delegations to ALBs should be no greater than departments’ own delegated authorities. In some
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/cabinet-office-controls cases express Treasury agreement may be required for some of their expenditure, eg very large projects.
A2.2.12 There are some areas of expenditure and resource commitments which the Treasury cannot delegate: see box A.2.2C.
Box A2.2C: where authority is never delegated
- items which are novel, contentious or repercussive, even if within delegated limits
- items which could exceed the agreed budget and Estimate limits
- contractual commitments to significant spending in future years for which plans have not been set
- items requiring primary legislation (eg to write off NLF debt or PDC)
- any item which could set a potentially expensive precedent
- where Treasury consent is a specific requirement of legislation
A2.2.13 Strictly, the Treasury cannot delegate its power of approval where there is a statutory requirement for Treasury approval. But in practice it can be acceptable to set detailed and objective criteria where Treasury approval can be deemed without specific examination of each case. This may be appropriate to avoid a great deal of detailed case-by-case assessment. The Treasury may ask for intermittent sampling to check that this arrangement is operating satisfactorily.
Failure to obtain Treasury authority
A2.2.14 All expenditure which falls outside a department’s delegated authority and has not been approved by the Treasury, is irregular. It cannot be charged to departmental Estimates. Similarly, any resources committed or expenditure incurred in breach of a condition attached to Treasury approval is irregular.
A2.2.15 Where resource consumption or expenditure is irregular, the Treasury may be prepared to give retrospective approval if it is satisfied that:
- it would have granted approval had it been approached properly in the first place; and
- the department is taking steps to ensure that there is no recurrence.
Requests for retrospective approval should follow the same format as requests submitted on time.
A2.2.16 If the Treasury does not give retrospective approval or authorise write-off of irregular expenditure, the department must inform the NAO. The Treasury may also draw the matter to the attention of the responsible accounting officer. The C&AG may then qualify his or her opinion on the account and the PAC may decide to hold an oral hearing. In the case of voted expenditure, the Treasury will present an excess vote to Parliament to regularise the situation.
A2.2.17 It is unlawful to commit resources or incur expenditure without Treasury consent, where such consent is required by statute. In such cases retrospective consent cannot confer legality. Such consumption cannot, therefore, be regularised.
A2.2.18 In cases of unlawful expenditure, the responsible accounting officer must note the department’s accounts accordingly and notify the NAO. It will then be for the C&AG to decide whether to report on the matter to Parliament with the relevant accounts and whether to draw it to the attention of the PAC.
A2.2.19 The C&AG and the Treasury cooperate closely on questions of authority for expenditure. The C&AG may bring a department’s attention to any cases where the department:
- has ignored or wrongly interpreted a Treasury ruling;
- is attempting to rely on a mistaken delegated authority, eg where the delegation has been changed or where consent was given orally only;
- has committed resources or incurred expenditure which the Treasury might not have approved had it been consulted.
A2.2.20 Departments should bring such cases to the attention of the Treasury, indicating clearly the NAO interest. The Treasury and NAO keep each other in touch with such cases. Chapter 2 explains that Parliament expects both specific legislation and Parliamentary authority for each year’s expenditure to be in place for continuing expenditure. It expects the Treasury to police this requirement. This annex sets Parliament’s concerns in context.
A2.3.1 The PAC has had long standing concerns about how the government gains authority from Parliament for each area of spending.
A2.3.2 In the mid 19th century it became customary for governments to gain Parliamentary authority for some areas of expenditure simply by use of the Contingencies Fund, without troubling to obtain specific powers for them. Shortly after its formation in 1862, the PAC protested about this practice, partly because it involved less stringent audit. It urged that the Contingencies Fund should be used only for in-year funding of pressing needs, and that all continuing and other substantive spending should be submitted to the Estimates process with due itemisation.
A2.3.3 By 1885 the PAC had become concerned that the authority of the Estimate and its successor Appropriation Act was not really sufficient either:
“… cannot accept the view in a legal, still less in a financial, sense that the distinct terms of an Act of Parliament may be properly overridden by a Supplementary Estimate supported by the Appropriation Act … this matter … is one of great importance from a constitutional point of view …”
A2.3.4 While the Treasury agreed in principle, the practice did not die out because in 1908 the PAC again complained:
“… while it is undoubtedly within the discretion of Parliament to override the provisions of an existing statute by a vote in Supply confirmed by the Appropriation Act, it is desirable in the interests of financial regularity and constitutional consistency that such a procedure should be resorted to as rarely as possible, and only to meet a temporary emergency”.
A2.3.5 The PAC reverted to the issue in 1930 and again in 1932, citing a number of cases involving various departments. It was concerned to specify how far an annual Appropriation Act could be regarded as sufficient authority for the exercise of functions by a government department in cases where no other specific statutory authority exists. It took the view that:
“… where it is desired that continuing functions should be exercised by a government department, particularly where such functions may involve financial liabilities extending beyond a given financial year, it is proper, subject to certain recognised exceptions, that the powers and duties to be exercised should be defined by specific statute”.
A2.3.6 In reply, the Treasury Minute said:
“… while it is competent to Parliament, by means of an annual vote embodied in the Appropriation Acts, in effect to extend powers specifically limited by statute, constitutional propriety requires that such extensions should be regularised at the earliest possible date by amending legislation, unless they are of a purely emergency or non-continuing character”.
“… while … the Executive Government must continue to be allowed a certain measure of discretion in asking Parliament to exercise a power which undoubtedly belongs to it, they agree that practice should normally accord with the view expressed by the Committee that, where it is desired that continuing functions should be exercised by a government department (particularly where such functions involve financial liabilities extending beyond a given year) it is proper that the powers and duties to be exercised should be defined by specific statute. The Treasury will, for their part, continue to aim at the observance of this principle”.
A2.3.7 With this Concordat, the matter still lies.
A2.3.8 Use of the Supply and Appropriation Acts as authority for expenditure is discussed in annex 2.4. Chapter 2 outlines how public spending is authorised by parliament, controlled by the Treasury, and accounted for in public. This annex explores some limited exceptions to the rule that all spending should rest on specific legislation.
A2.4.1 Chapter 2 (box 2.1) sets out the essential conditions for authorisation of public spending. New services are exceptions, ie services for which parliament would normally expect to provide authorising legislation but has not yet done so. They can include altering the way in which an existing service is delivered as well as services not previously delivered.
When the Supply and Appropriation Act suffices
A2.4.2 Notwithstanding the general rules ion box 2.1, in some circumstances it is not necessary to have specific enabling legislation in place. Parliament accepts that agreement to the Estimate(^1) is sufficient authority for the kinds of expenditure listed in boxes 2.5 or 2.6. The content of these boxes is reproduced in box A2.4A. They can all be considered part of business as usual.
Box A2.4A: Expenditure parliament accepts may rest on a Supply and Appropriations Act
- routine administration costs: employment costs, rent, cleaning etc;
- lease agreements, eg for photocopiers;
- expenditure using prerogative powers, notably defence of the realm and international treaty obligations;
- temporary services or continuing services of low cost, provided that there is no specific legislation covering these matters before parliament and existing statutory restrictions are respected, specifically
- initiatives lasting no more than two years, eg a pilot study or one off intervention; or
- expenditure of no more than £1.75m a year (amount adjusted from time to time).
A2.4.3 It is important not to exceed these limits. The Treasury has agreed in the Concordat (see annex 2.3) to seek to make sure they are respected. So departments should consult the Treasury before relying upon them.
Anticipating a bill
A2.4.4 In addition, parliament is prepared to accept that departments may undertake certain preparatory work while a bill is under consideration and before royal assent. Examples are listed in box A2.4B.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) Which becomes a Supply and Appropriation Act once it has been through its parliamentary stages A2.4 New services
Box A2.4B: expenditure that can be incurred before royal assent
- pilot studies informing the choice of the policy option (because this process is part of designing, modifying or even deciding to abandon the policy);
- scoping studies designed to identify in detail the implications of a proposal in terms of staff numbers, accommodation costs and other expenditure to inform the legislative process;
- in-house project teams and/or project management boards;
- use of private sector consultants to help identify the chosen policy option, assist with scoping studies or other work informing the legislative process;
- work on the legislative process associated with the new service.
A2.4.5 Departments may be able to finance activities such as those in box A2.4B out of their existing resources. When this happens, departments should make sure that the ambit(^2) of the relevant Estimate covers the planned expenditure.
A2.4.6 It is also important to understand in which areas of new business parliament does expect the normal rigour for authorisation (box 2.1) to apply. For the avoidance of doubt, some examples are shown in box A2.4C.
Box A2.4C: expenditure which may not normally incurred before royal assent
- significant work associated with preparing for or implementing the new task enabled by a bill, eg renting offices hiring expert consultants or designing or purchasing significant IT equipment;
- recruitment of chief executives and board members of a new public sector organisation;
- recruitment of staff for a new public sector organisation.
Providing for a new service
A2.4.7 Some new services go well beyond the examples in box A2.4B. They include such things as paying a new grant, providing a new registration service, transforming the delivery of existing service or setting up a new public sector organisation. Even if a bill providing for a new service is before parliament, the activity the bill provides for cannot normally go ahead before royal assent. It is therefore good practice to plan the timetable for achieving the new service so that it is compatible with the bill timetable.
A2.4.8 Sometimes it is convenient to use a paving bill to provide the necessary powers to get a new service under way quickly. A paving bill can provide powers to allow expenditure which would be nugatory if the subsequent detailed legislation for the new service does not proceed, eg employing consultants to design a significant IT or regulatory system. Paving bills are usually short, though they may be contentious (and time consuming) as they can prompt parliamentary discussion of the underlying substance of the measure.
A2.4.9 Departments which do not use paving bills may want to make an early start on legislation contained in a bill during its passage through parliament. Usually the spending in question lacks both adequate statutory underpinning and authorisation in Estimates.
(^2) See para 3.9 of the Estimates’ Manual A2.4.10 In these circumstances there is a risk that allowing the spending to proceed might be wasteful if royal assent is not achieve as expected. So it is good practice to try to find other ways of making progress with the policy without anticipating royal assent.
A2.4.11 If, nevertheless, a department wants to spend early on matters to be empowered by a bill before parliament, it may make a claim for an advance from the Contingencies Fund with a plan to repay it out of the next Estimate when agreed(^3). The spending must meet the conditions in box A2.4D.
**Box A2.4D: Criteria for drawings on the Contingencies Fund**
- the bill in question must have reached second reading in the Commons; and
- the bill must be virtually certain to achieve royal assent with minimal change, preferably within a year; and
- genuine urgency in the public interest, ie where postponing expenditure until after royal assent would:
- cause additional wasteful expenditure or
- lose (not just defer) efficiency savings; or
- cause other damage or public detriment.
A2.4.12 The Treasury judges applications for access to the Contingencies Fund cautiously and on their merits. It is important to note that neither political imperative nor ministerial preference is relevant to making this assessment.
A2.4.13 In rare circumstances a Contingencies Fund advance may be awarded to make senior appointments to a new public sector body being set up under a bill. When this is allowed, the people appointed must be clear that if for any reason the legislation fails, the provisional appointments would have to be cancelled.
**Notifying parliament**
A2.4.14 The instances described in this annex all mean that parliament has less control over certain items of public expenditure than it would normally expect. Departments should therefore take great care to keep parliament informed of what is happening and why.
A2.4.15 A timely written ministerial statement giving the amounts involved and their timing is the essential minimum before Contingencies Fund resources can be released. If possible an oral explanation at second reading, or a separate oral statement, is desirable. In addition there should be:
- notes in the explanatory memorandum and impact assessment to the relevant bill; and
- notes in the relevant Estimate - especially important if a department wants to anticipate secondary legislation which a bill will empower.
A2.4.16 If the effect of the measure changes significantly, parliament should be given timely information to keep it abreast of developments.
(^3) See section 5.8 of the Estimates Manual A2.4 New services
A2.4.17 It is good practice to keep the Treasury informed of the disclosure intended. The Treasury pulls all information about anticipation of parliamentary agreement together and publishes it annually at the close of each session.
Directions
A2.4.18 The exceptions in this annex to the requirements of box 2.1 provide a lot of scope for pragmatic progress of essential government business. The advice in this annex may be regarded as judicious extensions of the requirements of propriety, and acceptable only if parliament is not misled.
A2.4.19 But sometimes even these easements are not enough. If the Accounting Officer is unable to design the minister’s policy to fit within the standards in this annex, he or she will need to seek a ministerial direction (see section 3.4). The usual rules about disclosure of course apply. Annex 3.1 The Governance Statement
It is fundamental to each accounting officer’s responsibilities to manage and control the resources used in his or her organisation. The governance statement, a key feature of the organisation’s annual report and accounts, manifests how these duties have been carried out in the course of the year. It has three components: corporate governance, risk management and, in the case of some departments, oversight of certain local responsibilities.
Purpose
A3.1.1 Each accounting officer (AO) delegates responsibilities within his or her organisation so as to control its business and meet the standards set out in box 3.1 (see chapter 3). The systems used to do this should give adequate insight into the business of the organisation and its use of resources to allow the AO to make informed decisions about progress against business plans and if necessary steer performance back on track. In doing this the AO is usually supported by a board.
A3.1.2 These responsibilities are central to the AO’s duties. To carry them out the AO needs to develop a keen sense of the risks and opportunities the organisation faces. In the light of the board’s assessment of the organisation’s appetite for risk, the AO needs to decide how to respond to the evolving perceived risks.
A3.1.3 The governance statement, for which the AO takes personal responsibility, brings together all these judgements about use of public resources as part of the annual report and accounts. It should give the reader a clear understanding of the dynamics and control structure of the business. Essentially, it records the stewardship of the organisation. Supplementing the accounts, it should provide a sense of the organisation’s vulnerabilities and resilience to challenges.
Preparing the governance statement
A3.1.4 The governance statement is published in each organisation’s annual report and accounts. It should be assembled from work through the year to gain assurance about performance and insight into the organisation’s risk profile, its responses to the identified and emerging risks and its success in tackling them.
A3.1.5 There is no set template for the governance statement.
A3.1.6 The AO and the board have a number of inputs into this process:
- the board’s annual review of its own processes and practices, informed by the views of its audit committee on the organisation’s assurance arrangements;
- insight into the organisation’s performance from internal audit, including an audit opinion on the quality of the systems of governance, management and risk control;
- feedback from the delegation chain(s) within the organisation about its business, its use of resources, its responses to risks, the extent to which in year budgets and other targets have been met, and any other internal accountability mechanisms; including:
- bottom-up information and assessments to generate a full appreciation of performance and risks as they are perceived from within the organisation;
- end-to-end assessments of processes, since it is possible to neglect interdependent and compounded risks if only the components are considered;
- a high level overview of the organisation’s business so that systemic risks can be considered in the round;
- any evidence from internal control failures or poor risk management;
- potentially, information from whistleblowers;
- material from any arm’s length bodies (ALBs) connected with the organisation which may shed light on the performance of the organisation or its board.
A3.1.7 It is important that the governance statement covers the material factors affecting the organisation in the round, not neglecting the more serious (if remote) risks, emerging technology and other cutting edge developments. It should also mention any protective security concerns in suitably careful terms, with details reported to the external auditor.
Content of governance statement
A3.1.8 With the board’s support, it is for the AO to decide how to:
- organise the governance statement;
- take account of input from within the organisation and from the board and its committees;
- where relevant, integrate information about the organisation’s ALBs, some of which may be material to the consolidated organisation;
- provide an explanation of how the department ensures that use of any resources granted to certain locally governed organisations (including the NHS) is satisfactory. See A3.1.12.
A3.1.9 Box A3.1A summarises subjects that should always be covered.
A3.1.10 All the items in this box are important. The risk assessment is critical. This is where the AO, supported by the board, should discuss how the organisation’s risk management and internal control mechanism work, and why they were chosen to deliver reasonable assurance about prevention, deterrent or other appropriate action to manage the actual and potential problems or opportunities facing the organisation. Avoiding lengthy description of process, it should assess the evidence about the effectiveness in practice of the risk management processes in place. In doing so it should face frankly up to any revealed deficiencies as risks have materialised.
______________________________________________________________________
1 Including the external risks identified in the National Risk Assessment 2 As set out in the Security Policy Framework Box A3.1A: essential features of the governance statement
- the governance framework of the organisation, including information about the board’s committee structure, its attendance records, and the coverage of its work;
- the board’s performance, including its assessment of its own effectiveness;
- highlights of board committee reports, notably by the audit and nomination committees;
- an account of corporate governance, including the board’s assessment of its compliance with the Corporate Governance Code, with explanations of any departures;
- information about the quality of the data used by the board, and why the board finds it acceptable;
- where relevant (for certain central government departments), an account of how resources made available to certain locally governed organisations are distributed and how the department gains assurance about their satisfactory use;
- a risk assessment (see annex 4.3), including the organisation’s risk profile, and how it is managed, including, subject to a public interest test:
- any newly identified risk
- a record of any ministerial directions given
- a summary of any significant lapses of protective security (eg data losses).
A3.1.11 In putting together the governance statement, the AO needs to take a view on the extent to which items are significant enough to the welfare of the organisation as a whole to be worth recording. There are no hard and fast rules about this. Some factors to take into account are suggested in box A3.1B.
Box A3.1B: deciding what to include in the governance statement
- might the issue prejudice achievement of the business plan? – or other priorities?
- could the issue undermine the integrity or reputation of the organisation?
- what view does the board’s audit committee take on the point?
- what advice or opinions have internal audit and/or external audit given?
- could delivery of the standards expected of the AO (box3.1) be at risk?
- might the issue make it harder to resist fraud or other misuse of resources?
- does the issue put a significant programme or project at risk?
- could the issue divert resources from another significant aspect of the business?
- could the issue have a material impact on the accounts?
- might national security or data integrity be put at risk?
Accounting officer system statements
A3.1.12 Government departments should include in their governance statements a summary account of how they achieve accountability for the grants they distribute to local government, schools, similar local government organisations and/or the NHS. It should cover:
- an account of how resources are distributed, eg in response to needs or desired change;
- how the AO gains assurance about probity in the use of public funds; • how the AO achieves or encourages value for money in the local use of grants, eg through local arrangements which provide incentives to achieve good value;
• the use the AO makes of disaggregated information about performance, including investigating apparent outliers and/or requiring those responsible locally to explain their results.
A3.1.13 This part of the governance statement should usually be backed by an accounting officer systems statement, which are published on gov.uk. Guidance on accounting officer system statements can be found online. The system statement must be clear on the core data and information flows that the system will rely on. An understanding of these core data requirements should be developed collaboratively with the entities to be included within the system statement and with users to meet the need for effective accountability locally and nationally.
A3.1.14 Accounting officer system statements should evolve to reflect improving practice. Where a Department proposes making major changes, it should contact Treasury and also consider consulting the relevant Parliamentary committees by providing them with a draft and the opportunity to comment.
External audit
A3.1.15 The organisation’s external auditor will review the governance statement for its consistency with the audited financial statement. The external auditor may report on:
• any inconsistency between evidence collected in the course of the audit and the discussion of the governance statement; and/or;
• any failure to meet the requirement to comply with or explain departures from the Corporate Governance Code or any other authoritative guidance.
______________________________________________________________________
3 See, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/accounting-officer-system-statements
4 See, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/626226/pu2074_accounting_officer_guidance_2017.pdf Annex 4.1 Finance Directors
It is government policy that all departments should have professional finance directors reporting to the permanent secretary with a seat on the departmental board, at a level equivalent to other board members. It is good practice for all other public sector organisations to do the same, and to operate to the same standards. This annex sets out the main duties and responsibilities of finance directors.
The finance function
A4.1.1 The finance director of a public sector organisation should:
- be professionally qualified;
- have board status equivalent to other board members;
- report directly to the permanent head of the organisation;
- be a member of the senior leadership team, the management board and the executive committee (and/or equivalent bodies).
A4.1.2 This demanding leadership role requires a persuasive and confident communicator with the stature and credibility to command respect and influence at all levels through the organisation. Its main features are described in box A4.1A. Many of the day-to-day responsibilities may in practice be delegated, but the finance director should maintain oversight and control. In large part these duties consist of ensuring that the financial aspects of the accounting officer’s responsibilities are carried through to the organisation and its arm’s length bodies (ALBs) in depth.
A4.1.3 The finance function should maintain a firm grasp of the organisation’s financial position and performance. Supporting the accounting officer, the finance director should ensure that there is sufficient expertise in depth, supported by effective systems, to discharge this responsibility and challenge those responsible for the organisation’s activities to account for their financial performance. It is important that financial management is taken seriously throughout each public sector organisation.
Financial leadership
A4.1.4 The finance director is responsible for leadership of financial responsibilities within the organisation and its ALBs. He or she should ensure that the information on which decisions about the use of resources are based is reliable. Box A4.2B explains some specific responsibilities of the role.
______________________________________________________________________
1 The term professional finance director in this context means both being a qualified member of one of the five bodies comprising the Consultative Committee of Accounting Bodies (CCAB) in the UK and Ireland, ie the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, or having equivalent professional skills and/or qualifications; and having relevant prior experience of financial management in either the private or the public sector. Box A4.1A: the role of the finance director
governance • financial leadership, both within the organisation and to its ALBs, at both a strategic and operational level • ensuring sound and appropriate financial governance and risk management • leading, motivating and developing the finance function, establishing its full commercial contribution to the business • planning and delivering the financial framework agreed with the Treasury or sponsoring organisation against the defined strategic and operational criteria • challenging and supporting decision makers, especially on affordability and value for money, by ensuring policy and operational proposals with a significant financial implication are signed-off by the finance function
internal controls • co-ordinating the planning and budgeting processes • applying discipline in financial management, including managing banking, debt and cash flow, with appropriate segregation of duties • preparation of timely and meaningful management information • ensuring that delegated financial authorities are respected • selection, planning and oversight of any capital projects • ensuring efficiency and value for money in the organisation’s activities • provision of information and advice to the Audit Committee • leading or promoting change programmes both within the organisation and its ALBs
external links • preparing Estimates, annual accounts and consolidation data for whole of government accounts • liaison with the external auditor • liaison with PAC and the relevant Select Committee(s)
Box A4.1B: financial management leadership
• providing professional advice and meaningful financial analysis enabling decision makers to take timely and informed business decisions • maintaining a long term financial strategy to underpin the organisation’s financial viability within the agreed framework • developing and maintaining an effective resource allocation model to optimise outputs • ensuring financial probity, regularity and value for money • developing and maintaining appropriate asset management and procurement strategies • reporting accurate and meaningful financial information about the organisation’s performance to ONS, parliament, the Treasury and the general public • setting the strategic direction for any commercial activities • acting as head of profession in the organisation Internal financial discipline
A4.1.5 The finance director should maintain strong and effective policies to control and manage use of resources in the organisation’s activities. This includes improving the financial literacy of budget holders in the organisation. Similarly, he or she should ensure that there are similar disciplines in the organisation’s ALBs. These should all draw on best practice in accounting and respect the Treasury’s requirements, including, where relevant, accounts directions. These responsibilities are described in box A4.1C.
Box A4.1C: financial control
- enforcing financial compliance across the organisation while guarding against fraud and delivering continuous improvement in financial control
- applying strong internal controls in all areas of financial management, risk management and asset control
- establishing budgets, financial targets and performance indicators to help assess delivery
- reporting performance of both the organisation and its ALBs to the board, the Treasury and other parties as required
- value management of long term commercial contracts
- ensuring that the organisation’s capital projects are chosen after appropriate value for money analysis and evaluation using the Green Book
A4.1.6 Individual finance director posts will of course have duties specific to their organisations and contexts in addition to those delineated in this annex. But all finance director posts should seek to operate to these standards as an essential minimum. Annex 4.2 Use of models
In modern government modelling is important. It can guide policy development; help determine implementation plans; and suggest how policies may evolve. Models should be controlled and understood in their proper context, with effective quality assurance, so that they can be used to good effect.
Control and governance
A4.2.1 Supported by the board, the accounting officer of a central government organisation should oversee the use and quality assurance (QA) of models within the organisation. There should be sufficient feedback for the accounting officer to be able to track progress and adjust the process.
A4.2.2 Each business critical model should be managed by a senior responsible officer (SRO) of sufficient seniority and experience, supported by experts and specialists, to understand the use of the model in context. Project and programme management techniques can be useful. It is good practice to avoid changing the SRO frequently.
A4.2.3 Each model is limited by the quality of its input data and founding assumptions. So the results of any model need to be treated with a degree of scepticism. It is vital to build sufficient governance into each model to help its users understand the value and weaknesses of its results. The apparent precision of mathematical models should not mislead uses into putting more weight on them than can be justified. Transparency should be the norm in the development and use of all models.
Quality assurance
A4.2.4 Whatever the complexity of the model, its governance should include an element of structured critical challenge to provide a sense check. It can take a number of forms: for example a steering group, a project board or outside assessment. New or untried models tend to require more QA than those using recognised techniques.
A4.2.5 In an organisation using a great deal of modelling, it is good practice for the accounting officer to appoint a QA champion. Effective QA demands dispassionate scrutiny by people disengaged with the project but with sufficient knowledge and experience to help steer the model into a successful approach. There may be a case for ensuring that different models in different parts of the organisation use consistent approaches.
A4.2.6 It is always good practice to evaluate the risks associated with any model so that the ultimate users of the model can appreciate what it can and cannot deliver. Sophisticated models may demand specialist expertise and leadership but the vital element of constructive lay oversight should never be skimped. Otherwise there can be a danger that flaws are overlooked because the experts concentrate on the technical complexities.
A4.2.7 In managing a model, the SRO should consciously decide how it can provide good value for money. There is no point, for instance, in data collection to a high degree of accuracy A4.2 Use of models
if the assumptions used in the model cannot be exact. Similarly, there is a stronger case for investing in a model if it forms a central part of a decision making process.
A4.2.8 References:
QA of government models: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-quality-assurance-of-government-models
Guidance on long term financial modelling: http://www.gad.gov.uk/services/Modelling/Modelling.html Each public sector organisation should have systems for identifying and managing risk – both opportunities and threats – suited to its business, circumstances and risk appetite. The board should lead the assessment and management of risk, and support the accounting officer in drawing up the governance statements (see annex 3.1).
The case for managing risk
A4.3.1 Every public sector organisation faces a variety of uncertainties, both positive and negative, which can affect its success in delivering its objectives, budget and value for money. So the board of each public sector organisation should actively seek to recognise both threats and opportunities, and to decide how to respond to them, including how to set internal controls.
A4.3.2 Managing risk should be integrated into the normal management systems of each public sector organisation so that it can achieve its goals and maintain a reputation of credibility and reliability. It is for each accounting officer (AO), supported by the board, to decide how.
A4.3.3 The board should make a strategic choice about the style, shape and quality of risk management within each organisation. This is risk tolerance, ie the extent to which the organisation is willing to accept loss or detriment either in the performance of its regular services or in order to secure better outcomes. Different risk tolerances will apply to different circumstances, eg mission critical programmes or policies might find service failure scarcely tolerable, whereas investment bodies may care more about achieving financial success even at the price of some failures. Boards should be willing to take a proportionate approach so that less important risks do not crowd out the vital ones.
Risk management in practice
A4.3.4 The board’s strategic guidance on risk appetite should permeate each organisation’s programmes, policies, processes and projects. It should determine how delegations and reporting arrangements work so that departures from plan can be picked up and dealt with promptly.
A4.3.5 Feedback from working level should also inform each board reassessment of risk. Thus risk management should be a continuous cycle of assessment and feedback, responding to new information and developments. The essentials of the process are summarised in box A4.3A.
A4.3.6 Each organisation should decide how this cycle should work, in line with its circumstances, priorities and working practices. The final word must always be for the AO supported by the board, taking a broad and connected view across the whole organisation. Box A4.3A: outline of the risk management cycle
1. The board defines the organisation’s risk tolerance.
2. The organisation identifies and categorises its risks.
3. The organisation assesses the risks identified: how likely their possible impact, identifying which are beyond tolerance and when.
4. The board scans the horizon for any remote overlooked risks.
5. The board decides which risks matter and what action should be taken, if any.
6. Downward delegation of management, coupled with upward reporting of risks through the organisation enables the board to track performance.
7. Using this feedback, the board takes a rounded overview, and may adjust decisions eg on tolerance or on response.
8. Back to step 1 and iterate as the board chooses.
Identifying risks
A4.3.7 It is important to capture all the organisation’s risks so that they can be evaluated properly in context.
A4.3.8 There is value in getting each part of the organisation to think through its own risks. At working level operational risks may loom large. It may only be at board level that it is really possible to scan the horizon for emerging trends, problems or opportunities that might change the organisation’s working environment. Some of the critical risks that are easily overlooked are shown in box 4.3B.
Box A4.3B: examples of risk which are easily missed
- **Information security** risks: unsecured digital information can be misplaced or copied.
- **High impact low probability** risks: remote risks with serious effect if they happen.
- **Opportunity** risks: where some choices may close off other alternatives.
- **End to end** risks: which emerge when an operational chain fails simultaneously in several places in a linked set of processes.
- **Inter-organisational** risks; which can cause failure of the organisation’s business because of links to partners, suppliers and other stakeholders.
- **Cumulative** risks: which happen if several risks precipitate at once, eg in response to the same trigger.
A4.3.9 As well as drawing on risk assessment from within the organisation, it may be valuable to use an external source to make sure that nothing important has been overlooked. Sometimes different public sector organisations can help each other out in this way, to their mutual advantage. And it can be useful to get staff to work together to consider the subject, eg in facilitated groups.
A4.3.10 Once the organisation’s risks have been identified, it is possible to draw up a risk register. This is a list of recognised risks which can be kept up to date and which the board can review regularly. Each organisation needs to decide how to prioritise its total risk exposure so that the board can take an informed strategic approach to risk for the organisation as whole. Responding to risk
A4.3.11 Each organisation needs to decide whether, and if so how, to respond to its identified risks. Some standard responses are listed in box A4.3C.
Box A4.3C: some standard responses to risk
**Treat**: a common response. Treatment can mean imposing controls so that the organisation can continue to operate; or setting up prevention techniques. See box 4.3D for possible treatments.
**Transfer**: another organisation might carry out an activity in which it is more expert. Insurance is not usually open to public sector organisations (see annex 4.4) but other forms of transfer are, eg using a payroll bureau. Some risks cannot be transferred, especially reputational risk. So delegating organisations should retain oversight of their agents, with scope for remedial action when necessary.
**Terminate**: it may be best to stop (or not to start) activities which involve intolerable risks or those where no response can bring the residual risk to a tolerable level, eg failing projects where it is cheaper to start again. This option is not always available in the public sector, which sometimes has to shoulder difficult risks – typically remote but potentially serious ones – which the private sector can choose to avoid.
**Tolerate**: for risks where the downside is containable with appropriate contingency plans; for some where the possible controls cannot be justified (eg because they would be disproportionate); and for unavoidable risks, eg terrorism.
**Take the opportunity**: boards may embrace some risks, accepting their downside perhaps with controls or preventative action, in the expectation of beneficial outcomes. Avoiding all risk can be as irresponsible as disregarding risk.
A4.3.12 In choosing responses, the acid test is whether the residual risk can be made acceptable after action. All controls should be realistic, proportionate to the intended reduction of risk, and offer good value for money. The more common types are listed in box A4.3D.
Box A4.3D: common controls
**Preventive action**: measures to eliminate or limit undesirable outcomes, eg improving training or risk awareness; or stopping transfer of digital information using datasticks. Beware of imposing unnecessary costs or damaging innovation.
**Corrective controls**: measures to deal with damaging aspects of realised risks, eg clauses to recover the cost of failure of a contract. Includes contingency planning.
**Directive controls**: measures designed to specify the way in which a process is carried out to rule out some obvious potential damage, eg hygiene requirements.
**Detective controls**: measures to identify damage so that it can be remedied quickly. Especially useful where prevention is not appropriate, but can be a useful cross check elsewhere, eg stock controls.
A4.3.13 However it is treated, it is usually impossible to eliminate all risk. It would often be poor value for money to do so were it possible. So it is good practice to associate application of controls with contingency planning to cope with resolution of damage when risks precipitate. Many organisations find it useful to dry run these plans: first to check that they work, second to make sure they are proportionate and third to boil out any unnecessary features they may have. The Board
A4.3.14 Risk management is a key governance task for the board. It should take a strategic view of risk in the organisation in the round, factoring together all the relevant input it can reasonably use. For example, it may consider to what extent risks interact, cumulate or cancel each other out. And consideration of risk should feature in all the board’s significant decisions.
A4.3.15 It is good practice for the board to consider risk regularly as part of its normal flow of management information about the organisation’s activities. It is good practice for each layer of management to give upward assurance about its performance, so reinforcing responsibility through the structure.
A4.3.16 It is up to each board to decide how frequently it wants to consider risk. Some set regular timetables to consider the whole risk register, while some choose to look at parts of the risk register in a regular sequence. Scrutiny of this kind enables the board to assess developments in context and make confident decisions about their relevance and significance.
A4.3.17 It is good practice for the board to make these assessments on the advice of its Audit Committee, though it should form its own view. Audit committees can also add value by chasing up implementation of the organisation’s responses to PAC reports. Each Audit Committee should be chaired by a non-executive board member, drawing on input from the organisation’s internal reporting and internal audit functions.
A4.3.18 Having weighed the identified risks, the board should also seek to distinguish unidentified risks, some of which may be remote. Box 4.3B offers some possibilities though it is not exhaustive. This process may lead the board to reconsider its strategy on risk tolerance.
A4.3.19 A useful focus of board risk work is supporting the AO in preparation of the governance statement for publication in its annual report (see annex 3.1). It should include an account of how the organisation has responded to risk and what it is doing both to contain and manage risk; and also to rise to opportunities.
A4.3.20 More generally, the board should make sure that lessons are learned from the organisation’s experience. This applies particularly to perceived failures, eg an unforeseen risk or a crystallised risk which turned out more damaging than expected. But it is equally true of successes, especially those where risk was managed well, to see whether there is anything to be gained by repeating effective techniques elsewhere.
A4.3.21 Finally, the board should consider whether the organisation’s risks are being treated appropriately. If damage has been prevented, it may be possible to adjust the existing response to risk to achieve equally successful results by less expensive or less invasive techniques, eg replacing physical controls with security cameras.
Departmental Groups
A4.3.22 Nearly all government departments sponsor one or more arm’s length bodies (ALBs) for which they take ultimate responsibility while allowing them a degree of (or sometimes considerable) independence (see chapter 7). The accounts of these ALBs are consolidated with their sponsor department’s accounts, emphasising that the sponsor stands behind them.
______________________________________________________________________
1 For example using enterprise risk management or an equivalent technique for embedding risk management in organisational management such as that on the Institute of Risk Management website http://www.theirm.org/knowledge-and-resources/online-resource-centre/enterprise-risk-management/erm-general/guide-to-enterprise-risk-management-protiviti-2006/ A4.3.23 It follows that each department board should consider the group’s risk profile including the businesses of its ALBs. The potential liabilities of some ALBs (eg in the nuclear field) can be so great that they may overshadow the department’s own, so this is essential hygiene.
A4.3.24 References:
The Orange Book: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/orange-book
Other Treasury risk guidance: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psr_governance_risk_riskguidance.htm
NAO report on Managing risks in government: http://www.nao.org.uk/report/managing-risks-in-government/
GAD’s practical guide to strategic risk management: http://www.gad.gov.uk/Knowledge_Centre/Strategic_Risk_Management.html Central government organisations should not generally take out commercial insurance because it is better value for money for the taxpayer to cover its own risks. However, there are some circumstances where commercial insurance is appropriate. This annex sets out the issues to be considered. This guidance applies to departments and their arms-length bodies.
A4.4.1 Central government organisations should not normally buy commercial insurance to protect against risk. Since the government can pool and spread its own risks, there is little need to pay the private sector to provide this service. In general it is cheaper for the government to cover its own risks.
A4.4.2 However, in certain circumstances, as part of forming a risk management strategy, the accounting officer in a public sector organisation may choose to purchase commercial insurance to protect certain parts of the organisation’s portfolio. Such decisions should always be made after cost benefit analysis in order to secure value for money for the Exchequer as a whole. Some acceptable reasons for using insurance are set out in box A4.4A.
Box A4.4A: where commercial insurance may be justified
- **Building insurance as a condition of the lease** and where the lessor will not accept an indemnity: commercial insurance may be taken out where the cost of accommodation, together with the cost of insurance, is more cost effective than other accommodation options.
- **Overall site insurance**: private sector contractors and developers usually take out a single-site insurance policy because it is cheaper than each individual party insuring themselves separately. So a client organisation may be able to cover its risks at little or no extra cost.
- **Insurance of boilers and lifts**: which may be a condition of taking out a lease, and typically involves periodic expert inspection designed to reduce the risk of loss or damage.
- **Commercial initiatives**: because these activities are outside the government’s core responsibilities, losses on a department’s discretionary commercial activities could reduce resources available for its core activities (see chapter 7). It will usually therefore make sense to insure them. Any goods used for services sold to other parts of central government should not, however, be insured.
- **Where commercial insurance is integral to a project**: eg, where private contractors insist, it may be appropriate to purchase insurance even if the net benefit is negative. But this may be a sign that the project needs restructuring to avoid any requirement to buy commercial insurance, perhaps through letters of comfort or statements of support. The costs and benefits of taking out insurance should be included in the appraisal of the project as a whole.
A4.4.3 Some ALBs may be in a slightly different position to central government departments. Box A4.4B gives examples of some items they may choose to insure commercially. Box A4.4B: items ALBs may insure
- items the ALB is required to insure, e.g., vehicles where the Road Traffic Acts require it.
- physical assets where a cost benefit analysis supports the case for insurance and the sponsor department agrees.
- goods owned by ALBs receiving less than 50% of their income from the Exchequer (through grant-in-aid or fees and charges). Commercial insurance protects the risk to the Exchequer from claims from third parties.
- items used by an ALB for income generation schemes to supplement the approved level of public spending. Commercial insurance is appropriate to cover the risks lest costs or losses could not be met out of receipts.
Appraising the options
A4.4.4 Decisions on whether to buy insurance should be based on objective cost-benefit analysis, using guidance in the Green Book(^1). Box A4.4C outlines some factors which are often worth considering in such assessments.
Box A4.4C: costs and benefits which could be included in assessments
Costs:
- the insurance premium which may be paid
- the administrative cost of managing claims with the insurance company
Benefits:
- transfer of risk, valued at the expected compensation for the insured losses
- claims handling, where the insurance company will manage claims against third parties
- the value of guaranteed business recovery: the potential reduction in the time taken to reinstate losses, reducing business interruption
Setting fees and charges
A4.4.5 If a central government organisation insures risks arising in supplying a service for which a fee or charge is levied, the actual premium payments should be included in the calculation of costs when deciding the fee or charge. Similarly, where a central government organisation self-insures, the notional cost of premium payments should be taken into account. See Chapter 6 for further details.
Claims administration
A4.4.6 Managing claims against third parties can be time-consuming and require expert attention. Insurance companies may be better placed than public sector organisations to deal with claims economically and efficiently. So contracting-out claims administration to an insurance company might be more cost-effective than retaining the work in-house.
(^1) [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-government](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-government) Reporting
A4.4.7 Departments should inform their Treasury spending team of:
- any decision to use the services of commercial insurance companies
- any reviews of insurance, or alternatives to insurance, that might contain lessons of wider application.
A4.4.8 In turn ALBs should consult their sponsor departments in similar circumstances.
Dealing with losses
Uninsured losses (except traffic accidents)
A4.4.9 Where a loss occurs or a third-party claim is received, public sector organisations should initially consider whether the loss should be made good or the claim accepted. Thus:
- **loss of or damage to assets**: the question of repair or replacement should always be carefully considered, taking account of the need for the asset and current policies. This decision is, in effect, a new investment decision and should be appraised accordingly;
- **third-party claims**: the justification for the claim should be carefully considered with appropriate legal advice.
A4.4.10 If the organisation decides to repair or replace an asset, or meet a third party claim, it should normally expect to meet the cost from within its existing allocations. The Treasury does not routinely entertain bids for additional resources in such cases. If a bid did arise the Treasury would consider it on its merits and in the light of the resources available, in the same way as other bids for increases in provision. Similarly, ALBs should not normally expect their sponsor departments to meet claims for reimbursement of loss.
Insured losses
A4.4.11 Public sector organisations should make insurance claims in accordance with the terms of the policy.
A4.4.12 ALBs may retain amounts paid under commercial insurance policies to meet expenditure resulting from losses or third-party claims. If it is decided not to replace or to repair an insured asset, the sponsor department may reduce any grant in aid payable to the ALB.
Claims between public sector organisations
A4.4.13 If two uninsured departments are involved in an incident causing loss to one or other, it is immaterial to the Exchequer whether one claims on the other for the damage. For small claims it would not be value for money for the Exchequer to make interdepartmental adjustments in the case of minor damage. Similar waiver arrangements should apply up to mutually agreed limits between other public sector organisations. But waiver arrangements of this kind are not appropriate where there are rights of claim against third parties.
A4.4.14 Box A4.4D shows how to proceed when one central government organisation makes a larger claim against one or more others. Box A4.4D: handling claims between public sector organisations
| Insurance status | settlement of claims | |------------------|----------------------| | All insured | Insurers settle claims | | All uninsured | Organisation(s) at fault negotiate about whether to reimburse the other(s) | | Organisation at fault uninsured, other organisation(s) insured | Insured organisation claims on its insurance policy, Uninsured organisation(s) deal with claims from the insurers on the basis of strict legal liability | | Organisation at fault insured, other organisation(s) uninsured | Uninsured organisation(s) seek financial satisfaction through the insurers of the organisation(s) at fault |
Vehicles
A4.4.15 Most ALBs insure third-party vehicle claims to comply with the Road Traffic Acts. Public sector organisations that are not insured for traffic accidents should refer any third-party claims, either for or against, to the Treasury Solicitor who acts on behalf of the government.
A4.4.16 Many claims between public sector organisations involving damage to, or loss caused by, vehicles, can be handled using the arrangements in paragraph A4.4.13.
A4.4.17 Vehicles travelling in other EU countries must comply with Directives. These require vehicles of a member state operating in another’s territory to be covered by insurance to the extent required by the legislation in territory of the journey, unless there are acceptable alternative arrangements, eg indemnities.
Loans
A4.4.18 When government assets are loaned to a body other than a public sector organisation which does not insure, it is important to protect the interests of the lending organisation. So the borrower should insure against damage or loss of the assets from the time of receipt and against claims by third parties including its own employees. An indemnity by the borrower is an acceptable substitute if the lender is satisfied that the borrower could and would meet any damage or other loss.
A4.4.19 Public sector organisations are usually expected to meet the cost of insuring any government assets (eg. equipment or stores) held by a contractor in the normal course of business. The cost of any insurance against risks arising from negligence or wilful misconduct by the contractor’s employees should be borne by the contractor. These arrangements should be explicitly set out in the relevant contract.
A4.4.20 Public sector organisations which borrow objects of value from a non-government body should normally offer the owner an indemnity against damage or loss. Such indemnities should leave no doubt as to the extent and duration of the borrowing organisation’s liability. And they may need to be reported if they fall within the parliamentary reporting requirements (see annex 5.4).
A4.4.21 Borrowers should only take out commercial insurance for loaned items of value if the owner insists upon it, or if the borrower has reason to believe that commercial insurance would be more cost effective than giving an indemnity. Employers’ liability
A4.4.22 The Crown is not bound by the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. So departments need not insure the risks outlined in the Act. Decisions on whether to insure should be taken on value for money grounds after an appraisal. Similarly, parliamentary bodies such as the National Audit Office, the Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority need not insure against employers’ liability risks as they are exempted under the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/686).
A4.4.23 A body funded by grant in aid need not insure against employers’ liability risks. This is because the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/2573) provide exemption for any body (or person who may be an employer) holding a certificate issued by a government department. Again, the decision on whether to insure will depend on a value for money assessment. If the organisation chooses not to insure, responsibility for the issue of certificates in accordance with the Act rests with the department responsible for paying grant in aid, provided that it is satisfied that this is the appropriate course.
A4.4.24 The scope of the certificate should be strictly confined to the risks with which the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 is concerned, and may not be extended to any other risks. It should be in the form set out in Box A4.4E. Departments should ensure that the circumstances in which certificates have been issued are reviewed from time to time, so that certificates may be revoked if circumstances change.
Box A4.4E: form of exemption certificate
In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/2573), the Minister of ....../Secretary of State for...... hereby certifies that any claim established against [here specify the body or person] in respect of any liability to [here specify the employees involved] of the kind mentioned in section 1(1) of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 will, to any extent to which it is otherwise incapable of being satisfied by the aforementioned employer, be satisfied out of moneys provided by parliament. Annex 4.5 Senior Responsible Owner Accountability
Civil servants appear in front of Select Committees on behalf of their Ministers and under their directions because it is the Minister, who is accountable to Parliament for the evidence given to the Committee. Senior Responsible Owners are in a special position.
A4.5.1 Senior Responsible Owners (SRO) for Major Projects (as defined in the Government’s Major Project Portfolio) are in a special position in that they are expected to account for and explain the decisions and actions they have taken to deliver the projects for which they have personal responsibility. This line of accountability should be made clear to SROs in their published appointment letter.
A4.5.2 The Government publishes on an annual basis a list of the SROs for the Government’s Major Project Portfolio (as defined by the Major Projects Authority).
A4.5.3 Where a Committee wishes to take evidence from an SRO of one of these major projects it will be on the understanding that the SRO will be expected to account for the implementation and delivery of the project and for their own actions. Appointment letters will make clear the point at which an SRO becomes directly accountable for the implementation of the project in question. The SRO will also be able to disclose to the Committee where a Minister or official has intervened to change the project during the implementation phase in a way which has implications for cost and/or timeline of implementation. In this respect the SRO should also be able to disclose their advice about any such changes.
A4.5.4 Accounting Officers are ultimately accountable for the performance of all the business under their control, including major projects for which an individual SRO has direct accountability and responsibility. And in this respect, if a Select Committee calls for evidence from an SRO, the Accounting Officer of the department may also be called to support the SRO at a hearing.
A4.5.5 This line of direct accountability for SROs does not alter the special position and relationship of Accounting Officers with the PAC.
A4.5.6 Further information is available in Cabinet Office guidance for officials from departments and agencies on giving evidence to Parliamentary Select Committees (the Osmotherly Rules) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/departmental-evidence-and-response-to-select-committees-guidance. Annex 4.6 Procurement
It is important to secure value for money in asset management through sound procurement. Public sector organisations should normally acquire goods and services through fair and open competition, acting on Cabinet Office advice. This annex provides an overview of the policy framework for public procurement.
A4.6.1 Good procurement practice demands that public sector organisations buy the goods, works and services they need using fair and open procurement processes, guarding against corruption and meeting the standards in MPM. European Union (EU) law and World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements underpin these principles. The specific responsibilities are set out in box A4.6A.
Box A4.6A: checklist of key purchasing responsibilities
General • value for money, normally through competition; • compliance with legal obligations under EU rules and other international agreements; • follow Government Procurement Service1 policies and standards on public procurement.
Management approach • leadership on the importance of procurement in delivering objectives; • define roles and responsibilities of key staff, with adequate separation of duties; • promote awareness (including in ALBs) of the importance of procurement policy and the GPS guidance.
Planning and engagement • clarify objectives of procurement from the start • consider how the procurement strategy could attract a diverse range of suppliers including SMEs and civil society organisations; • consider collaborative or shared procurement with other organisations to maximise purchasing power; • design procurement strategy and engage with the market early and well before competition starts; • consult GPS on any difficult legal issues.
Skills • use procurement professionals throughout; • ensure that there is sufficient skills capacity in undertaking and managing procurements and projects.
Review • apply the Gateway™ review process; • draw issues which may have wider implications to the Cabinet Office’s attention.
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/crown-commercial-service A4.6.2 This guidance is intended to be fully consistent with the UK's EU and international obligations. It does not create any rights or legal obligations.
Value for money
A4.6.3 Value for money is a key concept (see paragraph 3.3.3 and box A4.6B). It means securing the best mix of quality and effectiveness for the least outlay over the period of use of the goods or services bought. It is not about minimising up front prices. Whether in conventional procurement, market testing, private finance or some other form of public private partnership, finding value for money involves an appropriate allocation of risk.
Box A4.6B: securing value for money
Cost: the key factor is whole life cost, not lowest purchase price. Whole life cost takes into account the cost over time, including capital, maintenance, management, operating and disposal costs. For complex procurements, whole-life cost can be very different from initial price.
Quality: paying more for higher quality may be justified if the whole life cost is better, for example, taking into account maintenance costs, useful life and residual value. The purchaser should determine whether increased benefits justify higher costs.
Perspective: each public sector organisation’s procurement strategy should seek to achieve the best value outcome for the Exchequer as a whole, not just for the organisation itself. This should be designed in before the invitation to tender is published.
Collaborative procurement: in the vast majority of cases, standardising and aggregating procurement requirements will deliver better value for money. Public sector organisations, including smaller ones, should therefore collaborate as far as possible on procurement in line with GPS practice.
A4.6.4 Purchasers need to develop clear strategies for continuing improvement in the procedures for acquisition of goods, works and services. Public sector organisations should collaborate with each other, following guidance, in order to secure economies of scale, unless they can achieve better value for the Exchequer as a whole some other way. Smaller suppliers should have fair access to see if they able to deliver better value for money.
Legal framework
A4.6.5 Public sector organisations are responsible for ensuring that they comply with the law on procurement (see box A4.6C) taking account of Cabinet Office guidance. EU Treaty principles apply to all procurement, and there are specific EU rules that apply to most contracts where the estimated value exceeds a specified threshold.
The user’s requirement
A4.6.6 Procurement should help deliver relevant departmental and government-wide strategies and policies. The procuring organisation should establish that the supply sought is really needed, is likely to be cost effective and affordable. And the published specification should explain clearly what outcomes are required, since this is crucial to obtaining the supply required. Once it is decided that third party procurement appears better value for money than provision in-house, a range of models should be considered, for example employee-led mutuals and joint ventures as well as more traditional outsourcing.
2 Cabinet Office guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/crown-commercial-service Box A4.6C: the legal framework for public procurement
- EU procurement and remedies rules (the Treaty and procurement directives)
- international obligations, notably WTO agreements
- domestic legislation, including subordinate legislation implementing directives;
- contract and commercial law in general
- relevant Court of Justice of the European Union case law
- domestic case law
The procurement process and suppliers
A4.6.7 Competition promotes economy, efficiency and effectiveness in public expenditure. Works, goods and services should be acquired through competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary, and where appropriate should comply with EU and domestic advertising rules and policy. The form of competition chosen should be appropriate to the value and complexity of the goods or services to be acquired.
A4.6.8 Public sector organisations should aim to treat suppliers responsibly to maintain good reputations as purchasers (see box A4.6D), taking account of the government’s Procurement pledge to help stimulate economic growth.
Box A4.6D: relationships with suppliers
- high professional standards in the award of contracts
- clear procurement contact points
- adequate information for suppliers to respond to the bidding process
- the outcome of bids announced promptly (in accord with EU standards)
- feedback to winners and losers on request on the outcome of the bidding process
- high professional standards in the management of contracts
- prompt, courteous and efficient responses to suggestions, enquiries and complaints
A4.6.9 In carrying out efficient sourcing projects, central government should follow best practice.
A4.6.10 One such approach is LEAN approach whose principles are designed to make doing business with government more efficient and cost-effective (for both buyers and suppliers) to support economic growth.
A4.6.11 During the evaluation stage of sourcing, it is important to for public sector procuring organisations to:
- establish the propriety of candidate suppliers – taking account of the requirement to exclude those convicted of, for example, fraud, theft, fraudulent trading or cheating HMRC;
______________________________________________________________________
3 Procurement Pledge [http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/our-procurement-pledge] 4 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lean-sourcing-guidance-for-public-sector-buyers • assess suppliers’ economic and financial standing to gain confidence of their capacity to carry out fully what the buyer requires within the pre-determined timescale and deliver value for money;
• secure value for money (see box A.4.6B), using relevant and consistent criteria for evaluating the key factors (cost, size, sustainability, design etc).
Contracts
A4.6.12 In drawing up contracts, purchasers should, where possible:
• use model terms and conditions developed in the light of collective experience and which may help avoid prejudicing the position of others using the same supplier;
• avoid variation of price clauses in contracts of less than two years' duration; and
• Include prompt payment clauses.
A4.6.13 Purchasers cannot enter into contracts with other parts of the legal entity to which they belong, so different parts of the Crown cannot contract with each other. Instead internal agreements which fall short of being contracts are used (typically service level agreements). These may have all the hallmarks of contracts other than scope for legal enforcement. Since service level agreements between bodies which are not part of the Crown may be subject to EU procurement rules, it is usually wise to take legal advice when entering into them.
Central purchasing bodies and agencies
A4.6.14 Central government organisations are required to use the services and collaborative procurement deals managed by the Government Procurement Service on behalf of government.
A4.6.15 If public sector purchasers employ private sector agents to undertake procurement on their behalf they should:
• require compliance with the law (see box A.4.6C);
• ensure clear allocation of responsibilities; and
• where appropriate, obtain the agent’s indemnity against any costs incurred as a result of its failure to comply with the legal framework on its behalf.
Taxation
A4.6.16 Central government bodies should:
• base procurement decisions independent of any tax advantages that may arise from a particular bid;
• avoid contractors using offshore jurisdictions, consistent with EU and other international obligations and the government’s stated objectives on tax transparency and openness;
• be vigilant in not facilitating tax arrangements with suppliers or their agents that are detrimental or disadvantageous to the Exchequer. Public sector organisations
5 Cabinet Office guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/crown-commercial-service need to take special care in relation to the tax arrangements of public appointees (see Cabinet Office guidance⁶);
- employ internal management processes to ensure that transactions that give rise to questions of propriety of tax arrangements are brought to the accounting officer’s or, if necessary, ministers’ attention.
**A4.6.17** In the case of bids under the Private Finance (PF2), it is particularly important to ensure that comparisons of competing bids take account of any tax planning by bidders. The Treasury’s Green Book provides for a tax adjusted Public Sector Comparator to allow for the (usually) material tax difference between a PF2 option and the wholly public sector alternative. It would be inappropriate to apply this to bids where tax planning has cancelled out this effect.
**A4.6.18** Public procurement projects involving the transfer of real estate or assets that are likely to appreciate in value can often give rise to specific tax issues, in particular liability to capital gains tax. If public sector organisations are negotiating with bodies that wish to structure procurement proposals in this way, they should consult the Treasury and HMRC at an early stage to identify the likely tax implications and assess the proposal for propriety generally.
**Further guidance**
**A4.6.19** Central sources of guidance on procurement and related issues include:
- the Government Procurement Service of the Cabinet Office (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/crown-commercial-service);
- the Treasury’s Green Book on project appraisal and evaluation in central government (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/179349/green_book_complete.pdf.pdf);
- Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on state aid rules (https://www.gov.uk/state-aid);
- Cartels and bid-rigging (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284413/oft435.pdf); and
- HM Revenue and Customs on tax avoidance issues (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidance/).
Guidance on the EU rules (available on the Government Procurement website) is also published by the European Commission, but public sector organisations are advised not to seek advice from the Commission without first consulting their own and their sponsor department’s procurement units, who may, in turn, consult the Cabinet Office.
______________________________________________________________________
⁶ Cabinet Office guidance: Procurement Policy Note – Tax arrangements of Public Appointees Annex 4.7 State aids
While a great deal of public expenditure is not classified as state aid, any funding favouring a particular company or sector could be subject to the EU rules and, in certain circumstances, require notification to the Commission.
A4.7.1 Article 107(1) of the EU Treaty prohibits in principle any form of preferential government assistance – state aid - to commercial undertakings. The purpose is to prevent distortion of competition within the EU.
A4.7.2 There is no precise definition of state aid. Box A4.7A provides a statement of principle. Its battery of tests may need to be applied to a wide variety of policies since for these purposes commercial undertakings can include public organisations, charities and not-for-profit organisations if they engage in economic activities or compete with commercial organisations. And the European Commission may judge that even small amounts of aid could distort competition. It is sometimes possible to escape the last test on tradable activity for very small scale and localised assistance.
Box A4.7A: characteristics of state aids
- the aid is granted by a member state or through state resources (including eg lottery distributions and European funds)
- it favours certain commercial undertakings
- it distorts or threatens to distort competition
- the activity is tradable between member states.
All four tests have to be met for the state aid rules to apply.
A4.7.3 However, a measure meeting all the tests in box A4.7A is not automatically illegal. Article 107 sets out circumstances when state aid can be considered permissible – eg to encourage cultural and regional development. European Commission frameworks and guidelines also enable member states to target market failures in order to achieve desirable policy outcomes, eg to facilitate competitiveness through research spending, improve access to venture capital for small firms, support the environment, help provide access to training, or encourage regional development.
A4.7.4 Before state aid can be given, the public organisation responsible should notify the Commission and obtain approval. This process, which can take 6-9 months, must be conducted through the state aid teams in BIS, DEFRA or DfT depending on the type of aid.
A4.7.5 The General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) exempts a number of types of aid from the need for prior notification. The GBER covers aid for regional development, SMEs, risk capital, research, development and innovation, environmental protection, disadvantaged workers and training. As long as the aid meets the strict conditions set out in the regulations, member states simply have to inform the Commission and confirm compliance with the regulation within 20 days of implementing it, rather than going through the notification process. A4.7 State aids
A4.7.6 There is also a de minimis regulation which allows member states to give small amounts of aid (200,000 euros over a three-year period) to any enterprise of any size (with certain restrictions) as long as a number of administrative procedures are completed.
A4.7.7 When designing policies, it is wise to consider early whether state aids rules apply. This allows time to work out whether any exemptions are available; or if necessary to seek Commission agreement. The sources in box A4.7B are a good place to start. Depending on the context, queries on aid should be referred to Defra (agriculture), DfT (transport) or the Treasury (banks). Questions on all other aid should be referred to BIS.
Box A4.7B: further guidance
The BIS State Aid Unit website – www.bis.gov.uk/policies/europe/state-aid State aid approval process flowchart https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-aid-notification-flowcharts European Commission State aid website – www.ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/index_en.html Expenditure and payments
As part of the process of authorising and controlling commitments and expenditure of public funds, public sector organisations should time their expenditure and payments to provide good value for public money.
A4.8.1 Public sector organisations should use good commercial practice in managing the flows of expenditure and commitments they deal with. Box 4.3 has some sound high level principles. These need to be interpreted in the context of each organisation’s business, in line with current legislation and using modern commercial practice. The actual techniques used may thus change from time to time and from place to place.
A4.8.2 In particular, public sector organisations should;
- explain payment procedures to suppliers;
- agree payment terms at the outset and stick to them;
- pay bills in accordance with agreed terms, or as required by law;
- tell suppliers without delay when an invoice is contested; and
- settle quickly when a contested invoice gets a satisfactory response.
A4.8.3 Public sector organisations are also bound by legislation aiming to ensure that in commercial transactions, the payment period does not exceed 30 calendar days after the debtor receives an invoice. Further advice is available from the Cabinet Office and BIS.
A4.8.4 However, the Government recognises that the public sector should set a strong example by paying promptly. Central government departments should aim to pay 80% of undisputed invoices within 5 days. They should also include a clause in their contracts requiring prime contractors to pay their suppliers within 30 days. The principles in Box 4.4 must still be applied to all payments. Further guidance is available.
Payments outside the normal pattern
A4.8.5 Payments in advance of need should be exceptional, and should only be considered if a good value for money case for the Exchequer can be made. Even then, as advance payments lead to higher Exchequer financing costs, such payments are novel and contentious and require specific Treasury approval. Advance payment should never be used to circumvent expenditure controls or budgetary limits.
A4.8.6 In particular, it is not good value for money for public sector organisations to act as a source of finance to contractors who have access to other forms of loan finance. So advance payments to contractors (ie payments made before equivalent value is received in return) should
______________________________________________________________________
1 The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (as amended by The Late Payment of Commercial Debt Regulations 2002 (SI 1674) and the Late Payment of Commercial Debt Regulations 2013). 2 The Prompt Payment Code [http://www.promptpaymentcode.org.uk/](http://www.promptpaymentcode.org.uk/) only be considered if, for example, a price discount commensurate with the time value of the funds in question can provide a good value for money case. Exceptions to these guidelines, which would not normally require specific Treasury approval, include:
- service and maintenance contracts which require payment when the contract commences, provided that the service is available and can be called on from the date of payment;
- grants to small voluntary or community bodies where the recipient needs working capital to carry out the commitment for which the grant is paid and private sector finance would reduce value for money;
- minor services such as training courses, conference bookings or magazine subscriptions, where local discretion is acceptable; and
- prepayments up to a modest limit agreed with the Treasury, where a value for money assessment demonstrates clear advantage in early payment.
A4.8.7 Interim payments may have an element of prepayment and so public sector organisations should consider them carefully before agreeing to them. However, if they are genuinely linked to work completed or physical progress satisfactorily achieved, preferably as defined under a contract, they may represent acceptable value for public funds. Taking legal advice as necessary, organisations should, however, consider whether:
- the contractor’s reduced need for working capital should be reflected in reduced prices;
- the contractor should provide a performance bond in the form of a bank guarantee to deal with possible breach of contract.
A4.8.8 Public sector organisations should not, however, use interim payments to circumvent public spending controls. For example, it is not acceptable to make payments where value has not been received, simply to avoid underspending.
A4.8.9 Deferred payments are generally not good practice. They normally mean paying more to compensate the contractor for higher financing costs and are thus poor value for money (at the margin the Exchequer can always borrow more cheaply than the private sector). So any proposal for deliberate late payment is potentially novel and contentious. Any central government organisation considering deferred payments must thus seek Treasury approval before proceeding. A4.9 Fraud
Governance in public sector organisations includes arrangements for preventing, countering and dealing with fraud. This annex provides further detail.
A4.9.1 Accounting officers are responsible for managing public sector organisations’ risks, including fraud. Each organisation faces a range of fraud risks specific to its business, from internal and external sources. The risk of a given fraud is usually measured by the probability of its occurring and its impact in monetary and reputational terms should it occur.
A4.9.2 In broad terms, managing the risk of fraud involves:
- assessing the organisation’s overall vulnerability to fraud;
- identifying the areas most vulnerable to fraud risk;
- evaluating the scale of fraud risk;
- responding to fraud risk;
- measuring the effectiveness of the fraud risk strategy; and
- reporting fraud.
The most effective way to manage the risk of fraud is to prevent it from happening by developing an effective anti-fraud culture.
A4.9.3 For guidance on all these areas, see Tackling Internal Fraud¹ and Tackling External Fraud².
Assessing vulnerability to fraud
A4.9.4 Each organisation should identify, itemise and assess how it might be vulnerable to fraud, covering the risks in some detail. Fraud should be always considered as a risk for the departments’ risk register.
Evaluating the scale of fraud risk
A4.9.5 Public sector organisations should evaluate the possible impact and likelihood of the specific fraud risks it has identified. These should be reviewed regularly. From this, each organisation should deduce a priority order for managing its fraud risks and target its interventions accordingly. This will inform decisions about the actions to be taken to manage fraud risk effectively.
¹ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psr_managing_risk_of_fraud.htm ² http://www.nao.org.uk/report/good-practice-in-tackling-external-fraud-2/ Responding to fraud risk
A4.9.6 The organisation’s response to fraud risk should be customised to the risks it faces. Typically it will involve some or all of the following.
- Developing a Fraud Policy Statement, a Fraud Risk Strategy and a Fraud Response Plan (key documents that every organisation should have).
- Developing and promoting an anti-fraud culture, maybe through a clear statement of commitment to ethical behaviour to promote awareness of fraud. Recruitment screening, training and maintaining good staff morale can also be important.
- Allocating responsibilities for the overall and specific management of fraud risk so that these processes are integrated into management.
- Establishing cost-effective internal systems of control to prevent and detect fraud.
- Developing the skills and expertise to manage fraud risk effectively and to respond to fraud effectively when it arises.
- Establishing well publicised avenues for staff and members of the public to report suspicions of fraud.
- Responding quickly and effectively to fraud when it arises.
- Establishing systems for investigations into allegations of fraud.
- Using Internal Audit to advise on fraud risk and drawing on their experience to strengthen control.
- Taking appropriate action (criminal, disciplinary) against fraudsters and seeking to recover losses.
- Continuously evaluating the effectiveness of anti-fraud measures in reducing fraud.
- Working with stakeholders to tackle fraud through intelligence sharing, joint investigations, etc.
A4.9.7 It is good practice to measure the effectiveness of actions taken to reduce the risk of fraud. Assurances about these measures can be obtained from Internal Audit, stewardship reporting, control risk self assessment, monitoring or from other review bodies.
Reporting fraud
A4.9.8 Public sector organisations should retain records of internal frauds discovered and actions taken, including an assessment of the value of any losses. They may need to contribute to occasional reports and analysis of frauds.
A4.9.9 Public sector organisations should also provide the Cabinet Office (Fraud, error and debt team) with details, of any novel or unusual frauds (or attempted frauds) so that this information can be shared more widely. Public sector organisations should also consider reporting frauds and suspected fraud to the NAO. Annex 4.10 Losses and write offs
This annex sets out what is expected when departments and their arms length bodies (ALBs) incur losses or write off the values of assets, including details of when to notify parliament.
A4.10.1 As parliament does not agree or approve advance provision for potential future losses when voting money or passing specific legislation, such transactions when they arise are subject to greater scrutiny and control than other payments. Public sector organisations should only consider accepting losses and write-offs after careful appraisal of the facts (including whether all reasonable action has been taken to effect recovery – see Annex 4.11), and should be satisfied that there is no feasible alternative. In dealing with individual cases, departments must always consider the soundness of their internal control systems, the efficiency with which they have been operated, and take any necessary steps to put failings right.
A4.10.2 The guidance in this chapter relates to cash and fiscal losses. It is not intended for losses that do not impact on the fiscal position. For example, erroneous debit balances that result in an accounting adjustment but not a cash loss should not be disclosed in the losses statement.
Levels of delegation
A4.10.3 Departments have delegated authority to deal with all losses, unless there are specific delegations put in place, subject to paragraph A4.10.4. Box A4.10A provides examples of the different categories of loss.
Box A4.10A: examples of losses
Losses
- cash losses: physical losses of cash and its equivalents (eg credit cards, electronic transfers)
- realised exchange rate and hedging losses: losses due to fluctuations in exchange rates or hedging instruments
- losses of pay, allowances and superannuation benefits paid to civil servants, members of the armed forces and ALB employees: including overpayments due to miscalculation, misinterpretation, or missing information; unauthorised issues; and other causes
- losses arising from overpayments: of social security benefits, grants, subsidies etc
- losses arising from failure to make adequate charges: eg for the use of public property.
Losses of accountable stores
- losses through fraud, theft, arson or any other deliberate act
- losses arising from other causes.
Fruitless payments and constructive losses
Claims waived or abandoned Consulting the Treasury
A4.10.4 When departments identify losses and write-offs, they should consult the Treasury, using the guidance in Box A4.10B, irrespective of the amount of money concerned, if they:
- involve important questions of principle;
- raise doubts about the effectiveness of existing systems;
- contain lessons which might be of wider interest;
- are novel or contentious;
- might create a precedent for other departments in similar circumstances;
- arise because of obscure or ambiguous instructions issued centrally.
A4.10.5 Similarly, ALBs should consult their sponsor departments about similar cases. In turn departments may need to consult the Treasury.
Box A4.10B: consulting the Treasury on losses
Departments should consult the Treasury as soon as possible, outlining:
- the nature of the case, the amount involved and the circumstances in which it arose;
- the reasons for the proposed write-off, including any legal advice;
- the reason for consulting the Treasury;
- whether fraud (suspected or proven) is involved;
- whether the case resulted from dereliction of duty;
- whether failure of supervision is involved;
- whether appropriate legal and/or disciplinary action has been taken against those involved including supervisors, and, if not, why not;
- whether those primarily involved will be required to bear any part of the loss; and
- whether the investigation has shown any defects in the existing systems of control and,
- if so, what action will be taken.
Notification to parliament
A4.10.6 Losses should be brought to parliament’s attention at the earliest opportunity, normally by noting the department’s annual accounts, whether or not they may be reduced by subsequent recoveries. For serious losses, departments should also consider the case for a written statement to parliament. Departments should not hesitate to notify parliament of any losses which it would be proper to bring to their attention.
Losses and claims records
A4.10.7 Public sector organisations should maintain an up to date record of losses. The record should show:
- the nature, gross amount (or estimate where an accurate value is unavailable), and cause of each loss; • the action taken, total recoveries and date of write-off where appropriate; and • the annual accounts in which each loss is to be noted.
A4.10.8 A losses statement is required in annual accounts where total losses exceed £300,000. Individual losses of more than £300,000 should be noted separately. Losses should be reported on an accruals basis.
A4.10.9 Where efforts are still being made to secure recovery of cash losses formally written off, charged to the accounts and noted, public sector organisations should consider including them in a record of claims to ensure that recovery is not overlooked.
Accounting for cash losses
A4.10.10 Cash losses may initially be accounted for as debtors in annual accounts pending recovery or write-off.
A4.10.11 When a department incurs a cash loss it should charge it to the appropriate budget subhead in the Estimate, and for accounts recognise the cost in accordance with the FReM.
A4.10.12 Where a cash loss is wholly or partly recovered by reducing the amounts of pay or pension(^1) which would otherwise be due, or under statutory or other specific powers(^2), only the resulting outstanding balance is treated as a loss to be written off. The sum(s) are charged to the relevant budget boundary as if they had been paid to the individual concerned who then used the money to pay the claim.
A4.10.13 Similarly, where the loss is wholly or partly met by voluntary payments by the person responsible or by a payment from an insurance company or other non-public source, only the net loss is written off. If, however, there are no powers to apply the sums withheld by non-issue of pay etc, the gross amount of the loss is written off.
A4.10.14 Generally, no note is necessary if the net loss is nil by the time the annual accounts are finalised. There may, however, be exceptions (eg losses arising from culpable causes) where the circumstances of the loss are such as to make it proper to bring them to the notice of parliament by inclusion in the Losses Statement.
Stores losses
A4.10.15 Stores losses are, in effect, money spent without the authority of parliament. In establishing the amount of the loss, and hence whether the annual account should be noted, the net value of the loss after crediting any sums recovered will be the determining factor.
A4.10.16 Losses of stores arising from culpable causes should be noted in departmental records, in accordance with normal practice. Such losses should also be noted in the annual account, to ensure that such losses are brought to the attention of parliament in the appropriate manner, and to aid departmental management in managing and accounting for stores.
A4.10.17 Where there is an identifiable claim against some person, the loss need not be noted immediately. However, if the department subsequently decides to waive the claim, or finds that it cannot be presented or enforced, the loss should be treated as an abandoned claim (see paragraph A.4.10.23) and noted accordingly.
(^1) Tax must be deducted from pay or pension subject to PAYE withheld in settlement of a loss, to arrive at the amount attributed to debt repayment.
(^2) For example, Queen’s Regulations A4.10.18 Any loss recoverable from a third party, where a decision is taken to waive recovery because of a knock for knock agreement, should be noted as a stores loss.
A4.10.19 Where stores are to be written off, gifted, or transferred to other departments, they should be valued in accordance with the FReM, unless circumstances justify exceptional treatment, or other arrangements have been agreed.
**Fruitless payments**
A4.10.20 A fruitless payment is a payment which cannot be avoided because the recipient is entitled to it even though nothing of use to the department will be received in return. Some examples are in box A4.10C.
A4.10.21 As fruitless payments will be legally due to the recipient, they are not regarded as special payments. However, as due benefit has not been received in return, they should be treated as losses, and brought to the attention of parliament in the same way as stores losses.
**Box A4.10C: examples of fruitless payments**
A fruitless payment is a payment for which liability ought not to have been incurred, or where the demand for the goods and services in question could have been cancelled in time to avoid liability, for example:
- forfeitures under contracts as a result of some error or negligence by the department;
- payment for travel tickets or hotel accommodation wrongly booked or no longer needed, or for goods wrongly ordered or accepted;
- the cost of rectifying design faults caused by a lack of diligence or defective professional practices; and
- extra costs arising from failure to allow for foreseeable changes in circumstances.
**Constructive losses**
A4.10.22 A constructive loss is a similar form of payment to stores losses and fruitless payments, but one where procurement action itself caused the loss. For example, stores or services might be correctly ordered, delivered or provided, then paid for as correct; but later, perhaps because of a change of policy, they might prove not to be needed or to be less useful than when the order was placed.
A4.10.23 Constructive losses need not be noted in the Losses Statement in the annual accounts unless they are significant.
**Claims waived or abandoned**
A4.10.24 Losses may arise if claims are waived or abandoned because, though properly made, it is decided not to present or pursue them. Some examples are in box A4.10D.
A4.10.25 The following should not be treated as claims waived or abandoned.
- any claims wrongly identified or presented, whether in error or otherwise. A claim should not, however, be regarded as withdrawn where there is doubt as to
______________________________________________________________________
3 Stores held by the Ministry of Defence may be valued according to their estimated supply price. whether it would succeed if pursued in a court of law, or if the liability of the debtor has not or cannot be accurately assessed;
- waivers or remission of tax. HMRC have special rules about remissions of tax. Departments should consult the Treasury about treatment when a case arises; or
- a claim for a refund of an overpayment which fails or is waived. This should be regarded as a cash loss.
Box A4.10D: examples of waived and abandoned claims
- where it is decided to reduce the rate of interest on a loan, and therefore to waive the right to receive the amount of the reduction
- claims actually made and then reduced in negotiations or for policy reasons
- claims which a department intended to make, but which could not be enforced, or were never presented
- failure to make claims or to pursue them to finality, e.g. owing to procedural delays allowing the Limitations Acts (annex 4.11.11) to become applicable
- claims arising from actual or believed contractual or other legal obligations which are not met (whether or not pursued), e.g. under default or liquidated damages clauses of contracts
- amounts by which claims are reduced by compositions in insolvency cases, or in out-of-court settlements, other than reductions arising from corrections of facts
- claims dropped on legal advice, or because the amounts of liabilities could not be determined
- remission of interest on voted loans.
A4.10.26 Waivers should be noted in annual accounts in accordance with the FReM. In addition:
- a claim not presented should normally be noted at its original figure;
- where more than one department is involved, each should note its records to the extent of its interest, without attempting spurious accuracy.
There is no need to note annual accounts if claims between departments are waived or abandoned. These are domestic matters. Annex 4.11 Overpayments
This annex discusses how, and how far, public sector organisations should seek to recover overpayments – one case of special payments outside normal parliamentary process (section 4.7). In difficult cases it is important to act on legal advice.
A4.11.1 Even good payment systems sometimes go wrong. Most organisations responsible for making payments will sometimes discover that they have made overpayments in error.
A4.11.2 In principle public sector organisations should always pursue recovery of overpayments, irrespective of how they came to be made. In practice, however, there will be both practical and legal limits to how cases should be handled. So each case should be dealt with on its merits. Some overpayment scenarios are outlined in box A4.11A. Where recovery of overpayments is not pursued the guidance in annex A4.10 should be followed.
Box A4.11A: possible reasons for overpayment
Contractors and suppliers Overpayments in business transactions should always be pursued, irrespective of cause. It is acceptable to recover by abating future payments if this approach offers value for money and helps preserve goodwill. If the contractor resists, the overpaying organisation should consider taking legal action, taking account of the strength of the case, and of legal advice.
Grants and subsidies Overpayments to persons or corporate bodies should be treated as business transactions and a full refund sought. The overpaying organisation should ask recipients to acknowledge the amount of the debt in writing.
Pay, allowances, pensions Overpayments to: • civil servants • members of the armed forces • employees of NDPBs • retired teachers and NHS employees • and the dependants of any of these should be pursued, taking proper account of how far recipients have acted in good faith. Similar cases should be treated consistently. After warning recipients, recovery through deduction from future salary or pension is often convenient. Legal advice is often wise to make sure that proper account has been taken of any valid defence against recovery recipients may have.
A4.11.3 When deciding on appropriate action, taking legal advice, organisations should consider: • the type of overpayment; • whether the recipient accepted the money in good or bad faith; A4.11 Overpayments
- the cost-effectiveness of recovery action (either in house or using external companies). Advice that a particular course of action appears to offer good value may not be conclusive since it may not take account of the wider public interest;
- any relevant personal circumstances of the payee, including defences against recovery;
- the length of time since the payment in question was made; and
- the need to deal equitably with overpayments to a group of people in similar circumstances.
A4.11.4 It is good practice to consider routinely whether particular cases reveal concerns about the soundness of the control systems and their operation. It is important to put failings right.
Payments made with parliamentary authority
A4.11.5 Sometimes overpayments are made using specific legal powers but making mistakes of fact or law. These are legally recoverable, subject to the provisions of the Limitation Acts and other defences against recovery (see below). The presumption should always be that recovery should be pursued, irrespective of the circumstances in which it arose.
Good faith
A4.11.6 The decision on how far recovery of an overpayment should be pursued in a particular case will be influenced by whether the recipient has acted in good or bad faith:
- where recipients of overpayments have acted in good faith, eg genuinely believing that the payment was right, they may be able to use this as a defence (though good faith alone is not a sufficient defence);
- where recipients of overpayments have acted in bad faith, recovery of the full amount overpaid should always be sought.
A4.11.7 Recipients may be inferred to have acted in bad faith if they have wilfully suppressed material facts or otherwise failed to give timely, accurate and complete information affecting the amount payable. Other cases, eg those involving recipients’ carelessness, may require judgement. And some cases may involve such obvious error, eg where an amount stated is very different from that paid, that no recipient could reasonably claim to have acted in good faith.
A4.11.8 In forming a judgement about whether payments have been received in good faith, due allowance should be made for:
- the complexity of some entitlements, eg to pay or benefits;
- how far the payment depended on changes in the recipient’s circumstances of which he or she was obliged to tell the payer;
- the extent to which generic information was readily available to help recipients understand what was likely to be due.
Fraud
A4.11.9 If a public sector organisation is satisfied that the circumstances of an overpayment involved bad faith on the part of the recipient, it should automatically consider the possibility of fraud in addition to recovery action. For example, the recipient may have dishonestly given false information or knowingly failed to disclose information. If there is evidence of fraudulent intent, prosecution or disciplinary action should be undertaken where appropriate and practicable. A criminal conviction in such a case will not eliminate the public debt which had resulted from the overpayment, and so recovery of the debt should also be pursued by any available means.
Cost-effectiveness
A4.11.10 Public sector organisations should take decisions about their tactics in seeking recovery in particular cases on the strength of cost benefit analysis of the options. Decisions not to pursue recovery should be exceptional and taken only after careful appraisal of the relevant facts, taking into account the legal position. The option of abating future payments to the recipient should always be considered.
Defences against recovery
A4.11.11 Defences which may be claimed against recovery include:
- the length of time since the overpayment was made
- change of position
- estoppel
- good consideration
- hardship.
Lapse of time
A4.11.12 There can be time limitations on recovery. In England and Wales, a recipient might plead that a claim is time-barred under the provisions of the Limitation Acts. Proceedings to recover overpayments must generally be instituted within six years (twelve years if the claim is against the personal estate of a deceased person) of discovery of the mistake or the time when the claimant could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it.
A4.11.13 When public sector organisations claim against a private sector organisation or people who ignore or dispute the claim, the organisation should take legal advice about proceeding with the claim in good time so that it does not become time barred.
A4.11.14 If someone claims that they have overpaid a public sector organisation, they should be told promptly if the claim is time barred. But if, on its merits, the recipient organisation decides that there is a case for an ex gratia payment, it should obtain Treasury consent if the amount involved is outside the organisation’s delegated powers. Similarly, there may be a case for ex gratia payments to make good underpayments to government employees unless they were dilatory in making their claims.
Change of position
A4.11.15 The recipient of an overpayment may seek to rely on change of position if he or she has in good faith reacted to the overpayment by relying on it to change their lifestyle. It might then be inequitable to seek to recover the full amount of the overpayment. The paying organisation’s reaction should depend on the facts of the case. The onus is on the recipient to show that it would be unfair to repay the money. This defence is difficult to demonstrate. Estoppel
A4.11.16 A recipient who has changed his or her position may also be able to rely on the rule of evidence estoppel if the paying organisation misled the recipient about his or her entitlement, even if the overpayment was caused by a fault on the part of the recipient. However, a mistaken payment will not normally of itself constitute a representation that the payee can keep it. There must normally be some further indication of the recipient's supposed title other than the mere fact of payment.
A4.11.17 The paying organisation can be prevented from recovery even where it has made no positive statement to the payee that the latter is entitled to the money received. If, following a demand for repayment, the recipient can give reasons why repayment should not be made, then silence from paying organisation would almost certainly entitle the recipient to conclude that the reply was satisfactory and that he or she could keep the money.
A4.11.18 It is essential for public sector organisations to seek legal advice where change of position or estoppel is offered as defence against recovery.
Good consideration
A4.11.19 Another possible defence against recovery is where someone makes a payment for good consideration, i.e. where the recipient gives something in return for the payment. For example, payment might be made to discharge a debt; or where the payment is part of a compromise to deal with an honest claim. If such payments are later found to be more than was strictly due, the extent to which the paying organisation was acting in good faith should be taken into account.
Hardship
A4.11.20 Public sector organisations may waive recovery of overpayments where it is demonstrated that recovery would cause hardship. But hardship should not be confused with inconvenience. Where the recipient has no entitlement, repayment does not in itself amount to hardship, especially if the overpayment was discovered quickly. Acceptable pleas of hardship should be supported by reasonable evidence that the recovery action proposed by the paying organisation would be detrimental to the welfare of the debtor or the debtor's family. Hardship is not necessarily limited to financial hardship; public sector organisations may waive recovery of overpayments where recovery would be detrimental to the mental welfare of the debtor or the debtor's family. Again, such hardship must be demonstrated by evidence.
Collective overpayments
A4.11.21 If a group of people have all been overpaid as a result of the same mistake, the recipients should be treated in the same way. However, that does not mean that recovery of all such overpayments should be automatically written off. For example, it may be legitimate to continue to effect recovery from those who have offered to repay, or some may not be subject to the same level of hardship.
A4.11.22 Public sector organisations should decide how best to handle collective overpayments so that they do not inhibit the maximum recovery possible. If it is deemed impractical to pursue recovery from some members of an equivalent group, there should be no inhibition on pursuing others who may be able to pay. There is no obligation to inform the group generally about what action is being taken against particular members since all have the same legal obligation. Any differential treatment should be based on advice. A4.11 Overpayments
**A4.11.23** If a public sector organisation is minded to forgo recovery of the whole or any part of a collective overpayment, it should consult the Treasury (or its sponsor department, as the case may be) before telling the recipients of the overpayments. The Treasury will need to be satisfied that a collective waiver is defensible in the public interest or as value for money. And any such waivers should be exceptional. Annex 4.12 Gifts
This annex explains how departments should notify parliament of gifts, both given and received. It is important to assure parliament that propriety has been respected through transparent reporting.
A4.12.1 A gift is something voluntarily donated, with no preconditions and without the expectation of any return. In this document, the term gift includes all transactions which are economically indistinguishable from gifts: see box A4.12A.
A4.12.2 It is also important to be clear about transactions which do not score as gifts. For example:
- transfers of assets between government departments should generally be at full current market value; assets transferred under a transfer of functions order to implement a machinery of government change are generally made at no charge. In neither case are such transfers regarded as gifts;
- grants and grants-in-aid are not gifts as they are made under legislation, subject to conditions, with some expectation that the government will receive value through the furtherance of its policy objectives;
- grants in kind that are part of a planned programme of HMG support for an organisation or third country (for example, the provision of equipment in official development assistance projects). Again, there is an expectation that the government will receive value through the furtherance of its policy objectives in precisely the same way as with financial support to a partner organisation or the direct delivery of projects by government. Such grants in kind will normally be made under the same legislation that supports other parts of the programme concerned and the purchase of the equipment concerned will typically have been financed through provision in the department’s Estimate.
Box A4.12A: definition of gifts Gifts include all transactions economically equivalent to free and unremunerated transfers from departments to others, such as:
- loan of an asset for its expected useful life
- sale or lease of assets at below market value (the difference between the amount received and the market value is the value of the gift)
- donations by departments
- transfers of land and buildings, or assignment of leases, to private sector bodies at less than market price (the gift is valued at the difference between the price agreed and the market price).
Approval
A4.12.3 Treasury approval is needed for all gifts valued at more than £300,000, and any other gifts not covered by a department’s delegated authorities. Similarly, ALBs should consult their sponsor departments about gifts, and the department concerned may need in turn to consult the Treasury.
**A4.12.4** As parliament does not provide for gifts when voting Estimates or passing specific legislation, parliament should be notified of gifts worth more than £300,000. Ideally this should be through Estimates. Alternatively, where time does not permit, a written ministerial statement (WMS) and a departmental minute should be laid in parliament.
**Reporting**
**A4.12.5** If the Estimates timetable permits, departments planning to make a gift worth more than £300,000 should notify parliament in their Estimates (Main or Supplementary depending on timing), providing details of the gift and its cost.
**A4.12.6** Departments wishing to make a gift over £300,000, who have been unable to include it in their Estimates, should notify parliament by laying a WMS and a departmental minute. This should happen even if parliamentary authority will be sought in a subsequent Estimate for funds to replace an existing asset to be given. Treasury approval must be obtained before the WMS and departmental minute are laid.
**A4.12.7** The WMS and minute must then be laid before the House of Commons, on the same day, at least fourteen parliamentary sitting days before the department proposes to make the gift. In cases of special urgency, it is permissible, exceptionally, for all or part of the fourteen day notice period to fall during an adjournment or recess, or for a shorter notice period to be given. In such cases, with Treasury approval, the reasons for urgency should be explained.
**A4.12.8** The WMS and minute must contain the standard opening and closing paragraphs in box A4.12B. These terms have the PAC’s endorsement and can be changed only with Treasury approval.
______________________________________________________________________
**Box A4.12B: standard paragraphs for written ministerial statement and departmental minute**
**Opening paragraph:**
*It is the normal practice when a government department proposes to make a gift of a value exceeding £300,000, for the department concerned to present to the House of Commons a minute giving particulars of the gift and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from making the gift until fourteen parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.*
**Closing paragraph:**
*The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of fourteen parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before the House of Commons, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a Parliamentary Question or a Motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval of the gift will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.*
**A4.12.9** The WMS and minute should also set out briefly the nature of the gift, its value, the circumstances in which it is being given, and the recipient. Where the gift is to be replaced, information about the cost and nature of the replacement, when it is expected to be acquired, and the Estimate to which the expenditure will be charged should be included. In the case of non-voted expenditure, the account to which the replacement cost will be charged should be quoted. Parliamentary objections
A4.12.10 Members of Parliament may object to gifts by letter, Parliamentary Question or through an Early Day Motion. In such cases, departments may wish to advise their ministers to take the initiative by making contact with the MP concerned. This may be particularly appropriate if it is proposed to make the gift urgently or promptly on expiry of the waiting period.
A4.12.11 Where an objection is raised, the gift should not normally be made until the objection has been answered. In the case of an Early Day Motion, the MP should be given an opportunity to make a direct personal representation to the Minister. The Treasury should be notified of the outcome of any representations made by MPs.
Noting annual accounts
A4.12.12 Annual accounts should include a note on gifts made by departments if their total value exceeds £300,000. Gifts with a value of more than £300,000 should be noted individually, with a reference to the appropriate WMS and departmental minute. Exceptionally, where gifts are made between government departments, the receiving department should notate its accounts, not the donor.
Gifts received
A4.12.13 Departments should maintain a register detailing gifts they have received, their estimated value and what happened to them (whether they were retained, disposed of, etc). Gifts received need not be noted in accounts unless the Treasury or department concerned considers there is a special need for them to be brought to parliament's attention.
A4.12.14 Donations, sponsorship or contributions, eg from developers should also be treated as gifts.
A4.12.15 Guidance on gifts made to individual civil servants is in the Civil Service Management Code1.
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-servants-terms-and-conditions A4.13 Special payments
This annex explains how public sector organisations should approach current transactions outside the usual planned range. It is often right, or essential, to consult the Treasury beforehand. In some cases, it is also important to notify parliament.
A4.13.1 In voting money or passing specific legislation, parliament does not and cannot approve special payments outside the normal range of departmental activity. Such transactions are therefore subject to greater control than other payments.
A4.13.2 Departments should authorise special payments only after careful appraisal of the facts and when satisfied that the best course has been identified. It is good practice to consider routinely whether particular cases reveal concerns about the soundness of the control systems; and whether they have been respected as expected. It is also important to take any necessary steps to put failings right.
A4.13.3 Arm’s length bodies should operate to similar standards as departments unless there are good reasons to the contrary, eg overriding requirements of the statutory framework for Companies Act companies. Departments should ensure that their oversight arrangements (see chapter 7) enable them to be satisfied that their arm’s length bodies observe the standards.
Dealing with special payments
A4.13.4 Departments should always consult the Treasury about special payments unless there are specific agreed delegation arrangements in place. So a department should seek Treasury approval, in advance, for any special payment for which it has no delegated authority, or which exceeds its authority. Similarly, ALBs should consult their sponsor departments in comparable circumstances. In turn, the department may need to consult the Treasury.
A4.13.5 The special payments on which the Treasury may need to be consulted are summarised in box A4.13A. The list is not exclusive. If a department is in doubt, it is usually better to consult the Treasury.
A4.13.6 In particular, it is important to consult the Treasury about any cases, irrespective of delegations, which:
- involve important questions of principle;
- raise doubts about the effectiveness of existing systems;
- contain lessons which might be of wider interest;
- might create a precedent for other departments; or
- arise because of obscure or ambiguous instructions issued centrally. Box A4.13A: special payments
- **extra-contractual payments**: payments which, though not legally due under contract, appear to place an obligation on a public sector organisation which the courts might uphold. Typically these arise from the organisation’s action or inaction in relation to a contract. Payments may be extra-contractual even where there is some doubt about the organisation’s liability to pay, eg where the contract provides for arbitration but a settlement is reached without it. (A payment made as a result of an arbitration award is contractual.)
- **extra-statutory and extra-regulatory payments** are within the broad intention of the statute or regulation, respectively, but go beyond a strict interpretation of its terms.
- **compensation payments** are made to provide redress for personal injuries (except for payments under the Civil Service Injury Benefits Scheme), traffic accidents, damage to property etc, suffered by civil servants or others. They include other payments to those in the public service outside statutory schemes or outside contracts.
- **special severance payments** are paid to employees, contractors and others outside of normal statutory or contractual requirements when leaving employment in public service whether they resign, are dismissed or reach an agreed termination of contract.
- **ex gratia payments** go beyond statutory cover, legal liability, or administrative rules, including:
- payments made to meet hardship caused by official failure or delay
- out of court settlements to avoid legal action on grounds of official inadequacy
- payments to contractors outside a binding contract, eg on grounds of hardship.
A4.13.7 The Treasury does not condemn all special payments out of hand. Each needs to be justified properly in the public interest against the key public sector principles set out in Chapter 1, box 1.1, with particular emphasis on value for money since there is no legal liability. Any proposal to keep a special payment confidential must be justified especially carefully since confidentiality could appear to mask underhand dealing. Also financial reporting requirements and Freedom of Information legislation should be complied with. The Treasury’s bottom line is usually to ask the department to establish that the responsible accounting officer(s) would feel able to justify the proposed payment in parliament if challenged.
A4.13.8 Departments should also consult the Treasury about proposals for special payments above the relevant delegated limits. They should explain:
- the nature and circumstances of the case;
- the amount involved;
- the legal advice, where appropriate;
- the management procedures followed;
- an assessment of the value for money of the case
- any non-financial aspects;
- whether the case in question could have wider impact.
Severance Payments
A4.13.9 Special severance payments when staff leave public service employment should be exceptional. They always require Treasury approval because they are usually novel, contentious and potentially repercussive. So departments should always consult the Treasury in advance when considering a special severance payment.
**A4.13.10** The Treasury adopts a sceptical approach to proposals for special severance settlements, in particular:
- precedents from other parts of the public sector may not be a reliable guide in any given case;
- legal advice that a particular severance payment appears to offer good value for the employer may not be conclusive since such advice may not take account of the wider public interest;
- even if the cost of defeating an apparently frivolous or vexatious appeal will exceed the likely cost of that particular settlement to the employer, it may still be desirable to take the case to formal proceeding;
- winning such cases demonstrates that the government does not reward failure and should enhance the employer’s reputation for prudent use of public funds.
Severance payments will only be approved where they provide value for money for the Exchequer as a whole, rather than simply for the body concerned.
**A4.13.11** Departments should not treat special severance as a soft option, eg to avoid management action, disciplinary processes, unwelcome publicity or reputational damage. Box A4.13B sets out the factors the Treasury needs to evaluate in dealing with special severance cases.
**A4.13.12** It is important to ensure that Treasury approval is sought before any offers, whether oral or in writing, are made. A proforma for seeking Treasury approval is available.
**A4.13.13** Departments and their ALBs are also required to seek ministerial approval (including the approval of the Minister for the Cabinet Office) of confidentiality clauses in certain circumstances. Cabinet Office guidance on the use and approval of such agreements is also available.
______________________________________________________________________
**Box A4.13B: factors to consider in special severance cases**
Any case for special severance put to the treasury should explain:
- the circumstances of the case
- any scope for reference to a tribunal with its potential consequences, including the legal assessment of the organisation’s chances of winning or losing the case and likely scale of any award
- the management procedures followed
- the value for money offered by the possible settlement
- any non-financial considerations, eg where it is desirable to end someone’s employment without dismissal, perhaps because of restructuring
- whether the case could have wider impact, eg for a group of potential tribunal cases
______________________________________________________________________
1 [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/managing-public-money](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/managing-public-money) 2 [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-settlement-agreements-special-severance-payments-and-confidentiality-clauses](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-settlement-agreements-special-severance-payments-and-confidentiality-clauses) A4.13.14 Particular care should be taken to:
- avoid unnecessary delays which might lead to greater severance payments than might otherwise be merited;
- avoid offering the employee concerned consultancy work after severance unless best value for money can be demonstrated and the proposal is in line with Cabinet Office approvals and controls;
- ensure any undertakings about confidentiality leave severance transactions open to adequate public scrutiny, including by the NAO and the PAC;
- ensure special severance payments to senior staff are transparent and negotiated avoiding conflicts of interest.
A4.13.15 Organisations seeking retrospective Treasury approval for special severance payments should not take it for granted that approval will be provided, since such payments usually appear to reward failure and set a poor example for the public sector generally. Requests for retrospective approval will be considered as if the request had been made at the proper time and should contain the same level of detail as if the case had been brought to the Treasury in advance.
Retention Payments
A4.13.16 Retention payments, designed to encourage staff to delay their departures, particularly where transformations of ALBs are being negotiated, are also classified as novel and contentious. Such payments always require explicit Treasury approval, whether proposed in individual cases or in groups. Treasury approval must be obtained before any commitment, whether oral or in writing, is made.
A4.13.17 Organisations considering proposals for retention payments should subject them to strict value for money analysis. Sponsor departments should submit a business case to the Treasury, supported by market evidence, together with an evaluation of the risks and costs of alternative options. The Treasury will always be sceptical of whether they are necessary.
Reporting
A4.13.18 As parliament does not provide for special payments when voting Estimates or passing specific legislation, special payments should be brought to parliament’s attention, usually through a note in the organisation’s account. Any special severance payments for senior staff will in any case be itemised in annual accounts.
A4.13.19 Notification is separate from accounting treatment, which will depend on the nature of the special payment. Special payments should be noted in the accounts even if they may be reduced by subsequent recoveries.
A4.13.20 Special payments should be noted in annual accounts where the total value exceeds £300,000. Individual payments of more than £300,000 should be noted separately.
3 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-office-controls Reporting to Cabinet Office
A4.13.21 Departments and their ALBs are required to report to the Minister for the Cabinet Office on a quarterly basis any special severance payment made in connection with the termination of employment. These returns will enable Cabinet Office to provide assurance on whether the use of special severance payments across the Civil Service is both proportionate and appropriate, including the use of any confidentiality clauses alongside such payments. A pro forma is available.
A4.13.22 Civil Service-wide data on special severance payments will be published annually by the Cabinet Office.
______________________________________________________________________
4 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-settlement-agreements-special-severance-payments-and-confidentiality-clauses Prompt and efficient complaint handling is an important way of ensuring customers receive the service to which they are entitled and may save public sector organisations time and money by preventing a complaint escalating unnecessarily. If their services have been found deficient, public sector organisations should consider whether to provide remedies to people or firms who complain. This is separate from administering statutory rights or other legal obligations, eg to make payments to compensate. Remedies may take several different forms and should be proportionate and appropriate.
Dealing with complaints
A4.14.1 Public sector organisations should operate clear accessible complaints procedures. They are a valuable source of feedback which can help shed light on the quality of service provided, and in particular how well it matches up to policy intentions. So all complaints should be investigated. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has published Principles of good complaint handling to help public bodies when dealing with complaints.
A4.14.2 Systems for dealing with complaints should operate promptly and consistently. Those making complaints should be told how quickly their complaints can be processed. Where groups of complaints raise common issues, the remedies offered should be fair, consistent and proportionate.
A4.14.3 Public sector organisations should seek to learn from their complaints. If an internal or external review, or a PHSO investigation, shows there are systemic faults, defective systems or procedures should be overhauled and corrected.
Remedies
A4.14.4 As section 4.11 explains, when public sector organisations have caused injustice or hardship because of maladministration or service failure, they should consider:
- providing remedies so that, as far as reasonably possible, they restore the wronged party to the position that they would be in had things been done correctly, and
- whether policies and procedures need change, to prevent the failure reoccurring.
The remedies available
A4.14.5 Remedies can take a variety of forms, including (alone or in combination):
- an apology;
- an explanation;
1 http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving-public-service/ombudsmansprinciples/principles-of-good-complaint-handling-full A4.14 Remedy
- correction of the error or other remedial action;
- an undertaking to improve procedures or systems; or
- financial payments, eg one off or as part of a structured settlement.
A4.14.6 Financial remedies for individual cases are normally ex gratia payments. Where a pattern develops, and a number of cases raising similar points need to be dealt with, it may make sense to develop an extra statutory scheme (see annex 4.10). If any such scheme seems likely to persist, the organisation concerned should consider whether to bring forward legislation to set it on a statutory footing (see sections 2.5 and 2.6).
Designing remedies
A4.14.7 The normal approach to complaints where no financial payment is called for is to offer an apology and an explanation. This may be a sufficient and appropriate response in itself. People complaining may also want reassurance that mistakes will not be repeated.
A4.14.8 It may be more difficult to judge whether financial compensation is called for, and if so how much, especially if there is no measurable financial detriment. Great care should be taken in designing financial compensation schemes since they may set expensive precedents.
A4.14.9 Where financial remedies are identified as the right approach to service failure, they should be fair, reasonable and proportionate to the damage suffered by those complaining. Financial remedies should not, however, allow recipients to gain a financial advantage compared to what would have happened with no service failure.
A4.14.10 Public sector organisations deciding on financial remedies should take into account all the relevant factors. Some which are often worth considering are outlined in box A4.14A. The list may not be exhaustive.
Box A4.14A: factors to consider in deciding whether financial compensation is appropriate
- Whether a loss has been caused by failure to pay an entitlement, eg to a grant or benefit.
- Whether someone has faced any additional costs as a result of the action or inaction of a public sector organisation, eg because of delay.
- Whether the process of making the complaint has imposed costs on the person complaining, eg lost earnings or costs of pursuing the complaint.
- The circumstances of the person complaining, eg whether the action or inaction of the public sector organisation has caused knock on effects or hardship.
- Whether the damage is likely to persist for some time.
- Whether any financial remedy would be taxable when paid to the person complaining.
- Any advice from the PHSO.
A4.14.11 If a compensation payment includes an element because the person complaining has had to wait for their award, it should be calculated as simple interest. The interest rate to be applied should be appropriate to the circumstances and defensible against the facts. Some rates worth considering are the rate HMRC pays on tax repayments and the rate used in court settlements. A4.14.12 When a public sector organisation recognises that it needs a scheme for a set of similar or connected claims after maladministration or service failure, it should ensure that the arrangements chosen deal with all potential claimants equitably. It is important that such schemes take into account the PHSO’s Principles of good administration. They must be well designed since costs can escalate if a problem turns out to be more extensive than initially expected.
A4.14.13 If those seeking compensation have suffered injustice or hardship in a way which is likely to persist, it may not be appropriate to pay compensation as a lump sum. Instead it may make sense to award a structured settlement with periodic (eg monthly or annual) payments. Public sector organisations considering such settlements should seek both legal and actuarial advice in drawing them up.
A4.14.14 Essentially, designing a compensation scheme is no different from designing other services. Good management, efficiency, effectiveness and value for money are key goals (see Chapter 4). Some specific issues which may require special care for compensation schemes are outlined in box A4.14B.
Box A4.14B: Issues to consider in designing compensation schemes
- Clarify the coverage of the scheme.
- Set clear scheme rules, with supporting guidance, to implement the policy intention.
- Make the remedies fair and proportionate, avoiding bias, discrimination or prejudice.
- Ensure the scheme’s systems work, eg through pilot testing.
- Design in sufficient flexibility to cope with the characteristics of the claimant population.
- Check that the administration cost is not excessive – or simplify the scheme.
- If the scheme sets a precedent, make sure that it is acceptable generally.
- Inform parliament appropriately, eg through a written statement and/or in the estimates / annual accounts.
- Plan to evaluate the scheme at suitable point(s).
- Provide for closure of the scheme, unless there is good reason not to.
Consulting the Treasury
A4.14.15 When considering making individual remedy payments, departments need to consult the Treasury (and sponsored bodies need to consult their sponsor departments) about cases which:
- fall outside their delegated authorities; or
- raise novel or contentious issues; or
- could set a potentially expensive precedent or cause repercussions for other public sector organisations.
A4.14.16 Public sector organisations developing schemes to pay remedies should consult the Treasury before finalising them. Proposed schemes drawn up in response to a PHSO recommendation also require Cabinet Office approval. Once a scheme is agreed, it is only
______________________________________________________________________
2 http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving-public-service/ombudsmansprinciples/principles-of-good-administration necessary to consult the Treasury further about cases outside the agreed boundaries for the scheme, or the delegated authority applying to it.
**Reporting ex gratia payments**
**A4.14.17** Departments should ensure that ex gratia payments have Estimate cover, and that the ambit of the vote concerned is wide enough for the purpose. Ex gratia payments score as special payments in departments' accounts. Departments and agencies should include summary information on compensation payments arising from maladministration in their annual reports. Annex 4.15 Asset management
Each public sector organisation is expected to develop and operate an asset management strategy underpinned by a reliable and up to date asset register. The board should review the strategy annually as part of the corporate or business plan.
A4.15.1 Accounting officers of public sector organisations are responsible for managing their assets. This aspect of financial management covers the acquisition, use, maintenance, and disposal of assets for the benefit of the organisations and indeed for the Exchequer as whole.
A4.15.2 Each organisation needs to have a clear grasp of:
- the content of its current assets base;
- the assets it needs to deliver efficient, cost effective public services;
- what this means for asset acquisition, use, maintenance, renewal, upgrade and disposal;
- whether any gains could be achieved by working with other public sector organisations;
- how use of assets fits within the corporate plan.
A4.15.3 Normally, these responsibilities will be dispersed in an organisation through a system of delegations with appropriate reporting arrangements. Similarly, departments should ensure that each of their sponsored organisations has equivalent arrangements.
Asset registers
A4.15.4 It is good practice for each organisation to draw up, and keep up to date, a register of all the assets it owns and uses. This will usually be needed for preparation of its financial accounts. It is also essential to undertake regular stock taking of the organisation’s current assets base and thus for planning change.
A4.15.5 The assets on an organisation’s register should include both tangible and intangible assets, covering both owned assets and assets under its legal control such as leased or private finance assets. Box A.4.15A lists the main groups of assets but is not exhaustive. Each organisation should decide on a meaningful valuation threshold in line with best practice.
A4.15.6 In drawing up the asset register, particular care should be taken with two sorts of asset:
- attractive items, such as works of art and items similarly susceptible to theft. These may be included even if they are below the valuation threshold, in line with guidance provided by the Government Art Collection; and
- investments in the form of debentures and shares in commercial companies. These should be checked at least annually. Box A4.15A: main categories of public sector assets
| Tangible assets | Intangible assets | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | • wholly owned land and buildings | • copyrights, including Crown copyright | | • leased fixed assets (including those acquired through private finance) | • trademarks | | • raw materials | • franchises | | • stocks and stores | • patents and other intellectual property rights, including in house software | | • plant, machinery, equipment, tools | • goodwill | | • furniture and fittings | • data and information | | • assets under construction | • knowledge and know-how | | • donated physical assets | • software licences | | • heritage assets | • public dividend capital | | • antiques and works of art | • loans and deposits | | • economic infrastructure assets (including highways, railways, airports, utilities communication networks and power generation and transmission) | • investments including shares and debentures in companies |
Asset management strategies
A4.15.7 The asset management strategy of a public sector organisation should be integrated into its corporate and annual business plans. It should thus be possible to help plan change in asset use or deployment when necessary. Box A.4.15B suggests some key steps. The organisation’s board should take stock of progress in delivering its asset management strategy from time to time, and at least annually.
Box A4.15B: steps for developing asset management plans
- Review the asset register to assess its adequacy for the organisation’s objectives and functions.
- Plan how retained assets will be used efficiently for the organisation’s core functions.
- Plan asset acquisitions, e.g. to extend, modify or replace the existing asset base.
- Identify disposals, and plan to use the proceeds. Once decided upon, disposals should be as swift as the market will allow with reasonable value for money. Treasury approval is required for spending or retaining receipts.
- Plan any loans of assets, with charges and conditions for their return, liability, damage.
- Consider whether any retained assets have potential to generate revenue through commercial services. A4.15.8 Assets should be managed like other parts of organisation’s business, with up to date and reliable information systems to provide feedback on performance, efficiency and value for money. The organisation is expected to:
- view value for money from the asset from the perspective of the whole Exchequer, taking account of opportunities to work with other public sector organisations to minimise the government’s overall required asset base;
- manage the assets in a way which aims to optimise cost sustainability through their effective lives;
- use commercial terms for the delivery and support of assets;
- incorporate adequate flexibility to cope with the organisation’s future change programme.
Efficiency improvements
A4.15.9 Efficiency in the use of workspace may make it possible for a public sector organisation to occupy less space. It is good practice to dispose of surplus property, or to share accommodation on the civil estate with other public sector organisations where this is practicable. It may be necessary to consider a budget transfer between organisations, with Treasury consent, to help meet the initial relocation costs.
A4.15.10 Prior to marketing any land or building asset, public sector organisations should also make use of the following:
- “Disposal of Surplus Public Sector Land and Buildings – Protocols for Land holding Departments”¹ which describes the procedures to be followed to dispose of land with development potential;
- The Cabinet Office’s National Property Controls which detail the rules on lease extensions, lease renewals, acquisitions, disposals as well as required space standards associated with major refurbishments of buildings;
- The Register of Surplus Land, part of ePIMS (electronic Property Management Information Mapping Service), a mandatory central database recording information on the civil estate. The data base does not cover leasehold property with less than 99 years outstanding;
- the Civil Estate Occupancy Agreement governing relationships among Crown bodies sharing accommodation and the Civil Estate Coordination Protocol which is designed to improve the planning, acquisition, management, rationalisation and disposal of property and other workspace on the civil estate;
- latest guidance and advice available from the Government Property Unit.
¹ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disposal-of-surplus-public-sector-land-and-buildings-protocol-for-land-holding-departments Asset Sales
A4.15.11 When undertaking an asset sale, departments should follow the Asset Sales Disclosure Guidance. The guidance requires government departments to disclose the impacts of an asset sale on Public Sector Net Borrowing (PSNB), Public Sector Net Debt (PSND), Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities (PSNFL) and Public Sector Net Liabilities (PSNL), as well as disclosing the proceeds and whether the sale was above, within or below the retention value range. Departments should also include a rationale for the sale, as well as justification for its format and timing, and include these alongside the impacts in a Written Ministerial Statement laid in Parliament after the sale.
Transfer of property
A4.15.12 Public sector organisations may transfer property among themselves without placing the asset on the open market, provided they do so at market prices and in appropriate circumstances. They should follow the guidelines in box A4.15C.
Box A4.15C: protocol for transfers of assets
- Consult ePIMS to see if properties on the civil estate can be used.
- Value assets at market prices using Royal Institute Chartered Surveyors’ Red Book (www.rics.org).
- The original and prospective owners should work collaboratively to agree a price. It is good practice to commission a single independent valuation to settle the price to be paid.
- The organisations should take legal advice, especially where sponsored organisations are involved as these may have specific legal requirements.
- There is no need for full investigation of legal title since full transfer is rarely necessary because of the indivisibility of the Crown.
- Consult the Government Property Unit of the Cabinet Office, who may be able to help with coordination.
- The terms of transfer should not normally involve neither clawback (rights to share disposal proceeds) or overage (rights to share future profits on disposal) though see A4.15.13 below.
A4.15.13 Sometimes transfers of assets result from machinery of government changes. The relevant legislation (e.g. a transfer of functions order) should prescribe the terms of any such transfers.
A4.15.14 In certain limited circumstances overage provisions can be considered. The circumstances where overage is acceptable are:
- where the property is sold to a private developer for housing development;
- there is a realistic prospect that selling will improve the outcome for housing policy, e.g. by creating an aggregated composite site;
- the accounting officers of the relevant public sector organisations are convinced that, in this transaction, overage offers value for money for the Exchequer as a whole;
- the Treasury agrees (these transaction are always novel and contentious).
2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asset-sale-disclosures-guidance-for-government A4.15.15 In addition, the overage provisions may be agreed by a central government purchaser of property where it is a condition of the sale of that property by a local government or devolved administration body. In all cases the purchase must represent value for money for the Exchequer as a whole and Treasury consent should be sought.
Disposals of property and land assets
A4.15.16 Public sector organisations should take professional advice when disposing of land and property assets. Some key guidelines are in box A4.15D.
Box A4.15D: protocol for disposal of land, property and other assets
- Value assets at market prices using Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors’ Red Book (www.rics.org).
- Dispose of surplus land property within three years.
- Dispose of surplus residential property within six months.
- Sell plant, machinery, office equipment, furniture and consumable stores by public auction as seen; or by open tender. Obtain payment before releasing the goods.
- If an asset is sold or leased at a loss, the proceeds forgone (compared to market value) should be treated as a gift, and the routine in annex 4.12 should be followed.
A4.15.17 Sometimes private finance projects involve disposals. Each such case should be evaluated as part of the private finance project, with due attention to the need to secure good value for money. Further guidance is an annex 7.4.
A4.15.18 Public sector organisations which make grants to third parties for the acquisition of assets should normally include a clawback condition under which they can recoup the proceeds if the recipient of the grant later sells the asset. There is some scope for flexibility in this discipline: see annex 5.2.
A4.15.19 Disposals to charities require particular care. Their trust deeds sometimes place restrictions on how they may use their assets. It is good practice to consider the possible disposal of assets by such recipients before making gifts to them.
Economic infrastructure assets
A4.15.20 Managing economic infrastructure affects the quality of delivery of services. It is also central to achievement of the national infrastructure goals detailed in the National Infrastructure Plan. These factors need to be incorporated into the business plans and objectives of public sector organisations which hold, use and manage such assets.
A4.15.21 Good asset management of economic infrastructure thus calls for the responsible organisations to coordinate their own and their stakeholders’ objectives. Sometimes securing value for money for the taxpayer means compromise between cost, risks, opportunities and performance. Finding the right solution can affect organisations’ long-term plans, their prioritisation of resources and work to achieve realism in stakeholder expectations, as set out in the National Infrastructure Plan. Central asset registers
A4.15.22 From time to time government gathers information in order to publish a national assets register. Central government organisations and NHS bodies should supply the information on their assets when requested.
A4.15.23 Under Crown copyright policy, certain public sector organisations are required to supply details for the official bibliographic database. See annex 6.2 for further details.
Digest of guidance
- Office of Government Property (Cabinet Office) - https://www.gov.uk/government/policy-teams/government-property-unit-ogp
- Government’s Estate Strategy: delivering a modern estate – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-estate-strategy-2018
- Common Minimum Standards for Construction https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/common-minimum-standards-for-construction
- recording property details on the government’s ePIMS (electronic Property Information System) https://www.epims.ogc.gov.uk/ProgrammeHub/public/DAO%20Letter%20Mandating%20ePIMS.pdf?id=258687de-b5ce-4d28-9430-1e259c56897b
- Property disposal - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-for-the-disposal-of-surplus-government-land
- Crichel Down rules – offering land and property acquired by the public sector back for former owners - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/compulsory-purchase-process-and-the-crichel-down-rules-guidance#historyC
- Disposal of Heritage Assets https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/disposal-heritage-assets/ guidance-disposals-final-jun-10/ Annex 5.1 Grants
This annex sets out how government departments should arrange and control grants, including to arm’s length bodies such as NDPBs.
A5.1.1 Central government departments normally offer two kinds of financial support to third parties, using statutory powers:
- grants: made for specific purposes, under statute, and satisfying specific conditions, eg about project terms, or with other detailed control;
- grants in aid: providing more general support, usually for an NDPB, with fewer specific, but more general controls on the body, and less oversight by the funder.
A5.1.2 Grants should not be confused with contracts. A public sector organisation funds by grant as a matter of policy, not in return for services provided under contract.
Payment
A5.1.3 Grants should be paid on evidence of need or qualification, depending on the terms of the grant scheme. For example:
- the recipient may need to submit a claim with evidence of eligibility;
- the recipient may need to show that it meets the conditions of the scheme, eg a farmer may need to disclose details of his or her business;
- there may be a timing condition;
- small third sector organisations may need to demonstrate a clear operational requirement for project funding to be made before grant is paid.
A5.1.4 Grants in aid should also match the recipient’s need. Significant sums should be phased through the year in instalments designed to echo the recipient’s expenditure pattern. In this way the recipient organisation need not carry significant cash balances, which would be an inefficient use of public money.
Control
A5.1.5 Payment of both grants and grants in aid normally requires specific empowering legislation as well as cover in Estimates. There is scope for temporary ex gratia grant schemes to be financed on the authority of the Appropriation Act alone provided that the scheme meets the standard conditions (see section 2.5).
A5.1.6 The accounting officer of the funding organisation is responsible for ensuring that grant recipients are eligible and use the grant in the way envisaged in the founding legislation. For grants in aid, it is usual to arrange this by setting out terms and conditions in a framework document sent to recipients to explain their responsibilities. Such framework documents should strike an appropriate balance among: ensuring prudent management of grant in aid funds; achieving value for money; assuring funders that grants are used as envisaged; while allowing recipients reasonable freedom to take their own decisions.
However, care needs to be taken as general and wide ranging conditions attached to grant in aid can transfer control of a body to a funder for public sector classification purposes.
A5.1.7 Accounting Officers should ensure that all grants issued comply with the Cabinet Office’s Grant Standards. ¹
A5.1.8 Departments should understand enough about the other sources of a grant recipient’s income to be satisfied that the same need is not funded twice. It is usually essential to segregate inflows from different recipients since they are usually intended for different purposes.
A5.1.9 Departments which provide grants of either kind to an arm’s length body should document how the recipient is expected to handle the funds. See annex 7.2 for more.
A5.1.10 Departments should ensure that they have adequate assurance arrangements in place and that the Comptroller and Auditor General has adequate access rights to grant recipients.
A5.1.11 A department asked by another part of government to pay a grant to an external organisation, such as a charity, from its own resources should ensure that its own accounting officer gives due consideration to the proposal before funding is committed.
Protecting the Exchequer
A5.1.12 If public sector organisations provide grants to private sector organisations to acquire or develop assets, suitable and proportionate steps should be taken to safeguard both their financial interests and those of the Exchequer. Donors should consider setting grant conditions designed to ensure that the Exchequer’s interest is not overlooked if the asset is not used as expected (see annex 5.2).
Endowments
A5.1.13 Grants and grants in aid are normally paid to meet the needs of the recipients. Exceptionally, there may be a case for funding by way of endowment or dowry, ie a modest one-off grant to enable the recipient to set up a fund from which to draw down over several years. The recipient should then be able to make a clean break with the need for support.
A5.1.14 Departments contemplating such funding arrangements should consult the relevant Treasury spending team (and in turn arm’s length bodies should consult their sponsor departments) as this form of funding is always novel and contentious. The Treasury will need to consider the value for money case for this form of funding, including:
- the opportunity cost of locking public funds into a particular endowment, using investment appraisal techniques;
¹ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/grants-standards • the value of the particular programme or project against others. The Treasury will need to be satisfied that such funding would not protect any low-value projects or programmes from proper expenditure scrutiny; • the sustainability of the funded body and whether such funding will remove future reliance on public funding; • whether there are clear objectives, outputs and outcomes of the funding; and • the risk of further call on public funds.
A5.1.15 Any such endowment should: • reflect genuine need for capital funding that could not be raised through other methods; • be made only to recipients with the competence to manage the endowment over time; and • avoid skewing public funding away from other projects that have genuine cash needs.
A5.1.16 The terms of an endowment should: • be clear that the funded body should not subsequently approach the donor for annual funding; • maintain clear boundaries between the funder and recipient.
A5.1.17 Endowments should never be used as a way of bringing expenditure forward to avoid an underspend. Nor is it acceptable to make a string of endowment payments to a single recipient instead of taking specific provision in legislation to pay grants.
A5.1.18 Endowments are intended for situations where a clear financial break will be advantageous to both recipient and donor. Normally the recipient will be a civil society body or equivalent status. Annex 5.2 Protecting the Exchequer interest (clawback)
This annex discusses how public sector organisations which provide grants to the private sector and others should protect their investments where grants are used to buy or improve assets.
Clawback
A5.2.1 Public sector organisations providing funds to others to acquire or develop assets should take steps to make sure that public sector funds are used for the intended purposes for which the grant is made. It is usual to consider setting conditions on such grants, taking into account the value of the grant, the use of the asset to be funded and its future value.
A5.2.2 A standard grant condition is clawback. This is achieved by setting a condition on the grant that gives the funding body a charge over the asset so that, if the recipient proposes to sell or change the use of the asset acquired with the grant, it must:
- consult the funder;
- return the grant to the funder; or
- yield the proceeds of sale (or a specified proportion) to the funder.
A5.2.3 However, a charge over the asset is not always essential. Some ground rules are suggested in box A5.2A.
Box A5.2A: when to consider clawback
clawback desirable
- tangible or intangible assets, including intellectual property rights, crown copyright, patents, designs and database rights, financed directly, whether wholly or partly by grants or grants in aid;
- tangible or intangible assets developed by the funded body itself, financed indirectly by a grant for a related purpose or by grant in aid
clawback not always necessary
- procurement of goods and services, where any liability is adequately discharged once the goods and services have been provided
- where a grant has been provided for research and not specifically for the creation of physical asset, the successful conclusion of the research might be adequate return
A5.2.4 Because funders, recipients and circumstances can vary so much, there is no single model for clawback. Bespoke terms are often desirable. They should allow as much flexibility as seems sensible. The aim should be to help recipients develop and provide services over the longer term while securing value for public funds. Drawing on the ideas in box 7.2, funders should always settle the terms of each grant with its recipient at the start of the relationship, consistent with its objectives. Designing clawback conditions
A5.2.5 The design of clawback conditions for a grant should take account of its circumstances, the underlying policy objective(s) and the funder’s approach to risk. A checklist of some common factors to consider is in box A5.2B. Using this tailored approach can mean different organisations take very different approaches to the same risks.
Box A5.2B: factors to consider in designing clawback terms
- the nature and purpose of the grant
- how the asset will help secure the policy objectives behind the grant
- the expected life of the asset
- the extent to which the recipient is financed out of public funds
- how the asset will be used by the recipient, eg scope for appreciation or generating profit
- how long the funder should retain an interest in the asset
- whether the asset may be sold, with any restrictions on disposal, eg as to price or purchaser
- whether there is sense in reassessing after a certain period or on a given trigger
- whether the terms of clawback should vary according to a factor such as the asset value (in which case the terms may need to provide for periodic valuations)
- when the policy objectives should be delivered
- the funder’s legal powers and the recipient’s legal position (eg as a company or charity)
- any other relevant legal factors, eg EU rules on state aids
A5.2.6 In setting terms and conditions for grants, funders should consider what could happen if things do not proceed as intended, notably what should happen if:
- the recipient does not behave as expected; or
- external conditions are very different to plans; or
- the recipient goes into liquidation (eg should the funder take priority over unsecured creditors).
Duration of charge
A5.2.7 It can make sense to relate the funder’s right to clawback to the policy objectives of making the grant rather than allowing it to persist indefinitely unchanged. Some policy options are outlined in box A5.2C. If the clawback is linked to the value of an asset which is likely to appreciate, there is a risk that the recipient may face a disincentive to participate, so care and sensitivity may be needed.
A5.2.8 However, it can also make sense to moderate grants conditions by using terms such as:
- a break clause allowing the funder and recipient to consider whether the objectives of the funding have been achieved, triggering the end or reduction of the funder’s interest in the asset;
- a review clause allowing scope to retain the charge and review the clawback period if the project has not met the agreed objectives; A5.2 Protecting the Exchequer interest (clawback)
- releasing the funder’s interest in the asset (and so permitting its disposal or use as collateral) at the end of the agreed charge or clawback period.
**Box A5.2C: options for clawback duration or assets as collateral**
- keying it to the objectives of the grant
- relating it to the period over which the intended benefits are to be delivered
- settling clawback rights on a declining scale, eg falling to zero by the end of an agreed period, or the asset’s useful life, or by when the policy objectives are deemed delivered
- allowing the recipient to use as collateral the difference between the market value of the asset and the original grant
A5.2.9 It is common to prohibit recipients from using the assets they acquire or improve using grants as collateral in borrowing transactions. This is because the public sector funder might be forced to take up the recipient’s legal liability to service debt should it fail. However, if a funder agrees that a recipient may use assets acquired or developed with grants as collateral, it should consider carefully what conditions it should apply. Some freedom of this kind may help the recipient make the transition to viability or independence. For example, a funder might allow a recipient to retain income generated by using spare capacity in the funded asset.
A5.2.10 But normally it is important for the funder to retain some control over any use of the funded asset outside the grant conditions. Typically the funder will require the recipient to obtain the funder’s consent before raising funds on any part of a funded asset so long as the clawback period continues. Any further conditions should be proportionate, striking a proper balance between encouraging the recipient to be self-supporting and allowing the recipient to use public funds for its own purpose.
**Enforcing a claim on a funded asset**
A5.2.11 Where appropriate, funders should secure a formal legal charge on funded assets. This may be particularly important for high risk projects or to prevent the funder becoming exposed to assuming the recipient’s debts. It is usual to take a registered charge on land under the Land Registration Act 2002 and its Rules. If the recipient is a Companies Act company, it may make sense to secure a registered charge on the company’s book debts.
A5.2.12 The form and intended duration of any charge should be recorded in the founding documents charting the relationship between the funder and recipient. Both parties will need legal advice, eg covering the statutory background, any relevant EU rules (eg on state aids) and on how the charge would be enforceable. Both parties should also keep track of their outstanding charges. It is good practice to register a land charge, so that it will automatically be taken into account during any sale process.
A5.2.13 Sometimes a funder may decide not to enforce clawback when a funded asset is sold, even though the agreed clawback period is still in force. Funders should take any such decision consciously on its merits, not letting it go by default. Reasons why a funder might take this approach include:
- the objectives of the grant may have been achieved;
- the recipient may propose to use the funded asset in an acceptable way different from the original purpose; A5.2 Protecting the Exchequer interest (clawback)
- the recipient may intend to finance an alternative asset or project within the objectives of the grant scheme out of the proceeds of the sale;
- the funder might agree to abate future grants to the recipient instead of taking the proceeds of sale.
A5.2.14 If a department decides to waive a clawback condition, it should consider whether it needs to report that waiver as a gift. If so, it should follow the gift reporting requirements in annex 4.12.
A5.2.15 If it is proposed to sell a grant recipient with a live charge, the funder should take legal advice on whether it can enforce the charge on the proceeds of the sale. The funder should consider the legal position of the proposed purchaser of the grant recipient, and in particular whether its objectives (eg charitable or as a social enterprise) are in line with the original grant conditions. If the funder becomes aware that such a sale is possible at the time the grant is awarded, it would usually be appropriate to require the recipient to obtain its consent before proceeding. And any request for endorsement of a sale should be evaluated objectively. Annex 5.3 Treatment of income and receipts
The rules on use of income and receipts are designed to control the circumstances in which they can finance use of public resources.
A5.3.1 Parliament controls departments’ use of income and receipts, just as it controls the raising of tax, since both may finance use of public resources. Departments should ensure that all income and associated cash is recorded in full and collected promptly.
A5.3.2 Unless otherwise authorised, cash receipts must be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Sometimes specific legislation requires this for certain income streams; for many others the Civil List Act 1952 classifies them as hereditary revenues to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
A5.3.3 Hereditary revenue is:
- virtually all non-statutory receipts;
- cash receipts received by virtue of specific statutory authority; and
- receipts where statute does not say otherwise.
Unless it can be established that a particular type of receipt or surplus cash is not hereditary revenue, the default position is that it is, and that the Civil List Act 1952 requires it to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
A5.3.4 The main categories of income and associated receipts are shown in Box A.5.3A.
Box A5.3A: the different kinds of central government income
- the proceeds of taxation: paid into the Consolidated Fund
- repayment of principal and interest on NLF loans: paid direct to the NLF
- sums due under bespoke legislation: paid as specified, eg the proceeds of national insurance contributions paid into the National Insurance Fund
- receipts of trading funds: treated as specified in the founding legislation
- sums due to departments financed through Estimates:
- either paid into the Consolidated Fund as CFERs
- or applied to support spending in the Estimate if the Treasury agrees.
A5.3.5 Specific legislation, with Treasury approval, is normally required to authorise use of income directly to meet resource consumption ie to offset current or capital expenditure. In effect this process means that the department seeks less finance through Estimates because part of the cost of the service is met from income. Parliament has an interest because otherwise resource consumption would require specific approval through the Estimates process.
A5.3.6 Following the Clear Line of Sight reforms, there is no longer a specific control over the amount of income that can be retained by departments and used to offset spending. However controls over income remain. A5.3.7 In order for a department to retain income to offset against spending within the Estimate it must be within the budget boundary (i.e. classed by the Treasury as negative DEL or departmental AME) and be properly described in the Estimate. There must also be a direct relationship between the income and the spending and departments may not use additional income on one part of the Estimate to offset shortfalls of income (or overspends) in another part of the Estimates without Treasury approval. Such approval will only be given where the additional income has an appropriate relationship to the expenditure it is being used to cover.
**Authority to retain and use income**
A5.3.8 The Treasury has powers to direct that income included in a departmental Estimate and approved by Parliament may be retained and used by the department. This Treasury direction is included within the introductory text to the Main Supply Estimates publication(^1). The direction provides that the income in the relevant Estimate may be applied against resources (current or capital) within that Estimate. Without such authority the cash must be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund as extra receipts (CFERs).
A5.3.9 Sometimes departments have excess income, ie income is anticipated to be higher than the expenditure stream it matches, or more income than was anticipated in the Estimate. When income is anticipated to be higher than the expenditure stream it matches departments may present an Estimate with a negative budgetary limit at the start of the financial year, although this is relatively rare. When more income is received than was anticipated in the Estimate, departments are allowed to treat the income as negative DEL as long as it is no more than 10% above the level envisaged for that year as part of the Spending Review settlement(^2). Any income in excess of this will normally be treated as non-budget and will need to be surrendered as a CFER.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) (see Estimates Manual [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supply-estimates-guidance-manual](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supply-estimates-guidance-manual)
(^2) [https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/consolidated-budgeting-guidance](https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/consolidated-budgeting-guidance) Annex 5.4 Contingent Liabilities
Parliament expects advance notice of any commitments to future use of public funds for which there is no active request for resources through Estimates. This annex discusses how a number of different kinds of liability should be dealt with.
A5.4.1 As with expenditure, ministers may enter into liabilities – in effect, commitments to future expenditure – without explicit parliamentary authority. But parliament expects to be notified of the existence of these commitments when they are undertaken. Should they eventually give rise to the need for public expenditure, they will require the authority of an Appropriation Act and frequently also specific enabling legislation.
A5.4.2 Because the Crown is indivisible, ministers (and their departments) cannot give guarantees to each other. They can, however, enter into commitments to conditional support with the same effect – though this is rare.
A5.4.3 Some liabilities are uncertain. These contingent liabilities recognise that future expenditure may arise if certain conditions are met or certain events happen. That is, the risk of a call on Exchequer funds in the future will depend on whether or not certain circumstances arise. For example, payment under a government guaranteed loan would only be required if the body covered by the guarantee was unable to repay the loan.
A5.4.4 Arm’s length bodies (ALBs) sponsored by departments do not generally have powers to take on liabilities, because these would in effect bind their sponsoring departments. So the documentation governing the relationship between a department and an ALB (see chapter 7 and annex 7.4) should require the ALB to gain the sponsor department’s agreement to any commitment, including borrowing, into which it proposes to enter. Departments should ensure that ALBs have systems to appraise and manage liabilities to the standards in this annex, so that they can report to parliament any liabilities assumed by ALBs in the same way as they would their own.
Need for statutory powers
A5.4.5 It is good practice to enter into liabilities on the strength of specific statutory powers – as with items of expenditure. This is essential if a regular scheme of loan guarantees or other support is intended. Departments should consult the Treasury about proposals for such legislation, which should include arrangements for reporting new liabilities to parliament. It is usual to put a statement to both Houses when statutory liabilities are undertaken. Provision in budgets and Estimates should be scored as the department’s best assessment of the need to pay out in support of the liabilities.
A5.4.6 In the nature of giving liabilities, many will arise with little notice. Departments should report these to parliament at the earliest opportunity. There is a standard procedure for doing this: see paragraphs A.5.4.22 to A.5.4.36 of this annex.
A5.4.7 If a liability taken on in this way seems likely to persist, the department concerned should consider backing it with statutory cover. This is because any expenditure which arises because of it is subject to the same parliamentary expectations about statutory powers as any other expenditure (see section 2.1). If a contingent liability could give rise to a loan, the organisation should ensure that there is reasonable likelihood of the loan being serviced and repaid (see section 5.6).
A5.4.8 There is an exception to the need for statutory powers for accepting liabilities. Commitments taken on in the normal course of business do not need specific cover, just as routine administrative expenditure does not (see para 2.3.2). The standard conditions for treating liabilities as undertaken in the normal course of business are set out in box A.5.4A, with some common examples. What may be the normal course of business for one department may not be the normal course of business for another.
Box A5.4A: Liabilities arising in the normal course of business
In order to treat a liability as arising in the normal course of business, the organisation concerned should be able to show that:
- the activity is an unavoidable part of its business and/or
- parliament could reasonably be assumed to have accepted that such liabilities can rest on the sole authority of the Supply and Appropriation Act, based on the activities it has previously authorised.
Examples of common liabilities arising in the normal course of business include:
- liabilities arising in the course of the purchase or supply of goods and services in the discharge of the department's business
- contractual commitments to make payments in future years arising under long-term contracts, eg major building works
- commitments to pay grants in future years under a statutory grant scheme
- contingent liabilities resulting from non-insurance (see annex 4.4).
A5.4.9 If procurement in the normal course of business gives rise to proposals for liabilities outside the normal range (eg a cap on the contractor’s liabilities), the public sector organisation should consider renegotiating. The acid test is whether two private sector bodies would use the same terms. In cases of doubt, the Treasury should be consulted.
A5.4.10 PFI contracts are a special case of procurement and so can cause departments to take on liabilities. There is no need to notify use of standard PFI terms to parliament, but any use of non-standard terms should be reported like any other.
A5.4.11 There are additional conditions for taking on non-standard conditions, namely:
- the need must be urgent and unlikely to be repeated; and
- it would be in the national interest to act even though there is no statutory authority.
Taking on liabilities
A5.4.12 Before accepting any liability, the organisation should appraise the proposal using the Green Book¹, to secure value for money, just like a proposal to undertake any other project. The
¹ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-government liability should be designed to restrict exposure to the minimum, eg by imposing conditions about duration. Other possible features to limit liabilities might include:
- a commitment fee from the beneficiary (though this does not remove the need for appraisal of the proposition) and/or
- arrangements to lift the liability if the beneficiary no longer needs it.
A5.4.13 Similarly, it is not good practice to take on liabilities to contractors which would indemnify them in the event of their own negligence or that of a sub-contractor. But it may be reasonable to give an indemnity to a private sector body against damage to property it owns arising out of government use, eg if a public sector organisation uses a private sector body’s premises or equipment. Any such indemnity should of course exclude damage caused by the body’s own staff or contractors.
A5.4.14 Subject to the statutory powers of the public sector organisation and its delegated authorities, it is important for an organisation contemplating assuming a new liability to consult the Treasury (or the sponsor department, as the case may be) before assuming it. Departments’ delegated authorities for incurring liabilities should include the liabilities of any sponsored bodies.
A5.4.15 HM Treasury approval must be sought for all contingent liabilities that are novel, contentious or repercussive. In addition, a completed Contingent Liability approval framework checklist must be submitted to HM Treasury before entering into a contingent liability with a maximum exposure of £3m or more. This process is also required for remote contingent liabilities.
Types of liability
A5.4.16 Public sector organisations may take on liabilities by:
- issuing specific guarantees, usually of loans;
- writing a letter or statement of comfort; or
- providing indemnities.
A5.4.17 It is important to remember that any of these instruments issued by a minister may be legally enforceable.
A5.4.18 Guarantees should normally arise using statutory powers. They typically involve guarantees against non-payment of debts to third parties.
A5.4.19 Letters of comfort, however vague, give rise to moral and sometimes legal obligations. They should therefore be treated in the same way as any other proposal for a liability. Great care should be taken with proposals to offer general statements of awareness of a third party’s position, or oral statements with equivalent effect. Creditors could easily take these to mean more than intended and threats of legal action could result. Treasury approval is essential.
A5.4.20 It is common to give certain kinds of indemnity to members of boards of central government departments or of NDPBs; or to civil servants involved in legal proceedings or formal enquiries as a consequence of their employment, perhaps by acting as a board member of a
______________________________________________________________________
2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contingent-liability-approval-framework company. The standard form is set out in box A.5.4B, in line with the Civil Service Management Code. This cover is comparable to what is obtainable on the commercial insurance market. So it excludes personal criminal liability, reckless acts or business done in bad faith.
A5.4.21 Liabilities of this kind to individuals do not normally need to be reported to parliament unless they go beyond the standard form or are particularly large or risky.
Box A5.4B: standard indemnity for board members
The government has indicated that an individual board member who has acted honestly and in good faith will not have to meet out of his or her personal resources any personal civil liability, including costs, which is incurred in the execution or the purported execution of his or her board functions, save where the board member has acted recklessly.
Notifying liabilities to parliament
A5.4.22 The rules for notifying parliament of liabilities are very similar to those for public expenditure. Generally speaking, there is no requirement to inform parliament about any liability which:
- arises in the normal course of business;
- arises under statutory powers (subject to third bullet point of paragraph A5.4.23); or,
- would normally require notification (i.e. neither arising in the normal course of business nor under statutory powers) but is under £300,000 in value.
A5.4.23 There are some exceptions to this general rule. Parliament should be notified of any liability, even if it meets one or more of the criteria given in paragraph A5.4.22, which:
- arises as a result of a specific guarantee, indemnity or letter of comfort where the guarantee is not of a type routinely used in commercial business dealings;
- is of such a size, relative to the department’s total budget, that parliament should be given notice;
- arises under specific statutory powers which require parliament to be notified; or,
- is novel, contentious or potentially repercussive.
A5.4.24 It is important to note that undertakings in the normal course of business should be judged against the department’s normal business pattern authorised by parliament. So what may be normal for some departments may not be normal for others. In cases of doubt it is best to report.
A5.4.25 Non-statutory liabilities which need to be reported to parliament should be notified by Written Ministerial Statement and accompanying departmental Minute (see box A5.4C).
3 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-servants-terms-and-conditions Treasury approval is required before going ahead. It is sometimes necessary, with Treasury agreement, to adapt the form of wording, eg if the liability arises immediately.
**A5.4.26** Written Ministerial Statements and departmental Minutes should be laid in the House of Commons, on the same day, and should briefly outline the nature of the contingent liability and confirm that a departmental Minute providing full details has been laid in the House of Commons.
**A5.4.27** Departmental Minutes should:
- use the standard wording for the opening and closing passages, which has been agreed with the PAC (box A.5.4C);
- describe the amount and expected duration of the proposed liability, giving an estimate if precision is impossible;
- explain which bodies are expected to benefit, and why;
- if applicable, explain why the matter is urgent and cannot observe the normal deadlines (paragraph A5.4.26);
- explain that authority for any expenditure required under the liability will be sought through the normal Supply procedure;
- be copied to the chairs of both the PAC and departmental committee.
**A5.4.28** The indemnity should not go live until 14 parliamentary sitting days, after the Minute has been laid. Every effort should be made to ensure that the full waiting period falls while parliament is in session.
**A5.4.29** If an MP objects by letter, Parliamentary Question or Early Day Motion, the indemnity should not normally go live until the objection has been answered. In the case of an Early Day Motion, the Member(s) should be given an opportunity to make direct personal representations to the minister, eg proactively arranging a meeting with them. The Treasury should be kept in touch with representations made by MPs and of the outcome.
**A5.4.30** If, exceptionally, the guarantee or indemnity would give rise to an actual liability, the department should consult the Treasury about the wording of the Minute. The department should discuss the implications for the actual liability on its budget, Estimate and accounts.
**A5.4.31** There is not usually a requirement to notify parliament in instances where a contingent liability arises due to events outside a department or ALB’s control rather than through an active policy decision. An example of something that would be outside a department or ALB’s control would be legal proceedings being brought against them. Events of this nature should still be disclosed in the entity’s Annual Report and Accounts in line with the requirements of the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM). Box A5.4C: standard text for departmental Minutes on liabilities
Opening passage It is normal practice, when a government department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental Minute to parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until fourteen parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the Minute, except in cases of special urgency.
The body of the Minute should include: If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal Supply procedure.
Closing passage The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of fourteen parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this Minute was laid before parliament, a member signifies an objection by giving notice of a Parliamentary Question or by otherwise raising the matter in parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
Non-standard notification
A5.4.32 Sometimes it is not possible to give details of a contingent liability with full transparency. In such cases the department should write to the chairs of both the PAC and departmental committee to provide the same details as those outlined in paragraph A5.4.24, with the same notice period. The letters should explain the need for confidentiality. Any objection by either chair should be approached in the same way as MPs’ objections (paragraph A.5.4.27). If departments continue to have concerns about writing to parliament, in particularly sensitive or confidential cases, they should seek advice from the Treasury.
A5.4.33 Sometimes departments want to report an urgent contingent liability providing less than the required 14 days notice. In such cases, the department should follow the procedure in paragraph A.5.4.24 and explain the need for urgency, agreeing revised wording to the final standard paragraph with the Treasury.
A5.4.34 Departments may also want to report a contingent liability at short notice, ie less than 14 days before the end of the session. In such cases the contingent liability should only go live after lying before parliament during 14 sitting days, ie some days after the start of the next session. If the proposal is more urgent than this rule would allow, the department should write to the chairs of the PAC and the departmental committee, giving the information in paragraph A.5.4.24 and explaining the need for urgency. As a matter of record, when parliament reconvenes, a Written Ministerial Statement and departmental Minute should be laid explaining what has happened, including any liabilities undertaken.
A5.4.35 The same procedure as in paragraph A.5.4.29 should be used to report liabilities during a parliamentary recess. In such cases the notice period should be 14 working days notice, ie excluding weekends and bank holidays.
A5.4.36 Similarly, it is possible that a department might want to undertake a non-statutory contingent liability when parliament is dissolved. Every effort should be made to avoid this, since members cease to be MPs on dissolution, and committees will be reconstituted in the new parliament. If the department nonetheless considers the proposed liability to be essential, it should consult the Treasury. When parliament reconvenes a Written Ministerial Statement should be laid explaining what has happened, including any liabilities undertaken.
**Reporting liabilities publicly**
**A5.4.37** Any changes to existing liabilities should be reported in the same way as they were originally notified to parliament, explaining the reasons for the changes. If an originally confidential liability (see paragraph A5.4.29) can be reported transparently, the standard Minute (paragraph A.5.4.24) should be laid.
**A5.4.38** Departments should report all outstanding single liabilities, or schemes of liabilities, in their accounts unless they are confidential. Any which would fall as a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund should be reported in the Consolidated Fund accounts. The conventions in the FreM should be used.
**A5.4.39** Estimates should similarly be noted with amounts of any contingent or actual liabilities. The figures quoted should be the best assessments possible at the time of publication. Actual liabilities should appear as provisions. The rubric should refer back to notification of parliament.
**A5.4.40** When the conditional features of contingent liabilities are met, it is good practice to wait until parliament has approved the relevant Estimate before providing the necessary resources. But if providing support is more urgent, departments should apply for an advance from the Contingencies Fund (see Annex 2.4 and the Estimates Manual under the usual conditions). If an advance is approved, a statement to parliament should explain what is happening, and in particular how the crystallised liability is to be met.
**International agreements**
**A5.4.41** International treaties, agreements or commercial commitments which mean the UK incurring specific contingent liabilities should follow the parliamentary reporting procedures as far as possible whether or not the agreement is covered by legislation. Even if an international agreement does not require legislation for ratification, it should nevertheless be laid before parliament, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, for 21 sitting days before it is ratified (the Ponsonby rule).
______________________________________________________________________
4 [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supply-estimates-guidance-manual](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supply-estimates-guidance-manual) A5.5 Lending
Government departments may borrow from the Estimate or NLF and then on-lend to third parties. There are some key disciplines required to protect the Exchequer from loss. It is also important to keep parliament informed, especially about risk exposures.
A5.5.1 The government provides loan finance to public sector organisations through departmental Estimates and the National Loans Fund (NLF). The broad principles of this annex also apply to Public Dividend Capital (PDC) and government loan guarantees.
Statutory authority
A5.5.2 The NLF needs specific statutory authority to lend to each of its borrowers, normally found in the enabling legislation of the borrower. Similarly, departments must normally have specific statutory authority to make voted loans. Box A5.5A identifies the provisions which should be specified in the enabling legislation. Departments setting up new powers should consult their Treasury spending team early in the drafting process. If NLF lending is intended, they should also consult the Exchequer Funds and Accounts team (EFA) in the Treasury.
Loans from the NLF
A5.5.3 The Treasury is accountable for the management of the NLF. In turn departments responsible for on-lending are accountable for the specific advances they make. So they should ensure that the conditions for their loans are satisfied and that repayments of interest and principal are received on time.
A5.5.4 The NLF cannot lend at a loss. Interest on NLF loans must therefore be sufficient to cover the cost of government borrowing, on the same terms and for the same period. This makes sure that lending is unsubsidised and that no final charge rests on the NLF.
A5.5.5 Because the government’s credit rating is better than commercial borrowers’ the NLF can both borrow and lend at fine rates. NLF lending is not available to commercial entities in the private sector.
A5.5.6 Similarly, NLF loans can only be made where there is a reasonable expectation that they will be serviced and repaid on the due dates. Lending departments should consider whether to take security in order to fully protect the NLF’s position. And if a lending department becomes concerned about the security of any of its loans to third parties, it should discuss them with the Treasury at an early stage. Departments automatically stand behind all NLF loans to arm’s length bodies (ALBs) and should agree this with them, formally in writing. If intended, they should also consult the Treasury’s Exchequer Funds and Accounts team (EFA).
1 SS, NLF Act 1968 Box A5.5A: powers in legislation enabling lending
| NLF loans | voted loans | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | • the Secretary of State or Minister may lend to relevant bodies; | • the circumstances in which loans may be made; | | • the Treasury may issue funds from the NLF to the Secretary of State; | • repayment of principal and interest should be made to the Consolidated Fund.| | • the purpose for which loans may be made; | • conditionality associated with the loans; | | • a limit on total lending outstanding; | • a borrowing limit, sometimes including a power to raise this limit by order within a further absolute ceiling; | | • (sometimes) a power to raise this limit by order within a further absolute ceiling; | • the terms and conditions to be attached to loans and how interest rates are to be determined; | | • a requirement for interest and principal repayments collected by departments to be surrendered to the NLF; | | | • a requirement to present an annual account to parliament, prepared by the sponsor department, of loans made and repaid. | |
Interest on NLF loans
A5.5.7 Interest on temporary NLF loans of up to 6 months is fixed and repayable with the principal on maturity.
A5.5.8 Long-term NLF loans may be issued at fixed or variable rates. Fixed rate loans may be repaid by:
- equal instalments of principal (EIP) throughout the life of the loan, normally twice a year; or
- equal repayments (ER) comprising varying proportions of interest and principal over the life of the loan, normally twice a year; or
- exceptionally, interest over the life of the loan with repayment of principal in full at maturity.
A5.5.9 The length and type of loan should be matched to the type of asset being acquired and the expected payback period. Variable rate loans can be rolled over at one, three, or six monthly intervals. Penalty interest may be charged if a payment of interest or principal is not received on time. EFA can advise on the details of the terms and conditions.
A5.5.10 The Treasury sets all NLF interest rates (including on appropriate rollover dates for variable rate loans) for the different maturities available in the light of prevailing interest rates. Interest rates for long-term loans are set out on the website of the Public Works Loan Board2 (PWLB).
______________________________________________________________________
2 The PWLB is an NDPB which lends NLF funds to local authorities and others, [www.pwlb.gov.uk](http://www.pwlb.gov.uk) Early repayment of NLF loans
A5.5.11 As the government lends at very competitive rates, it is not usually possible for borrowers to repay loans early in order to refinance on more advantageous terms. If this were possible, any savings the borrower might make would be at the expense of the NLF, leaving the Exchequer as a whole worse off. However, there may be a case for early repayment (other than for temporary loans) where there are genuinely surplus funds (eg from the sale of assets or trading activities). Similarly, it may also be possible to refinance existing loans where material, demonstrable and sustained changes (eg in asset life or technology) make a different maturity period more appropriate.
A5.5.12 Any proposals for early repayment must be agreed with the Treasury beforehand. If agreed, the borrower pays:
- interest up to the day before the loan is prematurely repaid; plus
- a sum, calculated by the Treasury, equal to the present value of all future repayments of principal and interest on the original schedule. This sum is designed to leave the Exchequer no worse off. It may be higher or lower than the total of the sums due on the loan for the outstanding period under the original schedule. The difference (ie the discount or premium) then scores as an adjustment to interest in the accounts.
Write off or repayment of NLF loans by grant
A5.5.13 Departments should consult the Treasury about any proposals for a capital reconstruction involving repayment or write off of NLF loans. It requires primary legislation to write off NLF loans. Interest remains payable on debts up to the day before repayment or write off.
A5.5.14 Capital reconstruction of the debts of an organisation which will remain in the public sector also requires specific statutory powers. Typically the legislation achieves capital reconstruction of its assets and liabilities by issuing it with voted grants to repay its NLF debt.
A5.5.15 Change of status and capital reconstruction ahead of privatisation is different. When the borrower’s status changes from public to private sector, it is no longer appropriate for it to enjoy the fine rates the NLF achieves. So all NLF loans must be repaid. Departments should agree the approach with the Treasury.
Accounting for NLF loans
A5.5.16 Legislation authorising an ALB to borrow from the NLF normally specifies that its sponsor department should prepare its annual accounts. Sponsor departments should also account for NLF transactions in their accounts in accordance with the FReM.
Voted loans
A5.5.17 Like NLF loans, voted loans should only be made where there is a reasonable expectation of their being properly serviced and repaid. Departments making voted loans should ensure that the conditions in the enabling legislation are met and that the Estimate provides for advances of principal. If the legislation leaves the lending department with discretion over terms and conditions, interest rates should be set to reflect the cost to the government of borrowing. Otherwise the same disciplines apply to voted loans as to NLF loans (paragraphs A.5.5.3-10).
**A5.5.18** Voted loans are technically assets of the Consolidated Fund. So payments of interest and principal should normally be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund. However if there is related expenditure within the same budget boundary as the receipt, such payments may be retained if the Treasury agrees.
### Repaying early and writing off voted loans
**A5.5.19** The Treasury should be consulted about any proposals for the early repayment of voted loans. The rules applying to early repayment of NLF loans (A.5.5.11) normally apply.
**A5.5.20** Treasury approval is required to write off loans of more than £20m. The department concerned should notify parliament in a Treasury Minute using the standard opening and closing paragraphs in box A.5.5B. If it is not possible for the Minute to be laid allowing fourteen days of parliamentary time, the Minute should explain why.
**A5.5.21** Should a Member of Parliament object to the write-off, the minister responsible should give the MP the opportunity to make a personal representation about his or her objections. Only when this dialogue has been concluded will the Treasury be able to give consent to the write-off.
**A5.5.22** Treasury agreement is also required for smaller write offs unless specific delegations have been agreed. Departments writing off loans should follow the procedure in annex 4.10 to notify parliament.
______________________________________________________________________
**Box A5.5B: Treasury Minute on loan write-offs: standard paragraphs**
**Opening paragraph:**
When a government department proposes to write off the repayment of an Exchequer loan whose principal outstanding exceeds £20 million, it is the normal practice for the Treasury to present to the House of Commons a Minute explaining the circumstances and giving particulars of the write-off. Except in cases of special urgency, Treasury consent is withheld until fourteen parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the Minute.
**Closing paragraph:**
The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of fourteen parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this Minute was laid before the House of Commons, a Member signifies an objection (for example by giving notice of a Parliamentary Question or of a Motion relating to the Minute), final Treasury approval of the remission will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
______________________________________________________________________
### Lending to competitive organisations
**A5.5.23** The requirements described above always apply to NLF and voted loans. Some additional disciplines apply to loans to public sector organisations which operate in commercial markets. These disciplines are justified by the need to:
- avoid distorting competition in the markets in which these organisations operate;
- achieve compliance with the EU state aids directive [Annex 4.7]; • deliver vfm for the Exchequer as a whole by maximising the efficiency of the pooled borrowing approach and minimising subsequent cost of funds.
**A5.5.24** The competitive organisations and transactions in the public sector to which these disciplines apply are:
• those organisations that compete with the private sector for more than 75% of their business; • many organisations that compete for between 20% and 75% of their business, considered case by case; • usually organisations using loan finance for a particular discrete activity that would compete with the private sector.
**A5.5.25** The disciplines required are all intended to ensure that the public sector organisations concerned do not exploit any competitive advantage they might otherwise enjoy through access to cheaper finance. They are set out in box A5.5C.
**Box A5.5C: Disciplines for commercial lending**
• All borrowing must be agreed with the Treasury spending team. • The borrower, or its sponsor department, should obtain a credit rating, using independent financial advice and excluding any implicit or explicit government guarantees. • Any guarantee of an organisation’s borrowing should rest on explicit statutory powers. There may be terms and conditions, eg a cap on the amount. • The borrower organisation should satisfy the Treasury that the proposed transactions are justified within its corporate plan; or for large singleton transaction that it delivers value for money. • Short term finance ie less than seven days, should be obtained from commercial providers, eg through overdrafts. • Longer term borrowing, whether from the NLF or through voted loans, should be at interest rates comparable to what similar competitor firms in the private sector would pay, and must as a minimum cover the government’s cost of borrowing and equal or exceed the EU reference rate. The Treasury will determine the interest rate to be applied.
**External borrowing and government guarantees**
**A5.5.26** Public sector organisations sometimes undertake limited, short-term borrowing from the private sector, for example through a bank overdraft, in order to meet very short term requirements not available through public sector lenders. Such borrowing should be explicitly guaranteed by the government to secure the finest terms unless there are good policy reasons otherwise.
**A5.5.27** Guarantees should normally only be given with an explicit statutory power, which should specify:
• the circumstances in which guarantees may be given and the terms and conditions to be attached; • a limit on the total sum which may be covered by guarantees at any one time, which may include power to raise the limit by order within a further absolute ceiling specified in the primary legislation; A5.5 Lending
- a requirement for parliament to be notified once the guarantee has been given; and
- authority for any costs resulting from the guarantee to be met from Estimates.
A5.5.28 Even if the enabling legislation does not require the sponsor department to notify parliament of new guarantees, the department should follow the standard procedure for notifying parliament of contingent liabilities (annex 5.4).
A5.5.29 In principle government guarantees may also be given for longer term borrowing, including in foreign currencies. Such guarantees will only be considered where the guaranteed borrowing is on terms at least as fine as the government could obtain in its own name. This is a stringent test. Private sector borrowers cannot often meet it. Departments should therefore ensure that all their sponsored bodies consult them in advance about the terms of any proposed private sector or overseas borrowing. In no circumstances should any central government organisation borrow on terms more costly than those available to the government without Treasury approval.
A5.5.30 As foreign borrowing may also have implications for the credit standing on the international money markets of the UK public sector, proposals for such borrowing must be cleared with the Treasury in advance. This applies to all ALBs.
A5.5.31 It is good practice to keep parliament informed when guarantees are first used, or varied significantly. Annex 5.6 Banking and managing cash
Public sector organisations should run their cash management processes to provide good value for the Exchequer as a whole. This means using the Government Banking Service, limiting use of commercial banking (with Treasury consent in each instance), and providing the Treasury with accurate forecasts of cashflows. Any use of non-standard techniques should be kept within defined bounds and controlled carefully.
A5.6.1 Together public sector organisations process large volumes of cash each day in order to carry out their functions. It is important that the cashflows involved achieve good value for the Exchequer as a whole by minimising the government’s borrowing at the end of each working day. So as much as possible of the government’s cashflow should be contained within the Exchequer pyramid.
A5.6.2 Public sector organisations must maximise the use of publicly procured banking services (accounts with commercial banks managed centrally by Government Banking), unless there is a clear business case to do otherwise. This ensures effective aggregate control and provides the opportunity for central consolidation of cash resources to minimise government’s financing arrangements. Other arrangements lead to increased government borrowing increasing costs and credit risk to the Exchequer.
A5.6.3 When assessing the government’s cash position, the Debt Management Office (DMO) relies in part on the Treasury’s cash flow forecasts, which in turn rely on department’s own forecasts. For this reason, it is important for departments and their ALBs to provide accurate cash flow forecasts to the Treasury.
A5.6.4 Accounting officers are responsible for managing the risks inherent in this process actively, including any credit exposures of funds held in commercial banks outside the Exchequer pyramid. Each public sector organisation should establish a banking policy in order to carry out this task.
Cash management
A5.6.5 Good cash management means having the right amount of cash available when needed, without inefficient unused surpluses. Each public sector organisation should plan its own cash management efficiently, following the guidelines in box A5.6A. It is usually convenient for sponsor departments to include their ALBs’ flows with their own for this purpose. With this information Exchequer Funds and Accounts (EFA) in the Treasury can enable departments to draw cash as they need it within their voted provisions in Estimates.
A5.6.6 EFA need to understand the dynamics of public sector organisations’ demands for cash and similarly the income they may generate. With this information they can identify peaks and troughs in the public sector’s overall need for cash so that the DMO can plan its debt management activity. For this purpose EFA need to know the annual, monthly and daily sequences of cash flow, including any major one-off items.
A5.6.7 As a matter of good financial management, public sector organisations should never go overdrawn. Exchequer costs rise if unplanned large payments are not forecast in advance. The Treasury will normally charge penalty interest at current base rate plus 2% on overdrawn positions on Government Banking accounts. Particular care should be given to ensure the nominated supply estimate account and the account group as a whole remain in credit.
**A5.6.8** The Treasury may waive or vary such a penalty interest charge, normally if the circumstances which led to the overdraft are outside the department’s control, or if the overdraft does not incur additional costs to the Exchequer.
______________________________________________________________________
**Box A5.6A: planning cash management**
- Forecast cash flows and provide EFA with detail within agreed timescales.¹
- Tell EFA of the major cash flows even if a definite transaction date has not been agreed.
- Keep EFA advised if payment or receipt dates are moved even if this is outside normal deadlines.
- Negotiate payment dates, put them in contracts with counterparties and stick to them.
- Transact substantive payments (above £5m) by 12pm (noon) each weekday.
- Negotiate the main inflows to take place on specific dates, and specify receipt in the morning as late receipts (after 3pm) may not be swept into the Exchequer pyramid that day.
- Departments should keep commercial accounts at minimum levels and ensure they are not funded in advance of need. Departments should notify EFA each quarter of any balances held in a commercial account.
______________________________________________________________________
**Banking**
**A5.6.9** Each public sector organisation should establish a banking policy for control of its working balances and its transmission of funds. Its centrepiece should be use of Government Banking accounts, which sit within the Exchequer Pyramid. Departments should only hold funds outside of the Exchequer where a good business case can be made for doing so, e.g. if Government Banking cannot provide a necessary service or legislation requires it.
**A5.6.10** Specific Treasury agreement to each commercial account is required before it is established. Once this approval has been received, departments (and their ALBs) should gain the Crown Commercial Representative for Banking’s (CR) approval before setting up, or altering, any commercial accounts. The CR has responsibility for the strategic management of banking services and their suppliers across the whole of the Exchequer.
**A5.6.11** A banking policy should cover at least the features outlined in box A5.6B. Once settled, the policy should be reviewed regularly to make sure that it remains appropriate and up to date.
______________________________________________________________________
¹ Treasury can financially penalise poor forecasting and reward good forecasting. Further details on the cashflow management scheme is available from the Treasury EFA team, at cashman@hm treasury.gov.uk Box A5.6B: an organisation’s banking policy
- The Government Banking bank accounts to be operated, with reference to their purposes (e.g. to contain income from different sources).
- Any commercial accounts, how they should operate, and why they are justified.
- How and where working overnight balances required for day to day operation are to be held.
- How the risks of fraud and overpayments are to be prevented, countered systemically and managed when discovered.
- How any non-Exchequer funds should be managed and kept separate from public money.
- The organisation’s cut off times for processing payments (in line with the Exchequer’s core banking hours; authorising payments on their banking platforms by 12pm for high value payments and no later than 3pm for others)
- When and how payment by cheque, credit card or direct debit is acceptable (see guidelines in Box A5.6D).
- Any use of non-standard financial instruments, e.g. agreeing foreign exchange hedging contracts with commercial banks (see paragraph A5.6.22).
- Record keeping, including frequent bank statement reconciliations.
A5.6.12 Where a public sector organisation plans to use commercial bank account(s), it should follow the guidelines in box A5.6C. Only commercial banks which are members of the relevant UK clearing bodies should be considered for this purpose.
Box A5.6C: guidelines for using commercial bank accounts
- Only hold funds outside of the Exchequer where there is a clear basis to do so (legal, value for money for the Exchequer as a whole) and with the agreement of the Treasury.
- Consult the CR to agree the approach to negotiations with potential suppliers and to ensure leverage of government’s relationship with key banking suppliers.
- Ensure that cleared funds will reach accounts as early as possible in the relevant clearing cycle.
- Obtain specific charges for money transmission and other services so that costs are transparent and comparable.
- Obtain gross interest on cleared credit balances, at rates as close as possible to the Bank of England’s interbank rate or better (subject to credit risk and other liquidity considerations).
- Refuse arrangements that involve maintaining minimum balances as this increases Exchequer debt and raises Exchequer costs, even if the offer appears superficially attractive because of reduced charges.
- Negotiate with care any indemnities that commercial banks may seek to replace their normal arrangements (e.g. to protect the bank from incorrect BACS debits), after taking legal advice and obtaining clearance from the Treasury.
- Surrender interest receipts as Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts.
- Minimise balances in commercial accounts without going overdrawn, holding only enough for immediate needs.
Money transmission
A5.6.13 Public sector organisations should generally use the cheapest, safest and most certain means of moving public funds, depending on the context. Generally this means adopting the
______________________________________________________________________
2 http://www.accesstopaymentsystems.co.uk/introduction-payment-systems/what-payment-scheme hierarchy in box A.5.6D. Sometimes it is necessary to strike a balance among these desirable features to achieve the best outcome.
**A5.6.14** For payments to counterparties outside the Exchequer, it is good practice for public sector organisations to use BACS(^3) Grade 3 (Government Grade) where possible. This is a safe and cost effective payment method, allowing for settlement directly at the Bank of England which reduces exposure to commercial banks. Use of a government grade Bacs SUN means public sector organisations are not limited to the standard BACS payment limit. For inward payments, it may be appropriate to apply credit controls or other safeguards.
**A5.6.15** Public sector organisations should ensure their finance operations provide timely payment of all intra-day outflows. Payments made late during the working day increase intraday volatility, causing disruption to payee’s and the wider Exchequer’s cash management activities which may lead to increased cost.
______________________________________________________________________
**Box A5.6D: Money transmission services ranked in order of preference**
1. **Internal transfers.** Use to move funds between accounts held within the same bank as they are free. You can move funds between your organisation’s accounts as well as to accounts held by other public sector organisations who use Government Banking’s contract with the same bank.
2. **Government BACS grade 3.** This can be used for payments external to the Exchequer boundary, for example to suppliers and for salaries, and when moving funds to public sector organisations who use different commercial banking service providers.
3. **Faster payments and CHAPS.** These should only be used for transactions with entities external to the Exchequer. Where used for:
- making payments, this should be in a controlled manner with appropriate safeguards to prevent damage to the Exchequer; or,
- receipts, arrangements should be made for the payer to make payments as early as possible in the day.
4. **Credit and other payment cards.** When accepting credit and other payment cards to receive payments the fees and additional risks involved need to be understood. Paying and receiving funds in this way needs to represent value for money for the Exchequer.
5. **Payable orders and cheques.** Should be used by exception and only when other methods are not available.
6. **Cash, uncrossed cheques, order books or any methods carrying similar security risks should not usually be used.**
______________________________________________________________________
**Borrowing**
**A5.6.16** Public sector organisations should not normally rely on obtaining finance by borrowing from commercial banks as it is almost always more expensive than relying on the government’s credit rating. Any expenditure financed by such borrowing without explicit Treasury consent would be considered irregular.
**A5.6.17** Certain arm’s length bodies, such as public corporations, trading funds and NHS Foundation Trusts may, however, borrow from commercial banks for short term needs. This is only possible if it has been agreed in the founding documentation for the body (see chapter 7).
______________________________________________________________________
(^3) BACS (formerly the Bankers’ Automated Clearing Service) is the commonly used three-day electronic payments and receipts system. Exotic transactions
A5.6.18 Sometimes public sector organisations face financial risks which they find uncomfortable. In these circumstances they may consider hedging using commercial financial instruments. Speculation is never acceptable.
A5.6.19 In principle risks of this kind are no different to the other risks with which public sector organisations grapple. They should be managed in a similar way, balancing the scale and likelihood of the risk against the cost of purchasing protection or taking other mitigating action.
A5.6.20 When considering use of financial instruments, it is important to remember that:
- their use may entail taking on new risks, which themselves must be managed. It is therefore necessary for any organisation using them to ensure that it has sufficient expertise in depth for this task;
- those selling financial instruments do so for profit so their customers should be confident that the risk avoided is worth the additional cost they incur. As with insurance (see annex 4.4), the cost of this sort of protection is not always worthwhile;
- provisions for their use should be contained in the organisation’s banking policy (box A5.6B).
A5.6.21 Any decision to use financial instruments is automatically novel and contentious and should be cleared with the Treasury accordingly. The Treasury will normally be sceptical because, like insurance, financial hedging incurs costs in circumstances where the government may in principle be able to bear the risks and could usually do so more cheaply. It is also important to bear in mind that there are some risks that only the government can bear, and that these may be impossible to hedge at tolerable cost.
A5.6.22 If an organisation considers using financial instruments to hedge, its accounting officer will need to be satisfied that the cost and management effort of operating the hedging policy offers value for money. The organisation should clear its strategy with the Treasury and draw up a bespoke section of its banking policy for the purpose. An outline is shown at box A5.6E.
Box A5.6E: Outline management policy for using financial instruments
- Define the risks to be controlled, their volume, frequency and the rationale for control.
- Governance of and accountability for the various elements of the organisation’s hedging policy, both at working level and on the board.
- List of acceptable counterparties (after assessing their credit risks and competence), with exposure limits (which may differ for different financial instruments).
- Arrangements for defining acceptable risk, differentiated as necessary among the different methods of dealing with them.
- Arrangements for monitoring and reporting exposures and forecasts.
Foreign exchange
A5.6.23 The most powerful case for hedging arises when a public sector organisation must make regular and predictable transactions in foreign currencies whose scale is material to the organisation’s business. The standard advice about operating a forex hedging strategy is set out in box A5.6F. When drawing up the strategy it is important to remember that:
- the costs of hedging are certain though the benefits are not;
- commercial advisers on hedging often have an interest in selling relatively complicated instruments when simpler approaches might suffice.
**Box A5.6F: standard practice for managing risk relating to foreign exchange**
- **Foreign Currency balances**: should be minimised.
- **Spot trades**: use the Bank of England for transactions above £2m (approaching Government Banking in the first instance)
- **Forward transactions**: use the Bank of England (again approaching Government Banking in the first instance), unless specific Treasury agreement is given to do otherwise
- **Options**: better avoided since they usually involve a measure of speculation.
- **Currencies**: plan to use sterling, US dollars or Euros where possible as markets in other currencies are less liquid.
- **Exposures**: avoid taking long term positions which are usually expensive.
- **Value for money**: the essential test for all strategies.
- **Foreign exchange hedging**: as with financial instruments, must be cleared with the Treasury Annex 6.1 How to calculate charges
This annex discusses how to calculate the cost of public services for which a fee is charged.
Introducing a new or updated charge bearing service
A6.1.1 Public sector organisations planning to set up or update a service for which a fee may be charged should ensure early engagement with Treasury. Advice should be sought at the earliest opportunity if there are any variations on the standard model. Proposed variations may be agreed in certain instances, considering each on its merits. Each will need to be justified in the public interest and on value for money grounds.
A6.1.2 Practical issues which organisations will need to consider when setting up or refreshing a charge bearing service include: the definition of the service and its rationale; the proposed financial objective (for instance, full cost recovery; 70% of full cost plus a 30% public subsidy); how the service is to be delivered and which organisation is to deliver it; whether the provider should retain any income from charges; the proposed charging structure (for instance, a single service or several sub-services). Organisations will also need to refer to the checklist in box 4.9 of factors to consider when planning policies and projects.
Measuring the full cost of a service
A6.1.3 With agreed exceptions, fees for services should generally be charged at cost, sometimes with an explicit additional element to match the returns of commercial competitors. So to set fees for public services it is essential to calculate the cost of providing them accurately.
A6.1.4 The main features to be taken into account in measuring the annual cost of a service are set out in box A6.1A. Not everything in the list will apply to every service and the list may not be exhaustive. It is important that the calculation is comprehensive, including all relevant overheads and non-cash items.
A6.1.5 So far as possible the calculation should use actual costs, where they are known. For services just starting, there may be no alternative to using best estimates, geared to estimated consumption patterns.
A6.1.6 Start up costs which are capitalised in the accounts and the cost of fixed capital items are scored in the accounts in full. These costs should be attributed to the cost of the service as the depreciated value each year.
A6.1.7 Start up costs which cannot be capitalised in the accounts are scored as they are incurred. Such costs may be recovered through fees and charges by spreading them over the first few years of service provision. It is also good practice to set fees to recover costs which cannot be capitalised in the accounts and which have been incurred to improve efficiency and effectiveness so that charges are lower or offer better value. This needs explicit Treasury agreement and may require statutory backing.
A6.1.8 For services which are charged at different rates, the same procedure should be used to set the different rates. That is, the cost of any premium service should be objectively justifiable. by its additional cost (eg where faster shipping is offered); or conversely any discount should be justifiable by saving to the supplier (eg using the internet rather than over the counter). Note, however, that sometimes the legislation permits differential pricing unrelated to the relative underlying costs – though even then there should be good policy reason for the difference.
Box A6.1A: elements to cost in measuring fees
- Accommodation, including capital charges for freehold properties
- Fixtures and fittings
- Maintenance, including cleaning
- Utilities
- Office equipment, including it systems
- Postage, printing, telecommunications
- Total employment costs of those providing the service, including training
- Overheads, eg (shares of) payroll, audit, top management costs, legal services, etc
- Raw materials and stocks
- Research and development
- Depreciation of start up and one-off capital items
- Taxes: vat, council tax, stamp duty, etc
- Capital charges
- Notional or actual insurance premiums
- Fees to sub-contractors
- Distribution costs, including transport
- Advertising
- Bad debts
- Compliance and monitoring(^1) costs
- Provisions
but not
- Externalities imposed on society (eg costs from pollution and crime)
- Costs of policy work (other than policy on the executive delivery of the service)
- Enforcement costs(^1)
- Replacement costs of items notionally insured
- Start up costs (those which are capitalised in the accounts) and one-off capital items
Financial objectives
A6.1.9 The standard approach to setting charges for public services (including services supplied by one public sector organisation to another) is full cost recovery. It normally means recovering the standard cost of capital, currently 3.5% in real terms. Some exceptions are noted in section 6.4.
(^1) See the HM Treasury publication on receipts https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226421/PU1548_final.pdf A6.1.10 One other exception is commercial services, ie those services which compete or may compete with private sector suppliers of similar services. These should aim to recover full costs including a real rate of return in line with the rates achieved by comparable businesses facing a similar level of risk. The normal range of rates is 5-10% but rates as high as 15% may be appropriate for the very highest risk businesses.
A6.1.11 Great care should be taken in pricing commercial services where public sector suppliers have a natural dominant position. The market prices of competitors will often be a good guide to the appropriate rate of return if there is genuine competition in the market. Where there are limited numbers of buyers and sellers in a market, it may be better to take other factors into account as well. These might include past performance, the degree of risk in the underlying activity and issues bearing on future performance.
**Accidental surpluses and deficits**
A6.1.12 Despite every effort to measure and forecast costs, surpluses and deficits are bound to arise from time to time. Causes may include variations in demand, in year cost changes, and so on. It is good practice to consider mid-year adjustment to fee levels if this is feasible.
A6.1.13 It is also good practice to set fees to recover accumulated past deficits. This may require statutory backing through a s102 order (see paragraph 6.3.3). Annex 6.2 Charging for Information
This annex discusses how public sector organisations should charge for the use and re-use of information, including data, text, images or sound recordings. Much information about public services is available for free. However, when charging for information, it is generally at full cost although there are exceptions.
A6.2.1 The policy is that much information about public services should be made available either free or at low cost, in the public interest. Most public organisations freely post information about their activities and services on the internet. There should be no additional charge for material made available to meet the needs of particular groups of people e.g. Braille or other language versions. More extensive paper or digital versions of information may carry a charge to cover the costs of production.
A6.2.2 Information products have an unusual combination of properties: typically, high cost of production combined with low cost or reproduction. They are frequently licensed for the use of many customers simultaneously rather than being sold or otherwise transferred. This can make for complex charging arrangements to recover costs accurately.
A6.2.3 It is good practice to make available sufficient recent legislation, public policy announcements, consultation documents and supporting material to understand the business of each public sector organisation.
A6.2.4 Anything originating in Crown bodies, including many public sector organisations, has the protection of Crown copyright. Most Crown copyright information is made available at no charge under Open Government Licence terms.
A6.2.5 Public sector organisations should maintain information asset registers as part of their asset management strategy.
Rights to access
A6.2.6 The terms on which information is made available should be made clear at the point of sale or licensing. There is a clear public interest in maximising access to much public sector material, and this should be borne in mind when deciding what charges should be levied. For this reason many publications can be re-used by others free of charge. However, public sector organisations should take account of copyright issues, using legal advice as necessary.
A6.2.7 Most public sector organisations choose, as a matter of policy, to make available on the internet information disclosed in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environment Information Regulations 2004. Public sector bodies should also note the provisions of the amendments (introduced by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) to sections
1 For further information see http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/policy-process/digital-continuity/step-by-step-guidance/step-2/ 11-11B and 19 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000(^2) in respect of relevant datasets, where there are statutory duties relating to the format and supply of requested datasets and to their listing in publication schemes, and to charges under a specified licence.
**Information carrying charges**
**A6.2.8** Whilst the majority of information is free to access, a number of public sector organisations supply information for which charges are made to cover the associated costs. These include:
- services commissioned in response to particular requests;
- services where there are statutory powers to charge;
- information sold or licensed by trading funds (although they must comply with the rules set out by the re-use regulations – see below);
- publications processing publicly gathered data for the convenience of the public, through editing, reclassification or other analysis;
- retrieval software, e.g. published as a key to using compiled data.
**A6.2.9** Public sector organisations can also charge for supplying some information which recipients intend to process, e.g. for publication in another format. Licences supplied in this way may take a number of forms, including royalties on each additional copy sold in the case of the most commercial applications. The norm is:
- Raw data: license and charge at marginal cost;
- Value added data and information supplied by trading funds: charge at full cost including an appropriate rate of return where this is permitted under the re-use regulations (see paragraph A6.2.11).
**A6.2.10** Where it is intended to charge for environmental information within the scope of Directive 2003/4/EC or for spatial data services within the scope of Directive 2007/2/EC on establishing an infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) it is important to comply with regulations(^3).
**The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015**
**A6.2.11** The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015(^4) set out the circumstances where public sector bodies may charge above marginal cost for licensing the re-use of information. Where it is intended to charge for the re-use of information within the scope of the regulations, it is important to comply with those regulations, paying attention to the clauses that cover requirements to generate revenue.
**A6.2.12** Trading funds, for example, may charge for information where the customer intends to duplicate or process (re-use) such material for profit. In such cases, Crown bodies need to apply for a delegation of authority from the Keeper of Public Records(^5) to license the information.
______________________________________________________________________
(^2) Freedom of Information Act 2000 revised - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents
(^3) INSPIRE Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/3157)
(^4) SI 2015/1415 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1415/contents/made
(^5) http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/re-using-public-sector-information/uk-government-licensing-framework/crown-copyright/delegations-of-authority/ A6.2.13 The regulations set out that “charges for re-use must, so far as is reasonably practicable, be calculated in accordance with the accounting principles applicable to the public sector body”. See Annex 6.3 for further detail on marginal cost pricing. A6.3 Competition law
Public sector organisations need to take care if they provide services which compete with private sector suppliers of similar services, or may do so. It is important that they respect the requirements of competition law.
A6.3.1 UK competition law is founded on Articles 81 and 82 of the EU Treaty, applied through the Competition Act 1998. Together these prohibit business agreements that prevent, restrict or distort competition in trade in the UK and EU. They also disallow market abuse on the part of any business in a dominant(^1) in a market.
A6.3.2 In particular, the following kinds of unfair competition are not allowed:
- very high prices that may exploit market power;
- very low prices that may exclude competitors;
- differential prices (or other terms and conditions of service) for the same product to different customers (except for objective reasons such as differences in quality or quantity) that distort competition; or
- refusing to supply competitors without objective justification such as poor customer credit worthiness.
Pricing in competitive markets
A6.3.3 Services should be costed in line with the normal rules for full cost recovery. Charges should be set to achieve the appropriate financial objective, normally at least recovering full costs.
A6.3.4 Some public sector organisations both supply data for use in providing public services and sell services using their data in competition with commercial firms. Such organisations need to take particular care not to abuse their competitive position in the market, especially if it is dominant. This could happen if a dominant supplier organisation allocated its costs in such a way that an efficient competitor could not operate profitably.
A6.3.5 There can be circumstances which merit departing from the normal principle of full cost recovery. The justification is normally to achieve greater efficiency and sensitivity in responding to patterns of demand or cost, eg:
- if the service cannot be expanded, but customers are willing to pay more, there may be a case for increasing the price;
- if there is excess capacity and customers are not willing to pay the current charge, there may be a case for reducing the charge or reducing output;
(^1) A business is deemed to be in a dominant position if it can generally behave independently of competitive pressures in its field. • incentive charging, ie charging below cost to encourage demand, or above cost to discourage it.
**A6.3.6** If a public sector organisation decides not to recover full costs for a while, it should take care that:
• its prices are not reduced in such a way as to stifle competition (a rapid cut in prices could be unfair to private sector competitors);
• its products and services are not charged at less than their average variable costs or short run marginal costs (though this does not preclude charging at less than break even for a short period, eg to match competition);
• the charging strategy is compatible with full cost recovery over the medium term. This may mean ceasing to offer a service which has become unviable against the competition;
• any cross subsidies between services should not drive prices below average variable cost or short run marginal cost;
• if, exceptionally, a supplier charges below full cost because it has surplus capacity, there must be broader benefits and prices should not fall below average variable or short run marginal cost.
**Delivering financial objectives**
**A6.3.7** Public sector organisations should normally plan to achieve their financial objectives. If necessary this may mean adjusting prices or managing the cost structure of the supply to deliver adequate efficiency. In particular, if a public sector supplier forecasts a deficit, it should take remedial action promptly.
**A6.3.8** If a public sector supplier moves away from full cost charging, there may be a case for reviewing its financial objective. Normally any such change needs the agreement of both the responsible minister and the Treasury.
**Taking things further**
**A6.3.9** The following may be particularly useful:
• the Competition Act and public bodies at [http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/publications/publication-categories/guidance/competition-act/](http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/publications/publication-categories/guidance/competition-act/)
• agreements and concerted practices at [http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/ca98_mini_guides/of443.pdf](http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/ca98_mini_guides/of443.pdf)
• abuse of a dominant position [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284422/of402.pdf](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284422/of402.pdf)
**A6.3.10** More generally, it is good practice for bodies supplying goods or services into competitive markets to seek legal advice on the application of competition law at an early stage. Annex 7.1 Forming and reforming ALBs
This annex covers the processes of setting up new arm’s length bodies and reshaping existing ones, either by merger, dissolution or other transformation. While the processes are flexible, there are some common themes centring on accountability and streamlining government processes.
Rationale for ALBs
A7.1.1 The government works through ALBs when there is a good reason to do so, usually when it is helpful for a specialist body to carry out a function where independence is important. Each ALB has its own bespoke reason for existing and many are established under specific legislation determining their form, functions and powers.
A7.1.2 The three main kinds of ALBs are agencies, non departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and non-ministerial departments (NMDs). Each has its strengths and is appropriate for a range of functions. The three are compared in box A7.1A.
Setting up a new ALB
A7.1.3 It is good practice to decide early which kind of body is most appropriate when setting up a new ALB (sources of guidance on setting up ALBs are in box A7.1B). Parliament is concerned that hiving off functions into an ALB should not diminish accountability. For that reason NMDs are rarely the right solution.
A7.1.4 It is important to remember that effective functional independence does not necessarily require a specific structure. Ministers can choose to stand back from the decisions made or opinions published by any ALB while maintaining financial control and oversight, eg ministers never interfere with HMRC’s decisions on individual taxpayers’ affairs.
A7.1.5 The next step is to develop a memorandum of understanding (or equivalent) setting out the relationship between the new ALB and its parent department. Advice on this is in annex 7.2. These should be periodically reviewed to keep abreast of experience and the changing context.
A7.1.6 Decisions on the form of any particular ALB must ultimately be for ministers. They will depend in part on perceptions of the function in question, and on the extent to which ministers think it right to take a day to day interest in its affairs. Generally, the closer the ALB’s functions are to the centre of government, the more likely it is to be an agency; while NMD status is appropriate for organisations of some size carrying out professional functions. The form and structure of the NDPB is very flexible, suiting specific and technical functions.
1 See the Cabinet Office Guidance on Reviews of Non Departmental Public Bodies which is available on the Cabinet Office website http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/triennial-reviews-guidance-2011_tcm6-38900.pdf A7.1 Forming and reforming ALBs
A7.1.7 When an ALB is planned, it is essential to consult both the Treasury and the Cabinet Office about its powers, status and funding.
Box A7.1A: comparison of the three main kinds of ALB in central government
| Feature | agency | non-departmental public body (NDPB) | non-ministerial department (NMD) | |--------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | Status | Part of a department | Independent organisation. May be a company and/or a charity | Department in its own right | | Crown body | Yes | Not usually | Yes | | Established by | Administrative action (usually quick and easy) | Usually bespoke primary legislation (may take time). | Administrative action, often supplemented by primary legislation (if needed, may take time) | | Governance | CEO supported by a board | Independent board led by non-executive Chair | Permanent Secretary supported by a board | | Ministerial accountability | A minister in the parent department makes key decisions on the agency’s affairs | A minister in the sponsor department decides key matters, eg whether to adjust functions, whether to wind up or replace | Rarely needed, but when necessary, a minister in the parent department decides | | Parent department | Has direct control | Subject to formally agreed memorandum, may be light touch | Remote | | Funding | Estimates and/or fee income | Grant(s) from department(s), and/or income from fees or levies | Estimates and/or fee income | | Employees | Civil servants | Not usually civil servants | Civil servants | | Accounts etc | Publishes plans and accounts as part of parent department’s central accounts | Publishes own plans and accounts; also consolidated into sponsor department’s accounts | Publishes own plans and accounts | | Parliamentary | CEO is Agency Accounting Officer, oversight by departmental PAO | CEO is normally the Accounting Officer, oversight by departmental PAO | Permanent Secretary is Accounting Officer, sponsor department’s PAO could step in if required |
A7.1.8 It is worth remembering that the three kinds of ALB in box A7.1A are only the most common. Others are possible. Cabinet Office guidance on the categories of Public Bodies.
______________________________________________________________________
2 See for example: Executive Agencies: A guide for Departments and Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/80076/exec_agencies_guidance_oct06_0.pdf explains in more detail. They include public corporations and various kinds of cooperative arrangements with the private or voluntary sector, some fairly loose. And there is scope to establish one-off arrangements for special bodies where circumstances demand something different. Special structures must of course be evaluated carefully, on the strength of a comparative business case, to make sure that they will deliver value for money to the public purse.
A7.1.9 Whatever the legal status of an ALB, its sponsor department should have a mechanism for asserting an appropriate degree of control over it, especially in financial matters and in relation to issues of ethics in the use of public funds. In general, the greater the extent of public funding, the greater the degree of control called for.
A7.1.10 If legislation is required to set up an ALB, it is important to observe the new services rules (Section 2.6). Strictly this means that royal assent is required before resources can be committed to getting the organisation on its feet. In some urgent cases it may be possible to make a claim on the Reserve to make an earlier start, but even so only after second reading in the Commons to an uncontroversial bill and with safeguards to allow commitments to be unwound if the bill does not pass.
A7.1.11 Whatever the approach taken to setting up the new organisation, it is often desirable to operate a period of shadow running before it starts in earnest. And do be aware that the process of preparation can take time – eg often a couple of years or more for an NDPB.
Box A7.1B: sources of guidance
Guide to the Establishment and Operation of Trading Funds http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psr_reporting_centralgovernment.htm
Making and Managing Public Appointments http://publicappointmentscommissioner.independent.gov.uk/publications/guidance/
Corporate Governance in Central Government Departments: Code of Good Practice includes references to NDPBs and Agencies https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/corporate-governance-code-for-central-government-departments
Financial Reporting Manual – includes guidance for NDPBs and Agencies, including form of Annual Reports https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-financial-reporting-manual
Consolidated Budgeting Guidance – includes guidance in relation to NDPBs and public corporations https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consolidated-budgeting-guidance
Reforming ALBs
A7.1.12 Valuable as they can be, proliferation of ALBs is not good practice. It adds to administrative costs generally and can fragment accountability. So it can be necessary or desirable to wind up or merge ALBs in the light of experience.
3 Categories of Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments and is available on the Cabinet Office website https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/80075/Categories_of_public_bodies_Dec12.pdf A7.1.13 The process of decision making is similar to that for setting up a new ALB if there is to be a successor organisation. It is good practice to decide on a suitable shape for the new organisation and then plan legislation, if necessary, to achieve it.
A7.1.14 The predecessor organisation(s) must be wound up in an orderly fashion, with final accounts to close its affairs (including a comprehensive list of assets and liabilities). If a closing organisation has no staff by the time the final accounts are draw up, it is usual for the accounting officer of the successor organisation, if there is one, to take responsibility for signing them off. If this is not possible, for example if there is no successor, the PAO of the parent department should sign them off.
A7.1.15 When staff are to be migrated into a new organisation, it is important to respect their statutory employment rights. Planning for this should form a key part of the transition preparations. Mistakes can be costly. Departments need arrangements to monitor and understand their arms-length bodies’ strategy, performance and delivery, usually built around a framework document. This annex offers an outline of how this can be drawn up, with a possible specimen, though this is not the only way in which a framework document can be drafted.
A7.2.1 This annex contains an outline menu of terms suitable for inclusion in the framework document for agencies, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and other arms-length bodies (ALBs) controlled by departments. Each body will need a bespoke specification suited to its specific structure and responsibilities. The document should focus clearly on its relationship with the sponsor department, and with any other departments with interest(s) in the ALB’s business.
A7.2.2 The outline below could be adapted or used as a basis for framework documents for any ALB. Some aspects must be tailored accordingly, in particular corporate governance and the roles of the chair, board and CEO are likely to be different for, e.g. executive agencies and NDPBs. Those drawing up framework documents are not bound to follow the specimen, which is offered by way of illustration. The paragraph numbering in the specimen framework document follows that of the outline menu.
FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT FOR AN ALB: outline menu
Purpose of the ALB
1. Statement of: • any statutory (and/or other) duties • strategic aims • any mission statement or equivalent.
Governance and accountability
02. Statement of any legal origin(s) of its powers and duties.
03. Statement of aims set by the sponsor department’s minister and any other ministers.
04. Statement of which minister will account for the ALB’s business in parliament.
05. Statement of the responsibilities of the accounting officer in the sponsor department, especially: • regular monitoring and general oversight over the ALB’s business • accounting for any disbursements of grant to the ALB • sponsorship of its aims in central government • relationship with any other department(s) with an interest in the ALB’s business.
06. Statement of the responsibilities of the organisation’s accounting officer (usually the chief executive) to account to:
- parliament
- the sponsor department
- the ALB’s board
- other stakeholders.
07. Statement of the responsibilities of the ALB’s:
- board
- chairman
- individual board members.
08. Specification of the essential publications of the ALB, including
- annual report and accounts, including its governance statement
- any statutory reports
- any bespoke requirements, eg related to its business sector.
09. Statement of internal audit arrangements, including access by sponsor department’s internal audit service.
10. Statement of external audit arrangements, including:
- the auditor (usually the C&AG)
- the accounts direction (issued by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Treasury)
- value for money audits by the C&AG.
Management and financial responsibilities
11. Statement that the ALB should follow the standards, rules, guidance and advice in Managing Public Money, referring any difficulties or potential bids for exceptions to its sponsor department in the first instance. Specification of any standard exceptions to or elaborations of this general requirement.
12. Details of corporate governance arrangements.
13. Details of risk management procedures and arrangements.
14. Requirements for developing and revising the corporate plan, with the expected frequency, and arrangements for clearance with the sponsor department.
15. Details of budgeting procedures.
16. Details of the terms and conditions of payment of the grant-in-aid and any ring-fenced grants made by the sponsor or other departments.
17. Details of reporting to the sponsor department, with the expected frequency, including: • the ALB’s main activities; • its financial performance; • its expenditure against its budget boundary; • other monitoring information; • working level liaison arrangements.
18. Specification of the activities of, and changes within, the body which require clearance from the sponsor department, including delegated limits for new activities and capital projects.
19. Staff.
20. Arrangements for reviews of the ALB’S status.
21. Procedures for winding up. Appendix to Annex 7.2
FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT: specimen
This framework document has been drawn up by [the department] in consultation with [the named ALB]. This document sets out the broad framework within which the [named body] will operate. The document does not convey any legal powers or responsibilities. It is signed and dated by [the department] and [the ALB]. Copies of the document and any subsequent amendments have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and made available to members of the public on the ALB website.
Purpose of the [named ALB]
1.1 Under the [Name] Act, the [name of ALB] has been set up in order to support the strategic aims and business plan of the [sponsor] department(s). Its main aim is to […].
1.2 Its statutory duties are to: • [short summary of overarching statutory duties]
1.3 The [ALB’s] strategic aims are to: • [explain big picture aims] Aim 1 • Aim 2
1.4 Its mission statement (if any) is:
Governance and accountability
2 [ALB’s] legal origins of powers and duties
2.1 The [ALB’s] powers and duties stem from sections [?] and [Schedule?] of the [establishing legislation, include both primary and secondary legislation, as necessary].
3 Overall aims
3.1 The Secretary of State/responsible Minister(s) has agreed that, subject to 1.3, the aims of [the ALB] should be as follows: i) ii) iii)
4 Ministerial responsibility
4.1 The [name or office of the responsible and successor minister] will account for business in Parliament.
5 Sponsor department’s accounting officer’s specific accountabilities and responsibilities as Principal Accounting Officer (PAO)
5.1 The Principal Accounting Officer (PAO) of [sponsor department] has designated the chief executive as [the ALB’s] accounting officer. (The respective responsibilities of the PAO and accounting officers for ALBs are set out in Chapter 3 of Managing Public Money which is sent separately to the accounting officer on appointment.) 5.2 The PAO is accountable to parliament for the issue of any grant-in-aid to [the ALB]. The PAO is also responsible for advising the responsible minister:
- on an appropriate framework of objectives and targets for [the ALB] in the light of the department’s wider strategic aims and priorities;
- on an appropriate budget for the ALB in the light of the sponsor department’s overall public expenditure priorities; and
- how well the ALB is achieving its strategic objectives and whether it is delivering value for money.
5.3 The PAO is also responsible for ensuring arrangements are in place in order to:
- monitor the ALB’s activities;
- address significant problems in the ALB, making such interventions as are judged necessary;
- periodically carry out an assessment of the risks both to the department and the ALB’s objectives and activities;
- inform the ALB of relevant government policy in a timely manner; and
- bring concerns about the activities of the ALB to the full (ALB) board, and, as appropriate to the departmental board requiring explanations and assurances that appropriate action has been taken.
5.4 [Named team] in the department is the primary contact for the ALB. They are the main source of advice to the responsible minister on the discharge of his or her responsibilities in respect of the ALB. They also support the PAO on his or her responsibilities toward the ALB.
6 Responsibilities of the ALB’s chief executive as accounting officer
General
6.1 The chief executive as accounting officer is personally responsible for safeguarding the public funds for which he or she has charge; for ensuring propriety, regularity, value for money and feasibility in the handling of those public funds; and for the day-to-day operations and management of the [named ALB]. In addition, he or she should ensure that the [named ALB] as a whole is run on the basis of the standards, in terms of governance, decision-making and financial management that are set out in Box 3.1 of Managing Public Money.
Responsibilities for accounting to parliament
6.2 The accountabilities include:
- signing the accounts and ensuring that proper records are kept relating to the accounts and that the accounts are properly prepared and presented in accordance with any directions issued by the Secretary of State;
- preparing and signing a Governance Statement covering corporate governance, risk management and oversight of any local responsibilities, for inclusion in the annual report and accounts;
- ensuring that effective procedures for handling complaints about the ALB are established and made widely known within the ALB; A7.2 Drawing up framework documents
- acting in accordance with the terms of this document, *Managing Public Money* and other instructions and guidance issued from time to time by the Department, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office;
- giving evidence, normally with the PAO, when summoned before the PAC on the ALB’s stewardship of public funds.
**Responsibilities to the [named sponsor department]**
6.3 Particular responsibilities to [named sponsor department] include:
- establishing, in agreement with the department, the [named ALB’s] corporate and business plans in the light of the department’s wider strategic aims and agreed priorities;
- informing the department of progress in helping to achieve the department’s policy objectives and in demonstrating how resources are being used to achieve those objectives; and
- ensuring that timely forecasts and monitoring information on performance and finance are provided to the department; that the department is notified promptly if over or under spends are likely and that corrective action is taken; and that any significant problems whether financial or otherwise, and whether detected by internal audit or by other means, are notified to the department in a timely fashion.
**Responsibilities to the board**
6.4 The chief executive is responsible for:
- advising the board on the discharge of the [ALB Board’s] responsibilities as set out in this document, in the founding legislation and in any other relevant instructions and guidance that may be issued from time to time;
- advising the board on the [named ALB’s] performance compared with its aim[s] and objectives;
- ensuring that financial considerations are taken fully into account by the Board at all stages in reaching and executing its decisions, and that financial appraisal techniques are followed;
- taking action as set out in paragraph 3.8.6 of *Managing Public Money* if the board, or its chairman, is contemplating a course of action involving a transaction which the chief executive considers would infringe the requirements of propriety or regularity or does not represent prudent or economical administration, efficiency or effectiveness, is of questionable feasibility, or is unethical.
**The [named ALB’s] Board**
7.1 The board should ensure that effective arrangements are in place to provide assurance on risk management, governance and internal control. The board must [set up an Audit Committee chaired by an independent non-executive member to provide independent advice/ensure that the department’s Audit Committee provides assurance on risk]. The board is expected to assure itself of the effectiveness of the internal control and risk management systems.
7.2 The board is specifically responsible for: A7.2 Drawing up framework documents
- establishing and taking forward the strategic aims and objectives of the ALB consistent with its overall strategic direction and within the policy and resources framework determined by the Secretary of State;
- ensuring that the responsible minister is kept informed of any changes which are likely to impact on the strategic direction of the [named ALB Board] or on the attainability of its targets, and determining the steps needed to deal with such changes;
- ensuring that any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds are complied with; that the board operates within the limits of its statutory authority and any delegated authority agreed with the sponsor department, and in accordance with any other conditions relating to the use of public funds; and that, in reaching decisions, the Board takes into account guidance issued by the sponsor department;
- ensuring that the board receives and reviews regular financial information concerning the management of the [named ALB]; is informed in a timely manner about any concerns about the activities of the [named ALB]; and provides positive assurance to the department that appropriate action has been taken on such concerns;
- demonstrating high standards of corporate governance at all times, including by using the independent audit committee to help the Board to address key financial and other risks;
- [unless the establishing legislation provides for other arrangements] appoint [with the responsible minister’s approval] a chief executive and, in consultation with the department, set performance objectives and remuneration terms linked to these objectives for the chief executive which give due weight to the proper management and use and utilization of public resources. [Set out the arrangements in legislation if different from this.]
The chairman’s personal responsibilities
7.3 The chairman is responsible to the named minister. Communications between the [named ALB’s] board and the responsible minister should normally be through the chairman. He or she is responsible for ensuring that policies and actions support the responsible minister’s [and where relevant other ministers’] wider strategic policies and that its affairs are conducted with probity. Where appropriate, these policies and actions should be clearly communicated and disseminated throughout the ALB.
7.4 In addition, the Chairman has the following leadership responsibilities:
- formulating the board’s strategy;
- ensuring that the board, in reaching decisions, takes proper account of guidance provided by the responsible minister or the department;
- promoting the efficient and effective use of staff and other resources;
- delivering high standards of regularity and propriety; and
- representing the views of the board to the general public. The chairman also has an obligation to ensure that:
- the work of the board and its members are reviewed and are working effectively;
- the board has a balance of skills appropriate to directing the [named ALB’s] business, as set out in the Government Code of Good Practice for Corporate Governance;
- board members are fully briefed on terms of appointment, duties, rights and responsibilities;
- he or she, together with the other board members, receives appropriate training on financial management and reporting requirements and on any differences that may exist between private and public sector practice;
- the responsible minister is advised of [named ALB’s] needs when board vacancies arise;
- he or she assesses the performance of individual board members when being considered for re-appointment;
- there is a Board Operating Framework in place setting out the role and responsibilities of the Board consistent with the Government Code of Good Practice for Corporate Governance
- there is a code of practice for board members in place, consistent with the Cabinet Office Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies.
Individual board members’ responsibilities
Individual board members should:
- comply at all times with the Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies and with the rules relating to the use of public funds and to conflicts of interest;
- not misuse information gained in the course of their public service for personal gain or for political profit, nor seek to use the opportunity of public service to promote their private interests or those of connected persons or organisations;
- comply with the board’s rules on the acceptance of gifts and hospitality, and of business appointments;
- act in good faith and in the best interests of the [named ALB].
Annual report and accounts
The [ALB Board] must publish an annual report of its activities together with its audited accounts after the end of each financial year. The [named ALB] shall provide the department its finalised (audited) accounts by [date] each year in order for the accounts to be consolidated within the [named department’s].
The annual report must:
- cover any corporate, subsidiary or joint ventures under its control;
- comply with the Treasury’s Financial Reporting Manual (FreM); A7.2 Drawing up framework documents
- outline main activities and performance during the previous financial year and set out in summary form forward plans.
8.3 Information on performance against key financial targets is within the scope of the audit and should be included in the notes to the accounts. The report and accounts shall be laid in parliament and made available on the [named ALB’s] website, in accordance with the guidance in the FReM. A draft of the report should be submitted to the department [two weeks] before the proposed publication date. The accounts should be prepared in accordance with the relevant statutes and specific accounts direction issued by the department as well as the FReM.
9 Internal audit
9.1 [Named ALB] shall:
- [establish and maintain arrangements for internal audit in accordance with the Treasury’s Public Sector Internal Audit Standards (PSIAS) (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-internal-audit-standards) / ensure that the sponsor department’s internal audit team have complete access to all relevant records] [delete as appropriate]
- [in the event that the body has its own internal audit service] ensure the sponsor department is satisfied with the competence and qualifications of the Head of Internal Audit and the requirements for approving appointments in accordance with PSIAS;
- \[set up an audit committee of its board in accordance with the Code of Good Practice for Corporate Governance and the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee Handbook, or be represented on the [named] sponsor department’s Audit Committee\];
- forward the audit strategy, periodic audit plans and annual audit report, including the [named ALB] Head of Internal Audit opinion on risk management, control and governance as soon as possible to the sponsor department; and
- keep records of, and prepare and forward to the department an annual report on fraud and theft suffered by the [named ALB] and notify the sponsor department of any unusual or major incidents as soon as possible.
9.2 The internal audit service has a right of access to all documents, including where the service is contracted out.
10 External audit
10.1 \[The Comptroller & Auditor General (C&AG) audits the [named ALB’s] annual accounts and lays them before parliament, together with his report/ The C&AG passes the audited accounts to the Secretary of State who will lay the accounts together with the C&AG’s report before parliament.\] [Delete as applicable.]
In the event that the [named ALB] has set up and controls subsidiary companies, the [named ALB] will [in the light of the provisions in the Companies Act 2006] ensure that the C&AG is appointed auditor of those company subsidiaries that it controls and/or whose accounts are consolidated within its own accounts. The [ALB] shall discuss with the sponsor department the procedures for appointing the C&AG as auditor of the companies.\] 10.2 The C&AG:
- will consult the department and the ALB on whom – the NAO or a commercial auditor – shall undertake the audit(s) on his behalf, though the final decision rests with the C&AG;
- has a statutory right of access to relevant documents, including by virtue of section 25(8) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, held by another party in receipt of payments or grants from the [ALB];
- will share with the sponsor department information identified during the audit process and the audit report (together with any other outputs) at the end of the audit, in particular on issues impacting on the Department's responsibilities in relation to financial systems within the [named ALB];
- will, where asked, provide departments and other relevant bodies with Regulatory Compliance Reports and other similar reports which departments may request at the commencement of the audit and which are compatible with the independent auditor's role.
10.3 The C&AG may carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the ALB has used its resources in discharging its functions. For the purpose of these examinations the C&AG has statutory access to documents as provided for under section 8 of the National Audit Act 1983. In addition, the ALB shall provide, in conditions to grants and contracts, for the C&AG to exercise such access to documents held by grant recipients and contractors and sub-contractors as may be required for these examinations; and shall use its best endeavours to secure access for the C&AG to any other documents required by the C&AG which are held by other bodies.
Right of access
10.4 The department has the right of access to all ALB records and personnel for any purpose including, for example, sponsorship audits and operational investigations.
Management and financial responsibilities
11 Managing Public Money and other government-wide corporate guidance and instructions
11.1 Unless agreed by the department and, as necessary, HM Treasury, [Named ALB] shall follow the principles, rules, guidance and advice in Managing Public Money, referring any difficulties or potential bids for exceptions to [named team] in [department] in the first instance. A list of guidance and instructions with which the ALB should comply is in Appendix [?].
11.2 Once the budget has been approved by the sponsor department [and subject to any restrictions imposed by statute][the responsible minister’s instructions][this document], the ALB shall have authority to incur expenditure approved in the budget without further reference to the sponsor department, on the following conditions:
- the ALB shall comply with the delegations set out in Appendix 2. These delegations shall not be altered without the prior agreement of the sponsor department; A7.2 Drawing up framework documents
- the ALB shall comply with Managing Public Money regarding novel, contentious or repercussive proposals;
- inclusion of any planned and approved expenditure in the budget shall not remove the need to seek formal departmental approval where any proposed expenditure is outside the delegated limits or is for new schemes not previously agreed;
- the ALB shall provide the sponsor department with such information about its operations, performance individual projects or other expenditure as the sponsor department may reasonably require.
12 Corporate governance
Board appointments - the chairman and board members
12.1 The ALB chairman and board members are appointed for a period of [three] years by the responsible minister. Such appointments will comply with the Commissioner for Public Appointments Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies.
Board appointments – the chief executive
12.2 \[The chief executive is appointed by the responsible minister in consultation with [with the agreement of] the chairman./The chief executive is appointed by the ALB’s Board, consulting the responsible minister and PAO, as required.\] [Delete as necessary]
Composition of the board
12.3 In line with the government’s Code of good Practice (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/corporate-governance-code-for-central-government-departments), the Board will consist of a chairman, together with [number] of executive members that have a balance of skills and experience appropriate to directing the ALB’s business. For [named ALB] there should be members who have experience of [add/delete as necessary or appropriate] its business, operational delivery, corporate services such as HR, IS, technology, property asset management, estate management, communications and performance management. The board should include [number] of independent non-executive members to ensure that executive members are supported and constructively challenged in their role.
13 Risk management
13.1 The [named ALB] shall ensure that the risks that it faces are dealt with in an appropriate manner, in accordance with relevant aspects of best practice in corporate governance, and develop a risk management strategy, in accordance with the Treasury guidance Management of Risk: Principles and Concepts (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/orange_book.htm ). It should adopt and implement policies and practices to safeguard itself against fraud and theft, in line with the Treasury’s guidance on tackling fraud (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/managing_the_risk_fraud_guide_for_managers.pdf.pdf). It should also take all reasonable steps to appraise the financial standing of any firm or other body with which it intends to enter into a contract or to give grant or grant-in-aid.
14 Corporate and business plans
14.1 [By date] the [named ALB] shall submit annually to the sponsor department a draft of the corporate plan covering [three] years ahead. The draft should be submitted by [date]. The ALB shall agree with the department the issues to be addressed in the plan and the timetable for its preparation. The plan shall reflect the ALB’s statutory and/or other duties and, within those duties, the priorities set from time to time by the responsible minister (including decisions taken on policy and resources in the light of wider public expenditure decisions). The plan shall demonstrate how the ALB contributes to the achievement of the department’s priorities.
14.2 The first year of the corporate plan, amplified as necessary, shall form the business plan. The business plan shall be updated to include key targets and milestones for the year immediately ahead and shall be linked to budgeting information so that resources allocated to achieve specific objectives can readily be identified by the department. Subject to any commercial considerations, [a digest of] the corporate and business plans should be published by the ALB on its website and separately be made available to staff.
14.3 The following key matters should be included in the plans:
- key objectives and associated key performance targets for the forward years, and the strategy for achieving those objectives;
- key non-financial performance targets;
- a review of performance in the preceding financial year, together with comparable outturns for the previous [2-5] years, and an estimate of performance in the current year;
- alternative scenarios and an assessment of the risk factors that may significantly affect the execution of the plan but that cannot be accurately forecast; and
- other matters as agreed between the department and the ALB.
15 Budgeting procedures
15.1 Each year, in the light of decisions by the department on the updated draft corporate plan, the department will send to the ALB \[by date\]:
- a formal statement of the annual budgetary provision allocated by the department in the light of competing priorities across the department and of any forecast income approved by the department; and
- a statement of any planned change in policies affecting the ALB.
15.2 The approved annual business plan will take account both of approved funding provision [where this applies] and any forecast receipts, and will include a budget of estimated payments and receipts together with a profile of expected expenditure and of draw-down of any departmental funding and/or other income over the year. These elements form part of the approved business plan for the year in question.
16 Grant-in-aid and any ring-fenced grants
16.1 Any grant-in-aid provided by the department for the year in question will be voted in the department’s Supply Estimate and be subject to Parliamentary control.
16.2 The grant-in-aid will normally be paid in monthly instalments on the basis of written applications showing evidence of need. The [named ALB] will comply with the general principle, that there is no payment in advance of need. Cash balances accumulated during the course of the year from grant-in-aid or other Exchequer funds shall be kept to a minimum level consistent with the efficient operation of the ALB. Grant-in-aid not drawn down by the end of the financial year shall lapse. Subject to approval by parliament of the relevant Estimates provision, where grant-in-aid is delayed to avoid excess cash balances at the year-end, the department will make available in the next financial year any such grant-in-aid that is required to meet any liabilities at the year end, such as creditors.
16.3 [In the event that the department provides the ALB separate grants for specific (ring-fenced) purposes, it would issue the grant as and when the ALB needed it on the basis of a written request. The ALB would provide evidence that the grant was used for the purposes authorised by the department. The ALB shall not have uncommitted grant funds in hand, nor carry grant funds over to another financial year.]
17 Reporting performance to the department
17.1 The ALB shall operate management, information and accounting systems that enable it to review in a timely and effective manner its financial and non-financial performance against the budgets and targets set out in the corporate and business plans. The ALB shall inform the sponsor department of any changes that make achievement of objectives more or less difficult. It shall report financial and non-financial performance, including performance in helping to deliver ministers’ policies, and the achievement of key objectives regularly [specify]. The ALB’s performance shall be formally reviewed by the department twice a year. The responsible minister will meet the [board][chairman][chief executive] once a year.
Providing monitoring information to the department
17.2 As a minimum, the ALB shall provide the department with information monthly that will enable the department satisfactorily to monitor:
- the ALB’s cash management;
- its draw-down of grant-in-aid;
- forecast outturn by resource headings;
- other data required for the Online System for Central Accounting and Reporting (OSCAR).
ALB/Department working level liaison arrangements
17.3 Officials of [named] team in the sponsor department will liaise regularly with ALB officials to review financial performance against plans, achievement against targets and expenditure against its DEL and AME allocations. The [team] will also take the opportunity to explain wider policy developments that might have an impact on the ALB.
18 Delegated authorities
18.1 The ALB’s delegated authorities are set out in [appendix 2]. The ALB shall obtain the department’s prior written approval before:
- entering into any undertaking to incur any expenditure that falls outside the delegations or which is not provided for in the ALB’s annual budget as approved by the department;
- incurring expenditure for any purpose that is or might be considered novel or contentious, or which has or could have significant future cost implications; A7.2 Drawing up framework documents
- making any significant change in the scale of operation or funding of any initiative or particular scheme previously approved by the department;
- making any change of policy or practice which has wider financial implications that might prove repercussive or which might significantly affect the future level of resources required; or
- carrying out policies that go against the principles, rules, guidance and advice in Managing Public Money.
19 [ALBs that employ their own staff] Staff
Broad responsibilities for staff
19.1 Within the arrangements approved by the responsible minister [and the Treasury] the ALB will have responsibility for the recruitment, retention and motivation of its staff. The broad responsibilities toward its staff are to ensure that:
- the rules for recruitment and management of staff create an inclusive culture in which diversity is fully valued; appointment and advancement is based on merit: there is no discrimination on grounds of gender, marital status, sexual orientation, race, colour, ethnic or national origin, religion, disability, community background or age;
- the level and structure of its staffing, including grading and staff numbers, are appropriate to its functions and the requirements of economy, efficiency and effectiveness;
- the performance of its staff at all levels is satisfactorily appraised and the ALB performance measurement systems are reviewed from time to time;
- its staff are encouraged to acquire the appropriate professional, management and other expertise necessary to achieve the ALB’s objectives;
- proper consultation with staff takes place on key issues affecting them;
- adequate grievance and disciplinary procedures are in place;
- whistle-blowing procedures consistent with the Public Interest Disclosure Act are in place;
- [a code of conduct for staff is in place based on the Cabinet Office’s Model Code for Staff of Executive Non-departmental Public Bodies](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/80082/PublicBodiesGuide2006_5_public_body_staffv2_0.pdf).
Staff costs
19.2 Subject to its delegated authorities, the ALB shall ensure that the creation of any additional posts does not incur forward commitments that will exceed its ability to pay for them.
Pay and conditions of service
19.3 [NB the department should have regard to chapter 5 of the Cabinet Office’s Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments that provides guidance on staff issues in public bodies](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/80082/PublicBodiesGuide2006_5_public_body_staffv2_0.pdf).\] The ALB’s staff are subject to levels of remuneration and terms and conditions of service (including pensions) within the general pay structure approved by the sponsor department [and the Treasury]. The ALB has no delegated power to amend these terms and conditions.
19.4 If civil service terms and conditions of service apply to the rates of pay and non-pay allowances paid to the staff and to any other party entitled to payment in respect of travel expenses or other allowances, payment shall be made in accordance with the Civil Service Management Code (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-servants-terms-and-conditions) except where prior approval has been given by the department to vary such rates.
19.5 Staff terms and conditions should be set out in an Employee Handbook, which should be provided to the department together with subsequent amendments.
19.6 The ALB shall operate [a performance-related pay scheme that shall form part of the annual aggregate pay budget approved by the department or the general pay structure approved by the department and the Treasury whichever is applicable].
19.7 The travel expenses of board members shall be tied to the rates allowed to senior staff of the ALB or departmental rates [whichever is applicable]. Reasonable actual costs shall be reimbursed.
19.8 The ALB shall comply with the EU Directive on contract workers – the Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations.
Pensions, redundancy and compensation
19.9 ALB staff shall normally be eligible for a pension provided by [its own scheme][state second pension][PCSPS][LGPS][other]. Staff may opt out of the occupational pension scheme provided by the ALB, but that employers’ contribution to any personal pension arrangement, including stakeholder pension shall normally be limited to the national insurance rebate level. [Note that there is an exception for ALBs covered by the PCSPS partnership arrangement, and for PCSPS by-analogy versions.]
19.10 Any proposal by the ALB to move from the existing pension arrangements, or to pay any redundancy or compensation for loss of office, requires the prior approval of the department. Proposals on severance must comply with the rules in chapter 4 of Managing Public Money.
20 Review of ALB’s status (and winding-up arrangements)
20.1 The ALB will be reviewed every [3] years. The date of the next review will be in 20[?].
21 Arrangements in the event that the ALB is wound up
21.1 The sponsor department shall put in place arrangements to ensure the orderly winding up of the ALB. In particular it should ensure that the assets and liabilities of the ALB are passed to any successor organisation and accounted for properly. (In the event that there is no successor organisation, the assets and liabilities should revert to the sponsor department.) To this end, the department shall:
• ensure that procedures are in place in the ALB to gain independent assurance on key transactions, financial commitments, cash flows and other information needed to handle the wind-up effectively and to maintain the momentum of work inherited by any residuary body; A7.2 Drawing up framework documents
- specify the basis for the valuation and accounting treatment of the ALB’s assets and liabilities;
- ensure that arrangements are in place to prepare closing accounts and pass to the C&AG for external audit, and that, for non-Crown bodies funds are in place to pay for such audits. It shall be for the C&AG to lay the final accounts in Parliament, together with his report on the accounts;
- arrange for the most appropriate person to sign the closing accounts. In the event that another ALB takes on the role, responsibilities, assets and liabilities, the succeeding ALB AO should sign the closing accounts. In the event that the department inherits the role, responsibilities, assets and liabilities, the sponsor department’s AO should sign.
21.2 The ALB shall provide the department with full details of all agreements where the ALB or its successors have a right to share in the financial gains of developers. It should also pass to the department details of any other forms of claw-back due to the ALB.
LIST OF APPENDICES TO THE SPECIMEN DOCUMENT
Appendix 1 - List of delegated authorities (not attached) Appendix 2 - List of government-wide corporate guidance instructions (attached)
Signed........... Signed...........
Date........... Date...........
(On behalf of the department) (On behalf of the ALB) APPENDIX 2 TO SPECIMEN DOCUMENT
Compliance with government-wide corporate guidance and instructions [NB to check/update references.]
The Body shall comply with the following general guidance documents and instructions:
- this document;
- Appropriate adaptations of sections of Corporate Governance in Central Government Departments: Code of Good Practice https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/corporate-governance-code-for-central-government-departments;
- Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/code-of-conduct_tcm6-38901.pdf
- Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies http://publicappointmentscommissioner.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Code-of-Practice-2012.pdf
- Managing Public Money (MPM);
- Public Sector Internal Audit Standards, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-internal-audit-standards;
- Management of Risk: Principles and Concepts; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/orange-book
- HM Treasury Guidance on Tackling Fraud, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/managing_the_risk_fraud_guide_for_managers.pdf;
- Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-financial-reporting-manual;
- Fees and Charges Guide, Chapter 6 of Managing Public Money;
- Departmental Banking: A Manual for Government Departments, annex 5.6 of Managing Public Money;
- relevant Dear Accounting Officer letters https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/dao-letters;
- Regularity, Propriety and Value for Money, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psr_governance_valueformoney.htm;
- The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administration http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving-public-service/ombudsmansprinciples;
- Consolidation Officer Memorandum, and relevant DCO letters; A7.2 Drawing up framework documents
- relevant Freedom of Information Act guidance and instructions (Ministry of Justice);
- [Model Code for Staff of Executive Non-departmental Public Bodies (Cabinet Office) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/80082/PublicBodiesGuide2006_5_public_body_staffv2_0.pdf];
- other relevant guidance and instructions issued by the Treasury in respect of Whole of Government Accounts;
- other relevant instructions and guidance issued by the central Departments;
- specific instructions and guidance issued by the sponsor Department;
- recommendations made by the Public Accounts Committee, or by other Parliamentary authority, that have been accepted by the Government and relevant to the ALB. Annex 7.3 Trading funds
This annex discusses how sponsor departments should assess proposals for trading fund status, control and monitor their trading funds, and deal with public dividend capital (PDC).
Proposals for trading fund status
A7.3.1 Bodies seeking trading fund status will usually need two years or so to get their proposals agreed. They will need to demonstrate that their income will largely sustain their operations and that they have the capacity to control and manage their business effectively. It is usual to establish a trading fund(^1) to begin on 1 April with a trading year to coincide with the government’s financial year, ending at end March. The key steps are set out in box A7.3A.
A7.3.2 Further guidance may be found in the Treasury’s *Guide to the Establishment and Operation of Trading Funds*(^2).
Public dividend capital
A7.3.3 Trading funds are normally established with deemed capital in the form of public dividend capital (PDC) though often no cash transaction takes place. PDC may include an allowance for working capital. Once established, the trading fund should pay a dividend on the PDC and to service any loan capital from the NLF.
A7.3.4 Under resource budgeting arrangements, sponsor departments score their trading funds’ PDC as an asset. They also incur a cost of capital charge on the value of the net assets of bodies in which they have an investment, including trading funds. This charge is offset by the receipt of dividends on the PDC and interest on any loan capital. So if the trading fund is unable to pay a dividend, the sponsor department may need to find offsetting savings.
Monitoring and control
A7.3.5 Sponsor departments should monitor the performance of their trading funds, as any other part of their departments or ALBs. They should take an active part in assessing the (annual) corporate plans prepared by their trading funds, which should be agreed with the relevant departmental minister.
A7.3.6 The trading fund’s corporate plan should be supplemented by a more detailed annual business plan against which the sponsor department should measure performance monthly. In some cases, the Shareholder Executive may act for or advise the sponsor department.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) Under the Government Trading Fund Act 1973
(^2) [http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psr_reporting_centralgovernment.htm](http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/psr_reporting_centralgovernment.htm) A7.3 Trading funds
A7.3.7 The Treasury takes a strategic role. It needs to be confident that the department has adequate procedures for monitoring and controlling its trading funds. It may take a more direct role if particular questions or problems arise.
Box A7.3A: main steps in processing applications for trading fund status
Any body proposing to become a trading fund should be part of a department or a department in its own right.
**Sponsor departments** should:
- consider whether the body really will get most of its income from trading;
- assess whether trading fund status will improve the body’s efficiency and effectiveness in managing its activities;
- obtain the agreement of both departmental ministers and the Chief Secretary to the body’s outline business case;
- prepare a detailed business case, including financial forecasts, financing arrangements (eg loans or PDC), valuation of specialised assets, and determination of financial targets;
- arrange independent assessment of the business case (perhaps by private sector consultants), including a fitness to trade review where goods or services are not currently charged for. The review will need to confirm that the systems are adequate to identify costs of goods or services provided, make necessary charges to customers, control debtors, manage incoming cash, and maintain adequate accounting and reporting systems;
- consult and advise customers, staff and other stakeholders about the proposal to establish a trading fund (the results of the consultation will eventually be laid before Parliament);
- consult the Treasury about:
- the capitalisation of the trading fund, eg a cash injection, NLF loans or PDC
- arrangements for monitoring the financial performance of the trading fund
- financial targets
- appointment of the Accounting Officer for the trading fund
- the Framework Document
- the draft Trading Fund order;
- seek final approval of both departmental ministers and the Chief Secretary;
- arrange the necessary Parliamentary debate.
**The Treasury**
- agrees the basic business case and capitalisation of the trading fund;
- issues a direction under the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 setting out how the assets and liabilities to be appropriated to the trading fund are to be valued;
- directs the trading fund to be guided by the FReM and by standard directions on its report and accounts. Some public services are delivered in partnership with private sector providers, using some carefully controlled private finance. Because the private sector contractor puts its own funds at risk, it can incentivise delivery of assets and services to time and cost, and can offer value for money where the benefits of risk transfer and private sector delivery offset the additional cost of private finance. Such deals are not appropriate for every project.
A7.4.1 Although the use of private finance in the delivery of public sector assets and services is one method of procurement, it is not suited to all types. Where it is used effectively it can offer a number of strengths in delivering public assets (see box A7.4A). These stem from:
- sharing risk in delivering public projects within a structure in which the private sector contractor puts its own capital at risk;
- payment to the private sector being structured in such a way as to ensure the private sector is incentivised to deliver the required services or obligations under the arrangement; and
- the private sector being incentivised to grow market share in the joint delivery of services, or to grow the value in the joint management of assets.
A7.4.2 Contracts using private finance may include the ongoing maintenance and operation of the asset and the delivery of associated services to outcome specifications set by the public sector. Generally they are long term arrangement between the parties.
Box A7.4A: strengths of using private finance to deliver public sector assets and services
- getting projects built to time and to budget
- improving whole-of-life risk allocation and management, creating disciplines and incentives on the private sector to manage risk effectively
- securing a greater focus on due diligence
- securing better integration of design, construction and operational skills
- securing a greater focus on growing market share or value of a joint asset or business
A7.4.3 Private finance does not suit every project. It should only be used after the rigorous scrutiny of all alternative procurement options, where:
- the use of private finance offers better value for money for the public sector compared with other forms of procurement. Annex 4.6 gives additional guidance on the value for money analysis that is required alongside the assurance and approval process; A7.4 Using private finance
- the structure of the project allows the public sector to define its needs after construction as service outputs that can be adequately contracted for in a way that ensures an effective and accountable delivery of long-term public services;
- the public sector partner is able to predict the nature and level of its long term service requirements with a reasonable degree of certainty.
A7.4.4 Conversely, private finance is not usually suitable for:
- individual projects too small to justify the transaction costs; or
- large innovative IT projects, or other services where it is not practical to specify the requirements sufficiently firmly in advance or over the long time-frame of the prospective contract life.
A7.4.5 The main procurement principles continue to apply when using private finance. It is important that the output to be achieved is clearly specified rather than the method to be used in carrying out the contract, so that the supplier can innovate and manage risk effectively. However, it is sensible to clarify key areas of design early on, to prevent false starts and later misunderstandings.
A7.4.6 Public sector organisations should not, however, use standard contracts automatically. They should be intelligent customers, providing incentives to stimulate enough competition to achieve good value in procurement costs. They should also be aware that their own reputations may be at risk when privately financed contracts are carried out. Where contracts include the ongoing maintenance and operation of assets, public sector organisations need to commit sufficient resource to effective long term contract management, including monitoring performance and managing any service variation requirements or other contract delivery issues over the project life.
A7.4.7 Once a major asset has been constructed, it may be possible for the private sector partner to refinance the project debt on more favourable terms than achieved at financial close. The contract should specify how the financial benefit of any refinancing should be shared with the public sector purchaser. The Treasury has produced a standard refinancing protocol to achieve this. | Name | Definition | |-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Accounting officer | A person appointed by the Treasury or designated by a department to be accountable for the operations of an organisation and the preparation of its accounts. The appointee is the head of a department or other organisation or the Chief Executive of a non-departmental public body (NDPB) or other arms-length-body. See chapter 3. | | Accounts direction | A direction issued setting out the accounts which a body must prepare, and the form and content of those accounts. | | Affirmative resolution | A parliamentary procedure exercising control over secondary legislation (ie, a Statutory Instrument in the form of an order or regulation). Parliament’s positive approval is required before the instrument can take effect. | | Annually Managed Expenditure, AME | Spending included in Total Managed Expenditure (TME), which does not fall within Departmental Expenditure Limits (DELs). Expenditure in AME is generally less predictable and controllable than expenditure in DEL. | | Arm’s length bodies, ALBs | Central government bodies that carry out discrete functions on behalf of departments, but which are controlled or owned by them. They include executive agencies, NDPBs and government-owned companies. | | Capital spending | Spending on the purchase of assets (including buildings, equipment and land), above a certain threshold (set by the body concerned), which are expected to be used for a period of at least one year. Items valued below it are not counted as capital assets, even where they have a productive life of more than one year. | | Central government bodies | Departments and departmental executive agencies, NDPBs, and NHS health authorities and boards. The Office for National Statistics determines which bodies are classified to central government. | | Chief executive | Title for the head of an arm’s length body, normally appointed as accounting officer. | | Civil Service Code | A concise statement issued by the Cabinet Office setting out the framework within which all civil servants work, and the core values and standards they are expected to hold. | | Clawback | The concept that where an asset financed by public money is sold, all or part of the proceeds of the sales should be returned to the Exchequer. | | Commercial banks | Bodies other than the Government Banking Service which provide banking services, including private sector banks and building societies. | | Committee of Public Accounts | A committee of the House of Commons which examines the accounting for, and the regularity and propriety of, government expenditure. It also examines the economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and feasibility of expenditure. Commonly known as the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). | | Common law | One of the historical sources of law in the United Kingdom. Often used to distinguish judge-made case-law and longstanding legal principles from legislation which has been made by parliament. | | Term | Definition | |-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Comptroller and Auditor General, C&AG | The chief executive of the National Audit Office, appointed by the Crown, and an Officer of the House of Commons. As Comptroller, the C&AG’s duties are to authorise the issue by the Treasury of public funds from the Consolidated Fund and the National Loans Fund to government departments and others. As Auditor General, the C&AG certifies the accounts of all government departments and some other public bodies, and carries out value-for-money examinations. See annex 1.1. | | Concordat | A long-standing agreement between the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee that continuing functions of government should be defined in specific statute. See annex 2.3. | | Consolidated Fund, CF | The government’s current account, operated by the Treasury, through which most government payments and receipts pass. | | Consolidated Fund standing services | Payments for services which Parliament has decided by statute should be met directly from the Consolidated Fund, rather than financed annually by voted money. | | Consolidated Fund extra receipt (CFER) | Income, or related cash, that passes through a department’s accounts but may not be retained by the department and is surrendered to the Consolidated Fund. | | Contingencies Fund | A government fund, controlled by the Treasury, which, subject to certain criteria, can provide repayable advances to finance urgent expenditure in anticipation of parliamentary approval of legislation or Estimates, or used to finance expenditure in advance of receipts. See annex 2.4. | | Contingent liabilities | Potential liabilities that are uncertain but recognise that future expenditure may arise if certain conditions are met or certain events happen. | | Corporate governance | The system and principles by which organisations are directed and controlled. | | Cost of capital | The cost to the government of financing investment, ie the rate at which it borrows. This is included in the calculation when setting fees and charges and is calculated as a percentage of the net asset value. | | Data Protection Act | Legislation (1998) which governs how organisations can use personal information which they hold. | | Delegated authority | A standing authorisation by the Treasury under which a body may commit resources or incur expenditure from money voted by Parliament without specific prior approval from the Treasury. Delegated authorities may also authorise commitments to spend (including the acceptance of contingent liabilities) and to deal with special transactions (such as write-offs) without prior approval. | | Depreciation | A measure of the wearing out, consumption or other reduction in the useful life of a fixed asset whether arising from use, passage of time or obsolescence through technological or market changes. | | Derivative | A financial instrument derived from another, usually sold singly or in packages to promote hedging, eg, interest rate and exchange rate options. | | Detective controls | Controls designed to detect error, fraud, irregularity or inefficiency. | | Term | Definition | |-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Devolved administrations | The administrations established in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. | | Discretionary services | Services that are not required by statute but are provided, often into competitive markets. | | Efficiency and Reform Group | A part of the Cabinet Office, which works closely with the Treasury to tackle waste and improve accountability across Whitehall. | | Estimate Manual | A practical reference guide issued by the Treasury which provides detailed information on the Supply Estimates policy and process. | | Estimates Memorandum | An explanation of how provision sought in the Estimate is intended to be used and the relationship with other spending controls. Primarily provided for the departmental select committee but made freely available online. | | Excess Vote | The means by which excess expenditure, or otherwise unauthorised expenditure, of cash, capital or resources, is regularised through an additional vote by Parliament. See section 5.4. | | Exchequer | Central government’s central financing arrangements, based on the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund, and managed by the Treasury and the Bank of England. | | Exchequer Pyramid | A serious of accounts held at the Bank of England through which the overnight sweep and funding flows. | | Feasibility | The principle that proposals with public expenditure implications should be implemented accurately, sustainable and to the intended timetable. | | Finance Act | The legislation through which Parliament agrees the government’s tax decisions. Normally passed in the summer after the spring budget. | | Framework document | A document setting out the accountabilities and relationships of arms-length-bodies with their sponsor departments – see annex 7.2 | | Freedom of Information | Legislation designed to promote public access to a wide range of public sector data and information (but not personal data). | | Full cost | The total cost of all the resources used in providing a good or service in any accounting period (usually one year). This includes all direct and indirect costs of producing the output (cash and non-cash costs) including a full proportional share of overhead costs and any selling and distribution costs, insurance, depreciation, and the cost of capital, including any appropriate adjustment for expected cost increases. | | Funding | Transferring monies to an account, so that they are available when needed for payments. | | Generally accepted accounting practice in the UK, UK GAAP | The accounting and disclosure requirements of the Companies Act and pronouncements by the Financial Reporting Council (principally accounting standards and Urgent Issues Task Force abstracts), supplemented by accumulated professional judgements. | | Governance Statement | An annual statement that accounting officers are required to make as part of the accounts on a range of risk and control issues. | | Term | Definition | |-------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Grant | Payments made by departments to outside bodies to reimburse expenditure on agreed items or functions, and often paid only on statutory conditions. | | Grant in aid | Regular payments by departments to outside bodies (usually NDPBs) to finance their operating expenditure. | | Hedging | Transaction(s) designed to reduce or eliminate financial risk, eg, because of interest rate or exchange rate fluctuations. | | International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) | International accounting standards reflected in UK GAAP. Adapted by government for the public sector. | | Irregular expenditure outside the ambit of a vote | Expenditure outside the ambit of a vote, ie resources spent on matters which were not included in the relevant ambit in the departmental Estimate and therefore Parliament has not authorised. See section 5.4. | | Joined-up government | Arrangements under which policy-making and service delivery are unhindered by departmental boundaries. | | Judicial review | A procedure by which the courts can review the legality of decisions and actions of public authorities, including the government. Judicial review looks at the fairness of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. | | Levies | Licences to operate public goods, often set to recover associated costs such as supervision by a regulator. | | Misstatement | A statement which is untrue. The maker of a misstatement can be sued for damages by those who have relied on the misstatement, but only if in the circumstances it was reasonable to rely on it. | | National Accounts | Accounts produced by the Office for National Statistics in accordance with the European System of Accounts 1995, which promotes standardisation in the way in which public sector income and expenditure is measured. | | National Audit Office, NAO | A corporate Parliamentary body set up to provide resources, support and constructive challenge to the C&AG. See annex 1.1. | | National Insurance Fund, NIF | A government fund used to meet the cost of contribution-based benefits, financed mainly by contributions paid by employers and individuals. | | National Loans Fund, NLF | The fund through which passes most of the government’s borrowing transactions and some domestic transactions. | | Non-departmental public body, NDPB | A body with a role in the processes of government, but not a government department or part of one. NDPBs accordingly operate at arm’s length from Ministers. | | Notional costs of insurance | A cost which is taken into account in setting fees and charges to improve comparability with private sector service providers. The charge takes account of the fact that public bodies do not generally pay an insurance premium to a commercial insurer. | | Office for National Statistics, ONS | The independent body responsible for collecting and publishing official statistics about the UK’s society and economy. | | Office of the Paymaster General, OPG | Now incorporated within the Government Banking Service, it has statutory responsibilities to hold accounts and make payment for government departments and other public bodies. | | Term | Definition | |-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Orange book | The informal title for *Management of Risks: Principles and Concepts*, guidance published by the Treasury for public sector bodies. | | Overdraft | An account with a negative balance. | | Parliamentary authority | Parliament’s formal agreement to authorise an activity or expenditure. | | Prerogative powers | Powers exercisable under the Royal Prerogative, ie, powers which are unique to the Crown, as contrasted with common-law powers which may be available to the Crown on the same basis as to natural persons. | | Primary legislation | Acts which have been passed by the Westminster Parliament and, where they have appropriate powers, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Begin as Bills until they have received Royal Assent. | | Propriety | The principle that patterns of resource consumption should meet high standards of public conduct, and robust governance and respect Parliament’s intentions, conventions and control procedures, including any laid down by the PAC. See box 2.4. | | Public Accounts Committee | See Committee of Public Accounts. | | Public Accounts Commission | A Select Committee of the House of Commons set up under the National Audit Act 1983 to regulate the National Audit Office. | | Public corporation | A trading body controlled by central government, local authority or other public corporation that has substantial day to day operating independence. See section 7.7. | | Public Dividend Capital, PDC | Finance provided by government to public sector bodies as an equity stake; an alternative to loan finance. | | Public Private partnership, PPP | A structured arrangement between a public sector and a private sector organisation to secure an outcome delivering good value for money for the public sector. It is classified to the public or private sector according to which has more control. | | Rate of return | The financial remuneration delivered by a particular project or enterprise, expressed as a percentage of the net assets employed. | | Regularity | The principle that resource consumption should accord with the relevant legislation, delegated authorities and this document. See box 2.4. | | Restitution | A legal concept which allows money and property to be returned to its rightful owner. It typically operates where another person can be said to have been unjustly enriched by receiving such monies. | | Return on capital employed, ROCE | The ratio of profit to capital employed of an accounting entity during an identified period. Various measures of profit and of capital employed may be used in calculating the ratio. | | Royal charter | The document setting out the powers and constitution of a corporation established under prerogative power of the monarch acting on Privy Council advice. | | Second reading | The second formal time that a House of Parliament may debate a bill, although in practice the first substantive debate on its content. If successful, it is deemed to denote parliamentary approval of the principle of the proposed legislation. | | Glossary | Definition | |----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Secondary legislation | Laws, including orders and regulations, which are made using powers in primary legislation. Normally used to set out technical and administrative provision in greater detail than primary legislation, they are subject to a less intense level of scrutiny in Parliament. European legislation is, however, often implemented in secondary legislation using powers in the European Communities Act 1972. | | Section | An ‘Estimate line’ within the Part II: Subhead detail table in an Estimate. | | Select Committee | Both Houses of Parliament have select committees that scrutinise the work and expenditure of government. In the House of Commons, responsibilities of departmental select committees include oversight of the policies, administration and spending of particular government departments. | | Service-level agreement | Agreement between parties, setting out in detail the level of service to be performed. Where agreements are between central government bodies, they are not legally a contract but have a similar function. | | Shareholder Executive | A body created to improve the government’s performance as a shareholder in businesses. | | Spending review | A cross-government review of departmental aims and objectives and analysis of spending programmes. Results in the allocation of multi-year budgetary limits. | | State aid | State support for a domestic body or company which could distort EU competition and so is not usually allowed. See annex 4.7. | | Statement of Excesses | A formal statement detailing departments’ overspends and irregular spending as identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General as a result of undertaking annual audits. | | Supply | Resources voted by Parliament in response to Estimates, for expenditure by government departments. | | Supply and Appropriation Acts | Acts of Parliament, which give formal approval to departmental Supply Estimates. The Main Estimates are approved by a Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act and the Supplementary Estimates by a Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act. | | Supplementary Estimate | The means by which departments seek to amend parliamentary authority provided through Main Estimates by altering the limits on resources, capital and/or cash or varying the way in which provision is allocated. Normally presented in February each year. | | Target rate of return | The rate of return required of a project or enterprise over a given period, usually at least a year. | | Trading fund | Public sector organisation that has a financing framework allowing it to meet outgoings from commercial revenues. In national accounts they are normally classified as public corporations. | | Value for money | The process under which organisation’s procurement, projects and processes are systematically evaluated and assessed to provide confidence about suitability, effectiveness, prudence, quality, value and avoidance of error and other waste, judged for the Exchequer as a whole. | | Glossary | Definition | |----------|------------| | Virement | The use of savings on one or more sections (Estimate lines) or subheads to meet excesses on another section or subhead within the same voted limit in an Estimate. | | Vote | The process by which Parliament approves funds in response to supply Estimates. | | Voted expenditure | Provision for expenditure that has been authorised by Parliament. Parliament ‘votes’ authority for public expenditure through the Supply Estimates process. Most expenditure by central government departments is authorised in this way. | | Windfall | Monies received by a department which were not anticipated in the spending review. | HM Treasury contacts
This document can be downloaded from www.gov.uk/government/publications
If you require this information in an alternative format or have general enquiries about HM Treasury and its work, contact:
Correspondence Team HM Treasury 1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A 2HQ Tel: 020 7270 5000 E-mail: public.enquiries@hm-treasury.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3775-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 217,
"total-input-tokens": 431736,
"total-output-tokens": 106730,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
0,
2
],
[
0,
0,
3
],
[
0,
0,
4
],
[
0,
2142,
5
],
[
2142,
2926,
6
],
[
2926,
4495,
7
],
[
4495,
5930,
8
],
[
5930,
8337,
9
],
[
8337,
11213,
10
],
[
11213,
14082,
11
],
[
14082,
16748,
12
],
[
16748,
19169,
13
],
[
19169,
22038,
14
],
[
22038,
24971,
15
],
[
24971,
27797,
16
],
[
27797,
28606,
17
],
[
28606,
28606,
18
],
[
28606,
30831,
19
],
[
30831,
33670,
20
],
[
33670,
36735,
21
],
[
36735,
40053,
22
],
[
40053,
43053,
23
],
[
43053,
45357,
24
],
[
45357,
47944,
25
],
[
47944,
50810,
26
],
[
50810,
53662,
27
],
[
53662,
56753,
28
],
[
56753,
59652,
29
],
[
59652,
62118,
30
],
[
62118,
65187,
31
],
[
65187,
68276,
32
],
[
68276,
70693,
33
],
[
70693,
73813,
34
],
[
73813,
74192,
35
],
[
74192,
74192,
36
],
[
74192,
76969,
37
],
[
76969,
79949,
38
],
[
79949,
82989,
39
],
[
82989,
86059,
40
],
[
86059,
89564,
41
],
[
89564,
92840,
42
],
[
92840,
94072,
43
],
[
94072,
94072,
44
],
[
94072,
96841,
45
],
[
96841,
99791,
46
],
[
99791,
103039,
47
],
[
103039,
106181,
48
],
[
106181,
108500,
49
],
[
108500,
109634,
50
],
[
109634,
112244,
51
],
[
112244,
115574,
52
],
[
115574,
118357,
53
],
[
118357,
121542,
54
],
[
121542,
124364,
55
],
[
124364,
127495,
56
],
[
127495,
130581,
57
],
[
130581,
134042,
58
],
[
134042,
137290,
59
],
[
137290,
138524,
60
],
[
138524,
141533,
61
],
[
141533,
141998,
62
],
[
141998,
143920,
63
],
[
143920,
146486,
64
],
[
146486,
147437,
65
],
[
147437,
147437,
66
],
[
147437,
149600,
67
],
[
149600,
152226,
68
],
[
152226,
155088,
69
],
[
155088,
155880,
70
],
[
155880,
158698,
71
],
[
158698,
159694,
72
],
[
159694,
161979,
73
],
[
161979,
164957,
74
],
[
164957,
167577,
75
],
[
167577,
168429,
76
],
[
168429,
171193,
77
],
[
171193,
173729,
78
],
[
173729,
176486,
79
],
[
176486,
178395,
80
],
[
178395,
181266,
81
],
[
181266,
183625,
82
],
[
183625,
185130,
83
],
[
185130,
185130,
84
],
[
185130,
188001,
85
],
[
188001,
188433,
86
],
[
188433,
191006,
87
],
[
191006,
193784,
88
],
[
193784,
197079,
89
],
[
197079,
200675,
90
],
[
200675,
201434,
91
],
[
201434,
201434,
92
],
[
201434,
204378,
93
],
[
204378,
206831,
94
],
[
206831,
209464,
95
],
[
209464,
212481,
96
],
[
212481,
214811,
97
],
[
214811,
214811,
98
],
[
214811,
217220,
99
],
[
217220,
217220,
100
],
[
217220,
219308,
101
],
[
219308,
222584,
102
],
[
222584,
224954,
103
],
[
224954,
227430,
104
],
[
227430,
229898,
105
],
[
229898,
229898,
106
],
[
229898,
232719,
107
],
[
232719,
233744,
108
],
[
233744,
236477,
109
],
[
236477,
238730,
110
],
[
238730,
240691,
111
],
[
240691,
243059,
112
],
[
243059,
245439,
113
],
[
245439,
247633,
114
],
[
247633,
250827,
115
],
[
250827,
253518,
116
],
[
253518,
255365,
117
],
[
255365,
255365,
118
],
[
255365,
257670,
119
],
[
257670,
260396,
120
],
[
260396,
263230,
121
],
[
263230,
266609,
122
],
[
266609,
267054,
123
],
[
267054,
267054,
124
],
[
267054,
269580,
125
],
[
269580,
272840,
126
],
[
272840,
274637,
127
],
[
274637,
274637,
128
],
[
274637,
277014,
129
],
[
277014,
280066,
130
],
[
280066,
282987,
131
],
[
282987,
285659,
132
],
[
285659,
286423,
133
],
[
286423,
286423,
134
],
[
286423,
288718,
135
],
[
288718,
291645,
136
],
[
291645,
294434,
137
],
[
294434,
294981,
138
],
[
294981,
297359,
139
],
[
297359,
300860,
140
],
[
300860,
303326,
141
],
[
303326,
306148,
142
],
[
306148,
308981,
143
],
[
308981,
310518,
144
],
[
310518,
312868,
145
],
[
312868,
315593,
146
],
[
315593,
316999,
147
],
[
316999,
316999,
148
],
[
316999,
319360,
149
],
[
319360,
321926,
150
],
[
321926,
325264,
151
],
[
325264,
326435,
152
],
[
326435,
328945,
153
],
[
328945,
331253,
154
],
[
331253,
334449,
155
],
[
334449,
337270,
156
],
[
337270,
340209,
157
],
[
340209,
342726,
158
],
[
342726,
345297,
159
],
[
345297,
348733,
160
],
[
348733,
351095,
161
],
[
351095,
351095,
162
],
[
351095,
353648,
163
],
[
353648,
356585,
164
],
[
356585,
359589,
165
],
[
359589,
362520,
166
],
[
362520,
365288,
167
],
[
365288,
366724,
168
],
[
366724,
369820,
169
],
[
369820,
372494,
170
],
[
372494,
375553,
171
],
[
375553,
378778,
172
],
[
378778,
381714,
173
],
[
381714,
382973,
174
],
[
382973,
386017,
175
],
[
386017,
388003,
176
],
[
388003,
389441,
177
],
[
389441,
389441,
178
],
[
389441,
392250,
179
],
[
392250,
395318,
180
],
[
395318,
395575,
181
],
[
395575,
397969,
182
],
[
397969,
400787,
183
],
[
400787,
403470,
184
],
[
403470,
406152,
185
],
[
406152,
409130,
186
],
[
409130,
410126,
187
],
[
410126,
412232,
188
],
[
412232,
413930,
189
],
[
413930,
414498,
190
],
[
414498,
416477,
191
],
[
416477,
419113,
192
],
[
419113,
421871,
193
],
[
421871,
424740,
194
],
[
424740,
427041,
195
],
[
427041,
429968,
196
],
[
429968,
432780,
197
],
[
432780,
435866,
198
],
[
435866,
439025,
199
],
[
439025,
441823,
200
],
[
441823,
444522,
201
],
[
444522,
447641,
202
],
[
447641,
448996,
203
],
[
448996,
451008,
204
],
[
451008,
451769,
205
],
[
451769,
454315,
206
],
[
454315,
456720,
207
],
[
456720,
459088,
208
],
[
459088,
461288,
209
],
[
461288,
465359,
210
],
[
465359,
469954,
211
],
[
469954,
474771,
212
],
[
474771,
478809,
213
],
[
478809,
483707,
214
],
[
483707,
488229,
215
],
[
488229,
488906,
216
],
[
488906,
489256,
217
]
]
} |
25357712520b2617ca835a83fa86c369bb393e74 | Manual to the Building Regulations
A code of practice for use in England Acknowledgements
MHCLG would like to thank industry stakeholders who have participated in the production of this manual. Particular thanks are owed to the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and Working Group, the Construction Products Association, the Federation of Master Builders, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the National House Building Council, the Property Care Association and the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Picture credits
Front cover: Sunny Uplands of Suburbia by Moose Allain © www.worldofmoose.com Page 4: © LABC Page 11: © LABC Page 16: © AHMM Page 17: © Gas Safe Register Page 18: © NAPIT Page 36: © Gas Safe Register Page 48: © Aaron Hargreaves/Foster + Partners Page 49: © Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios Page 57: © AHMM Back cover: Great Wall by Moose Allain © www.worldofmoose.com Other illustrations © MHCLG
© Crown copyright, July 2020
Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown
You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
This publication is available on our website at www.gov.uk/mhclg
If you have any enquiries regarding this publication, complete the form at http://forms.communities.gov.uk/ or write to us at:
Technical Policy Division (Building Regulations) Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Telephone: 030 3444 0000
For all our latest news and updates follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mhclg
July 2020 Contents
This manual contains the following sections:
Page 5 Introduction
Volume 1: Overview Page 9 Chapter 1 The regulatory framework Page 11 Chapter 2 The building control process Page 13 Chapter 3 Do I need to notify someone? Page 15 Chapter 4 Is a building control body involved? Page 17 Chapter 5 Competent person schemes Page 19 Chapter 6 Local authority building control and approved inspectors Page 21 Chapter 7 Meeting the technical requirements Page 25 Chapter 8 Before the work is finished
Volume 2: Further guidance Page 27 Chapter A Do the Building Regulations apply? Page 33 Chapter B Should a building control body be involved? Page 35 Chapter C Competent person schemes and third-party testing Page 37 Chapter D Local authority building control Page 41 Chapter E Approved inspectors Page 49 Chapter F Meeting the technical requirements Page 55 Appendix I Key terms Page 59 Appendix II References Introduction
This is a short manual on the Building Regulations, providing guidance on the Building Regulations system in England. Volume 1 of this manual gives a very high-level outline of how the Building Regulations system currently works. Volume 2 goes into more detail. The manual is only a summary. You should always rely on what is said in the legislation, rather than the guidance in this manual. You should think about what help you need with your project. There are professionals who can give you advice on your project. This can help you make sure that you comply with the Building Regulations.
When you do one of the following, Building Regulations are likely to apply:
a. put up a new building b. change or make bigger a building that is already built c. change the use of a building that is already built or d. alter the building services if they are either what is legally called: i. a ‘controlled service’ or ii. a ‘controlled fitting’ (these terms are explained in Appendix I).
The Building Regulations may apply in and around buildings. These requirements are intended to protect people’s safety, health and welfare. They also set standards for accessibility, water use, energy use and security. The approved documents give further guidance for many common building situations. They contain statutory guidance on how to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations.
Dame Judith Hackitt led the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety following the Grenfell Tower tragedy. Dame Judith’s expert group called for this manual to be revised and made available.
The Building Act 1984 set up a simple way of regulating building in England (and, at the time, in Wales). This new system was explained by a manual, the Manual to the Building Regulations. The old manual is now out of date. This current manual replaces previous manuals in England.
In the coming months, the government intends to introduce legislation to deliver a new Building Safety Regulator. The new regulator will be responsible for implementing and enforcing a more stringent regulatory regime for higher-risk residential buildings (HRRBs) (a term defined by the Independent Review). The new regulator will also provide wider and stronger oversight of safety and performance across all buildings.
The Fire Safety Bill, recently introduced by the government, and associated regulatory changes will enable delivery of the recommendations from the Independent Review. The Bill places beyond doubt that external wall systems, including cladding, and the fire doors to individual flats in multi-occupied residential blocks fall within the scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. These changes will affirm fire and rescue services’ ability to enforce locally against building owners or managers who have not remediated unsafe aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding from multi-occupied residential buildings.
This manual is split into two parts:
a. Volume 1 is an overview of the Building Regulations system. It is written to give a simple overview of how the system works.
b. Volume 2 gives more detailed guidance. It is written for people working in the construction industry.
You will need to know when Building Regulations apply. Before you start to plan a project, you should seek professional advice. This manual is not intended to provide legal, construction, design or planning advice. It is the duty of anyone responsible for building work to understand and meet their legal obligations.
There will be changes to the legislation and guidance summarised in this manual. You should check whether you are reading the most up-to-date version.
The key terms are highlighted in blue and listed in Appendix I. A list of references is given in Appendix II. Manual to the Building Regulations Volume 1: Overview Chapter 1
The regulatory framework
The Building Regulations
The Building Act 1984 (the Building Act) is the most wide-reaching law controlling building in England. It sets the enforcement powers. The Building Regulations 2010 (the Building Regulations) go into more detail about building work. Most building work carried out in England must comply with the Building Regulations. The legal term ‘building work’ generally includes building new buildings, making buildings bigger, altering buildings and changing what they are used for. It also covers installing a ‘controlled service’ or a ‘controlled fitting’. A replacement window is an example of a controlled fitting. A boiler is an example of a controlled service. ‘Renovation of thermal elements’ is also building work. This includes roofs or external walls. Those responsible for carrying out building work have a duty to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations.
Generally, the Building Regulations set out the required standards for the building work. For example, a home must be insulated, but the Building Regulations do not tell you how you should do it. The approved documents give help for some common problems.
There are 15 technical requirements in Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations. Each technical requirement corresponds to a letter – for example, Part B is fire safety. These set out some of the legal requirements of the Building Regulations – these are rules that must be followed. They are often referred to as technical requirements. In addition to these, there are some other requirements in the Building Regulations. Some of these are about keeping energy use low. The people planning the work can decide how best to meet the rules, and there is guidance to help them (see the next section on approved documents). Everyone involved in carrying out building work must obey the rules. That includes: the building owner, agents, designers, builders and installers. The Building Regulations also allow inspections and enforcement to take place. Building control bodies or building inspectors will need to be satisfied too. Building control bodies is the term used for the organisations which check or inspect building work.
Approved documents
The Building Act allows the government to publish approved documents. The government may also approve other guidance. The approved documents give more detailed advice on how to meet the legal requirements of the Building Regulations for some common situations. The approved documents should be useful for most domestic projects. The approved documents may not be relevant for all situations. Limitations on using the approved documents are discussed in Chapter 7 of this volume and Chapter F in Volume 2. You do not have to follow the guidance in approved documents, but if you don’t you need to be sure that your building work meets the legal rules.
Following the approved documents does not always guarantee that you are complying with the Building Regulations.
A list of the approved documents is set out in Table 1.1. When working on a building that is already there, you should agree with the building control body the approach to standards. Table 1.1 List of the approved documents and what they cover
| Dwellings | Other buildings | |-----------|----------------| | New | New | | Existing¹ | Existing¹ | | A: Structure | B: Fire safety, Volume 1: Dwellings | | B: Fire safety, Volume 1: Dwellings | B: Fire safety, Volume 2: Buildings other than dwellings | | C: Site preparation and resistance to contaminants and moisture | | | D: Toxic substances | | | E: Resistance to the passage of sound | | | F: Ventilation | | | G: Sanitation, hot water safety and water efficiency | | | H: Drainage and waste disposal | | | J: Combustion appliances and fuel storage systems | | | K: Protection from falling, collision and impact | | | L: Conservation of fuel and power | | | L1A New dwellings | L1B Existing dwellings | | L2A New buildings other than dwellings | L2B Existing buildings other than dwellings | | M: Access to and use of buildings | | | Volume 1: Dwellings | Volume 2: Buildings other than dwellings | | P: Electrical safety – dwellings² | | | Q: Security – dwellings | Q: No requirement | | R: Physical infrastructure for high-speed electronic communications networks | |
NOTES:
1. The requirements that apply to material changes of use are covered in Table A2 in Volume 2.
2. Approved Document P provides guidance for other buildings if the supply is shared with a dwelling.
Following other guidance
It is important to agree with the building control body that the standards you are using are right for your project. If you are undertaking a project that needs to be checked by others, you should make sure you are designing to the right standards.
Any work that the Building Regulations apply to must meet all requirements in Schedule 1 which are relevant to the project. For example, new electrical wiring must comply with Part P (electrical safety), Part L (energy efficiency) and Part M (access to and use of buildings). It also must comply with the fire safety requirements of Part B. The materials and workmanship must meet Regulation 7 of the Building Regulations. A list of other laws that often govern buildings or building work is given at the end of this document (in Appendix II).
The legal requirements of the Building Regulations must always be met when they apply to your project. Although the local authority has some powers to relax Building Regulations you should take your own legal advice if you don’t think you can comply with every part of the Building Regulations. This applies to all those responsible for building work. This includes: the building owner, agents, designers, builders and installers.
Meeting the requirements of the Building Regulations can be complex. For example, it is a good idea that those designing or carrying out work are skilled in designing and constructing buildings. It may be necessary to seek advice. The more complex your project, the more expert help you are likely to need. Chapter 2
The building control process
The building control process involves building inspectors approving some aspects of the building work. Three laws control this process in England. These are the Building Act 1984 (Building Act), the Building Regulations 2010 (Building Regulations) and the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010 (Approved Inspectors Regulations).
There are several paths through the building control process.
a. The work may be checked by a building control body, either: i. local authority building control or ii. a licensed approved inspector.
b. Some types of work may be done by a ‘competent person’. This is a term for an installer who works under a scheme that has been approved by the government.
The flowchart in Figure 2.1 provides a simplified overview of the building control process for those involved in building work. Figure 2.1 The building control process
Start
Do Building Regulations apply to the work?\
Yes\
No notification required
Has the work commenced?\
No\
The work may be checked by the local authority or an approved inspector or carried out by a competent person
Yes\
Apply to the local authority
The work may be checked by the local authority or an approved inspector. Work covered by a competent person scheme or a third-party scheme for certification can take place at the same time
Is all the building work covered by a competent person scheme or a third-party scheme for certification?\
No\
No need to submit a notice to the local authority. The competent person or the scheme operator will notify the local authority of the work and provide them and the building occupier with a certificate of completion within 30 days of completion of the work
Yes\
Local authority route
Approved inspector route
Approved inspectors under the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010
Does the work involve any of the following:
1. Erecting or working on a building where the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies or will apply after the work is complete?
2. Erecting a building that fronts a private street?
3. Erecting a building over a sewer?
Yes\
The applicant must deposit a full plans application
No\
The applicant may deposit a building notice application – additional plans and details may be requested by the local authority
The local authority must provide a substantive assessment of the plans and details and must approve or reject plans within five weeks or two months (with agreement). The local authority must consult with the fire authority and, where appropriate, the sewerage undertaker and consider their views
Work may start after the local authority has had at least two clear working days’ notice. If the full plans application or submitted details under a building notice have not been assessed and approved, the work will be deemed ‘at risk’
The local authority will provide an inspection framework and must be notified at these certain stages in order for inspection to take place. Where the local authority is satisfied that work complies with the Building Regulations, it will issue a completion certificate
NOTES:
1. The approved inspector must issue a final certificate within four weeks of occupation for buildings other than dwellings or eight weeks for dwellings. Regulation 17(7) of the Approved Inspectors Regulations allows a local authority to extend these time periods either before or after expiry.
Refer to Volume 2, Chapter E for details of approved inspectors’ initial notices.
More information on the building control process can be found in Volume 2, Chapter A. Chapter 3
Do I need to notify someone?
If you are going to carry out building work that is controlled under the Building Regulations then you need to notify or get approval from a building control body before you start the work. This does not apply to work which is carried out under a competent person scheme.
Building Regulations approval is different to planning permission and listed building consent. You could need all three. To find out if your project will need planning consents, contact your local planning authority. If you are carrying out work under planning ‘permitted development’ rights, you are likely to need to go through the building control process. Even if your building project follows your planning permission, you must still meet the requirements of the Building Regulations.
You must check if the work you are about to carry out is controlled under the Building Regulations before you start work. You can ask a building control body whether the Building Regulations apply to your project. A building control body can be either your local authority building control service or an approved inspector. Regulation 3 of the Building Regulations sets out the meaning of the term building work. Building work is controlled by the Building Regulations.
In summary, when you do one of the following, Building Regulations are likely to apply:
a. put up a new building b. change or make bigger a building that is already built c. change the use of a building that is already built or d. alter the building services if they are either what is legally called: i. a ‘controlled service’ or ii. a ‘controlled fitting’ (these terms are explained in Appendix I).
You may also need Building Regulations approval for many other things, such as:
a. replacing consumer units or installing new electric circuits b. installing new plumbing and waste connections c. changing existing electric circuits near a bath or shower d. putting in a ventilation or air-conditioning system e. replacing windows and doors f. replacing roof coverings on pitched and flat roofs g. putting in or replacing a heating system h. adding extra radiators i. removing a chimney breast j. removing a wall (load bearing and sometimes non-load bearing) k. creating a through lounge.
Local authority building control or an approved inspector can advise on whether the Building Regulations apply.
Some work does not have to be checked by a building control body but must still comply with the Building Regulations. An example is putting in new loft insulation (unconnected to a material change of use or other building work). In all cases, seek advice from a building control body to see if the Building Regulations apply.
Combustion installations, such as gas boilers, must be installed to comply with the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 (subsequently referred to as the Gas Safety Regulations) and the Building Regulations. Gas installations, such as a gas cooker, must also comply with the Gas Safety Regulations and the Building Regulations. The Gas Safety Regulations require that people who work on gas systems must be registered as competent. This means that they must be on the Gas Safe Register. This is a list of competent persons who may install, service or repair gas appliances or fittings. You can check the list at the following website:
https://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/
The Gas Safety Regulations cover the installation, maintenance and use of gas fittings, appliances and flues.
Summary
You might need approval, or be required to follow certain rules, for works not listed here. Check with your local authority building control service or an approved inspector to decide whether you need approval. You do not need Building Regulations approval for the following:
a. Work that is not covered by the Building Regulations.
b. Work carried out by someone who is registered with a competent person scheme where the type of work is within the scope of the scheme.
c. You do not need advance approval for emergency repairs to your boiler or heating system, but you must comply with the Gas Safety Regulations.
What happens to those who don’t comply with the Building Regulations?
Where building work is carried out without asking for Building Regulations approval, the owner or the person doing the work may be taken to court. Local authorities can take action when building work does not comply with the Building Regulations or when buildings are unsafe. The local authority can take action against the building owner or those doing the building work. You may be made to pay for faulty work to be fixed. The courts can impose unlimited fines. Without approval the building owner will not have certificates of compliance, which they may need when selling or insuring their home.
See Volume 2, Chapter A, for more details on when the Building Regulations apply. You can also check with your local authority building control service or an approved inspector. Chapter 4
Is a building control body involved?
When Building Regulations apply to the work you want to do, then you need either to:
a. involve a building control body – either local authority building control or an approved inspector – or
b. use an installer registered under a competent person scheme to do the work.
If you need to involve a building control body, you will need to notify them of your building work. You will then need to seek their approval and explain how your work will meet the requirements of the Building Regulations. They will provide advice and carry out some checks.
For some types of work you can use a competent person scheme. Examples include mechanical ventilation systems, electrical work and home window replacement. This means that you do not have to get the building control body to check the work done under the competent person scheme. Installers registered with a competent person scheme must follow certain rules to make sure they comply with the Building Regulations. They must issue a certificate to show that they have complied.
You can use both a building control body and a competent person scheme on the same project. Using a building control body
If the work has started or been completed and you have not notified a building control body then you cannot use an approved inspector. You can only use your local authority building control service to approve your work. Local authority building control are not obliged to approve work that has already been carried out. It is a good idea to seek approval before starting your work. This may avoid you being asked to change or demolish your work later.
Where building work does not comply with the Building Regulations, the person who did the work may be taken to court. To make it easier for people who wish to have work approved which has already been started or finished, there is a process called ‘regularisation’. The local authority will try to determine whether the works meet the Building Regulations. The reason for doing this is to get a ‘certificate of regularisation’ for your works. This may mean that you have to open up works. You could be asked to take down or rebuild work.
You should discuss your project with your local authority building control service before making a ‘regularisation application’. You will be charged for this service. For further information on the process, see Volume 2, Chapter B, paragraphs B13 to B17.
You can learn more about when to use a building control body in Volume 2, Chapter B. Chapter 5
Competent person schemes
Competent person schemes let tradespeople show that they can do certain works. Examples include home window replacements or gas boiler installations. You do not need to apply for Building Regulations approval for work completed by an installer who is working under a competent person scheme. Only installers who are registered with a competent person scheme can self-certify that their work complies with the Building Regulations. Where necessary, they will tell your local authority about the work for you. You will receive a certificate from them within 30 days of completion of the work. This will confirm that the work complies with the Building Regulations. This certificate will also show up in property searches if you sell your home. If you don’t receive a certificate within 30 days of completion, the competent person scheme operator that your installer is registered with should be able to help.
You can learn more about competent person schemes in Volume 2, Chapter C. Chapter 6
Local authority building control and approved inspectors
There are two types of building control body. These are:
a. local authority building control
b. approved inspectors.
It is up to you which you use if your work has not started. If it has started, you must use local authority building control.
Local authority building control
If you apply for approval for your project from your local authority, then the process will broadly follow this route:
Local authority route
Does the work involve any of the following:
1. Erecting or working on a building where the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies or will apply after the work is complete?
2. Erecting a building that fronts a private street?
3. Erecting a building over a sewer?
The applicant must deposit a full plans application
The local authority must provide a substantive assessment of the plans and details and must approve or reject plans within five weeks or two months (with agreement). The local authority must consult with the fire authority and, where appropriate, the sewerage undertaker and consider their views
Work may start after the local authority has had at least two clear working days’ notice. If the full plans application or submitted details under a building notice have not been assessed and approved, the work will be deemed ‘at risk’
The local authority will provide an inspection framework and must be notified at these certain stages in order for inspection to take place. Where the local authority is satisfied that work complies with the Building Regulations, it will issue a completion certificate Approved inspectors
You can apply for approval for your project through a licensed approved inspector. Approved inspectors are independent of your local authority. An approved inspector will inform your local authority of the work by giving an initial notice.
The Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010 (Approved Inspectors Regulations) are the main law governing approved inspectors. If you use an approved inspector then the process will broadly follow this route:
When the person carrying out the building work engages an approved inspector, together the person and the approved inspector must give the local authority both of the following:
a. an initial notice b. an insurance declaration demonstrating that the approved inspector has the appropriate professional and public liability insurance.
The content of an initial notice is outlined in Form 1 in Schedule 1 to the Approved Inspectors Regulations. The initial notice must contain all of the following information:
a. a description of the work b. in the case of a new building or extension: i. a site plan to a scale of not less than 1:1250 showing the boundaries and location of the site ii. a statement that if work involves building over or near any drain, sewer or disposal main shown on any map of sewers kept by the sewerage undertaker, the approved inspector will consult the sewerage undertaker.
When the person carrying out the building work engages an approved inspector, together the person and the approved inspector must give the local authority both of the following:
a. an initial notice b. an insurance declaration demonstrating that the approved inspector has the appropriate professional and public liability insurance.
The content of an initial notice is outlined in Form 1 in Schedule 1 to the Approved Inspectors Regulations. The initial notice must contain all of the following information:
a. a description of the work b. in the case of a new building or extension: i. a site plan to a scale of not less than 1:1250 showing the boundaries and location of the site ii. a statement that if work involves building over or near any drain, sewer or disposal main shown on any map of sewers kept by the sewerage undertaker, the approved inspector will consult the sewerage undertaker.
NOTES:
1. The approved inspector must issue a final certificate within four weeks of occupation for buildings other than dwellings or eight weeks for dwellings. Regulation 17(7) of the Approved Inspectors Regulations allows a local authority to extend these time periods either before or after expiry.
You can learn more about these two types of building control body and their role in checking that building work complies with the Building Regulations later in this manual. Chapter D in Volume 2 covers local authority building control and Chapter E looks at approved inspectors. Chapter 7
Meeting the technical requirements
Complying with the Building Regulations
The key legal requirements which your building work must meet in order to comply with the Building Regulations are frequently referred to as the ‘technical requirements’. The technical requirements are set out in Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations and the areas addressed in the requirements are summarised in Table 7.1 below.
| Lettered parts from Schedule 1 | Building Regulations specific to each part | |-------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | A: Structure | Regulations 7, 38 | | B: Fire safety | | | C: Site preparation and resistance to contaminants and moisture | Regulation 41 | | D: Toxic substances | Regulations 39, 42, 44 | | E: Resistance to the passage of sound | Regulations 36, 37 | | F: Ventilation | | | G: Sanitation, hot water safety and water efficiency | Regulations 23, 24, 25, 25a, 26, 26a, 27, 27a, 28, 35, 40, 43, 44 | | H: Drainage and waste disposal | | | J: Combustion appliances and fuel storage systems | | | K: Protection from falling, collision and impact | | | L: Conservation of fuel and power | | | M: Access to and use of buildings | | | P: Electrical safety (dwellings) | | | Q: Security (dwellings) | | | R: Physical infrastructure for high speed electronic communications networks (dwellings) | |
NOTE: The Building Regulations, including Regulation 7, also apply.
In addition to complying with the technical requirements in Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations, work controlled by the Building Regulations must be carried out with adequate and proper materials and in a workmanlike manner, as required by Regulation 7 of the Building Regulations. Further details are given in Chapter F in Volume 2. The visual quality of building work is only controlled by the Building Regulations if it affects technical compliance with the Building Regulations. This means that the quality of pointing of brickwork is only important if it affects, for example, the structural stability of the wall or another requirement regarding work controlled by the Building Regulations.
Building Regulations ban the use of combustible materials in the external walls of certain tall residential buildings. For further information, see Approved Document B, Volume 1: Dwellings.
How to use the technical guidance
While the legal requirements are contained in the Building Regulations (summarised above), the approved documents contain guidance on how you may be able to meet those legal requirements.
The approved documents provide guidance for common building situations. They may not provide appropriate guidance if the case is unusual in terms of its design, setting, use, scale or technology. Non-standard conditions may include any of the following:
a. difficult ground conditions b. buildings with unusual occupancies or high levels of complexity c. very large or very tall buildings d. large timber buildings e. some buildings that incorporate modern construction methods.
The full list of the approved documents and what they cover is given in Table 1.1 in Chapter 1. The approved documents will be relevant in many common building situations. Anyone using the approved documents should have sufficient knowledge and skills to understand the guidance and correctly apply it to the building work. This is important because simply following the guidance does not guarantee that your building work will comply with the legal requirements of the Building Regulations.
Each approved document contains legal requirements (which you must follow) and guidance (which you may or may not choose to follow). The text in a box with a green background at the beginning of each section of an approved document is taken from the Building Regulations. This text sets out the legal requirements. The explanation which follows the legal requirements is guidance (Figure 7.1).
The guidance then explains one or more ways to demonstrate how building work should comply with the legal requirements in common circumstances.
The terms in green lettering in an approved document are key terms, listed and explained in the appendix to that approved document.
Guidance in the approved documents addresses most, but not all, situations that homeowners will face. Situations may arise that are not covered. You or your advisers will need to carefully consider whether following the guidance will mean that the requirements of the Building Regulations will be met.
Figure 7.1 The relationship between regulations and guidance in the approved documents
**K4 Protection against impact with glazing**
**Requirement K4: Protection against impact with glazing**
This approved document deals with the following requirement from Part K of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010.
| Requirements | Limits on application | |--------------|-----------------------| | Protection against impact with glazing | | | K4.—Glazing, with which people are likely to come into contact whilst moving in or about the building shall: | | | (a) if broken on impact, break in a way which is unlikely to cause injury; or | | | (b) resist impact without breaking; or | | | (c) be shielded or protected from impact. | |
**Performance**
In the Secretary of State’s view, you can meet requirement K4 if you adopt, in critical locations, one of the following approaches.
a. Measures to limit the risk of cutting and piercing injuries by the use of glazing that is reasonably safe, such that, if breakage did occur, any particles would be relatively harmless.
b. Use of glazing sufficiently robust to ensure that the risk of breakage is low.
c. Steps are taken to limit the risk of contact with the glazing.
**Key**
1. The law: extract from Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010.
2. Statutory guidance. Where the approved documents do not provide appropriate guidance, there may be other ways to demonstrate compliance. It may be possible to achieve compliance by following the advice in one or more of the sources set out below:
a. guidance from recognised standards bodies b. industry recognised codes c. manufacturers’ technical literature.
Where you wish to follow an alternative approach to the guidance in the approved documents, you should discuss and agree it with a building control body before starting building work.
British and European standards and other technical guidance also deal with matters that are not covered by the Building Regulations. Nothing in the Building Regulations or an approved document prevents you from adopting higher standards.
Building work must meet the relevant technical requirements in the Building Regulations. Regulation 7 of the Building Regulations requires building work to be carried out ‘with adequate and proper materials’ and ‘in a workmanlike manner’. Regulation 7 also controls the combustibility of external walls of certain tall buildings. For further information, see Approved Document B, Volume 1: Dwellings.
Responsibility for compliance
Receiving a completion certificate or final certificate is not a complete guarantee of compliance with the Building Regulations. The legal meaning of the certificate is that it is ‘evidence but not conclusive evidence’ of compliance. The building control officer or approved inspector will not have checked every piece of building material and how it has been fitted or every aspect of submitted documents. It is the responsibility of those carrying out building work to comply with the Building Regulations. The building control body will inspect the work on site at appropriate stages, but you cannot rely on this as the only method of ensuring that the work complies with the Building Regulations. The responsibility for ensuring compliance rests with the people carrying out the work.
For example, a building has just received the final certificate or completion certificate, but the roof is leaking. The fact that the roof leaks is the builder’s or building designer’s problem and not the building control body’s problem. However, the building control body may point out problems either with the design or construction at any stage up to granting the final certificate or completion certificate.
Planning building work
By carefully planning building work in advance, you can avoid many potential problems. Homeowners in particular may wish to engage building design professionals to help guide them through the complexities of construction projects. Design professionals can produce coordinated drawings and other design information to reduce risks once you start to build. The people who design buildings should be suitably competent and skilled in order to satisfy the requirements of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations.
If you carry out your building work without first ensuring that it will comply with Building Regulations, you may later be required to undo or redo it, and this may be expensive.
You can learn more about the approved documents and Regulation 7 of the Building Regulations in Volume 2, Chapter F.
Constructing and altering buildings
The people who construct and alter buildings should be suitably competent and skilled in order to satisfy the requirements of the Building Regulations. Chapter 8
Before the work is finished
Completion certificates
Typically, the building owner will have received a completion certificate (from local authority building control) or a final certificate (from an approved inspector) before the building is occupied. These certificates are issued when the work is complete. In some circumstances a building may be occupied before the building owner has received the completion certificate or the final certificate. If this happens, the building owner will not be sure that the work meets all of the requirements of the Building Regulations and this may stop you from re-mortgaging your home or someone from buying your home.
Other legislation
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 generally applies to most buildings other than houses or individual flats. This requirement comes from Regulation 38 of the Building Regulations.
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order creates the duty of the ‘responsible person’. This person should take reasonable steps to reduce the risk from fire and make sure people can safely escape if there is a fire. The person carrying out the building work must provide fire safety information to the responsible person before the completion of the work. The responsible person should use this information when they carry out their fire risk assessment.
Once a building is finished and occupied, other laws and regulations will apply. The Housing Act 2004 is relevant to residential properties. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 covers buildings in which people are working. There are many other regulations which apply to buildings in use, some of which are listed in Appendix II.
Alterations
When buildings are extended or altered or their use is changed, Building Regulations are likely to apply again. This will be the case if the work is defined as building work or if the change of use comes under the scope of the Building Regulations. Manual to the Building Regulations Volume 2: Further guidance Chapter A
Do the Building Regulations apply?
General considerations
A1 This second volume of the Manual to the Building Regulations looks in more detail at how the system works. It is intended to be used by people working professionally in the design and construction of buildings.
A2 Building control bodies can provide advice on when the Building Regulations apply.
A3 Those carrying out building work (e.g. agents, designers, builders, installers and the building owner) are responsible for ensuring that the work complies with all applicable requirements of the Building Regulations.
A4 If building work does not comply with the Building Regulations, the local authority may serve an enforcement notice on the building owner.
A5 This manual can only provide a summary of the applicable legislation and, in addition, the legislation will be amended from time to time. You should always rely on the text of the legislation in preference to relying on the summary in this manual.
Exempt premises
A6 The Building Regulations do not apply to some types of buildings or building work, and these are summarised in paragraphs A7 to A13 below. In the remainder of this chapter, where we refer to buildings, we are generally referring to buildings which are not exempt from the Building Regulations.
Crown buildings
A7 The procedural aspects of the Building Regulations do not apply to Crown buildings, such as central government offices and courts of law. These have their own systems of control.
Statutory undertakers and airport operators
A8 Statutory undertakers are bodies that have been given statutory powers in relation to functions that are of a public character. Generally, they are utilities, telecoms companies or companies such as Network Rail, but you should check. Gas and electricity suppliers are not regarded as statutory undertakers under Section 4 of the Building Act.
A9 A building that belongs to a statutory undertaker, the Civil Aviation Authority or an airport operator is exempt from the Building Regulations if both of the following apply:
a. The company uses the building for the purposes of its undertaking. b. Any building owned by a statutory undertaker is not used as either of the following: i. a house or hotel ii. an office or showroom, unless it is part of a railway station or airport.
A10 The Metropolitan Police Authority is exempt from the procedural elements of the Building Regulations. Local authorities do not have powers of enforcement over the Metropolitan Police Authority. However, building work undertaken by the Metropolitan Police Authority is still subject to the same standards (referred to as ‘substantive requirements’ in the Building Act).
Exempt buildings
A11 Regulation 9 of the Building Regulations exempts some small buildings, extensions, and buildings used for specific purposes from the Building Regulations. Exempt buildings are defined in Schedule 2 to the Building Regulations and summarised in Table A1. The buildings must continue to meet the definitions in Schedule 2 after the works are complete.
| Class 1 | Buildings controlled under legislation for explosives, nuclear facilities or ancient monuments | | Class 2 | Certain buildings not visited by people, such as plant rooms | | Class 3 | Certain greenhouses, agricultural buildings and buildings for animals | | Class 4 | Temporary buildings not intended to remain in situ for more than 28 days | | Class 5 | Buildings used for site accommodation | | Class 6 | Certain small detached buildings, generally without sleeping accommodation | | Class 7 | Includes certain conservatories, porches and open-sided carports (see paragraphs A12 and A13). Any glazing in a Class 7 building must comply with the safety requirements of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations, which are set out in Approved Document K (see K4 and K5) |
NOTE: If any water or electricity in an exempt greenhouse or building exempted under Class 6 or 7 is supplied from or shared with a dwelling, the work must comply with the requirements of Schedule 1 for water supply and electricity. See Regulation 9 of the Building Regulations and Approved Documents G (G1 and G3) and P (P1). Certain works may be carried out under a competent person scheme, and these works will not require Building Regulations approval.
Conservatories, porches and open-sided carports
A12 The exemption in Class 7 (see paragraph A11) applies to conservatories, porches and open-sided carports only where the building control body is satisfied that all of the following conditions are met:
a. The work is an extension to an existing building.
b. The extension is at ground level.
c. The extension has a maximum floor area of 30m².
d. Any glazing complies with requirements K4, K5.1, K5.2, K5.3 and K5.4 of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations.
e. Thermal separation is maintained between the building and the extension. f. The building’s heating system does not extend into the extension.
The requirements listed in a to d above come from Schedule 2 to the Building Regulations. The conditions set out in e and f come from the approved documents.
Work to an existing conservatory or porch remains exempt to the same extent as building a new conservatory or porch, provided that the resulting conservatory or porch continues to meet the exemption criteria.
A13 If the extension is not an exempt conservatory or porch (or other extension exempt under Class 7), then a building control process is required.
Building work – general
A14 Where a building is not exempt, the Building Regulations apply to the types of building work defined in Regulation 3 of the Building Regulations. This can include any of the following work:
a. Erecting or extending a building (Regulation 3(1)(a)).
b. Providing, extending or otherwise materially altering a controlled service or fitting (paragraphs A15 to A18) (Regulation 3(1)(b)).
c. Work required due to a material change of use (paragraph A20) (Regulation 3(1)(d)).
d. Installing cavity wall insulation (Regulation 3(1)(e)).
e. Underpinning a building (Regulation 3(1)(f)).
f. Changes to a building’s energy status (Regulation 22).
g. Renovation or replacement of part of the thermal envelope (Regulation 23).
h. Making certain changes to buildings over 1,000m² in area (Regulation 28).
Controlled services and fittings
A15 Where a building is not exempt, the Building Regulations apply to providing or extending a controlled service or fitting.
A16 A controlled service or fitting is a service or fitting to which the requirements of the following parts of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations apply:
a. Part G Sanitation, hot water safety and water efficiency – this includes hot water systems, WCs and washing facilities.
b. Part H Drainage and waste disposal – this includes drainage systems and septic tanks.
c. Part J Combustion appliances and fuel storage systems – this includes boilers, fireplaces, flues, air supply to combustion appliances and fuel tanks.
d. Part L Conservation of fuel and power – this includes heating and air conditioning systems, mechanical ventilation systems, external windows and doors and solar panels.
e. Part P Electrical safety – dwellings – this covers the fixed electrical system in dwellings or common parts of blocks of flats.
A17 The relevant approved document (see Chapter 7) gives details of the requirements and performance standards of Parts G, H, J, L and P. A18 Some requirements for controlled services or fittings only apply when dwellings are initially erected, and the fitting or service may not continue to be controlled after the dwelling has been completed. As long as any subsequent changes to the controlled service or fitting do not make it less compliant with Building Regulations than it was before the building work took place, the change does not have to comply with the Building Regulations.
Material alteration
A19 The Building Regulations always apply to the material alteration of a building. An alteration is a material alteration under Regulation 3 if the proposals would at any stage make a building or a controlled service or fitting less satisfactory or no longer compliant in terms of structural safety, fire safety or disabled access. Building control bodies commonly ask for building control approval for structural works, such as chimney breast removal or structural alterations.
Material change of use
A20 The Building Regulations apply to building work when any of the following changes are proposed (this list is a summary of Regulation 5):
a. Changing a building’s use to that of a dwelling.
b. Creating a flat.
c. Changing the use to become a hotel or boarding house.
d. Changing the use to become a residential institution.
e. Changing the use to become a public building.
f. Changing the use so that the building would no longer be classed as exempt under Classes 1 to 6 of Schedule 2.
g. Changing the number of dwellings in a building that contains at least one dwelling.
h. Adding a room for residential purposes.
i. Changing the number of rooms for residential purposes in a building with at least one such room.
j. Changing the use to that of a shop.
k. Changing the building to become a relevant building as set out under Regulation 7(4) when it was previously not a relevant building.
In relation to change of use (k) above, Regulation 7 applies to buildings with a storey at least 18m above ground level and containing a dwelling or institution, and in some cases rooms for residential use.
Under Regulation 6, where a material change of use is proposed, work must be carried out so that the building complies with the requirements indicated in Table A2. If only part of a building is affected by a material change of use, then under Regulation 6 in most cases the Building Regulations apply only to the part that is subject to the change of use. However, the change of use may adversely affect other parts of a building, for example in relation to fire safety.
### Table A2 Requirements that apply to material changes of use
| Requirement (from Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010) | Material change of use under: | All cases | 5(a) | 5(b) | 5(c) | 5(d) | 5(e) | 5(f) | 5(g) | 5(h) | 5(i) | 5(j) | 5(k) | |---------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | A1–A3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | B1 | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | B2 | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | B3 | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | B4(1) | | ✓¹ | | | | | | | | | | | | | B4(2) | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | B5 | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | Reg. 6(3) | | | | | | | | | | | | | ✓ | | C1(2) | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | C2 | | ✓³ | | | | | | | | | | | | | C2(c) | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | E1–E3 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | E4 | | | | | | | | | | | | | ✓ | | F1 | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | G1 | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | G2 | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | G3(1)–(3) | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | G3(4) | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | G4 | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | G5 | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | G6 | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | H1 | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | H6 | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | J1–J4 | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | K1–K6 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | L1 | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | M1 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | P1 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | Q1 | | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | R1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
**NOTES:**
1. B4(1) applies to buildings over 15m high. It applies to the whole building even if the change of use only applies to a part.
2. Where new residential accommodation is created.
3. Applies to the whole building not just the parts converted to residential use.
4. If the public building after the change contains a school.
5. P1 applies in all cases if the electricity supply is shared with a dwelling.
6. Regulations 7(1) and 7(2) always apply to the above requirements. Repairs (other than renovation of thermal elements and controlled fittings)
A21 The Building Regulations apply to repair or replacement work if the work is to renovate a thermal element (see paragraphs A22 and A23 below), replace a controlled fitting (see paragraphs A24 and A25), underpin a building or if the work is classed as building work under Regulation 3. Otherwise, unless at any stage the work makes:
a. any building that does not comply with Building Regulations less compliant or b. any building that does comply with Building Regulations non-compliant (as set out in Regulation 3(2))
then the Building Regulations do not apply to the repair or replacement work.
Renovation of thermal elements and controlled fittings
A22 Examples of thermal elements include roofs, external walls and ground floors. Examples of controlled fittings include windows and doors.
A23 Major renovation and renovation of a thermal element are defined in Approved Document L1B, 5.6A and L2B, 3.1.
Under Regulation 23, if more than 50 per cent of a thermal element is renovated or replaced, the whole thermal element must comply with the current energy conservation requirements of requirement L1(a)(i) of Schedule 1 if technically and economically feasible. If a building undergoes major renovation, the same requirements from Schedule 1 apply.
Renovation of a thermal element covers replacing a roofing membrane or adding a new layer (such as insulation). In case of repairs to thermal elements, such as a flat roof, which involve work to less than 50 per cent of the element’s surface area, no thermal upgrade is required.
A24 If a controlled fitting, such as a window or door is replaced, and not just repaired, the replacement should comply with all relevant aspects of the current Building Regulations. For example, for an external door, relevant aspects of the Building Regulations include Part K (Protection from falling, collision and impact) and Part L (Conservation of fuel and power) and Regulation 7.
A25 Guidance on complying with Regulation 23 is given in Approved Documents L1B and L2B. This includes consideration of listed buildings, buildings in conservation areas and scheduled ancient monuments.
Responsibility for compliance
A26 Ensuring that building work complies with all applicable requirements of the Building Regulations is the responsibility of those carrying out the work, for example, agents, designers, builders, installers and the building owner. Details of local authority enforcement powers are given in Chapter B. Chapter B
Should a building control body be involved?
Notification of work
B1 When Building Regulations apply to the work you are proposing, then you either need to: a. involve a building control body (local authority building control or an approved inspector) or b. use an installer registered under a competent person scheme to do the work.
You can use both a building control body and a competent person scheme on the same project.
B2 Except for the work described in paragraph B3, you must notify a building control body of all of the following: a. Building work as defined under Regulation 3 of the Building Regulations. b. Any change in a building’s energy status. c. Replacement or renovation of thermal elements. d. Material changes of use.
The building control body will then consider whether the work complies with the Building Regulations, although it remains the responsibility of those carrying out the building work to ensure that it does.
B3 Regulation 12(6)(a) states that a building control body does not need to be notified if one of the following conditions applies: a. The work is listed in Schedule 4 to the Building Regulations. b. The work will be self-certified by a registered competent person. c. The work will be certified by a registered third party.
B4 The person carrying out the building work can choose which type of building control body to notify. This same building control body will then inspect the work. The two types of building control body are: a. local authority building control b. approved inspectors. Some work does not have to be checked by a building control body but must still comply with the Building Regulations. An example is installing loft insulation unconnected to a material change of use or other building work. In all cases, seek advice from a building control body to see if Building Regulations apply.
If building work does not comply with the Building Regulations, the local authority building control body can take enforcement action.
Enforcement action
The Building Regulations can be contravened by not following the correct procedures or not meeting the required technical performance requirements.
Local authorities may take enforcement action if notifiable building work (as set out in paragraph B2 above) is carried out without having previously notified the local authority by submitting a Building Regulations application or an initial notice.
Local authorities may also take enforcement action if building work does not comply with Building Regulations.
Under Section 95 of the Building Act, local authorities have the right of entry into buildings in relation to enforcing the Building Act.
Under Sections 35, 35A and 36 of the Building Act the local authority has the power to take enforcement action. Local authorities can take action against the building owner and those carrying out the works and this can include requiring that the works are pulled down or removed.
If the building owner or those carrying out the works contravene the Building Regulations, the local authority may prosecute them in the magistrates’ court, where an unlimited fine may be imposed (Sections 35 and 35A of the Building Act).
Where unauthorised building work has been carried out on or after 11 November 1985, it may be possible to obtain a regularisation certificate from the local authority. If issued, the regularisation certificate shows that the works complied with the Building Regulations that were in place when the unauthorised work was carried out.
Regulation 18 lists the information to include in an application for a regularisation certificate. This includes both of the following:
a. A description, preferably including drawings, of the unauthorised work.
b. Plans showing any additional work needed to ensure compliance with the Building Regulations which were in force when the work was originally carried out.
The local authority may require the building owner to take reasonable steps so that it can decide what work, if any, is needed to comply with the Building Regulations. Such steps may include laying open work or carrying out tests.
When the local authority has sufficient information, it will tell the building owner what work, if any, is needed to comply with the Building Regulations.
If the specified work has been completed to its satisfaction, the local authority can issue a regularisation certificate to the building owner. However, the local authority has no obligation to issue a regularisation certificate. Chapter C
Competent person schemes and third-party testing
Competent person schemes
C1 For some types of building work, such as replacing certain windows or reroofing, people working under a relevant approved competent person scheme can self-certify that their work complies with the Building Regulations.
C2 Competent person schemes are set up under Regulation 20 and listed in Schedule 3 to the Building Regulations. An up-to-date list of current schemes is also given at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/competent-person-scheme-current-schemes-and-how-schemes-are-authorised#current-schemes
C3 If building work is carried out under a competent person scheme, there is no need to submit a building notice or an initial notice or to deposit full plans for that work.
C4 The competent person will notify the local authority of the work and issue a completion certificate, either directly or through the scheme operator. The certificate must be given to both the building occupier and the local authority within 30 working days of completion of the work.
C5 If you don’t receive a certificate within 30 days of completion, contact the competent person scheme operator that your installer is registered with and they may be able to help you resolve the matter.
C6 Even if work is carried out under a competent person scheme, if the work contravenes the Building Regulations, local authority building control still have enforcement powers.
Third-party testing for airtightness
C7 Third-party certification schemes are available for testing airtightness, enabling approved airtightness testers to certify that the work meets the required performance standard. These are established under Regulation 43 of the Building Regulations. An up-to-date list of testing organisations can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/competent-person-scheme-current-schemes-and-how-schemes-are-authorised#types-of-building-work Third-party testing of domestic electrical work
C8 Under a third-party certification scheme for electrical installations in dwellings, a person who is registered with the scheme can inspect and test the domestic electrical work of others and certify that it complies with the Building Regulations. This is expanded upon in more detail in Approved Document P.
C9 Third-party certification schemes for electrical installations in dwellings are listed in Schedule 3A to the Building Regulations. An up-to-date list is also given at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/third-party-certification-schemes-for-domestic-electrical-work
C10 If electrical work is approved under a third-party certification scheme, there is no need to submit a building notice or an initial notice or to deposit full plans for that work.
C11 The operator of the third-party certification scheme will notify the local authority of work that complies with the Building Regulations. Chapter D
Local authority building control
D1 Local authorities provide a building control service for all categories of work and all types of building. Local authorities may also be responsible for other statutory requirements, including town planning, listed building consent and licensing, that may affect the design of the building.
D2 If you are planning to carry out building work that needs to be checked by a building control body you can choose either of the following routes: a. depositing full plans (described in Regulation 14) or b. submitting a building notice, which contains less information than full plans (see Regulation 13).
D3 To start work without either depositing full plans or submitting a building notice is likely to contravene Regulation 12, unless the exceptional circumstances set out in Regulation 12(8) are applicable. If Regulation 12 is contravened, the local authority can prosecute. In either of the cases detailed above, the applicant may be required to pay a penalty.
D4 It is necessary to deposit full plans instead of a building notice if any of the following work is proposed: a. Building work in relation to a building to which the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies or will apply after building work is complete. Examples of such buildings include hotels, boarding houses, offices, shops and factories. b. Building work that includes erecting a building that fronts a private street. c. Building work that involves building over or otherwise interfering with an existing shared drain, sewer or disposal main shown on a map of sewers.
Deposit of plans
D5 When full plans are deposited, the applicant must pay the plan charge to the local authority.
D6 The local authority must pass or reject the full plans within five weeks, or within two months if the applicant has agreed to an extension of time in writing (see Section 16 of the Building Act). D7 The local authority may reject the plans for either of the following reasons: a. The plans show that work will contravene the Building Regulations. b. The plans are defective (for example incomplete) – they fail to show that work will comply with the Building Regulations.
The local authority must give the reason in the notice of rejection.
Building in accordance with deposited plans
D8 Building work does not need to conform exactly to the plans but must comply with the requirements of the Building Regulations.
D9 If building work deviates from what the deposited and passed (or not rejected) plans show, the local authority may require this work to be taken down or altered. It is therefore advisable to consult the local authority before deviating from approved plans.
Building notices
D10 A building notice may be used where the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 does not apply. Where the building work is simple and drawings are not required, this may be appropriate.
D11 The building notice enables work to be started without having to provide the local authority with plans. The local authority must be informed before the work is started.
D12 When a building notice is deposited, the building notice fee must be paid to the local authority. The building notice fee is similar to the combined plan and inspection fees of the full plans option.
D13 The building notice will typically be submitted on a form produced by the local authority and should include the information specified in Regulation 13. In the case of a new building or extension, the information should include a site plan.
D14 Once the building notice has been deposited, the local authority may ask in writing for further information.
NOTE: Once the building notice has been submitted, building work may start on the third day after the local authority has been informed. If building work has not started within three years of a building notice being deposited, under Regulation 13(5) the building notice is no longer valid.
D15 The local authority is not required to pass or reject a building notice. If you use a building notice instead of the full plans route, then both of the following apply: a. You will not have the protection of having full plans passed by the local authority. If the local authority has passed your plans, then you know that they are happy for you to build from them. b. You cannot ask the Secretary of State for a determination if the person carrying out the building work disagrees with the requirements of the local authority.
D16 If building work contravenes the Building Regulations, the local authority can require the work to be altered or removed. Consulting the fire authority
D17 Details of the consultation procedures that should be followed at the design and construction stages of a building project are given in the Joint Regulators Group’s forthcoming Technical Guide: Building Regulations and Fire Safety Procedural Guidance (2020).
Consulting the sewerage undertaker
D18 When full plans have been deposited with the local authority and the work affects a drain, sewer or disposal main (as described in paragraph D4(c)), under Regulation 15 the local authority must consult the sewerage undertaker. The local authority must consider the views of the sewerage undertaker before passing the plans or issuing a completion certificate. The local authority must be satisfied that work will not be detrimental to either the building in question or the continued maintenance of any drain, sewer or disposal main.
Conditional passing of plans
D19 A local authority may pass plans subject to either or both of the following conditions, under Section 16(2) of the Building Act:
a. The local authority may pass the plans subject to required additions or amendments being made.
b. The local authority may request further plans to be submitted.
NOTE: The local authority is not obliged to use these procedures. The written agreement of the applicant is required.
Starting work
D20 When a building notice has been served, building work may begin at any time provided the local authority is given two clear working days’ notice of the intention to start work, as required by Regulation 16(1).
D21 When full plans have been deposited and the notice described above has been given, work may begin.
Giving notices at relevant stages
D22 You are required under the Building Regulations to give the local authority notice of when the work has reached relevant stages. The local authority will set out the notification procedure. The work should be programmed to allow the local authority time to inspect at the required stages.
D23 If the local authority is not informed of a relevant stage of work for inspection it may, by giving notice in writing, require the work to be opened up for inspection so that it can be ascertained whether or not the work complies with the Building Regulations.
Contravention of the requirements
D24 During the building work, or within a year of its completion, if the local authority considers that the work contravenes any requirement of the Building Regulations, it may serve a notice under Section 36 of the Building Act requiring the work to be taken down or altered within 28 days.
D25 Where the person who carried out the work disagrees with the local authority, they may notify the local authority that they want to obtain an independent expert report under Section 37 of the Building Act. In this case, the deadline for the work to be taken down is extended to 70 days.
D26 Where the local authority has considered an expert report, it may withdraw the Section 36 notice.
If the local authority does not withdraw the notice, the person who carried out the work may appeal to the magistrates’ court under Section 40 of the Building Act.
Completion certificates
D27 Once the work has finished, and if they are satisfied that the work complies with the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations, the local authority must issue a completion certificate.
D28 The relevant provisions of the Building Regulations are Regulations 25A, 26, 29, 36, 38 and Schedule 1. The first four of these regulations deal with environmental performance and Regulation 38 concerns fire safety information.
D29 The local authority is authorised to accept testing carried out in accordance with Regulations 41 to 44 as demonstrating that the requirements in the Building Regulations have been satisfied.
Duration of approval
D30 If building work does not commence within three years of the date when the local authority passed the plans, the local authority may serve a notice under Section 32 of the Building Act to rescind the approval. It is important to note that this is different to the requirements for starting work under planning legislation.
Determinations and appeals
D31 The local authority has the power (under Regulation 11 of the Building Regulations) to relax requirements of the Building Regulations other than those relating to:
a. Regulation 23(1)(a)
b. Regulation 25A
c. Regulation 25B
d. Regulation 26 and
e. paragraph R1 of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations.
Those responsible for the building work may submit a formal application to the local authority for relaxation of the Building Regulations.
D32 If, after a request, the local authority refuses to ignore or relax the requirements, the person carrying out the building work can appeal to the Secretary of State.
Details of appeals can be found at:
www.gov.uk/guidance/building-regulations-appeals--6
D33 If the local authority and the person carrying out the building work disagree about whether work shown on full plans complies with the Building Regulations, a determination can be requested from the Secretary of State before work starts. There is no statutory timetable for this process.
Details of determinations can be found at:
www.gov.uk/guidance/building-regulations-determinations Chapter E
Approved inspectors
E1 This chapter refers to the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010, subsequently referred to as the Approved Inspectors Regulations.
E2 Approved inspectors are companies or individuals, licensed through CICAIR Ltd under the Building Act to provide a building control service for all categories of work and for any building type. With the exception of minor works, approved inspectors must be financially and professionally independent of the work they inspect. Minor works are defined in Regulation 9(5) of the Approved Inspectors Regulations.
E3 Approved inspectors are independently monitored and regulated by CICAIR Ltd to carry out building control work in England (and Wales). CICAIR Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Construction Industry Council (CIC) and the approval process it operates provides a route to registration as an approved inspector. For more information, visit the CICAIR website:
https://www.cicair.org.uk/
E4 Approved inspectors are required to have insurance from a government approved scheme.
E5 The person carrying out the building work enters into a formal contract with the approved inspector and may negotiate the fees involved.
The initial notice
E6 When the person carrying out the building work engages an approved inspector, that person and the approved inspector must together give the local authority an initial notice.
E7 The contents of an initial notice are outlined in Form 1 in Schedule 1 to the Approved Inspectors Regulations. The initial notice must contain all of the following:
a. A description of the work.
b. In the case of a new building or extension, both of the following:
i. A site plan to a scale of not less than 1:1250 showing the boundaries and location of the site.
ii. A statement that if work involves building over or near any drain, sewer or disposal main shown on any map of sewers kept by the sewerage undertaker, the approved inspector will consult the sewerage undertaker. E8 The initial notice must show how any new drainage will be connected. a. If drainage will be connected to an existing sewer, it is often sufficient to indicate on the site plan the points at which the drainage will be connected. b. If drainage will not be connected to an existing sewer, the initial notice must describe how drainage discharges will be dealt with. For example, this could include details of the location of any septic tank and associated secondary treatment system, or any wastewater treatment system or cesspool.
Acceptance or rejection of initial notice
E9 After receiving an initial notice, the local authority has five working days in which to consider its validity.
E10 If the local authority considers that the initial notice contains insufficient information, it may reject it. The local authority may only reject an initial notice on the grounds prescribed in Schedule 2 to the Approved Inspectors Regulations.
E11 If the local authority does not reject the initial notice within five working days of receipt, it is presumed to have accepted the initial notice unconditionally.
E12 Once the initial notice has been accepted or is deemed to have been accepted (five days after receipt), the approved inspector will certify that they are satisfied that the works have been completed.
NOTE: Those responsible for carrying out the building work (which includes clients, designers, builders and installers) must ensure that the work complies with the Building Regulations.
Independence of approved inspectors
E13 Approved inspectors must have no professional or financial interest in the work that they supervise, and should be independent of the designer, builder or building owner, unless the work comprises any of the following: a. The material alteration or extension of a one or two storey house, provided that the house has no more than three storeys when work is complete (ignoring any basement storeys). b. The provision, extension or material alteration of a controlled service or fitting in any building. c. The underpinning of any building.
Consulting the fire authority
E14 If work is proposed to a building to which the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies or will apply once building work is complete, the approved inspector must consult the fire authority at each of the following stages: a. Before or as soon as practicable after giving an initial notice (or amendment notice where there is a need to subsequently change the initial notice), the approved inspector must supply the fire authority with sufficient information to show that the work described in the initial notice will comply with Part B (Fire safety) of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations. b. Before giving a plans certificate (whether combined with an initial notice or not), the approved inspector must give the fire authority a copy of the relevant plans.
c. Before giving a final certificate.
E15 Before giving a plans certificate or final certificate to the local authority, the approved inspector must allow the fire authority up to 15 working days to comment. The approved inspector must consider the views of the fire authority.
Consulting the sewerage undertaker
E16 If an initial notice or amendment notice involves proposals to erect or extend or carry out underpinning works to a building within 3 metres of the centreline of a drain, sewer or disposal main to which paragraph H4 of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations applies, the approved inspector must consult the sewerage undertaker.
E17 Before giving a plans certificate or final certificate to the local authority, the approved inspector must allow the sewerage authority up to 15 working days to comment. The approved inspector must consider the views of the sewerage authority.
Plans certificate
E18 A plans certificate can be used to demonstrate that detailed plans of the work or a part of it comply with the Building Regulations. A plans certificate can provide protection if the initial notice is cancelled or ceases to be valid and no new initial notice is given or accepted.
E19 Plans certificates are described in Regulations 14 and 15 of the Approved Inspectors Regulations and Section 50 of the Building Act. The person proposing the building work can ask the approved inspector to supply a plans certificate. If the approved inspector is satisfied with the plans, they must give a plans certificate to both of the following parties:
a. the person proposing the building work and
b. the local authority.
The approved inspector can give the plans certificate with the initial notice or later.
Final certificate
E20 When the building work is complete and the approved inspector is satisfied that the work meets all the relevant requirements of the Building Regulations, the approved inspector must give the local authority a final certificate as described in Section 51 of the Building Act and Form 5 of Schedule 1 to the Approved Inspectors Regulations. A final certificate provides evidence, but not conclusive evidence, of compliance with the Building Regulations.
E21 A final certificate need not relate to all the work specified in an initial notice. For example, for a single initial notice that covers a new housing estate, separate final or plans certificates might be given for individual houses or groups of houses. E22 The local authority may reject the final certificate only on the grounds given in Schedule 4 to the Approved Inspectors Regulations. The local authority has 10 working days within which to reject the final certificate, otherwise it is deemed to have been accepted. If a final certificate is rejected, the initial notice ceases to be valid four weeks later.
Events causing the initial notice to become invalid
E23 There are limitations on the validity of the initial notice, where the initial notice has been given to erect, extend or materially alter a building. This applies when any part of the building or extension is subsequently occupied and no final certificate has been given. In such situations the initial notice is no longer valid after a ‘relevant change of use’, as described in Regulation 12(6) of the Approved Inspectors Regulations.
E24 For most buildings, the initial notice will lapse eight weeks from the date when the building is occupied.
For buildings comprising only flats and common parts, the initial notice will lapse four weeks after the building is occupied.
NOTE: A local authority can, however, extend the period of the initial notice. The local authority may wish to extend the period if it is reasonably confident that a final certificate will be given soon.
E25 In case of a material change of use covered by an initial notice (paragraph E23), if the change of use takes place and no final certificate is given, the initial notice for the work will no longer have effect eight weeks after the change of use.
E26 Once the initial notice no longer has effect, both of the following situations apply:
a. The approved inspector will be unable to give a final certificate.
b. The local authority has the power, under Section 36 of the Building Act, to take enforcement action against non-compliant work.
This has the same consequences as an approved inspector withdrawing (as described below).
Withdrawal of approved inspector
E27 An approved inspector who cannot continue to supervise work for which they have given an initial notice must cancel the initial notice and inform both of the following parties:
a. The person doing the building work.
b. The local authority.
E28 If the person responsible for the work (building owner or client) becomes aware that the approved inspector is unable to continue supervising the work, the owner or client must cancel the initial notice (see Section 52 of the Building Act and Regulation 18 of the Approved Inspectors Regulations).
E29 The person responsible for the work (building owner or client) may give a new initial notice jointly with a new approved inspector provided the original approved inspector agrees to cancel the earlier notice as soon as the new notice is accepted (see Schedule 2 to the Approved Inspectors Regulations, paragraph 12). Change of person intending to carry out work
E30 If a different person from that named in the original initial notice intends to carry out the work, the procedure is as follows. The approved inspector and the person who originally intended to carry out the work may jointly give written notice to the local authority to state that a new person or organisation intends to carry out the work (Section 51C of the Building Act). The initial notice is then treated as having been given by the new person intending to carry out the work and the approved inspector.
E31 In a situation where the approved inspector considers that the building work does not comply with the Building Regulations and there is a refusal to bring it into compliance, the approved inspector will cancel the initial notice. If no other approved inspector takes on the work, the building control function will automatically be taken on by the local authority. From this point, the local authority will have enforcement powers.
Local authority's powers in relation to partially completed work
E32 If an initial notice is no longer valid, the local authority becomes responsible for enforcing the Building Regulations in relation to any completed work for which a final certificate has not been given (Regulation 19 of the Approved Inspectors Regulations). The local authority must be provided with both of the following:
a. Plans of the building work carried out, if requested by the local authority.
b. Plans referred to in a plans certificate where granted by the approved inspector.
E33 For any partially completed work, the local authority may require the person carrying out building work to cut into, lay open or pull down work so that the local authority may determine whether any work (not covered by a final certificate) contravenes the Building Regulations. However, the local authority cannot take action against that person in relation to any work carried out as described in a plans certificate.
E34 If it is intended to continue with partially completed work, the local authority must be given sufficient plans to show that the work can be completed without contravening the Building Regulations.
NOTE: Where an approved inspector is used, the local authority cannot give a notice under Section 36 of the Building Act to remove or alter any offending work so long as the initial notice remains valid. Work covered by an approved inspector’s final certificate that the local authority has accepted cannot be subject to local authority action under Section 36 of the Building Act.
Contravention of Building Regulations
E35 An approved inspector cannot enforce the Building Regulations. If work appears not to comply with the Building Regulations, an approved inspector may, however, give the person carrying out the building work a written notice.
E36 If the work that appears not to comply with the Building Regulations is not remedied within three months, the approved inspector must cancel the initial notice. The approved inspector must give the person carrying out the building work and the local authority a cancellation notice in the set form. This notice must describe how the work appears not to comply with the Building Regulations (see Section 52 of the Building Act and Regulation 18 of the Approved Inspectors Regulations). Limitations on the enforcement powers of local authorities
E37 If the initial notice ceases to be in force (as described in Section 47(1) of the Building Act) and the conditions in Section 53(2) of the Building Act are satisfied, the local authority may not:
a. give a notice under Section 36(1) of the Building Act (removal or alteration of work which contravenes Building Regulations) or
b. institute proceedings under Section 35 of the Building Act for a contravention of Building Regulations.
For details of this situation, refer to Regulation 15 of the Approved Inspectors Regulations.
Dealing with variations to the work
E38 To vary the work detailed in an initial notice (e.g. to build six units instead of five on a site), the person carrying out the building work and the approved inspector should give the local authority an amendment notice. (See Sections 51A and 51B of the Building Act and Form 2 of Schedule 1 to the Approved Inspectors Regulations).
Contents of an amendment notice
E39 The amendment notice must be as described in Form 2 in Schedule 1 to the Approved Inspectors Regulations. The amendment notice must contain the information required for an initial notice (set out above in paragraph E7) plus either of the following:
a. A statement that all plans submitted with the original notice remain unchanged.
b. Copies of all the amended plans with a statement that any plans not included remain unchanged.
Acceptance and rejection of amendment notice
E40 The local authority has five working days in which to consider the amendment notice. The local authority may only reject the amendment notice on grounds set out in Schedule 2 to the Approved Inspectors Regulations. The procedure is identical to that for accepting or rejecting an initial notice.
Duration of validity of initial notices and plans certificates
E41 If work has not started within three years of the date on which an initial notice was accepted or deemed to have been accepted, a local authority may cancel an initial notice under Section 52(5) of the Building Act.
If work has not started within three years of accepting a plans certificate, the local authority may rescind its acceptance, under Section 50(8) of the Building Act.
Determinations and appeals
E42 An approved inspector cannot relax Building Regulations. However, the building owner or client can apply to the local authority to relax Building Regulations, even when an approved inspector is used. E43 Before work begins, if the approved inspector and the person carrying out the building work disagree about whether the work shown on the plans complies with the Building Regulations, the building owner or client can request a determination from the Secretary of State.
E44 Once work has started, the only recourse against the decision of the building control body is an appeal to the Secretary of State.
E45 Details of appeals and determinations can be found at:
- Appeals: www.gov.uk/guidance/building-regulations-appeals--6
- Determinations: www.gov.uk/guidance/building-regulations-determinations
Local authorities acting as approved inspectors
E46 Local authorities can operate as approved inspectors beyond the boundaries of their local authority area. Chapter F
Meeting the technical requirements
The approved documents
F1 The approved documents set out what, in ordinary circumstances, may be accepted as one way to comply with the Building Regulations. However, Section 7 of the Building Act indicates that following the guidance in approved documents may be relied upon as tending to negative liability, while failing to follow the guidance may be relied upon as tending to establish liability. Therefore, following the approved documents alone does not guarantee compliance.
F2 It remains the responsibility of those designing or undertaking building work to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether specific circumstances require additional or alternative measures to achieve compliance with the regulatory requirements.
F3 Following industry guidance referenced in the approved documents may, depending on the circumstances, have the same legal effect as following the approved document itself. Using other guidance, including a different version of a referenced guidance document, would not give the same legal presumption. Figure F1 shows how the approved documents and other sources of guidance fit into the overall regulatory system. Approved documents vary in length and complexity and in how the guidance applies to different types of buildings.
Table 1.1 in Chapter 1 of this manual lists the approved documents for different types of new or existing dwellings and other buildings.
In some mixed-use developments, parts of a building are used as dwellings while other parts have non-domestic uses. If the requirements of the approved documents for dwellings and other buildings differ, the more onerous requirements apply in any shared parts of the building. This is discussed in detail with regard to fire safety in Approved Document B and ventilation in Approved Document F.
When an approved document refers to a named standard, the relevant version of the standard is listed at the end of the approved document. Until the approved document is amended, these references are part of the guidance approved under Section 6 of the Building Act.
If work complies with the guidance referred to in the approved document, that makes it likely that the work conforms with the relevant requirements of the Building Regulations. Following other guidance would not provide that legal protection.
If an approved document refers to an older version of a standard that the issuing standards body has now revised or updated, the new version may be used as a source of guidance, provided it continues to address the relevant requirements of the Building Regulations. Designing and constructing buildings
F8 Any building work that is subject to the requirements imposed by Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations must be carried out in accordance with Regulation 7. Building work is defined in Regulation 3.
F9 Building work under Regulation 7 shall be carried out: a. with adequate and proper materials which i. are appropriate for the circumstances in which they are used ii. are adequately mixed or prepared and iii. are applied, used or fixed so as adequately to perform the functions for which they are designed, and b. in a workmanlike manner.
F10 Regulation 7 places requirements on materials and workmanship to deliver the performance required under the Building Regulations. Those responsible for building work must be able to demonstrate that both materials and workmanship comply with the Building Regulations, as part of the overall scheme.
F11 Regulation 7 applies to all building work to which the Building Regulations apply. However, in accordance with Regulation 8, the standards of materials and workmanship need be no higher than are necessary to satisfy the following conditions: a. For Parts A–D, F–K and P (except for paragraphs G2, H2 and J7) of Schedule 1: to secure reasonable standards of health or safety for people in or about the building. b. For Part E of Schedule 1: to secure reasonable resistance to the passage of sound for the welfare and convenience of people in or about the building. c. For Part L of Schedule 1: to conserve fuel and power. d. For Part M of Schedule 1: to provide access to buildings and their facilities for people.
Demonstrating compliance
F12 Whether materials and associated workmanship meet the requirements of the Building Regulations could be established in a number of different ways. It may be necessary to use more than one of these methods to provide appropriate evidence of compliance. The properties of the materials and workmanship being demonstrated as fit could be established by the methods listed below. a. A CE marking, provided it is relevant and the product is used appropriately. Accompanying performance information may not cover all of the required properties of the product. b. Following relevant guidance of the approved documents or standards referenced by the approved documents. c. Compliance with a relevant British or European standard or standards. d. Compliance with a relevant ISO or other national technical standards. e. Use of a competent person scheme to carry out work or to certify materials and workmanship within the scope of the scheme. f. Use of an independent certification scheme accredited by a certification body belonging to the European co-operation for Accreditation (EA). In the UK, the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) is the national accreditation body.
g. Past experience from safe and successful longstanding relevant practice in the existing building stock. Existing practice should be reviewed to ensure that it is safe, appropriate and relevant to the proposed conditions.
h. Tests are often used to show that materials and workmanship are appropriate. In many circumstances, testing is one way of showing compliance, but in the following three instances the Building Regulations require those undertaking building work to have tests carried out to demonstrate compliance.
i. Sound insulation as described in Regulation 41.
ii. Air flow rate of mechanical ventilation as described in Regulation 42.
iii. Pressure testing as described in Regulation 43.
i. Where there is no relevant harmonised European standard, calculations against appropriate standards could demonstrate the compliance of materials and workmanship.
Other design standards
F13 Where design standards other than those referred to in the approved documents are used, it is important that the acceptability of these standards is discussed with the building control body in advance. It should be noted that building control bodies may not be familiar with all standards, and mixing standards produced by different bodies may be unacceptable.
CE markings under the Construction Products Regulations
F14 The future status of CE markings may be reviewed as part of the UK exiting the European Union.
F15 At present, CE markings are used to demonstrate that either:
a. a product complies with a harmonised European standard or standards (British versions of standards are numbered starting BS EN and contain an Annex ZA) or
b. a product has undergone a European Technical Assessment.
F16 CE marking includes the reference of the product standard and the levels or classes of performance being declared against some or all of the characteristics covered by the standard. The CE marking should be on the product, its label, the packaging or accompanying documents. The CE symbol by itself does not necessarily indicate that the material is suitable for the building work.
F17 In addition to CE marking, the product will have a declaration of performance containing more detailed information on the product. This may be a paper or electronic document, or it may be on a website. It is essential to check that the declared performance is suitable for the building work.
F18 In the absence of indications to the contrary, the building control body may assume that the information given in the CE marking and declaration of performance is accurate and reliable, and that the product meets the declared performance. F19 If the declared performance of a product is suitable for its intended use and the product is installed correctly, the building control body should not unreasonably prohibit or impede the use of the product.
Optional requirements
F20 Local planning authorities may impose planning requirements that may exceed the minimum standards required by the Building Regulations. These may include the following cases:
a. accessible housing (Requirements M4(2) and M4(3) of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations)
b. water efficiency (Regulation 36).
F21 Such planning requirements will appear as conditions in the relevant planning consent. Enforcement of such options is part of the planning process. However, it is important that the building control body is made aware of such planning conditions.
Historic buildings
F22 The Building Regulations should be complied with in a manner that respects historic buildings and environments. Local authority building control officers and conservation officers may be able to advise on how to comply appropriately with Building Regulations.
F23 Approved Documents B, C, E, F, G, H, J, L and M provide detailed guidance on meeting the Building Regulations in historic buildings.
F24 Additional guidance is available in Historic England’s Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings: Application of Part L of the Building Regulations to historic and traditionally constructed buildings. This can be downloaded from the following website:
https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/energy-efficiency-historic-buildings-ptl/
Design and construction tolerances
F25 Dimensions given in the approved documents make no mention of any allowance for construction tolerances. To ensure that design standards are met, appropriate allowance for tolerance should be considered in the design process. A critical dimension may depend on multiple construction tolerances. Industry standards may provide guidance on achievable tolerances.
Ban on combustible materials
F26 The use of combustible materials in the external walls and specified attachments of certain buildings with a storey at 18m or more above ground level is prohibited by the Building Regulations. See Regulation 7(2) of the Building Regulations and Approved Document B: Volume 2, part B4 for details.
NOTE: The requirement B4(1) applies to buildings of any height. The external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another, having regard to the height, use and position of the building. Properties of certain materials
F27 Some materials, in the absence of special care, may be considered unsuitable because of their rapid deterioration in relation to the expected life of the building.
F28 A short-lived material which is readily accessible for inspection, maintenance and replacement may meet the requirements of the Building Regulations if the consequences of failure are not likely to be serious to the health or safety of people in and around the building.
F29 If a short-lived material is not readily accessible for inspection, maintenance and replacement, and the consequences of failure are likely to be serious for health or safety, it is unlikely that the material will meet the requirements of the Building Regulations.
F30 A local authority may impose conditions on the proposed use of short-lived or otherwise unsuitable materials under Section 20 of the Building Act.
F31 If a material is at risk of spontaneous failure, such as toughened glass, and the consequences of failure are likely to present a safety risk, it is unlikely that the material will meet the requirements of the Building Regulations.
Sampling by building control bodies
F32 A local authority may take samples to establish whether materials that are used in building work comply with the Building Regulations under Regulation 46.
F33 An approved inspector may sample materials under Regulation 8 of the Approved Inspectors Regulations.
Record keeping
F34 Those carrying out building work will want to keep accurate records on the source of materials to help demonstrate that materials comply with Regulation 7 or other requirements in the Building Regulations.
Enduring powers under the Building Act
F35 Once building work is complete the Building Regulations no longer control the materials or workmanship used. Outside the building control process, the Building Act gives local authorities powers in relation to unsafe buildings and structures. Any changes to a building may trigger a new building control process, as detailed earlier in this manual. Appendix I
Key terms
Terms relating to the structure of legislation:
**Regulation** followed by a number refers to a regulation in the Building Regulations 2010.
**Schedule** refers to a schedule contained in the Building Regulations 2010, for example Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations.
**Section** refers to a section of the Building Act 1984.
Other terms:
**Amendment notice** refers to a change of the scope of an initial notice. For further information see Chapter E.
**Approved document** refers to a document approved by government that provides practical guidance on how the Building Regulations can be satisfied in some common situations. Approved documents are given legal status by the Building Act 1984.
**Approved inspectors** are companies or individuals authorised under the Building Act 1984 to carry out building control work in England and Wales. They must be registered with the Construction Industry Council Approved Inspectors Register (CICAIR), which provides a list of approved inspectors.
https://www.cicair.org.uk/approved-inspectors-register/
**Approved Inspectors Regulations** refers to the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010.
**Building** is generally any permanent or temporary building. A reference to a building includes a reference to part of a building. Buildings include dwellings (houses, flats) and public buildings.
**Building Act** refers to the Building Act 1984.
**Building control body** is a local authority building control department or an approved inspector.
**Building notice** is a route to Building Regulations approval using local authority building control. Refer to Chapter D for details.
**Building Regulations** refers to the Building Regulations 2010.
**Building work** includes erecting or extending a building, providing or extending a controlled service or fitting in or in connection with a building, and the material alteration of a building or a controlled service or fitting. CE marking under the Construction Products Regulation (305/2011/EU-CPR). The Construction Products Regulation requires that construction products on the EU market covered by a harmonised European product standard normally have a CE marking. Refer to Chapter F for details.
Competent person schemes allow tradespeople to demonstrate their ability to carry out certain work to required standards instead of the work going through a building control body approval process. Refer to Chapter 5 and Chapter C.
Completion certificates are issued by the local authority to confirm that it has taken reasonable steps to ensure that there is evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence, that the work complies with the relevant requirements of the Building Regulations.
Controlled services or fittings include a service or fitting subject to Schedule 1 (to the Building Regulations) requirements in respect of sanitation, hot water safety, water efficiency, drainage and waste disposal, combustion appliances and fuel storage, conservation of fuel or power, and electrical safety.
Final certificate refers to the certificate issued by the approved inspector to the person carrying out the work and the local authority and confirms that the work in the initial notice is complete and that the approved inspector is satisfied that it complies with the relevant requirements of the Building Regulations.
Full plans refers to the route to Building Regulations approval using local authority building control. Refer to Chapter D for details.
Initial notice refers to the notice served on the local authority jointly by the client and the approved inspector when an approved inspector is selected as the building control body.
Listed building consent operates in addition to normal planning controls under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Listed building consent is likely to be required for any alteration to a listed building.
Local authority building control is the building control department of the local authority.
Major renovation is defined in Approved Document L1B, 5.6A and L2B, 3.1.
Material alteration is defined under Regulation 3 of the Building Regulations. An alteration is a material alteration if the proposed building work would make a building less safe structurally, more at risk from fire or less accessible for disabled people.
Materials include: manufactured products, such as components, fittings, items of equipment and systems; naturally occurring materials, such as stone, timber and thatch; and backfilling for excavations in connection with building work.
Planning permission is approval to carry out building work from a town and country planning point of view. It is typically required to construct or extend a building or change the use of a building. The local planning authority decides whether a project will need planning permission.
Plans certificates can be used to demonstrate that detailed plans of the work or a part of it comply with the Building Regulations. They are described in Regulations 14 and 15 of the Approved Inspectors Regulations and Section 50 of the Building Act.
Regularisation certificates can be issued by local authorities retrospectively to indicate that work started after 11 November 1985 which has been completed complies with the Building Regulations which applied at the time the works were done. Renovation (in relation to a thermal element) is defined in Approved Document L1B, 5.6A and L2B, 3.1.
Responsible person is the person defined in article 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and having the duties for compliance with the Order as prescribed in article 5.
Thermal element is a material that contributes to the thermal performance of a building’s thermal envelope, such as any element of a wall, floor or roof but not a door or window. Thermal element is defined in Regulation 2(3) of the Building Regulations.
UKAS is the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (www.ukas.com). Appendix II
References
Publications Joint Regulators Group (2020) Technical Guide: Building Regulations and Fire Safety Procedural Guidance.
Historic England (2017) Energy Efficiency and Historic Buildings: Application of Part L of the Building Regulations to historic and traditionally constructed buildings. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/energy-efficiency-historic-buildings-plt/
Websites Gas Safe Register www.gassaferegister.co.uk
Competent person schemes www.gov.uk/guidance/competent-person-scheme-current-schemes-and-how-schemes-are-authorised#current-schemes
Testing organisations for building work www.gov.uk/guidance/competent-person-scheme-current-schemes-and-how-schemes-are-authorised#types-of-building-work
Third-party certification schemes for electrical installations in dwellings www.gov.uk/guidance/third-party-certification-schemes-for-domestic-electrical-work
Building Regulations appeals and determinations www.gov.uk/guidance/building-regulations-appeals--6 www.gov.uk/guidance/building-regulations-determinations
CICAIR: Construction Industry Council Approved Inspectors Register www.cicair.org.uk/
Legislation (available via www.legislation.gov.uk) The following list includes selected legislation that is often relevant to the design, construction and use of buildings. This list is not comprehensive.
Building Act 1984 (c. 55) The Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2010 (No. 2215) The Building Regulations 2010 (No. 2214) The Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 (No. 1713) The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (No. 51) The Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2006 (No. 1380) The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (No. 2677) Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (c. 25) Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) Equality Act 2010 (c. 15) The Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010 (No. 2128) The Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 (No. 1840) The Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 (No. 2996) The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 (No. 2451) Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (c. 37) The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (No. 1513) The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 (No. 2792) Highways Act 1980 (c. 66) Housing Act 2004 (c. 34) The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (No. 2307) The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (No. 3242) The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (No. 2793) The Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations 2010 (No. 333) Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (c. 40) The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (No. 2966) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) The Private Water Supplies (England) Regulations 2016 (No. 618) The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (No. 2306) Public Health Act 1936 (c. 49) The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (No. 1541) Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004 (c. 22) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) (and other planning legislation) The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (No. 764) The Volatile Organic Compounds in Paints, Varnishes and Vehicle Refinishing Products Regulations 2012 (No. 1715) Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56) Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57) The Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999 (No. 1148) The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2016 (No. 614) The Work at Height Regulations 2005 (No. 735) The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (No. 3004) List of approved documents
The following documents have been published to give guidance on how to meet the Building Regulations. Approved documents are available at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/approved-documents
**Approved Document 7** Materials and workmanship
**Approved Document A** Structure
**Approved Document B** Fire safety
**Approved Document C** Site preparation and resistance to contaminants and moisture
**Approved Document D** Toxic substances
**Approved Document E** Resistance to the passage of sound
**Approved Document F** Ventilation
**Approved Document G** Sanitation, hot water safety and water efficiency
**Approved Document H** Drainage and waste disposal
**Approved Document J** Combustion appliances and fuel storage systems
**Approved Document K** Protection from falling, collision and impact
**Approved Document L** Conservation of fuel and power
**Approved Document M** Access to and use of buildings
**Approved Document P** Electrical safety – dwellings
**Approved Document Q** Security – dwellings
**Approved Document R** Physical infrastructure for high speed electronic communications networks
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3776-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 62,
"total-input-tokens": 113169,
"total-output-tokens": 26936,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
74,
1
],
[
74,
1738,
2
],
[
1738,
2656,
3
],
[
2656,
2656,
4
],
[
2656,
5425,
5
],
[
5425,
6453,
6
],
[
6453,
6507,
7
],
[
6507,
6507,
8
],
[
6507,
9689,
9
],
[
9689,
12618,
10
],
[
12618,
13498,
11
],
[
13498,
16247,
12
],
[
16247,
18397,
13
],
[
18397,
21237,
14
],
[
21237,
22407,
15
],
[
22407,
23771,
16
],
[
23771,
24100,
17
],
[
24100,
24790,
18
],
[
24790,
26414,
19
],
[
26414,
29296,
20
],
[
29296,
31586,
21
],
[
31586,
33514,
22
],
[
33514,
35643,
23
],
[
35643,
39066,
24
],
[
39066,
41010,
25
],
[
41010,
41072,
26
],
[
41072,
43218,
27
],
[
43218,
45987,
28
],
[
45987,
48535,
29
],
[
48535,
51097,
30
],
[
51097,
57602,
31
],
[
57602,
60151,
32
],
[
60151,
61738,
33
],
[
61738,
64706,
34
],
[
64706,
66622,
35
],
[
66622,
67572,
36
],
[
67572,
69501,
37
],
[
69501,
72204,
38
],
[
72204,
74958,
39
],
[
74958,
77477,
40
],
[
77477,
79487,
41
],
[
79487,
82331,
42
],
[
82331,
84962,
43
],
[
84962,
87804,
44
],
[
87804,
91132,
45
],
[
91132,
93605,
46
],
[
93605,
94371,
47
],
[
94371,
94371,
48
],
[
94371,
95568,
49
],
[
95568,
96994,
50
],
[
96994,
99616,
51
],
[
99616,
102491,
52
],
[
102491,
105059,
53
],
[
105059,
107120,
54
],
[
107120,
109097,
55
],
[
109097,
112498,
56
],
[
112498,
113106,
57
],
[
113106,
113106,
58
],
[
113106,
114735,
59
],
[
114735,
116825,
60
],
[
116825,
117976,
61
],
[
117976,
117976,
62
]
]
} |
e095fbc1f09c1cee049160ac41f7b05948108bee | Mapping the Technical Dependencies of Information Assets
This guidance relates to: Stage 1: Plan for action Stage 2: Define your digital continuity requirements Stage 3: Assess and address risks to digital continuity Stage 4: Maintain digital continuity
This guidance should be read before you start to manage digital continuity. The full suite of guidance is available on The National Archives' website. Contents 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 What is the purpose of this guidance?................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Who is this guidance for?.................................................................................................................... 4 2 Why map your technical dependencies?.................................................................................................. 5 2.1 What does it involve?............................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 What are the benefits?.......................................................................................................................... 6 3 Identify the technical environment supporting your information assets.................................................. 8 3.1 What technical dependencies should you record?.................................................................................. 8 3.2 Where should you record this information?.......................................................................................... 11 4 Capture and document your technical dependencies .............................................................................. 12 4.1 Key data repositories............................................................................................................................ 12 4.2 Key information flows and work flows.................................................................................................. 14 4.2.1 Data flow ....................................................................................................................................... 14 4.2.2 Work flow..................................................................................................................................... 14 4.3 Software tools ...................................................................................................................................... 14 4.4 Roles and responsibilities...................................................................................................................... 15 5 Monitor and review your outputs ............................................................................................................ 16 5.1 Understanding how the mapping helps deliver your usability requirements ........................................ 16 5.2 Measuring against business objectives............................................................................................... 17 5.3 Reviewing and auditing processes ....................................................................................................... 17 5.4 Reviewing documentation and processes ............................................................................................ 17 6 Next steps.................................................................................................................................................. 18 Appendix.................................................................................................................................................... 19 1 Introduction
Digital continuity is the ability to use your information in the way you need, for as long as you need.
If you do not actively work to ensure digital continuity, your information can easily become unusable. Digital continuity can be put at risk by changes in your organisation, management processes or technology. You need to manage your information carefully over time and through change to maintain the usability you need.
Managing digital continuity protects the information you need to do business. This enables you to operate accountably, legally, effectively and efficiently. It helps you to protect your reputation, make informed decisions, avoid and reduce costs, and deliver better public services. If you lose information because you haven’t managed your digital continuity properly, the consequences can be as serious as those of any other information loss.
1.1 What is the purpose of this guidance?
This guidance forms part of a suite of guidance that The National Archives has delivered as part of a digital continuity service for government, in consultation with central government departments.
This document follows on from the companion guidance Identifying Information Assets and Understanding Business Requirements which helped your organisation to identify its information assets and business needs. The guidance you are reading now will enable you to complete the second stage of managing digital continuity: mapping these information assets to their technical dependencies.
Reading this will help you to understand:
- **why** you need to identify and map the relationships between the information assets your business requires and your technical environment
- **how** to understand and document the technical dependencies of information assets
- **who** to work with
1.2 Who is this guidance for?
This is a hands-on guide aimed at the Head of IT or similar role. It will help you understand and document the technical dependencies of the information required by the business. As the Head of Information Technology (IT), you are ultimately responsible for this process but other members of your team, as well as information managers and change managers, are also likely to be involved in carrying it out (see section 4.4 for more on the roles and responsibilities). 2 Why map your technical dependencies?
Digital information is complex. You need to fully understand its associated business needs and how these needs are met. If you do not know how your technology supports your information you are at risk of losing the ability to find, open, work with, understand and trust your information, which could have considerable impact on your ability to carry out your business.
The usability of digital information depends on the technology that is used to create, manage and provide access to it – and it is sensitive to any changes in that technology. System upgrades, changes in file formats, data migration, the introduction of new software and the disposal of old technology can all affect the ability of the business to use its digital information in the way it requires. If you do not understand the impact of these changes on your ability to use information assets, you risk losing digital continuity.
Mapping the technical dependencies of your information enables you to relate your technical environment and your information assets directly to your business needs. This will help you to understand and manage the risks to the continuity of your digital information, manage the impact of change, protect your information appropriately and exploit it fully.
2.1 What does it involve?
Managing digital continuity starts with understanding the value of information (recognising information as an 'asset') and understanding how it is used to deliver business needs (defining 'usability requirements'). If your information and technology support the way the business needs to use information, you have digital continuity (see Figure 1 below). If they don’t, you’re at risk of losing digital continuity.
Although your current needs may be met, both your technical environment and your business requirements are subject to change. You can apply an understanding of the technical dependencies of your information assets to manage such change effectively. There are three key steps in understanding and mapping the technical dependencies of information assets:
i. Identify your technical environment ii. Capture and document technical dependencies iii. Monitor and review your outputs
Working through these steps in sequence offers the additional benefit of enabling you to build a cycle of continuous improvement.
2.2 What are the benefits? Understanding which elements of your technical environment support essential information, and which do not, can allow you to streamline your technical environment to remove redundant technology. This can increase IT efficiency and make operational processes more efficient and cost-effective. It will allow you to:
- make informed decisions about where to prioritise investment to ensure the continued usability of your information
- reveal information or technology you no longer need and highlight where you can make savings by reducing data volumes and streamlining your technologies
- understand whether your technology allows you to use information in the way you need and identify opportunities to improve the service, e.g. where existing technology can improve information management or deliver additional functionality
- identify technical risks relating to managing information assets. The next stage in managing digital continuity is to undertake a full risk and impact assessment to identify specific risks to your digital continuity
- understand the potential impact of change on the continuity of your digital assets 3 Identify the technical environment supporting your information assets
If you have already followed our guidance on Identifying Information Assets you will have identified your information assets and your detailed requirements for using them. You may have documented this in the form of an Information Asset Register (IAR).
The IAR provides an ideal starting point for mapping the technical dependencies of your information assets. You now need to document how your technology will support the usability requirements which the business has defined for each information asset.
If you do not have a list of assets, or their usability requirements have not been specified, you should now liaise with your information managers and individual Information Asset Owners (IAOs) and encourage them to produce a comprehensive information asset register. Your information managers can use our Information Asset Template as a guide with suggested fields to complete. Your other data repositories may also contain information about your information assets which you can use to create an IAR (see Section 4.1 for more information on how you can use these existing repositories).
3.1 What technical dependencies should you record?
You will need to identify all of the technical systems, platforms and processes which the information requires in order to be fully usable. The easiest way to do this is to start from the list of usability requirements and identify what technical support is needed for each requirement.
In previous guidance on creating an Information Asset Register, we suggested considering usability requirements under five broad categories:
i. How will you find the information? ii. Who can access the information and how? iii. What do you need to be able to do with the information? iv. What do you need to be able to understand about your information? v. To what extent do you need to trust that your information is what it claims to be?
If your organisation has defined its information requirements in this way, your technology mappings will be similar. Your technical mapping – the information you record, and how you record it – should be tailored to the business needs of your organisation and the processes you use within your department. Below are the five key usability requirements and some suggested questions you should ask when documenting the associated technical dependencies. | Defining usability requirement | Mapping technical dependencies | |-------------------------------|--------------------------------| | How do you need to find the information? | What technical tools and services enable users to find the information in the way they need? | | Consider both granularity and depth of the search required for each type of information asset. Users may need to find the asset itself, files within the asset, or specific pieces of data within the files. | Include both the technology your users work with directly, and the underlying technology that is used to store, index and retrieve the information. Characteristics of the information assets themselves may also affect find-ability. | | Consider whether users have different permissions for searching content. | – What is it? Is your data in formats that can be indexed? Is the required descriptive metadata available? | | – Where is it? Can storage media and storage locations be crawled or indexed by your search technology? Do you require selective indexing? | – What applications does the user require to search each information asset? | | – What indexing services are required? How often are indexes refreshed? | – Can the search service manage the required volumes and respond within the required timeframes? | | – Can the search service manage the required volumes and respond within the required timeframes? | Who needs to access or open the information? How and when do they need to access it? | | Consider access restrictions and sensitivity. Consider granularity of access controls – do you need to control access to the asset as a whole? To specific files or folders? Or to particular (meta)data elements within the asset? | What technical tools and services are required to meet access requirements? | | Consider requirements for sharing internally and more widely. | – How is your technical environment protected from unauthorised access or disclosure? | | Consider availability levels and the speed of access required. | – How are access controls implemented, maintained, reported on? | | – How are protective markings recorded? How is sensitive or personal data identified and protected? | – How are passwords or encryption keys managed? | | – How is information transferred or shared? | – What storage media are used? How quickly can off-line information be retrieved? | | – What hardware or software allows information to be transferred or shared? | – What hardware or software allows information to be transferred or shared? | | Consider file formats, encoding or encryption and data structures | be opened or viewed?\
– Is supporting documentation available?\
– Can access controls be applied at the required levels? Are they inherited or transferred appropriately when information is created or shared? | |---|---| | How do you need to be able to work with your information? | What technical tools and services enable users to work with the information?\
– What file formats or data structures is the information held in? Can these be worked with (viewed, edited, combined, saved)? What interoperability is needed?\
– What supporting documentation is needed for information held in databases?\
– Are there specific hardware requirements? e.g. image manipulation may require desktop machines with large amounts of memory\
– What software is required to use the information in the required ways? | | Define the functionality that each group of users requires from your information assets: how they are used and what you need them to do? | What do you need to understand about the information?\
You need to understand both the content and context of your information asset. Context may not be recorded as part of the asset itself but is vital to making the asset usable\
Context is often stored digitally as metadata, but it may also be in linked information, captured within filing structures, or in specific knowledge held by individuals\
To what extent do you need to trust your information?\
The level of trust required of an information asset varies. Most do not require additional validation – | | What technical tools and services maintain the 'context' required to understand the information?\
– How is metadata associated with the content?\
– How is context captured within filing structures?\
– How are links and relationships managed?\
– Can contextual information be moved or transferred with the content? | What technical tools and services support you in protecting your information adequately and deliver the required level of trust?\
– How do you maintain audit trails which record | they speak for themselves. However, for some uses, you may need to demonstrate the confidentiality or integrity of information assets, or to certify their history and provenance.
Note: You also only need to map information that provides your defined level of usability – you will not have to do this if you have very low level ‘trust’ requirements.
when information was accessed or changed and by whom? – How do you assure that your security measures are adequate? How do you report on access rights? – How do you capture who created the information and when? How are versions controlled? – How do you manage data quality, accuracy and frequency of updates?
This initial stage of technical mapping involves recording the technologies that directly contribute to the delivery of each usability requirement.
When defining requirements, you should also consider:
- how information moves around your organisation
- how work flows within your organisation
Note: each piece of technology will in turn have its own support requirements and technical dependencies and may also rely on particular documentation, business processes or skills and expertise. It is vital to manage change across the full range of dependencies. Many of these will be captured in separate documentation maintained by your IT department or service provider as part of their configuration management activities. Once you have all these documents in place you will have a full map of your information and the technology it depends upon.
3.2 Where should you record this information?
If your organisation has an existing IAR (or similar spreadsheet or database) we recommend that you record your technical dependencies within this.
Alternatively, you could incorporate this information into an existing Configuration Management Database (CMDB), if your technology organisation has one. With this approach, you should treat each information asset as a Configuration Item (CI), then add attributes to each information CI detailing the technical dependencies.
The principle is to be flexible and practical. The choice of whether to use a CMDB, the IAR or another existing database or spreadsheet will depend on the complexity of your requirements and on the systems that are available to you. The important thing is to make it fit for purpose, and make it work for you. See Section 4.1 for more on how to use existing data repositories to support this work. 4 Capture and document your technical dependencies
In documenting the technical environment which supports your information assets, you should first examine existing sources of data as these can provide you with valuable information. As discussed above, they may also provide a logical place to record dependencies (for instance, in an IAR or CMDB).
To understand the technical dependencies of your information, you will also need to know how this relates to the flow of information around the organisation and the related work processes.
You should also consider:
- the range of tools that can help you understand your technical environment
- who can help you find information and what their responsibilities are
4.1 Key data repositories
The table below lists key repositories which may contain some of the information you require.
| Repository | May provide information about | |-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Information Asset Register (IAR) | If you have an IAR it will provide valuable information about information assets and the technology that supports them. Check with your IT support and IAOs that this information is comprehensive and up to date | | | - A description of the information asset | | | - The Information Asset Owner | | | - Technical or systems owners | | | - The date the asset was created or updated | | | - The business value of the information asset | | | - The protective marking attached to the information asset | | | - Retention schedule and disposal schedules | | | - Risks | | | - Locations and systems: storage, hardware, software applications, vendor and platform | | Configuration Management Database (CMDB) | A CMDB can be invaluable for discovering the full support system required by an asset and mapping | | Information Asset Type | Details | |----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Components of the IT Infrastructure | how changes to any component may impact upon the information asset | | The IT services supported by that infrastructure | - Components of the IT Infrastructure
- The IT services supported by that infrastructure
- Information about entire services or systems; hardware; software; supporting staff
- Documentation | | Information about entire services or systems; hardware; software; supporting staff | - Supported software, versions, product roadmaps, migration schedules
- Warranties, support contracts, business ownership, licensing and renewal dates (where appropriate)
- Unit cost | | Documentation | For example, this information can be found within the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement and the Select Agreement | | Software registers | This can help you decide the importance of hardware or software to the business, enabling you to manage disposal more effectively. It can also help identify technology approaching end-of-life, or obsolescence | | Hardware registers | - Age
- Warranties
- Capacity
- Spare or replacement stock
- Spare or replacement parts
- Other dependencies (e.g. disks, power supply) | | IT helpdesk data | Primarily for incident management, but can cover problem management, release management and service management – which may relate to information assets (e.g. risks, business impact, locations, dependencies, stakeholders) | | Facilities and estates management database | The wider technical and physical infrastructure supporting and securing information assets. | 4.2 Key information flows and work flows
Information assets do not remain static, they continuously move around both within organisations and between different ones, so it is important you understand the flow of information and related work processes. This will help you to understand your technical dependencies, as well as informing the development of your organisation's information strategy.
4.2.1 Data flow
As with any other form of inventory, new information is added, moves in and out of central data warehouses, and is eventually decommissioned. Mapping the migration and flow of information around an organisation enables you to identify the network environment and all hardware and software storing or accessing the information, including staging areas where information can be intercepted or restored.
IT management professionals (e.g. network managers, systems managers and database administrators) and IT change managers can track the flow of information assets and identify technical staging areas. Your technical mapping exercise should identify access rights, the location of information assets and catalogue the network environment supporting the information asset.
4.2.2 Work flow
A work flow is a virtual representation of the work an individual or organisational unit actually carries out. It differs from the data flow in that it is designed to identify roles, responsibilities, functions, teams, projects and organisational structures.
Examining work flow can provide you with the opportunity to measure, analyse, identify, standardise, correct, enhance, match and consolidate information assets. It will also enable you to identify weaknesses such as organisational silos and single points of failure.
4.3 Software tools
You will almost certainly have software tools that can help you, even if you don’t realise it. Software discovery tools are quite common within organisations and can help locate the software that supports information assets and identify dependencies. This usually falls within the remit of system administrators or system integrators. You should talk to whoever implements your software patching and updates.
Another tool which can help you is DROID, a free file characterisation tool which The National Archives has developed. Through identifying file formats and versions, DROID can help you establish the software dependencies of your information.
A range of related services and solutions are available for procurement via the Digital Continuity Framework. 4.4 Roles and responsibilities
You now need to identify and talk to the right people within your organisation – this will include representatives of information management, IT as well as any external providers or contractors. These individuals will be able to clarify key information and work processes, important management activities and core components of the technical infrastructure, including data repositories. See the Appendix for a full list of roles and responsibilities.
What do you need to do?
As Head of IT, it is your responsibility to maintain an understanding of the way your organisation needs to use its information assets, so that you can ensure that you deliver an adequate level of technical support. You will need to work closely with your information management team to achieve this.
Your understanding of the technical dependencies of information assets will be vital in ensuring that the impact of technical change is understood and managed. It will also enable you to reduce unnecessary support and excess capacity – supporting you in delivering a cost-efficient service.
Communication is vital between everyone involved in looking after information assets and their technical environments. Sharing your findings with other teams will prevent multiple people undertaking the same investigations and improve understanding of how everything fits together.
If your IT service is delivered by external providers, you will still need to ensure that dependencies are captured, documented, reviewed, managed and reported. It is vital to develop good working relationships, establish communication and build a shared understanding of objectives. 5 Monitor and review your outputs
5.1 Understanding how the mapping helps deliver your usability requirements
The real value of the technical mapping is that it allows you to understand how your technical environment supports your key business information. In addition, it provides a number of important management controls over your environment:
| Mapping provides: | How it helps deliver your requirements: | |-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Risk controls | Enables you to identify risks to the technology supporting your information asset and prepares you to take mitigating action that is proportionate to the business value of that information. For example, gaps such as: absence of software maintenance arrangements, lack of off-site backups, undefined technical ownership, single points of failure will all become apparent as a result of this work. The risks can then be assessed, prioritised and managed. | | Change controls | Enables you to identify the processes, documentation, people, related (meta)data, software and hardware that impact upon the information asset. This understanding enables effective impact assessment and contingency planning as part of your change process. It enables you to schedule changes and plan upgrades in line with business priorities. | | Security controls | Enables you to clearly identify security measures in place and to ensure you have a layered solution in keeping with current legislation or international standards. | | Usability controls | Allows you to understand how your technical environment provides the usability you need (see Section 3.1 above). Allows you to identify excess capacity, unnecessary support, or duplication of functionality. | 5.2 Measuring against business objectives
Developing an understanding of your information assets and their technical dependencies will enable you to effectively support your information assets over time and through change to maintain their usability – therefore helping you to meet your business objectives.
You should consider how to measure your success in supporting business objectives and set processes in place for reviewing this.
Measurements such as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) tie in business need with operational change. You can measure the success of your new understanding and against digital continuity-focussed business objectives, such as KPIs based on the availability of information. For instance, this could be the percentage of successful downloads of an information asset within an agreed time frame, or the percentage of relevant search results found by users when looking for specific information.
Be clear about your targets and make sure they are achievable. You will need to work with your information assurance and business managers in order to agree meaningful targets.
5.3 Reviewing and auditing processes
It is important that you continually review your technical environment and information assets, tracking changes that may have wide-reaching impacts. A defined change process should be followed for every change, with impact assessments performed against the IAR. It is also vital to carry out regular audits and compliance checks to ensure that policies and contractual agreements are being followed efficiently and effectively.
You should track your KPI targets to make sure that technical components support the assets appropriately, and take action to improve service levels at all opportunities.
5.4 Reviewing documentation and processes
Related documentation will need to be reviewed on an ongoing basis. This includes:
- Change control documentation – to check that information assets are included in all risk and impact assessments conducted as part of your change management process
- Management documentation, e.g. service level agreements, business plans
- Server documentation and configuration documentation
- Contracts and service levels with external service providers 6 Next steps
Mapping your information assets and their business requirements to your technical environment will help you to manage digital continuity effectively. The next steps are to embed your understanding in operational management, and also to use this mapping to identify risks, exploit opportunities and manage change.
Undertake a risk assessment With an understanding of your information assets, their business requirements and technical dependencies and how these three elements are aligned, you will be able to identify gaps in the alignment and assess risk to digital continuity. The recommended next stage in the process of managing digital continuity is to conduct a risk assessment, as outlined in our guidance Stage 3: Assess and manage risks to digital continuity.
Read our Risk Assessment Handbook for practical information and support to help you assess and manage risks to digital continuity.
Exploit opportunities Knowing how your current technology supports the information your business values (and needs to support in the future), can enable you to identify redundant or out-of-date technology/technology assets and identify savings and efficiencies for your organisation.
Assess the impact of change Now that you have a comprehensive understanding of your current information assets, their requirements and technical dependencies, you are well-positioned to assess how change can affect the continuity of your digital information.
You will be able to identify the impact of technology change on the usability of your information assets – ensuring that you manage these changes effectively and reducing the risk of losing access to business critical information. You should improve your change management processes, embedding management of digital continuity into operational practice. See our Machinery of Government (MoG) change guidance suite for more information on how to achieve this.
## Appendix
| Role | Responsibility | |-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Head of IT | The Head of IT is ultimately responsible for the implementation of technical dependencies to manage the information required by the business. However, other members of your team, as well as information managers and change managers, are also likely to be involved in carrying it out. | | Head of Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) | The Head of KIM will be able to provide you with information about the organisation’s information assets and their business value. The head of KIM will detail all management documents and roles associated with information assets, especially those of the information assurance managers and IAOs. | | Information Asset Owners (IAOs) | IAOs are responsible for information assets identified in the IAR. Information management representatives such as IAOs should be included in relevant technology meetings, including on change advisory boards. | | IT Change Manager | Change managers link the work of the IA managers and IAOs with changes to the IT infrastructure.
- Manage risk and safeguard availability
- May own configuration management processes and the CMDB if they exist
- Work as information asset champions with ICT and can track and manage all technical risks and impacts upon the IAR
- Will work with external service delivery partners to ensure all changes follow an agreed process in order to meet agreed availability and KPI targets. | | Configuration Manager | Manages the Configuration Management System (CMS) and the Configuration Management process. Many government departments do not have a CMS, or they might not realise it, as the CMS could be part of an outsourced service delivery. If there is a | | Role | Description | |-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Configuration Manager | This person will be working closely with the Change Manager. | | Service Level Managers | Work alongside Heads of KIM to attach an appropriate service level to information assets and continuously monitor and report to maintain availability and security targets. This is best achieved by establishing a service level for the IAR. Service Level Managers will manage external service delivery partners along with the Change Manager, and ensure all relevant availability and KPI targets are being met. | | Operational IT professionals | Regardless of whether an organisation has contracted out its IT services there will be technical support roles managing key technical components. These include:\
– System managers\
– Database and application managers\
– Database administrators\
– Network managers\
– Network administrators | | External providers/contractors | Maintaining and managing the IAR should be included in the procurement requirements for external providers and included in any subsequent contracts. Changes impacting upon the IAR should follow defined operational change management procedures. Technical points of contact are should be identified in all contracts. |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3777-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 20,
"total-input-tokens": 39097,
"total-output-tokens": 7088,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
407,
1
],
[
407,
407,
2
],
[
407,
3791,
3
],
[
3791,
6102,
4
],
[
6102,
8094,
5
],
[
8094,
8776,
6
],
[
8776,
9614,
7
],
[
9614,
12018,
8
],
[
12018,
14546,
9
],
[
14546,
16633,
10
],
[
16633,
19063,
11
],
[
19063,
21961,
12
],
[
21961,
23846,
13
],
[
23846,
26362,
14
],
[
26362,
28032,
15
],
[
28032,
29937,
16
],
[
29937,
32170,
17
],
[
32170,
34090,
18
],
[
34090,
36258,
19
],
[
36258,
37996,
20
]
]
} |
e6c7f270a3cc496c493e7408a5008db9dbae4ea8 | Nutbrow Review
Mapping the early education and childcare workforce – a background paper
November 2011 Contents
Who are the early education and childcare workforce?
Where do they work and what qualifications do they have?
How did they get there? – past and future pathways and progression routes Introduction and sources
These slides are informed by our initial mapping of the early education and childcare workforce.
Except where otherwise stated, the data used are taken from the Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey 2010, published by the Department for Education in September 2011 (OSR17/2011).
Unless indicated otherwise, the data include all staff working in childcare and early education settings, but excluding after school and holiday clubs.
Changes to the way in which Ofsted classifies providers meant that the 2010 survey used a different sampling method to that which was used previously (though not in the case of childminders). The data should be viewed bearing this in mind. Who are the early education and childcare workforce? The number of staff working in early education and childcare has risen by 24% since 2006
The total no. of staff working across early education and childcare settings rose by 24% from 2006 to 2010.
Most of this increase has come from full day care settings where numbers have risen from around 152,000 to more than 213,000.
\*Figures include early years providers in maintained settings (including nursery schools and reception classes), full daycare (including in children's centres), sessional care - holiday clubs and after school clubs which are predominantly for children who are beyond the foundation years are excluded. The vast majority of practitioners are aged in their late 20s, 30s or 40s – very few are under 19.
Full daycare settings, including Children’s Centres, have the greatest proportion of staff under 24.
Childminders and those working in sessional care have oldest age profile with 3/5 of and 2/3 aged over 40 respectively. Only 1-2% of staff are male – this is consistent across all types of early years settings
| Type | Female (%) | Male (%) | |-----------------------------|------------|----------| | Full day care | 98% | 2% | | Sessional | 99% | 1% | | Childminders | 98% | 2% | | Nursery Schools | 98% | 2% | | Primary schools with reception | 99% | 1% | Data from the Office for National Statistics publication estimates that around 13% of the working age population are from a black or minority ethnic (BME) background.
As such, there is an under-representation of staff from a BME background in most of the provider types. Where do they work and what qualifications do they have? Distribution of paid staff across group settings
Note that these data do not include childminders.
Nutbrown Review The balance of roles varies across group settings\*
\*These data do not include childminders.
Nuttbrown Review Distribution of paid staff by sector
Note that these data do not include childminders. Double counting may occur owing to multiple ownership of settings, or staff working in more than one setting. Hourly pay varies between group setting types, but has increased for all staff types over recent years. There is considerable variation in the qualifications paid staff hold.
The majority of the workforce hold at least a level 3 qualification, and the proportion of the workforce qualified to this level has increased over time (see next slide).
Note that these data only consider qualifications held by paid staff. Unpaid volunteers may be more likely to be unqualified. Though there has been improvement over time in the level of qualification of workers
Level 3 qualifications are equivalent to A-Level, Advanced GNVQ or Level 3 NVQ.
Level 6 qualifications are equivalent to an Honours Degree. To have Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) you need to be qualified to at least level 6.
The proportion of staff with qualifications at each of these levels is increasing, and the proportion of staff with no qualifications is decreasing.
As before, we do not know how many of these qualifications are those considered “full and relevant”, and unpaid staff are not included.
Nuttbrown Review Early Years Professional Status (EYPS)
The Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) is the graduate level professional accreditation programme for leading practitioners in the early years sector.
According to data held by CWDC (Nov 2011):
- There are currently 1,579 candidates on EYPS pathways.
- 14,838 people have enrolled on EYPS courses since 2006, and 8,521 have already been certified.
According to the provider survey data, the proportion of paid childcare staff with Early Years Professional Status, in 2010:
| | % of all staff who have EYP status | % of graduate staff with EYP status | |----------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Full day care | 4% | 43% | | Full day care in children’s centres | 7% | 36% | | Sessional | 2% | 32% | How did they get there? – pathways and progression routes Some examples of routes into and through the workforce
**School leaver**
- 5 GCSEs not incl. English & maths
- Level 3 qualification as part of an apprenticeship, while working in a setting
- Foundation degree
- Top up to full degree
- Early Years Professional Status (EYPS)
**Graduate**
- Unrelated full degree
- New Leaders in Early Years programme, incl. Masters and EYPS
**Career changer**
- No ‘full and relevant’ qualifications
- Work-based Level 3 qualification
Nutmubrown Review Diverse qualifications to support diverse routes into the workforce. In reality, there is no ‘typical’ route. Summary
The early education and childcare workforce are spread across a variety of different settings and job roles.
In recent years, the proportion of staff with qualifications at level 3 and level 6 has increased, and the proportion of staff with no qualifications has decreased.
There is a wide, diverse range of qualifications to support various routes into and through the workforce.
Qualifications must meet the needs of learners at all levels and stages of their career in order to attract and retain a sufficiently diverse workforce, capable of understanding and responding appropriately to the needs of the children and families they will be working with.
At the same time, the range of qualifications must be sufficiently coherent and streamlined to enable employers (and prospective entrants to the workforce) to understand them easily, supporting professionalism and motivation in the workforce.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3778-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 20,
"total-input-tokens": 25958,
"total-output-tokens": 2205,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
104,
1
],
[
104,
300,
2
],
[
300,
1005,
3
],
[
1005,
1058,
4
],
[
1058,
1686,
5
],
[
1686,
2008,
6
],
[
2008,
2490,
7
],
[
2490,
2762,
8
],
[
2762,
2819,
9
],
[
2819,
2936,
10
],
[
2936,
3047,
11
],
[
3047,
3245,
12
],
[
3245,
3349,
13
],
[
3349,
3719,
14
],
[
3719,
4344,
15
],
[
4344,
5375,
16
],
[
5375,
5433,
17
],
[
5433,
5924,
18
],
[
5924,
6034,
19
],
[
6034,
6946,
20
]
]
} |
9d6818c52c995539580f468e56c9f34066fa5d12 | Update of Major Projects
Over the page is a summary of the Council’s Major projects:
Please note before reviewing the “Large” project information:
- The Summary of “Large” projects will evolve over time as projects progress, are completed and new projects are initiated and is provided to inform the committee in performing its role of risk and assurance of the project management approach.
- Any project that achieves a score of 80 or more out of 160 qualifies as a “Medium/Large” or Major project and is included in this list.
- Executive is responsible for scheme financing/policy and Scrutiny will perform detailed reviews of any relevant project.
- The status (RAG – Red, Amber or Green) is provided as an overview. (RAG description, below, as agreed at the July 2016 A&G committee)
| Status | Description | |--------|-------------| | Green | All the elements of delivery are within acceptable parameters with risks managed. | | Amber | There are risks/issues with one or more elements of delivery. There is a plan in place to bring the project back within acceptable parameters and it is in the control of the project team. | | Red | There are issues with one or more elements of delivery and there is no plan in place to mitigate or there is a plan emerging, but it is out of the control of the project team |
THE CORPORATE PROJECTS PORTFOLIO WAS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED BY THE UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGES OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC DURING THIS PERIOD | Large projects summary | Previous period (RAG) | This period (RAG) | Direction of travel | |-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|-------------------|---------------------| | Older Person’s Accommodation Phase 2(ASC) | Green | Green | Same | | York Central | Amber | Amber | Same | | Castle Gateway | Amber | Amber | Same | | Local Plan | Amber | Amber | Same | | Guildhall | Green | Green | Same | | Community Stadium | Green | Green | Same | | Adult Social Care – Future Focus | Green | Green | Same | | Outer ring road (A1237) | Amber | Amber | Same | | Housing Delivery Programme | Amber | Amber | Same | | Centre of Excellence | Green | Green | Same | | Provision of School Places 2017-2023 | Amber | Amber | Same | | Housing ICT Programme | Amber | Amber | Same | | Smart Travel Evolution Programme (STEP) | Amber | Amber | Same | | Flood Risk | Green | Green | Same | | City Centre Access Project | Amber | Amber | Same | | Parking Review | Green | Green | Same | | Children in Care Residential Commissioning | Amber | Amber | Same | | Inclusion Review | Green | Green | Same | | Be Independent | Amber | Amber | Same | | Procurement of MSA and Strategic Engagement Technology Partner| Green | Green | Same | | Hyperhubs | Amber | Green | Better | Detailed Updates
| Project title | Older Persons’ Accommodation Programme Phase 2 | |---------------|-----------------------------------------------| | Reporting period | March 2020 |
**Description**
To provide, and ensure the provision of, a range of accommodation to address the housing (and care) needs of the city's older residents. The Council's Executive on 30th July 2015 approved the Business Case for the Older Persons' Accommodation Programme in order to prepare the city for a 50% increase in the size of the over 75 population. This will:
- Deliver a 10 unit extension and refurbishment of Lincoln Court Independent living scheme
- Build a 29 unit extension to the Extra Care scheme at Marjorie Waite Court, plus provide 4 bungalows on the site
- Carry out community and stakeholder engagement to establish the demand for specialist older person's housing and the issues facility residents of the city in relation to age related housing.
- Complete procurement of a new residential care facility as part of the wider Health and Wellbeing Campus at Burnholme; and
- Encourage the development of additional residential care capacity, extra care and age related housing, supporting older people to continue to live independently in their own home.
- Complete the transfer of Haxby Hall care home to a care provider who will extend and enhance the provision on site.
- Review the Council's Independent Living stock to ensure it meets the needs of existing and new tenants and to seek opportunities to increase its capacity.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |----------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
**Tasks & Milestones Status Explanation**
- The date for the transfer of Haxby Hall has now been agreed and the transfer is now scheduled for 31 May 2020.
- The Oakhaven scheme has not progressed since the initial procurement. Work is now being undertaken to establish how to ensure the delivery of older person's accommodation through an alternative route.
- Lowfield care home procurement did not secure a developer. Work is now underway to establish how the site can best deliver Older Person's Accommodation.
- All other elements of the programme are on schedule. Current status
Programme Wide
1. Plans are being developed by the Housing delivery programme for properties on Burnholme, Ordnance Lane and Duncombe Barracks. The Older Person's Accommodation Programme has been involved in determining the design, layout and home numbers to enable older people to live well in each of these developments.
2. Development of Bungalows at Lowfield Green is progressing well with these being the first phase of the development to be completed.
Burnholme Health & Wellbeing Campus
1. Care home construction progressing well.
Marjorie Waite Court extra Care scheme.
1. The switch over of the power supply has been completed. Both the existing and the new parts of the building are now connected to the new plant room.
2. Bathroom and communal space detail has been agreed to support those living with dementia and cognitive impairments to live well independently.
3. Residents continue to be kept informed of the work programme,
4. Improvements to the existing building being agreed with contractor and tenants.
Lincoln Court
1. Work is progressing well on site. Topping out celebrations were held on 19th February.
2. The connection to the electricity substation is underway.
3. Adverse weather led to some work rescheduling and some internal works being carried out early.
Haxby Hall
1. The executive have agreed to acquire properties on York Rd and lease these and Haxby Hall to Yorkare Homes.
2. Legal negotiations with Yorkare Homes are progressing well.
3. A programme of meetings with staff and residents has begun.
4. Operational arrangements are being put in place for the handover to Yorkare in the spring.
New Independent Sector Provision
1. The partnership working with JHRT for nominations to apartments at New Lodge is going well.
2. Work is progressing well on site to construct a new care home on the former Fordlands care home site.
3. The Council's planning department is working on applications for extra care properties on Shipton Rd and a 60 bed care home in Strensall.
4. A commercial developer held a public open day showing their proposals for an extra care scheme on Tadcaster Road on 19th February. This was very well attended.
Future outlook
- Burnholme Care Home Topping Out ceremony will take place on 11th March/11 June.
- A report on the options for the Lowfield Green Older Person's Accommodation site will be discussed by the executive on 18th March.
- Lincoln Court electricity supply connection will be complete.
- Lincoln Court roofing will be completed.
- Marjorie Wait Court residents and neighbours newsletter will be distributed.
- The post of extra care change manager to support the development of the CYC extra care model prior to the opening of MWC extension will be advertised.
| Reports to | Executive, CMT, Project Board, DMT | |---------------------|-------------------------------------| | Exec member | Cllr. Carol Runciman and Cllr Denise Craghill | | Director responsible| Corporate Director of Health, Housing and Adult Social Care: Sharon Houlden | | Dependencies | Burnholme Health & Wellbeing Campus Capital Programme |
Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting (e.g. executive, council, a scrutiny committee)
- Executive July 2015 https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8840&Ver=4
- Executive October 2015 - Grove House and Oakhaven Older Persons’ Homes https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8842&Ver=4
- Executive May 2016 - Delivery of Community Facilities at the Burnholme Health & Wellbeing Campus http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8884&Ver=4
- Executive July 2016 Demonstrating Progress on the Older Persons Accommodation Programme Executive November 2016 (Willow house OPH) https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9303&Ver=4
Executive December 2016 - Older Persons' Accommodation Programme Update / Burnholme Health & Wellbeing Campus: Key Decisions to further progress this development / Lowfield Green Development: Moving forward to deliver a care home, health facility and housing / Haxby Hall Older Persons' Home: A Sustainable Future https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9308&Ver=4
Executive Feb 2017 - Sale of Land at Fordlands Road as Part of the Older Persons’ Accommodation Programme https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9310&Ver=4
Executive March 2017 - Oakhaven Extra Care Facility: the sale of land to facilitate the development https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9311&Ver=4
Executive March 2017 - Burnholme: the sale of land to facilitate the development of a Care Home; agreement to management arrangements for the Community & Library facilities; disposal of the Tang Hall Library site https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9311&Ver=4
Executive August 2017 - Investment in New Extra Care Accommodation for Older People at Marjorie Waite Court Following the Closure of Burton Stone Lane Community Centre https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10190&Ver=4
Executive August 2017 - A Further Phase of the Older Persons' Accommodation Programme Deciding the Future of Woolnough House Older Persons' Home https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10190&Ver=4 | Date | Title | Document Link | |--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Executive September 2017 | Demonstrating Delivery of the Older Persons’ Accommodation Programme | https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10191&Ver=4 | | Executive October 2017 | Disposal of Willow House, Walmgate, York | https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10192&Ver=4 | | Executive December 2017 | A Further Phase of the Older Persons’ Accommodation Programme: Deciding the Future of Windsor House Older Persons’ Home | https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10194&Ver=4 | | Executive January 2018 | Securing a Sustainable Future for Haxby Hall Older Persons’ Home | https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10195&Ver=4 | | Executive February 2018 | Disposal of Willow House | http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10196&Ver=4 | | Executive March 2018 | Investment at Lincoln Court to Create an Independent Living with Support Facility | http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10189&Ver=4 | | Executive April 2018 | Deciding the Future of Morrell House Older Persons Home | http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10197&Ver=4 | | Executive July 2018 | Delivering Improved Sports and Active Leisure Facilities at Burnholme | https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10470&Ver=4 | | Executive September 2018 | Demonstrating Delivery of the Older Persons’ Accommodation Programme and Preparing for Further Action | https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10472&Ver=4 | | Executive November 2018 | A Further Phase | | | Date | Description | Document Link | |-------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Executive March 2019 | Investment in the Redevelopment of Lincoln Independent Living Scheme | [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10474&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10474&Ver=4) | | Executive January 2020 | The Transfer and Transformation of Haxby Hall Care Home (by way of long lease) and associated land transactions. | [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11469&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11469&Ver=4) | | Executive March 2020 | Lowfield Green: Responding to Older Persons' Accommodation Needs. | [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11117&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11117&Ver=4) | York Central is a key strategic development site for economic growth and housing delivery for the city. The majority of the land is in the ownership of Network Rail and Homes England. CYC have a role to play in de-risking the site and accelerating delivery with public sector partners. In recent months, the site and the opportunity it presents have been positioned at all levels of Government as a priority site for support to enable delivery of locally-led regeneration and development schemes. The capacity for the site to contribute to the achievement of the local plan housing targets is also a key consideration.
### Overall status this period (Mar) vs Overall status previous period (Feb)
| Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | |-------|---------|-------|-----------|-------------------|-----------------------|-------------------|-------|--------| | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
**Tasks & Milestones Status Explanation**
- The programme is driven by partner organisational delivery imperatives and funding availability. The programme indicates that milestones are achievable but there is very little float/ scope for slippage and the project is complex with many communities of interest.
- The project remains on target to deliver infrastructure works to funding deadlines and housing/economic benefits to City.
- City of York Council and WYCA have released additional funding whilst the HIF announcement is awaited, to support scheme off plot infrastructure detailed design and Reserved Matters Planning Application.
**Risks Status Explanation** Risks associated with the project are complex and interdependent. Active risk management is ongoing.
**Issues Status Explanation** Planning RMA submission March 2020, Partnership Agreement to be signed, S106 to be signed, and HIF funding awaited.
### Current status
- The Outline Planning Application was approved by Planning Committee in March 2019. The Reserved Matters Application for phase 1 off plot infrastructure is being prepared and will be submitted in March 2020.
- Public Engagement on the RMA commenced in February 2020.
- John Sisk Ltd have been appointed as infrastructure delivery partner for Phase 1 Infrastructure, they have reported on Buildability issues and these have been approved by Board for development into the Stage 4 Design. The WY+TF Full Business Case has been conditionally approved by WYCA.
Future outlook
- The Outline Planning Application was approved by Planning Committee in March 2019.
- The Reserved Matters Application for phase 1 off plot infrastructure is being prepared and will be submitted at the end of March 2020.
- Public Engagement on the RMA will continue through March 2020.
- John Sisk Ltd have been appointed as infrastructure delivery partner for Phase 1 Infrastructure, they have reported on Buildability issues and these have been approved by Board for development into the Stage 4 Design which is underway.
- The WY+TF Full Business Case has been conditionally approved by WYCA.
- TCF SOC for accessible Western Station Entrance being submitted
| Reports to | York Central government structures and the Executive. | |------------|-----------------------------------------------------| | Exec member | Cllr Keith Aspen | | Director responsible | Neil Ferris – Corporate Director of Economy and Place | | Dependencies | Local Plan Policy, Economic Strategy, City Transport Policy and external funding bids. | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting (e.g. executive, council, a scrutiny committee) | Executive December 2015 – York Central and Access Project [http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8844&Ver=4](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8844&Ver=4) | | | Executive July 2016 – York Central [http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9303&Ver=4](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9303&Ver=4) | | | Executive November 2016 Consultation on access options / Third party acquisitions [http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9307&Ver=4](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9307&Ver=4) | | | Executive July 2017: Project and Partnership Update [http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10188&Ver=4](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10188&Ver=4) | | | Executive November 2017 - Preferred Access Route and Preparation for Planning | Executive March 2018 - York Central Access Construction http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10193 &Ver=4
Executive June 2018 – Masterplan and Partnership Agreement http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10189 &Ver=4
Decision Session August 2018 – York Central Design Guidelines http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=875&MID=10847 #AI49619
Executive August 2018 York Central Update – Western Access http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10471 &Ver=4
Executive November 2018 – York Central Enterprise Zone investment Case http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10474 &Ver=4
Executive January 2019 York Central Partnership Legal Agreement http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10476 &Ver=4
Executive July 2019 - York Central Partnership Update http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11107 &Ver=4
Executive October 2019 – Update http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11111 &Ver=4 City of York Council (CYC) are one of the principal land owners in the area around Piccadilly, the Eye of York, St George’s Field and the Foss Basin. This area is being referred to as the “Castle Gateway” and many parts of the area are underused, semi derelict or of poor quality. Many of the properties are for sale or owned by investors and there is a risk that the area will continue to be blighted or that important sites will be developed in a piecemeal manner. The area is urgently in need of a fresh vision to improve the locality and create a socially and economically sustainable future. As the principal landowner, CYC will be instrumental in delivering a joined-up regeneration of the area which will maximise social and economic benefits for the City.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |----------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
**Financial Benefits Status Explanation** A GVA assessment of the proposed masterplan has been undertaken by WYCA. They assess the GVA benefits of the proposals to be £360m for the Leeds City Region. However, realising these benefits is dependent on the successful delivery of the whole masterplan which will require significant investment from the council and other public bodies.
**Risks Status Explanation** This is a complex project to deliver an ambitious masterplan, and as such it has significant risks to its delivery. A detailed risk workshop was facilitated by Veritau in September and the risk register has been fully overhauled and updated. Whilst mitigation and monitoring of these risks is being undertaken, the project is likely to remain at risk throughout delivery.
**Issues Status Explanation** Issues remain under review.
**Current status**
**Delivery strategy** – Work is progressing on preparing the tender documents to procure construction partners for the projects in phase one. The successful contractors will undertake the RIBA stage 4 design of St George’s Field and Castle Mills and provide a tender price for the build phase. These tender submissions will then enable the Executive to make an informed decision based on actual costs before drawing down the full budget in late 2020. A further report will also be brought back to Executive in the summer of 2020, setting out the proposed delivery model for 17-21 Piccadilly, and the business case and funding strategy for phase two of the masterplan – the new public realm to replace Castle Car Park.
**Castle Mills** - The planning application was submitted in November. Due to the proximity of the new riverside park to the flood zone, the Environment Agency have requested further technical information to allow them to formally comment on the application. A meeting with the Environment Agency was due to take place in February but was postponed until March due to their capacity being taken up by responding to the recent floods. Due to that delay it is anticipated that the application will now be considered at May 2020’s planning committee.
**St George's Field** - The planning application for the multi-storey car park was submitted in mid-September. The majority of issues with the application have now been resolved. However, as the application is to be considered at the same planning committee as Castle Mills it is expected to be determined in May 2020.
**West Yorkshire Transport Fund** - the strategic outline case to the West Yorkshire Transport Fund for the junction improvements and other highway interventions in the Castle Gateway was approved in February. This is a key funding source for the delivery of the Castle Gateway masterplan and work can now proceed to outline and full business case stages.
**Public engagement** - The public brief which will shape the new public space at Castle car park has now been published and is open to public comment. This brief is the result of the events that took place in 2019.
**Castle Gateway events** – a lease has been agreed for the Cbeebies roadshow to take place on Castle Car Park in September 2020. The announcement has attracted significant positive publicity and again showcases the potential of the space to be used in the future for events.
**Future outlook**
**St George's Field and Castle Mills** – Officers will continue to respond to any comments or objections relating to the planning applications and will work with planning officers to resolve any issues to ensure the successful achievement of planning permission.
**Phase one delivery** – the tender documents will be finalised to allow the procurement of contractors to undertake the detailed design and provide a final price for the construction of St George’s Field and Castle Mills.
17-21 Piccadilly – the RIBA stage 2 design work will commence to ascertain the development capacity of the site and allow a decision as to whether the council should proceed with development or dispose to the market to deliver. A proposed 2 year extension of Spark: York’s lease – subject to planning – was approved in February by the Executive Member for Finance and Performance to allow the site to remain in use until it is ready for redevelopment. This extension will only commence once they have complied with all outstanding planning issues relating to the site.
Reports to
The Executive sponsor for the Castle Gateway is the Leader of the Council in his remit as Executive Member for Finance and Performance. The Executive have approved a whole series of recommendations over the last three years to advance the project, with delivery of these being the responsibility of the Castle Gateway Working Group. This working group was established in January 2017 and serves as the project board and meets on a monthly basis. It is chaired by the Director for Economy and Place, and the wider interests of the council are represented by the Assistant Directors for Regeneration and Asset Management; Planning and Sustainable Development; and Transport, Highways and the Environment. The group also has Heads of Service for legal, finance and property.
The working group is the key interface point with wider stakeholders, with the project manager and Assistant Director for Regeneration and Asset Management chairing the Castle Gateway Advisory Group (which consists of key stakeholders and principal custodians of the city) and the My Castle Gateway public engagement partnership. The interests of the formal partnership with York Museums Trust will also be represented by the same individuals and outcomes and decisions fed back in to the working group.
The Castle Gateway project manager has defined expenditure levels under the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules. Any decisions that are outside the remit of previous recommendations from the Executive are taken to the appropriate decision making route as set out by the council’s governance and decision making framework. Dependent on the nature and scope of the issue this may be an officer decision, Executive Member decision, or require a full Executive decision.
| Exec member | Cllr Nigel Ayre | |-------------------|-----------------| | Director responsible | Neil Ferris – Corporate Director of Economy and Place | | Dependencies | Local Plan Policy, City Transport Policy | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting | Executive October 2015 - York’s Southern Gateway [Link](http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8842&Ver=4)\
Executive November 2016 - Land Assets on Piccadilly [Link](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9307&Ver=4)\
Executive January 2017 – Update York Castle Gateway [Link](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9309&Ver=4)\
Executive August 2017 - Proposed Temporary Use of Part of Castle Car Park [Link](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10190&Ver=4)\
Executive April 2018 - Castle Gateway Masterplan [Link](http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10197&Ver=4)\
Executive October 2018 - Proposed Temporary Uses of Part of Castle Car Park [Link](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10473&Ver=4)\
Executive October 2019 – Update [Link](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11111&Ver=4)\
Executive January 2020 – Castle Gateway Phase One Delivery Strategy [Link](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11115&Ver=4) | The 'Local Plan' is a citywide plan which sets the overall planning vision and the spatial land use strategy for the city. It provides a portfolio of both housing and employments sites for at least a 15 year period and will set the Green Belt boundaries for York. In addition it incorporates both policies and approaches to set the context for development management decisions. Effectively, it sets out the opportunities and policies on what will or will not be permitted and where, including new homes and businesses.
The Local Plan must be accompanied by an infrastructure delivery plan setting out the Council’s approach to strategic infrastructure and its funding. All housing and employments sites included must be viable and deliverable this is directly linked to future approaches to planning gain i.e. CiL and S106.
In response to both the Council resolution in autumn 2014, and the changed national and local context, officers have initiated or a series of work streams to inform the next stages of plan production. This relates to housing need, economic growth and the related need for employment land, and detailed site assessments.
The production of the plan has to be in accordance with statute and national guidance. This includes a legal requirement to work with neighbouring authorities. It also means that the plan must be subject to Sustainability and Environmental Assessments. It will also ultimately be subject to an independent examination by a government inspector.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |----------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
**Scope Status Explanation** Take the Local Plan through examination in public (EIP) and to adoption as statutory development plan for York.
**Costs Status Explanation** Cost associated with EIP, modifications consultation and adoption.
**Tasks & Milestones Status Explanation** Appointed planning inspectors are undertaking an independent examination of York’s Local Plan. Initial hearing sessions took place at York Racecourse from 10th to 18th December 2019. Risks associated with examination of Local Plan by Planning Inspectorate.
**Current status**
Appointed planning inspectors have completed phase 1 of the examination of York’s Local Plan. The initial hearing sessions took place at York Racecourse from 10th to 18th December.
More information about the hearings is available to view at: [www.york.gov.uk/localplanexamination](http://www.york.gov.uk/localplanexamination)
The Local Plan sets strategic priorities for the whole city and forms the basis for planning decisions; it must be reviewed at regular intervals to be kept up to date. The first phase hearing sessions covered the strategic principal matters identified by the inspectors including:
- legal compliance
- housing need and
- the York Green Belt.
The inspectors took into account the comments submitted to-date, as far as they related to soundness considerations such as whether the plan is justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
**Future outlook**
Following the submission of the required 'homework' items discussed in the Phase 1 hearing sessions it is anticipated that the Inspector will issue the Council with an interim Inspectors report in March 2020.
Further phase 2 hearing sessions on the remainder of the Plan will then be requested by the Inspector but the timing of these is dependent on the outcome of the phase 1 Inspectors report.
| Reports to | Executive, Local Plan Working Group | | Exec member | Cllr. Keith Aspden, Cllr Andrew Waller and Cllr Nigel Ayre | | Director responsible | Neil Ferris – Corporate Director of Economy and Place | | Dependencies | Deliverability of York Central | | Link to paper if it has been to another member | Executive July 2015 [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8840&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8840&Ver=4) | | Meeting Date | Description | Document Link | |-------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Executive June 2016 | City of York Local Plan – Preferred Sites Consultation | [http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9191&Ver=4](http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9191&Ver=4) | | Executive December 2016 | Update on Preferred Sites Consultation and Next Steps | [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9308&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9308&Ver=4) | | Executive January 2017 | Update on Local plan | [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9309&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9309&Ver=4) | | Executive July 2017 | | [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10188&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10188&Ver=4) | | Local Plan Working Group January 2018 | | [http://democracy.york.gov.uk/documents/s120857/LP%20LPWG%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf](http://democracy.york.gov.uk/documents/s120857/LP%20LPWG%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf) | | Executive January 2018 | Update | [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10195&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10195&Ver=4) | | Executive May 2018 | City of York Local Plan – Submission | [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10198&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10198&Ver=4) | | Executive September 2018 | Supplementary Planning Documents to support the emerging York Local Plan | [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10472&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10472&Ver=4) | | Executive March 2019 | Update | [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10479&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10479&Ver=4) | City of York Council vacated the Guildhall in April 2013, moving to West Offices as part of the Admin Accommodation programme, in order to make approx. £1m pa savings. An evaluation of potential future uses had already been undertaken, and following further feasibility work and review a decision on the Future of the complex was taken by Executive in October 2015. Approval was granted for detailed project development work to secure the future of the Guildhall as a serviced office venue; with virtual office and business club facilities, maximising the benefits of the different spaces within the complex, its heritage appeal, and also ensuring ongoing council use and public access in a mixed use development.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
**Tasks & Milestones Status Explanation** Obstacles encountered during the jack piled section of the underpinning have delayed the operation requiring alternative approach to core through the obstructions, initial coring of the first of the three pile locations on the critical path has been successful the jack piling through the cored hole was also successful the remaining 2 piles will be attempted on Monday the 9th of March, we are reasonably confident that these piles will be successfully completed allowing the north range demolition to proceed.
**Risks Status Explanation**
- The construction budget is now set.
- The contract has now moved into the construction phase, a collaborative risk workshop has been undertaken and a revised risk register has been agreed.
- The underpinning of the north range is well advanced and this risk should hopefully be removed by the next reporting date.
- The river conditions posed a high level of risk for crane erection, the levels are less critical for daily use of the river hence the lowering of the risk to amber.
**Current status**
**Statutory Consents / Approvals**
- Executive approval February 2019 to advance to the construction stage.
- Planning and LBC approvals granted 16 Feb 17.
- Executive approval for scheme delivery 16 Mar 2017.
- Full Council approval of budget requirement 30 Mar 2017. • Grant Agreement letter signed with WYCA 7 Apr 2017 securing £2.347m of LGF funding from LCR LEP to support project delivery.
**Project Progress** Construction commenced on the 16th of September 2019.
**Future outlook.**
• Complete the North Range Underpinning, Demolish the North Range Annexe, and commence the south range substructure.
| Reports to | The Guildhall board reports to Economy and Place DMT and PM updates Executive member and Executive when required for updates and approvals. | | Exec member | Cllr Nigel Ayre | | Director responsible | Neil Ferris – Corporate Director of Economy and Place | | Dependencies | Local plan | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting (e.g. executive, council, a scrutiny committee) | Executive October 2015 - The Future of York's Guildhall & Riverside [http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8842&Ver=4](http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8842&Ver=4)\
Scrutiny – 13 June 2016 [http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=144&MId=9420&Ver=4](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=144&MId=9420&Ver=4)\
Exec July 2016 - Detailed Designs & Business Case [http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9303&Ver=4](http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9303&Ver=4)\
Executive March 2017 – The Development of the Guildhall Complex [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9311&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9311&Ver=4)\
Executive May 2018: The Development of the Guildhall Complex [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10198&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10198&Ver=4)\
Executive February 2019: Redevelopment Tender Evaluation & Project Business Plan Appraisal [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11007&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11007&Ver=4) | Project title | Community Stadium ---|--- Reporting period | March 2020
Description
The Community Stadium project will deliver a new football and rugby stadium for professional sport and community sport and leisure facilities for the city of York. The project also includes a new athletics facility for use by York Athletic Club as well as many community uses and work with community partners.
The core project objectives are to provide a new Community Stadium within a new leisure facility complex on the grounds of the existing Huntington Stadium / Waterworld swimming pool.
This project represents an opportunity to create one of the country’s most far reaching community stadium complexes.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |---|---| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
Costs Status Explanation
- Adoption and design issues with the site road and drainage could lead to delay and increased cost. Outcome of any claim for time and delay could result in additional cost. Commercial land receipt awaiting confirmation of further tenants.
Tasks & Milestone Status Explanation
- Build delay confirmed which moves the summer 2019 completion and subsequent handover to an early 2020 opening. This is due to a number of build factors and the extent is still to be fully determined. Delay confirmed by the construction company, this means the previously reported summer 2019 opening can no longer be achieved. Full testing and commissioning programme to be completed early 2020. This is now ongoing.
- Licensing, commissioning, testing and certification of the site is ongoing and opening will follow the certificated completion of these requirements.
Risks Status Explanation
- Build completion is behind schedule with mitigation measures and impacts still being assessed by the consortium. Completion and opening is now early 2020. Full extent of the delay is still to be confirmed. Commissioning and testing period through early 2020 now ongoing and started 6 January 2020.
- The commercial development has made a number of changes to the build and fit out of the structure. This has meant a re-timed opening for the commercial element from July 2019 to December 2019 onwards with several units opening through 2020.
- Issue of the highways works is significant but is now being progressed to completion. Current status
In the last six months of the project progress has been made as follows:
- Internal fit outs are ongoing.
- Tenant now secured for the lantern unit with legal agreements ready for execution.
- Additional tenant for the lantern remainder area now being progressed as well as gym usage.
- Build delay now confirmed on the stadium and leisure site with delay currently being notified by the GLL consortium. This is subject to further review and scrutiny. Confirmation of full delay and completion is awaited from GLL.
- Original deadline of May 2019 for build completion has passed.
- Build main structures are all complete, and commissioning and testing programme started early 2020.
- Pitch construction now complete.
- Floodlights all in and complete.
- All 3 pools complete.
- Seats now complete in all stands.
- Sponsorship and naming rights contract complete and approved.
- Cinema complete and open as of December 2019.
- Starbucks restaurant complete and open as of December 2019.
- External site works to complete early 2020.
Future outlook.
The next steps for the project are as follows:
- Completion of the road and connections early 2020.
- Completion of the commercial build early 2020.
- Snagging for all stadium and leisure areas ongoing through early 2020.
- Confirmation of tenants for the commercial unit early 2020.
- Lantern tenant now confirmed with additional tenant now progressing.
- Stadium and leisure site build completion early 2020.
- Commercial tenants fit out July 2019 to June 2020.
- Stadium, Leisure and Hub Tenant fit out expected early/ mid 2020.
- Stadium and Leisure Site predicted open and operational early 2020.
- Commercial site Cinema opened December 2019, rest to follow in 2020.
| Reports to | Project team report to the Director of Finance and prepare reports to the project Board. The project Board Chair updates Exec and Full Council when needed. Subject to Audit and Governance scrutiny. | | Exec member | Cllr. Nigel Ayre | | Director responsible | Ian Floyd – Deputy Chief Executive & Director of Customer & Corporate Services | | Dependencies | Yearsley review. The continued operation of Yearsley is Potentially linked to the DBOM contract proposed. | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting (e.g. executive, council, a scrutiny committee) | Full Council March 2016 [http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=331&MId=8836&Ver=4](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=331&MId=8836&Ver=4)\
Executive December 2016 – Update report [http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9308&Ver=4](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9308&Ver=4)\
Executive March 2017 [http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9311&Ver=4](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9311&Ver=4)\
Executive July 2017 - Community Stadium & Leisure Facilities Report [http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10406&Ver=4](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10406&Ver=4)\
Executive October 2017 - Project Report [http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10192&Ver=4](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10192&Ver=4)\
Executive September 2018 - Project Update [http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10472&Ver=4](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10472&Ver=4) | Demand for Adult Social Care rises each year. People are living longer into old age requiring support, there are more people living longer with complex long term conditions and there are increasing numbers of young adults in transition to adult services with complex needs.
This increased demand for services coincides with significant financial pressure arising from reduced Local Authority funding, legislative changes driven by the Care Act and an increased public expectation of Adult Social Care and rightly an expectation of high quality, personalised and flexible support for those who are eligible for care.
The goal of health and care services is to help older, vulnerable or disabled adults who have ongoing support needs to live well and have a good life. A “good life” means living independently at home wherever possible, with opportunities to spend time with other people and to do things which are meaningful to that individual.
Current ways of supporting adults do not consistently result in everyone achieving all of their goals and living well where they want to live. People and families are not always helped enough to look after themselves and each other. Services can be overly paternalistic and lack the choice and control that services users rightly demand.
Social care is often a vital part of enabling people to live independent lives but it is far from being the only component to enable people to live fulfilled lives. We must be ready to have different conversations which take full account people’s assets, strengths, knowledge and skills to build and harness the contributions of people, their personal networks, social capital and their local communities. This will support greater wellbeing and independence.
The nature and scale of these challenges requires a fundamental shift in how Adult Social Care is delivered to ensure financial sustainability and to help those with social care needs, their families and carers have a better quality of life.
There is an emerging consensus that community based models of social work based on Asset Based Conversations that will support a collaborative approach alongside communities, families and carers are the most effective way to approach the challenges outlined above. A review of national best practice and emerging evidence to identify the elements of such approaches that are likely to be of key importance for any operating model that seeks achieve both improved lives and financial sustainability for Adult Social Care.
To be successful this will entail:
Changing culture and reducing bureaucracy, with an emphasis on having deeper and more specific conversations based upon what people, their families and carers want in terms of their outcomes;
Focussing on maximising the Assets, Skills Knowledge and Strengths of individuals and their communities in maintaining health, wellbeing and independence and thereby helping people develop and maintain skills that will maximise their independence in the long term;
Reaching people earlier and being more accessible in local communities;
Helping people access community solutions and improve their connections with others to reduce isolation and loneliness;
Emphasising the importance of being highly responsive when people are in crisis and developing a plan that helps them to regain as much independence as possible;
Making the best use of digital and technological solutions to support employees to be more effective and efficient in their work, and help people lead independent lives.
Working closely with Community and Health Partners to make best use of resources and ensure that people receive the right care, in the right place at the right time.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
**Current status**
- The project has continued to prepare for moving to a business as usual footing.
- Benefits realisation work has begun through a Strength Based / Holistic review of all cases.
- Resources have been agreed to manage ongoing requirements and benefits post project.
**Future outlook**
- The project will move to a business as usual footing by the end of the month.
- Resources are planned to move into BAU to manage ongoing changes and to support the delivery of planned benefits.
- Project closure report will be delivered to project sponsor and project owner by 31 March 2020.
| Reports to | The Programme uses existing Management Structures in the HHASC Directorate and uses DMT as its Programme Board. | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Exec member | Cllr. Carol Runciman | | Director responsible | Sharon Houlden: Corporate Director of Health, Housing and Adult Social Care | | Dependencies | Market development, Comprehensive Information, Advice and Guidance for ASC | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting (e.g. executive, council, a scrutiny committee) | Executive Sept 2016 - Progress toward a new Operating Model for Adult Social Care\
http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9305&Ver=4\
Additional Adult Social care Support and Resources Executive May 2018\
http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10198&Ver=4 | Project title | Outer Ring Road (A1237) ---|--- Reporting period | March 2020
Description
This project combines the previously separate schemes - YORR roundabout upgrades & YORR dualling (phase 1). This project has already delivered an upgrade of the Wetherby Road roundabout in 2018/19 to the new standard 3 lane approaches and 2 lane exits on the A1237. This project will continue by upgrading the stretch of the A1237 to dual carriageway standard between the A19 junction and Little Hopgrove junction, including the upgrade of the 5 roundabouts on this stretch to the standard already set by the Wetherby Road upgrade. This project will increase the capacity of the ring road, particularly of the roundabouts being upgraded, to reduce orbital and radial journey times. The A1237 roundabout at Great North Way will also be improved as part of this project (although this lies outside the stretch which is to be dualled).
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |---|---| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
Tasks & Milestones Status Explanation
The combined scheme is now being addressed in various disciplines however there is slight slippage on the programme presented in autumn 2019.
Risk Status Explanation
Risks are being monitored daily.
Issues Status Explanation
The project is to be amalgamated with the proposals for dualling the A1237. This issue means that the most efficient manner of joining the two schemes is being considered.
Current status
1. The report about combining the Dualling with the Junction Improvement Scheme was accepted by CYC Executive in Feb 2020.
2. As a consequence of 1 above, the two schemes are being amalgamated and re-organised to proceed in the most efficient manner.
3. Negotiations with landowners to attempt to purchase land continue.
4. Development of a new procurement strategy and working with Procurement and Legal Depts to ensure compliance.
5. A meeting took place with funding partners (WYCA & DfT) to co-ordinate governance on the joint scheme.
6. Developing public engagement strategy.
7. Met with Earswick Parish Council & J Sturdy MP about the proposed dualling.
8. Held a meeting about overarching design issues e.g. speed limits and drainage.
**Future outlook**
1. Continue to attempt to purchase land by private agreement.
2. Prepare report to April CYC Executive about procurement and public engagement strategy.
3. Prepare and develop statutory undertaker engagement plan.
4. Make preparations for undertaking a tree survey to incorporate the combined scheme.
5. Liaise with CYC Planning Authority about pre Planning Application process.
6. Commence engagement with Network Rail about proposed Scarborough Line Bridge.
| Reports to | Project reports into the Transport board, Project Board and Lead Members Board | |------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Exec member | Cllr Andy D’Agorne | | Director responsible | Neil Ferris – Corporate Director of Economy and Place | | Dependencies | LTP4, Local plan | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting (e.g. executive, council, a scrutiny committee) | Executive West Yorkshire Transport Fund – 24 November 2016 [http://democracy.york.gov.uk/documents/s110381/WYTF%20Exec%20Nov%202016%20v5.pdf](http://democracy.york.gov.uk/documents/s110381/WYTF%20Exec%20Nov%202016%20v5.pdf) | | | Executive July 2017 - Proposed York Outer Ring Road Improvements / Approach to Deliver [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10188&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10188&Ver=4) | | | Executive December 2018 A1237 Outer Ring Road – Dualling Update [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10475&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10475&Ver=4) | | | Executive September 2019 York Outer Ring Road Improvements Update [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11109&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11109&Ver=4) | | | Executive February 2020 – Dualling from A19 Rawcliffe to A64 Hopgrove [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11116&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11116&Ver=4) | Project title | Housing Delivery Programme ---|--- Reporting period | March 2020
Description The accelerated delivery of mixed tenure housing across multiple sites in the city.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |---|---| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
Financial Status Explanation High level financial modelling has been undertaken to inform the delivery programme. Risks remain around build costs for the remainder of the programme as well as sales receipts from open market and shared ownership homes.
Non Financial Status Explanation Commitment to deliver added social value through the Housing Delivery Programme. This needs to be embedded into all design and construction work and the sales and lettings process.
Risks Status Explanation Detailed risk register has been formulated to identify all key risks, assign responsibilities and determine potential mitigation measures.
Current status
- Construction work continues at Lowfield. The site set-up is complete and initial infrastructure work and housing foundation works are underway. Brickwork on the first few homes is now up to damp proof course.
- Design work has continued at Burnholme, Duncombe Barracks and the Ordnance Lane sites. Regarding the Ordnance Lane site, two public engagement events have taken place and been very well attended. This consisted of a full day design workshop and an evening follow up event. At Duncombe Barracks an evening event has taken place to keep residents up to date on progress and to obtain views.
- A procurement process to appoint external conveyance support has taken place and is close to completion.
Future outlook
- A public engagement event will take place at Burnholme to update local residents and stakeholders on the development of the plans for the site and to obtain their views.
- Design work will continue at Burnholme, Duncombe and Ordnance Lane. Discussions with key stakeholders will increase as plans start to be firmed up and plans are made for preparing planning applications.
- Business case work will increase as the financial and social implications of the proposed developments are brought together in advance of preparing a report for Executive. Risks will be re-assessed and mitigated where possible.
- A contract will be signed with the conveyance company following the recent procurement process.
| Reports to | Project team consisting of officers at the council who will advise on specialisms such as legal, housing, finance, and procurement. This project team feeds into the Housing Delivery Programme Board, which consists of senior officers and managers. The board guides decisions shaping the programme, setting objectives, scope, and timelines for projects. The board reports into the HCA as part of the partnership arrangement as well as One Public Estate. When milestones are met the programme will report into 'Capital and Asset Board' and 'Health, Housing and Adult Social Care' and 'Employment and Place' Management Teams for coordination and major project issues. Decisions taken by the Council Management Team followed by Executive. | | Exec member | Cllr. Denise Craghill | | Director responsible | Sharon Houlden: Corporate Director of Health, Housing and Adult Social Care | | Dependencies | None | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting (e.g. executive, council, a scrutiny committee) | March 2017 Executive Meeting\
https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9311&Ver=4\
December 2017 Executive Meeting
- Delivering Health and Wellbeing facilities for York
- Establishing a Delivery Model and the Scope of the Programme
- Delivering the Lowfield Scheme\
https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10194&Ver=4\
July 2018 Executive Meeting - Proposals\
https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10470&Ver=4\
October 2018 Executive Meeting - Duncombe Barracks, Burton Stone Lane | | Date | Meeting Title | Document Link | |--------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | January 2019 | Executive Meeting - Building More Homes for York – removal of the HRA borrowing cap | [Link](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10473&Ver=4) | | September 2019 | Executive Meeting - Housing Delivery Programme Update | [Link](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10476&Ver=4) | City of York Council with its partners are planning to:
a. Deliver a feasibility study to explore the opportunities and benefits of building a Specialist Disabled Children Short Break Facility in York.
b. To expand the Family Intensive Rapid Support Team (FIRST) to incorporate a therapeutic short break residential element and to explore the opportunities and benefits of increasing the service offer to neighbouring Local Authorities across the region.
The project is part of the wider development of services for disabled children and young people across the city and provides the council with an opportunity to:
- Invest capital in developing a ‘Disability Centre of Excellence’ which has the potential to be a leader in innovative practice both regionally and nationally.
- Make York Home for more disabled children and young people by reducing out of Area placements.
- Develop and invest in service provision in order to generate future savings and income generating potential.
- Deliver better outcomes for disabled children and young people including those with the most complex needs.
FIRST is a specialist Clinical Psychology led service that supports families with children/ young people who have a learning disability, autism and the most complex behavioural needs. FIRST provides intensive assessment and intervention for children and their family at the point of potential placement breakdown.
The proposed Specialist Disabled Children Short Break Facility would potentially incorporate and replace the short break residential provision currently provided at The Glen and Glen House. Client contingency is being monitored closely to ensure risk items and provisional sums remain within contingency budget.
There is an agreed payments schedule, linked to build milestones to draw down NHSE Transforming Care Capital Grant.
Risks
- Substation risk has been closed. Legal agreement between all parties has been resolved and planning application is agreed.
- There is certainty to drainage risk. Additional costs have been agreed and plans put in place to mitigate the programme delays.
- Ground risks highly unlikely to materialise.
- Inclement weather remains a risk to the construction timetable until the development is watertight
Programme
- Project end date has been updated to reflect finish when new service is open
- Push to mitigate delay to programme caused by drainage redesign, all other elements of programme are on or ahead of schedule
- Substructure; steel frame system installed; underfloor heating and floor screed in place; roof to be sealed early March
- Delay to roof installation due to inclement weather has not affected completion date
Communication and engagement
- First brick was laid by children who will use the new centre
- Regular residents newsletter agreed and circulated
- Email address promoted for public to contact the project team
School playing fields
- Development of the school playing fields at the back of the school as a mitigation measure for playing fields used at the front has been completed on time and budget.
Legal
- All outstanding legal issues have been agreed.
Governance
- Risks and decisions are being monitored, recorded and agreed through quarterly Project Board.
- System established for decisions to be made outside of meetings
Future outlook
- Building to be sealed and watertight in early March and first fix due to complete in mid-April
- Liaison between Service and contractor to identify items of furniture and equipment which are a) within the contract; b) to transfer or c) to be purchased
- Finalise specifications and costs for Provisional Sum items
- Continued robust monitoring of budgets for construction and fit-out elements of the project
- Partnership to collaborate with children and parents to develop arts proposal and bid to Arts Council for delivery funding
| Reports to | The project is accountable to a Project Board chaired by Amanda Hatton - Director CEC. The project Board contains representation from Children's Social Care, Health, Education, Adult Services and Finance. The project Board is accountable to CEC DMT chaired by Amanda Hatton, Director of Children, Education and Communities. The project Sponsor is Amanda Hatton. | | Exec member | Cllr Ian Cuthbertson | | Director responsible | Amanda Hatton - Corporate Director of Children, Education and Communities | | Dependencies | None | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting (e.g. executive, council, a scrutiny committee) | Executive August 2017 - Re-Commissioning a Short Break Service for Adults with a Learning Disability based at Flaxman Avenue, York [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10190&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10190&Ver=4) Executive January 2018 Develop a Centre of Excellence for Disabled Children and their Families in York [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10195&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10195&Ver=4) Executive April 2018 - Revised Recommendation in Relation to the Capital Budget [http://democracy.york.gov.uk/documents/s122950/Centre%20of%20Excellence%20for%20Disabled%20Children%20Executive%20Paper%20April%202018%20Final.pdf](http://democracy.york.gov.uk/documents/s122950/Centre%20of%20Excellence%20for%20Disabled%20Children%20Executive%20Paper%20April%202018%20Final.pdf) | Project title | Provision of School Places ---|--- Reporting period | March 2020
Description
The need to provide sufficient school places for current and future residents is a key statutory duty of CYC and will build an educational infrastructure for the city by forecasting likely demand and supply of school places over the medium term (until 2022/23).
The aims of this project are to identify where and when additional school places will be required, and work with central government and the school community to provide places in good or outstanding schools.
CYC is provided with some ‘Basic Need’ funding from central government for this purpose and will need to ensure that this and other sources of funding are used to best effect in those areas of greatest need, and to ensure that all educational provision is sustainable in the longer term, working with the school community.
The project represents a significant priority for City of York council in delivering educational opportunities for residents.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |---|---| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
Cost Status Explanation
Future Basic Need funding is likely to be very limited and housing developer contributions may not meet the expected requirements for educational infrastructure across all sites. This is being addressed through the Local Plan required infrastructure process, but these requirements exceed any current capital for the costs.
Current status
Capacity
- Identification and prioritisation of schools requiring a review of net capacity has been assessed and visits have now been completed for those schools in the highest 2 priority categories, with assessments fed back to schools. Of those schools in the lowest prioritisation category, there remains only one assessment to finalise.
Communication
- There has been continued communication with developers of some proposed and forthcoming housing sites this period, and with those officers overseeing the draft Local Plan and future infrastructure plan for the city. • Communication is also ongoing to discuss solutions to address the pressures around secondary school place requirements in the south east of the city and put plans in place. Communication continues around plans to increase secondary school places in the east and west of the city. • Communication has taken place this month with a number of primary schools to discuss the implications of the newly released forecasts on their schools.
Data Modelling • Formal sign off of the annual SCAP process has not yet been received and is expected later in the year. • Work continues to improve the forecasting process.
Policy • The review of the S106 Policy is under way with more work completed this period. • The Capital Programme for 2020/21 is going through the approval process. • The admission arrangements for the school year 2021/22 have now been reported to the Executive and the determination notice published.
Future outlook
The main focus of this period:
Capacity • Following the initial submission of the annual ‘SCAP’ return, await and respond to any further queries from the Department for Education. This process continues for 2019 in coordination with the DfE, with final submission expected to take place imminently. • Feedback net capacity assessments for the final identified school.
Communication • Continued engagement with local schools and academy trusts to gather their views and identify any potential plans about how they could assist in providing for future need. • Continue communication regarding the proposal to address secondary school place requirements in the Secondary Planning Area - East York. • Continue to liaise regarding the proposal to address secondary school place requirements in the Secondary Planning Area - South East York.
- Continue to move forward proposals to address the secondary school place requirements in the Secondary Planning Area - West York.
- A paper will be prepared for YSAB regarding surplus primary school places in the north of the city.
**Forecasting**
- Forecasts will continue to be reviewed and released.
**Policy**
- Continued work around a refined planning policy approach re: Housing Developer Contributions (HDCs) for current and future developers is in review with colleagues in Planning to ensure compliance with wider CYC policy and agreements re: Local Plan.
- Work will continue on the admission arrangements for the school year starting September 2021.
**Project Plan**
- Further develop, communicate and agree the project plan.
| Reports to | Project is overseen by Children, Education and Communities Directorate Management Team and Executive Member for Children and Young People as necessary. | | Exec member | Cllr Ian Cuthbertson | | Director responsible | Amanda Hatton – Corporate Director of Children, Education and Communities | | Dependencies | Local Plan Policy, Economic Strategy, City Transport Policy | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting (e.g. executive, council, a scrutiny committee) | Executive February 2018 Admission arrangement for the 2019/20 school year https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10196&Ver=4
Executive July 2019 The Provision of School Places and Allocation of School Capital Budgets 2019-2023 to Address Secondary Place Pressures https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11107&Ver=4
Executive October 2019 Archbishop Holgate's School - Expansion 2020-21 https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11111&Ver=4 | Project title | Housing ICT Programme ---|--- Reporting period | March 2020
Description
The Housing ICT Programme is a major ICT enabled business transformation and culture change programme which will deliver a new operating model and systems for the Housing and Building Services teams within the Housing Services Department. Procurement of a new ICT solution will enable customer centric, holistic services to be delivered with first point of contact resolution at a place, time and manner that suits the customer.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |---|---| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
Quality Status Explanation
- The programme has identified significant pressure against the current timeline around the quality of the programme. A full detailed review of the current programme timeline and impact assessment against the quality that the programme will deliver based on the current timeline will be completed as soon as possible.
- All business requirements, ICT and BI requirements validated, signed off and ITT issued.
Risks Status Explanation
- Increased risk profile on the programme now we are in intricate and complex implementation activity. Lots of risks around the pressure on the current timeline and programme team are being reviewed.
Current status
The overall programme status has remained at amber this month. The risk profile of the programme remains high now that the programme is well underway with an ambitious implementation plan. The programme is running at full capacity to deliver on time with minimal contingency around timeline or programme resources and has identified significant pressures on the current timeline and programme team.
Although running at full capacity and the delivery risk remains high, the programme is making good progress towards the implementation date. The programme remains on track to deliver the Capita Open Housing system on Monday 23rd November 2020. A full impact assessment of the current timeline and resources is being carried out.
Future Outlook
In the next month the programme will:
- Continue detailed configuration activity.
- Plan and progress detailed actions following Data Cut 1 (first migration of data into new test system).
- Start to plan out detailed training and testing activity.
- Carry out full detailed impact assessment of the programme timeline and resources.
| Reports to | Programme reports to the Housing ICT Programme Board. This group is chaired by the Assistant Director of Housing with key representatives from the HHASC senior management team. The Programme Manager attends the monthly HHASC Senior Management Team (SMT) and both Housing and Building Services department team meetings to update on the programme. | | Exec member | Cllr. Denise Craghill | | Director responsible | Sharon Houlden: Corporate Director of Health, Housing and Adult Social Care | | Dependencies | Digital Services Programme – for delivery of other inter-dependent projects and technical resources | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting | N/A | Project title | Smart Travel Evolution Programme – STEP ---|--- Reporting period | March 2020
Description
STEP is a programme of delivery that will prepare York for the coming revolution in adoption of connected and autonomous vehicles and managing whole city mobility. The project aims to achieve this by:
- Improving communications to transport infrastructure and collecting more transport data.
- Building a transport data platform to assist the City to meet big data challenges and making more of this data accessible.
- Improving transport modelling, that allows us to run City wide models at varying scales, in near real time. This allows us to understand the way the transport network is performing and is expected to improve our transport planning activities.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |---|---| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
Resources Status Explanation
Internal strategic modelling resource not in place. Modeller being appointed and should be with team in 3 months.
Risk Status Explanation
- Public Transport Fare and Patronage data required for model build but requires the bus operators to co-operate in a timely manner.
- Internal Modelling resource required to ensure models can be adequately accepted and used going forward.
- GLOSA is a project deliverable but is not deployed outside of research within the UK. Research has been carried out and solution is now identified, but it still presents a risk as it’s new to UK.
Current status
In the last reporting period:
- GLOSA tender awarded.
- Real-time Time Speed Data (RTSD) quotes obtained and data put together from CYC traffic counters for comparing accuracy in next period.
- Data platform specification worked on further.
Future outlook
- RTSD contract to be appointed.
- Data platform specification to be ready in draft.
- GLOSA inception meeting and contracts to be signed.
| Reports to | The STEP board reports in to Economy and Place DMT and PM updates executive member and Executive when required for updates and approvals. Key decisions are agreed by the Transport Board before reaching executive member or Executive. | | Exec member | Cllr Andy D’Agorne | | Director responsible | Neil Ferris – Corporate Director of Economy and Place | | Dependencies | The Transport Capital Programme and TSAR Project | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting | | Project title | Flood Risk – York 5 Year Plan ---|--- Reporting period | March 2020
Description
CYC are working closely with the Environment Agency to deliver a range of localised improvements to the cities flood defences, this work – the York Five Year Plan – has been developed following the floods and is supported by Government investment. In addition to this we are working with the EA on a catchment scale study to identify opportunities for wider interventions across the River Ouse catchment to further reduce future flood risks into the long term.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |---|---| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
Costs Status Explanation
- The 19 flood cells have a range of challenging technical and environmental elements, the speed of delivery of the whole programme further complicates the delivery.
- Value engineering and robust challenge of all solutions is being carried out across all flood cells but delivery of the core outputs with the available funding will continue to be challenging.
- Existing cells being taken to planning or where construction has commenced represent value for money and will deliver a robust set of flood risk management interventions, this is reviewed closely by the programme board and assured by the EA Large Project Review Group.
- The project team are closely monitoring the available funding and its ability to deliver the programme of works across all flood cells.
Current status
- CYC continue to work closely with the EA on the delivery of the York Flood Alleviation Scheme as part of the York Five Year Plan.
- CYC are members of the Programme Board and EA continue to attend quarterly Executive Member for the Environment Decision Sessions and Economy & Place Overview and Scrutiny bi-annually.
- 19 flood cells have been identified and schemes to improve existing or build new defences are in varying stages of development in a prioritised manner across the city to deliver the projects stated required outcomes, as determined by Defra, to better protect 2000 homes and businesses in the city.
- The Outline Business Case has been agreed by the EA Large Project Review Group for all 19 flood cells.
- Planning applications are being submitted for a range of cells, construction has begun on two flood cells - North Street/Memorial Gardens and St Peters School. Planning permissions are being considered for Clementhorpe and Clifton Ings.
**Future outlook**
- Several key flood cells are lined up for planning approvals in April/May, works will commence in the Clifton Ing's cell in the new financial year.
| Reports to | The Project board sits within the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency has a formal programme board in compliance with PRINCE2 methodology, CYC are a member of the board. The lead Executive member receives a quarterly report and it is the subject of a bi-annual report to Economy and Place scrutiny committee. This approach to governance has been approved and adopted by Executive. | | Exec member | Cllr Andrew Waller | | Director responsible | Neil Ferris – Corporate Director of Economy and Place | | Dependencies | None | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting | Executive February 2017: CYC Response to the Independent Flood Inquiry [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9310&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=9310&Ver=4) | Project title | City Centre Access ---|--- Reporting period | March 2020
Description
Project involves the feasibility and design of static and automated measures to be implemented into the area around Spurriergate, Coney Street, Parliament Street and York Racecourse to provide public protection from potential vehicle attack.
The proposals follow firm Police and Counter Terror Unit advice to implement measure to protect areas of high footfall.
The automated measures will retain vehicle access outside the footstreets hours and allow emergency and other urgent access during footstreets hours through a system of control by CYC.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |---|---| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
Scope Status Explanation Scope has been extended to include support for HVM measures for Xmas Market and Xmas Lights Switch on and this impacted on the progress of the project.
Resources Status Explanation Current lack of CYC engineering support risks progress.
Tasks & Milestones Status Explanation Work ongoing to refine programme plan.
Risk Status Explanation Risks associated with successful implementation - Trial holes will assist in firming this up.
Issues Status Explanation Clarity of scope of principal designer has been improved but is still an issue and timescales remain challenging.
Current status
- Trial hole information with designers
- Detailed design continuing utilising trial hole information
- Procedures and protocols for city centre access being developed
- Racecourse design substantially completed and tender documents prepared
Future outlook
- Tender issue for Racecourse
- Tender issue for city centre
- Procedures and protocols development
| Reports to | Programme reports to the Transport Board and is advised by the York Counter Terrorism Working Group. There is a CYC internal working group working on the detail. This group is chaired by the Assistant Director for Transport, Highways and Environment. | | Exec member | Cllr Andy D’Agorne | | Director responsible | Neil Ferris – Corporate Director of Economy and Place | | Dependencies | None | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting (e.g. executive, council, a scrutiny committee) | Executive February 2018: City Transport Access Measures [http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10196&Ver=4](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10196&Ver=4)\
Executive September 2018: City Centre Access Update and Priority 1 Proposals [http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10472&Ver=4](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10472&Ver=4)\
Executive August 2019: City Centre Access Experimental Traffic Order Conclusion and Phase 1 Proposals [http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11108&Ver=4](http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11108&Ver=4)\
Executive February 2020: Phase 1 Proposals (Update) [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11116&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11116&Ver=4) | **Project title** | Parking Review\
---|--- **Reporting period** | March 2020
**Description**
This project is to research, procure and implement a new parking back office system to replace the current system that is now out of date. In turn this new system will help to bring around a change in how parking is managed and how our customers interact with us by taking forward a customer self service system, such as the purchasing of parking permits and dealing with PCNs (Penalty Charge Notices).
Historically there have been a number of issues relating to the delivery of the Parking Services back office system due to issues with the supplier. Motivation for this approach is also brought about by the fact that more than 25% of footfall in the customer centre is for parking related matters. This has been attributed to complex policy, under performing IT systems and associated processes and lack of available on-line services for customers. There is an opportunity to resolve a number of issues with this change project with the delivery of an ICT back office system to deliver this change and as the catalyst to support the development of a new parking strategy and technological roadmap for the next 10+ years in line with the Local Plan and Local Transport Plan 4.
As part of this project the Council ICT team are looking into how this system could interface with existing CYC systems, such as FMS and CRM but looking forward, how these systems can interface with other systems such as parking machines and the wider Smart City work the Council is taking forward (STEP).
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |---|---| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
**Current status**
There is potentially some delay to the implementation of this system partly due to finalising some detailed points to allow the contract to be signed with WSP and officers being asked by Members to investigate in more detail pay monthly options for resident parking permits. This may likely be a direct debit option but this will be finalised prior to Exec Member approval at the next March project board. Key progress from last month:
- Decisions presented to board and guidance received
- Continued exploration for offline user options
- Further definition of UAT scripts to be shared with supplier for feedback
- Integration investigations began
- Identification of key business change areas for Parking to begin scoping
- Further definition of internal and external communications plans
- Initial budget for scoped changes received, further information required
Future outlook
- Review of test strategy from supplier
- Contract finalisation and signed
- Initial scoping of key priority business change elements and handover to Parking for completion
- Finalise configuration documents
- Finalise the detailed scope for this phase of implementation
| Reports to | The project is steered by the Parking working group and reports to the Transport Board | | Exec member | Cllr Andy D’Agorne | | Director responsible | Neil Ferris – Corporate Director of Economy and Place | | Dependencies | None | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting. | Executive February 2016: Parking Review [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8846&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=8846&Ver=4) | | | Executive November 2019: Parking Update [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11112&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11112&Ver=4) | Project title | Children in Care Residential Commissioning ---|--- Reporting period | March 2020
Description
City of York Council utilises many placement options in order to look after children and young people who are not able to live within their immediate birth family. City of York Council’s mainstream and short break foster carers are recruited and trained to look after York’s most vulnerable children and young people.
To deliver on our commitment to the Making York Home vision and the aims of the Child in Care Strategy our priorities are;
- The recruitment of new foster carers
- The retention of the current fostering workforce, and
- Increasing the options and flexibility of other placement provisions including residential.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |---|---| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
Tasks & Milestones Status Explanation
The rating is amber to account for some property related issues that will impact on the project plan
Risk Status Explanation
- Current focus is on the Supported Living Accommodation due to the fact that the contract for the current provider ends in December 2020 and cannot be extended.
- Lots 1 and 2 will come on line as the properties are identified and until then existing placement commissioning frameworks are in place.
- Nonetheless, searches of properties for Lots 1 and 2 have only identified one suitable property to date and so new criteria is being trialled to see if this reveals more choice. Any increase in costs will need to be agreed via the project board.
- Foster care recruitment campaign is on track.
Current status
Foster care recruitment
- Project implementation plans developed with agreed milestones and KPIs
- Website and Facebook Channels now live
- Recruitment campaign has gone live and data is now being received and reviewed to identify themes, trends and respond quickly if required
### Residential - property
- The property identified for Lot 1 is no longer progressing following the consultation with the local community
- Property searches are continuing for Lots 1 and 2. No other suitable properties have been identified
- Property Services are trialling searches based on an increase in the property values in order to see if this reveals more suitable properties. This will also broaden the geographical range
### Residential - procurement
- Market engagement completed with 16 suppliers
- Specifications drafted for residential and supported accommodation
- Procurement timetable developed
### Future outlook
- Review Procurement Timetable
- Develop procurement documentation for Supported Living accommodation
- Review Supported living specification, identify evaluation criteria for bidders and agree costs/pricing
- Children's Services lead to visit the existing accommodation to consider layout/adaptations required
| Reports to | CEC DMT and Project Board | |---------------------|---------------------------| | Exec member | Cllr Ian Cuthbertson | | Director responsible| Amanda Hatton – Corporate Director of Children, Education and Communities | | Dependencies | None | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting | Executive July 2019 - Children in Care Residential Commissioning Plan [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11107&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11107&Ver=4) | The purpose of the inclusion review will be to ensure that The Local Authority and School Community work together to maximise the opportunity for early intervention and prevention and to improve the outcomes of children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND).
The review will examine the current configuration of services and the use of funding to support SEND to ensure that there is greater clarity and accountability around the use and impact of resources. The pressures on the High Needs funding block within the designated schools grant (DSG) means that there are accelerating financial pressures in meeting the needs of children and young people with SEND.
A key purpose of the Inclusion Review is ensuring that the pressures on High Needs funding are being managed effectively whilst ensuring that the local authority is able to deliver its statutory duties articulated in the Children and Families Act, 2014 and the SEND code of practice.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |----------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
**Quality Status Explanation**
- The actions to reduce the financial pressures are underway but are at an early stage. Detailed financial modelling will need to take place to cost the provision pathways being developed through the Steering Group meetings. This work is progressing at a slow pace due to pressures of year-end close down of accounts.
- The work that has started with IMPOWER and the commissioning contract being established with Danesgate will identify opportunities to reduce financial pressures. An element of the work with IMPOWER will be to benchmark the current financial model underpinning the SEN banding to identify opportunities to reduce costs.
- Demand management is key to the management of financial pressures, currently there are increasing requests for statutory assessment and costs associated with the SEMH cohort.
- Work with IMPOWER is being used to review opportunities for earlier intervention and to ensure that all processes are financially efficient.
- The IMPOWER review has identified 4 fast forward projects which can be linked to managing cost pressures - these are being shared with stakeholders and a forward plan is being established.
- The findings from the Local Area SEND Inspection will also be aligned with the Inclusion Review through the Written Statement of Action which needs to be submitted to Ofsted by 3rd June.
| Costs Status Explanation | |---------------------------| | - The reduction in costs to the high needs DSG will need to be profiled over time as the changes to provision and processes will require a period of transition, particularly related to the development of capacity in mainstream settings and schools. The development of commissioning specifications for alternative provision will be developed as part of this work as will a review of ERP contracts. | | - Work with IMPOWER will focus on the financial models linked to current banding to identify whether York's financial banding is too generous when compared with other LAs. | | - IMPOWER and the SEN transport consultant have identified areas for potential savings - these will need to be brought in to the programme and will deliver opportunities in the medium to longer term. |
| Risk Status Explanation | |-------------------------| | - The development of project plans needs to align closely with the Council's governance and decision making processes to ensure that capital works can take place. This needs to be carefully mapped to align with the school year. | | - An internal planning group has been established to manage the capital programmes - this meets monthly and will keep an overview of all school capital projects including the SEND projects. | | - The Millthorpe satellite has been approved. | | - Developing the SEMH pathway needs to take place to begin to inform earlier intervention and better use of the MSP to meet need and reduce pressure for statutory assessment. | | - Further work to respond to findings in the LA SEND inspection needs to take place particularly in relation to co-production and joint commissioning. |
| Issues Status Explanation | |---------------------------| | - There is a need to ensure that a single plan is developed to incorporate the outcomes from the SEND inspection and the IMPOWER review. | | - The Written Statement of Action needs to focus on the four priority areas for improvement identified by Ofsted - some of these areas are not consistent with the IMPOWER review. |
**Current status**
- Phase 3 of the Inclusion Review has started and a steering group appointed. The programme plan will be developed by this group using the recommendations from phase 2 of the review. The strategic principles developed in stage 2 have been agreed and shared with the Council's Executive, Schools forum and members of the York Schools and Academies Board.
Capital works have taken place at Hob Moor Oaks primary special school (August 2018) and capital works have been agreed to support the development of the post 19 local education offer at Blueberry academy and Askham Bryan College.
Expressions of interest for secondary satellite provision have been received and a project plan is in the early stages of development.
A feasibility study is taking place with a primary school to support the development of a proposed primary ERP provision.
Preliminary work to review the Behaviour and Attendance Partnership protocols and processes is underway.
A steering group has been established to oversee the academy conversion of the Danesgate Community. This will put in place a commissioning agreement with the South Partnership Multi-Academy Trust which will define the future relationship between the local authority and Danesgate when it becomes an alternative provision academy.
Future outlook
The provision plan for implementation in September 2021 has been drafted and will be presented to the DCS and shared with headteachers in March 2020. The draft plan has been formed using the following principles:
- Value for Money: managing pressures on the High Needs block although accepting this may be impacted by the guarantee of high quality, full provision for all.
- Right students in the right settings through early and secure identification with a flexibility for those in more specialist settings to return to mainstream.
- Meeting parental and student need for changes in specialist provision on offer and responding to our identified gaps in provision for CYP with C&I Needs (with and without a diagnosis) and SEMH (including ADHD).
- Clarity and transparency of entry and exit routes to specialist provision and their funding arrangements.
- Developing independence and preparation for adulthood – mapping the ‘what next?’ at each key stage to prevent future gaps in provision.
- The mainstream settings improving their offer and their expertise and ‘owning’ their CYP more. The provision plan maps strategic routes for adapting provision within the city in two areas of need – Communication and Interaction and SEMH.
The draft proposals that are very much needs led and these proposals will form the basis of the paper to be presented to Schools Forum in May 2020.
| Reports to | CEC, DMT | | Exec member | Cllr Ian Cuthbertson | | Director responsible | Amanda Hatton – Corporate Director of Children, Education and Communities | | Dependencies | None | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting (e.g. executive, council, a scrutiny committee) | Executive November 2018: The Inclusion Review and the Special Needs Capital Grant [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10474&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10474&Ver=4)\
Executive August 2019: Executive Report Danesgate Land Academy Conversion [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11108&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11108&Ver=4)\
Executive November 2019: Millthorpe School - Enhanced Resource Provision [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11112&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11112&Ver=4) | **Project title**\
Be Independent
**Reporting period**\
March 2020
**Description**
Be Independent (BI) is the provider of the Council’s community alarm and equipment service. This includes a 24 hour response service, assessment and installation of equipment, telecare and assistive technology services. These services play a key role in supporting better outcomes for individuals either in their own homes, supported living or in residential and nursing homes across the City. The aim is to prevent, reduce or delay the need for care, enabling people to be as independent as possible. Previously provided in-house, the service was externalised in 2014 and the Council supported the establishment of a social enterprise in the form of a Community Interest Company (CIC) to deliver the service.
In June 2018 the Executive agreed to the transfer of Be Independent service back to the Council and the direct management of Health, Housing & Adult Social Care.
All assets and liabilities will be transferred from Be Independent to the City of York Council and staff transfers will be agreed under TUPE.
Following the transfer which was completed in August 2018, an operational review of the service has commenced to understand its core functions, purpose, strengths and areas for improvement to ensure that it is sustainable. Whilst the overarching vision for the service will be co-produced in line with the Council’s vision, a 3 month IT scoping project has been commissioned to review the systems/processes currently in use as this is a key priority to move the service forward.
Be Independent needs to have a robust IT infrastructure in line with CYC protocols to enhance and grow the business, and improve the customer experience of this Community Equipment & Response Service.
By utilising the latest technology (GDPR compliant), workers will become agile and customers will have a seamless service from all teams including Business Support, Response, Assessment and Control Teams, where an overburden on paperwork is phased out. IT aims to integrate different software systems used for call handling, stock management and financing linked to a service manager with comprehensive performance reporting tools. Streamlining software systems and providing teams with the appropriate hardware (with internet connection) is a primary focus in order for the teams to perform efficiently and effectively. This will improve the use of resources, develop capacity and ensure a strength based approach can be implemented in the future.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |----------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
**Costs Status Explanation** A significant cost is involved with upgrading new servers and software with current systems in place. This needs to be evaluated and reviewed against alternative solutions in line with the vision of the service area.
**Tasks & Milestones Status Explanation**
- The main focus of the project is to review the software system in place to enable a mobile workforce in line with the vision and direction of the service area to ensure it is future proof and fit for purpose.
- Participants for the Internet of Things (IoT) trials will be included as part of wider research to consolidate the vision internally.
- Devices have been ordered, some delays with expected delivery times.
- Mosaic user access will be live upon completion of training by all staff members.
- Ongoing proof of concepts with assistive technology to further grow and develop Be Independent's ability to offer more choice for residents.
**Risk Status Explanation**
- Current infrastructure has a range of risks identified which are impacting on the efficiency of the service.
**Issues Status Explanation**
- Issues remain under review.
**Current status**
- Call handling system upgrades have been put on hold due to review of the server hardware age and cost implications of upgrading both hardware and software
- Survey questions are live with Age Friendly York Citizen group as part of wider research around how people view technology in social care their expectations and whether they feel it can help people live more independently.
- Mosaic user access has completed the user acceptance phase. Training and plan moving forward will be established with the support of adult social care teams and feedback for the use cases.
- "Internet of Things" trials are actively being progressed
- Paper forms are being reviewed ahead of mobilising the workforce on laptops
**Future outlook**
- Review current position and progress
| Reports to | Head of ICT/Director level/CMT/Executive | |---------------------|------------------------------------------| | Exec member | Cllr Carol Runciman | | Director responsible| Sharon Houlden - Corporate Director of Health, Housing and Adult Social Care | | Dependencies | None | | Link to paper if it has been to another member meeting | Executive June 2018 - Transfer of Be Independent to the direct management of City of York Council [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10469&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10469&Ver=4) | Project title | Procurement of MSA and Strategic Engagement Technology Partner ---|--- Reporting period | March 2020
Description
To develop a specification, procure and appoint a technology provider to deliver the City of York Council’s (CYC) essential managed network services arrangements (MSA) this includes connectivity, voice and data services. CYC’s current MSA contract expires following an extension period, on 31 August 2020. The contract is currently worth £2million per year and the new contract is likely to run for at least a minimum of 10 years.
The procurement process was approved by Executive in November 2017, and progressed proper in April 2019 after the appointment of commercial procurement partners to support internal capacity, with the view to develop an Invitation to Tender for both CYC and Harrogate Borough Council. The scope of the review then changed in July 2019 to proceed to meet CYC requirements only, due to a change in Harrogate’s local circumstances. There is continuing good relationships between the two councils and a shared management team.
The new provider will be a strategic technical delivery partner enabling CYC to achieve its strategy for the delivery of digital services to its residents, businesses and partners.
Progress of the original project to date includes documenting the requirements of both councils and production of a draft ITT. The changing scope of the procurement has allowed a pause in proceedings to allow for the following:
- A review of work done to date and a revision of the scope of the project.
- Bringing the project in line with Council’s All About Projects approach
- Addressing of known risk as per independent legal and technical advice commissioned given the time taken to date and learning from recent procurement practice elsewhere.
The aim of this revised project is to recommence the procurement with a robust approach and assurance that the Council can secure the best MSA going forward given changed scope and lessons learned.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |---|---| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non | Tasks & Risks | Issues | Current status
1. A decision taken by Project Sponsor and team to ensure separation of roles around Business as Unusual (BAU) issues with the incumbent. There is a clear lead for BAU issues which sits outside of the core project team. For any BAU issues which might impact the procurement there is a lead within the core group.
2. Expression of Interest (selection questionnaire) phase of the procurement completed 2nd of March 2020.
3. Project team assessed the selection questionnaires to ensure that they can proceed to ITT stage and there are no issues, this will be presented to the Project Board on the 17th March 2020.
4. Further refinements to the draft specification and the associated documentation continue to take place. Also work on the financial modelling for the MSA continues.
Future outlook
1. Next Project Board 17th March 2020 will have completed, this will include a review of all project risks and an assessment of progress so far.
2. ITT stage begins on 20th March.
3. Deadline of 8th April for all clarification questions to be submitted by suppliers. The project team will answer these questions and ensure circulation to all suppliers.
4. ITT submission deadline 17th April.
Reports to
- Project Board chaired by a Project Sponsor and meets on a monthly basis.
- Project Steering Group chaired by the Project Manager meets weekly.
- Project Sponsor and Project Manager meet weekly.
- Legal and Finance/Procurement are represented at both meetings at both strategic and operational levels.
- Oversight is provided by the Council’s Corporate Project & Programmes’ manager.
- Independent assurance provided by an external adviser/consultant.
Exec member
Cllr Nigel Ayre | **Director responsible** | Ian Floyd – Deputy Chief Executive & Director of Customer & Corporate Services | |--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **Dependencies** | **Link to paper if it has been to another member**\
Exec Dec 2017 – Procurement of ICT Managed Services\
https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=10194&Ver=4 | Project title | Hyperhubs ---|--- Reporting period | March 2020
Description
By providing Hyper Hubs at Poppleton and Monks Cross Park and Ride sites, a solar canopy would be erected over approximately 100 parking spaces, providing space for 1,400 m² of solar panels. This canopy is an elevated structure – essentially a roof below which cars can still park – with solar panels on the top. Adjacent to the canopy, but not on land currently used for parking, there would be an energy storage facility – a battery. At each site there would also be eight charging points for electric vehicles. Electricity generated by the solar panels would be used to hyper charge vehicles plugged in to the charging points. Electricity not used immediately would be stored in the battery. When the battery is full, this electricity could be fed into the national grid.
The solar canopies would use the free space immediately above the vehicles to harvest solar energy to the site. Batteries would then store the electricity, providing it either to hyper charge electric vehicles when plugged in, or feeding it into the UK electricity grid.
The electric vehicle infrastructure element of the project is to purchase and install the DC ‘hyper’ charging points (faster than current ‘rapid’ charge speed points at 50kW) which will supply the energy to the vehicles. These will be installed in a Hub of eight car bays which can supply up to 150kW power output per car, with a typical charging session taking 10-20 minutes. By way of comparison, a typical home charging point takes around eight hours to charge an electric vehicle.
| Overall status this period (Mar) | Overall status previous period (Feb) | |---|---| | Scope | Quality | Costs | Resources | Financial Benefits | Non Financial Benefits | Tasks & Milestones | Risks | Issues | | Mar | | | | | | | | | | Feb | | | | | | | | |
**Risk Status Explanation**
Risks updated to reflect most significant current risks to the project.
**Current status**
- Tender assessment has been completed.
- Tender report has been produced.
- Draft contract variations completed.
- ERDF and OLEV progress report made.
### Future outlook
- Feedback will be issued to all tenderers during second week of March and standstill period will begin.
- Contract award 25th March.
- Project plan to be updated following inception meetings with appointed contractor.
### Reports to
The project will report to the Transport board. This is an internal board that is chaired by the Assistant Director for Transport, Highways and Environment. The members also include the Head of Transport, who acts as the City of York Council client for the project and the Head of Programmes, who is responsible for the delivery of projects within the Economy and Place Directorate. The Project Manager will report to the Sustainable Transport Manager (who reports to the Head of Transport) and will be held to account for delivery by the Head of Programmes, who will also provide Project assurance. Finance also are members of the board to provide any technical input.
| Exec member | Cllr Andy D’Agorne | |-------------|---------------------| | Director responsible | Neil Ferris – Corporate Director of Economy and Place |
### Dependencies
| Link to paper if it has been to another member | |-----------------------------------------------| | Executive March 2019 - A Sustainable Future for York with Hyper Hubs | | [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11469&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11469&Ver=4) | | Executive Sept 2019 - Reducing York’s Carbon Footprint with Electric Vehicles | | [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11109&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11109&Ver=4) | | Executive March 2020 - Electric Vehicle Charging Strategy | | [https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11117&Ver=4](https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=11117&Ver=4) |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3782-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 61,
"total-input-tokens": 137944,
"total-output-tokens": 28559,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1462,
1
],
[
1462,
4451,
2
],
[
4451,
6881,
3
],
[
6881,
8659,
4
],
[
8659,
10633,
5
],
[
10633,
12248,
6
],
[
12248,
14449,
7
],
[
14449,
15626,
8
],
[
15626,
18237,
9
],
[
18237,
20362,
10
],
[
20362,
21404,
11
],
[
21404,
23808,
12
],
[
23808,
26157,
13
],
[
26157,
28418,
14
],
[
28418,
30039,
15
],
[
30039,
32320,
16
],
[
32320,
34194,
17
],
[
34194,
36895,
18
],
[
36895,
39290,
19
],
[
39290,
41310,
20
],
[
41310,
43802,
21
],
[
43802,
45472,
22
],
[
45472,
47243,
23
],
[
47243,
49524,
24
],
[
49524,
51465,
25
],
[
51465,
52933,
26
],
[
52933,
55235,
27
],
[
55235,
57401,
28
],
[
57401,
59589,
29
],
[
59589,
61508,
30
],
[
61508,
62177,
31
],
[
62177,
63782,
32
],
[
63782,
65505,
33
],
[
65505,
67610,
34
],
[
67610,
69828,
35
],
[
69828,
71597,
36
],
[
71597,
73348,
37
],
[
73348,
75592,
38
],
[
75592,
76578,
39
],
[
76578,
78526,
40
],
[
78526,
79131,
41
],
[
79131,
81619,
42
],
[
81619,
82727,
43
],
[
82727,
84499,
44
],
[
84499,
86000,
45
],
[
86000,
88274,
46
],
[
88274,
89722,
47
],
[
89722,
91784,
48
],
[
91784,
93324,
49
],
[
93324,
95628,
50
],
[
95628,
98305,
51
],
[
98305,
100512,
52
],
[
100512,
101796,
53
],
[
101796,
104230,
54
],
[
104230,
106544,
55
],
[
106544,
107267,
56
],
[
107267,
109464,
57
],
[
109464,
111163,
58
],
[
111163,
111596,
59
],
[
111596,
113741,
60
],
[
113741,
115631,
61
]
]
} |
d8705dbb0d9bd6e31f4a278b6b2f6ce54a7176c1 | Green Paper
Marine Knowledge 2020
from seabed mapping to ocean forecasting Green Paper Marine Knowledge 2020 from seabed mapping to ocean forecasting
COM(2012) 473 final
Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
# Table of contents
1. Vision 5
2. This Green Paper 6
3. The need for marine knowledge 8 3.1. Industry 8 3.2. Public authorities 9 3.3. Science 9 3.4. Civil Society 9
4. Availability and interoperability 10 4.1. Bottlenecks 10 4.2. Multiple use of marine data 10 4.3. Competitiveness and Innovation 11
5. Progress so far 12 5.1. National efforts 12 5.2. European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) 12 5.3. GMES Marine Service 14 5.4. Data Collection Framework for fisheries 14 5.5. Research 15 5.6. Environmental Reporting 16 5.7. Climate Change Adaptation 18 5.8. International initiatives 18
6. Governance 19 6.1. Balance between efforts of EU and Member States 19 6.2. EU support to assembly and processing of marine data 19 6.3. Involvement of Neighbours 20 6.4. Selecting priorities 20
7. Private sector involvement 22
8. Responding to Green Paper 23 The open ocean observatory ODAS Italia 1 moored in the Ligurian Sea and managed by the National Research Council of Italy Vision
The oceans and seas that surround Europe offer new opportunities to meet the Europe 2020 goals. To realise this potential, we need to make it easier for companies to invest. We need to lower costs, reduce risks and stimulate innovation. And we need to ensure that this expansion of the blue economy is sustainable. The resources are large but not infinite. To ensure that the expansion of the blue economy happens, that it is sustainable and that Europe’s seas will achieve good environmental status, we need to know what the state of the sea is now, how it was in the past and how it might change in the future.
The Commission aims to work together with Member States to bring together available resources and mechanisms to deliver that knowledge for the benefit of industry, public authorities, researchers and society.
This will include a flagship project to prepare a seamless multi-resolution digital seabed map of European waters by 2020. It should be of the highest resolution possible, covering topography, geology, habitats and ecosystems. It should be accompanied by access to timely observations and information on the present and past physical, chemical and biological state of the overlying water column, by associated data on human activities, by their impact on the sea and by oceanographic forecasts. All this should be easily accessible, interoperable and free of restrictions on use. It should be nourished by a sustainable process that progressively improves its fitness for purpose and helps Member States maximise the potential of their marine observation, sampling and surveying programmes.
While the EU can provide support through the Common Strategic Framework for structural funding, including the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, commitment from Member States and the private sector is needed to achieve this goal.
1. Europe 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth Brussels, 3.3.2010 COM(2010) 2020.
2. As required under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) by 2020. This Green Paper
The Commission’s ‘Marine Knowledge 2020’ Communication of September 2010(3), explained why we need to unlock the economic potential of Europe’s wealth of marine observations. It showed this would contribute towards meeting Europe 2020(4) targets on employment, innovation, education, social inclusion and combatting climate change. It would provide the knowledge base to facilitate the growth of a sustainable, job-creating ‘blue economy’ in marine and maritime sectors by improving the competitiveness and efficiency of industry, public authorities and researchers. It would stimulate innovation and improve our understanding of the behaviour of the sea. The Communication then outlined the basic principles for a strategy that would enable investments in marine observation from Member States and the EU to realise their potential for creating sustainable growth and jobs.
Central to this strategy was the concept of a European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet)(5), a network of marine organisations that would provide a single entry point for accessing and retrieving marine data derived from observations, surveys or samples from the hundreds of databases maintained on behalf of agencies, public authorities, research institutions and universities throughout the EU. It would also deliver digital map layers of parameters derived from these primary data for entire sea basins around Europe.
But the ‘Marine Knowledge 2020’ initiative is broader than EMODnet. It provides a unifying framework for all ongoing activities on marine observation within the EU. It embraces the full cycle, from initial observation through to interpretation, processing and dissemination. It enshrines basic principles such as ‘collect data once and use them for many purposes’ and ‘data should be interoperable, accessible and free of restrictions on use’.
These common principles, rules and standards ensure that Member States’ programmes, as well as other significant EU efforts can contribute, together with EMODnet, to create a capability much greater than the sum of its parts. These include the marine service of the European Earth monitoring programme (GMES)(6), the Data Collection Framework in fisheries and new pan-European research infrastructures identified by the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI).
Since the adoption of ‘Marine Knowledge 2020’, there has been good progress. Preparatory actions under the integrated maritime policy have delivered prototype thematic portals for EMODnet for selected sea-basins. An interim evaluation(7) based on user feedback has confirmed the basic soundness of the technological choices and the processes for assembling disparate data sets. On this basis, a second phase of EMODnet, financed by the Integrated Maritime Policy Financial Regulation(8), has begun. This will provide access to a digital map of all European waters by the end of 2014.
This will show, through a single access point, the depth of water, as well as the nature of sediments, the whereabouts of minerals, zones of human activity and the type of habitat. It will be accompanied by observations of physical, chemical and biological parameters such as temperature, salinity, acidity, chemical pollution and marine life. It will be tightly linked to the GMES marine service which will continue to deliver progressively more refined observations and forecasts of the state of the ocean.
However, there are a number of new challenges to be faced:
3. Marine Knowledge 2020: marine data and observation for smart and sustainable growth, 8.9.2010 COM(2010) 461.
4. See footnote 1.
5. In this Green Paper we will endeavour to limit the use of acronyms but please indulge us in this one which will recur throughout the text.
6. Commission Communication on the European Earth monitoring programme (GMES), 30.11.2011, COM(2011) 831 final.
7. Annexed to this Green Paper.
8. Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2011 establishing a Programme to support the further development of an Integrated Maritime Policy. (1) major EU initiatives, especially EMODnet and GMES, have so far been implemented through limited-duration projects that will finish by 2014.
(2) the prolonged financial crisis has focused attention on public spending. There is an even greater need to ensure that some one and a half billion euro spent annually by EU Member States on Europe’s marine monitoring network is cost-effective.
(3) easier access to fisheries data has not happened.
(4) the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami tragedy in Japan, followed by the nuclear accident at Fukushima, highlighted the benefits of bringing near-real time information on the state of the marine environment into the public domain.
(5) uncertainty as to the present and future impact of climate change on Europe’s seas and coasts is stalling local and regional authorities’ efforts to adapt.
and also new opportunities:
(1) a study has shown that private companies collect even more data than public authorities, but these have not been incorporated within EU initiatives so far.
(2) what will be provided through EMODnet in 2014 is an improvement over what exists and will already provide useful services to public and private bodies. However, it does not stretch the capabilities of current technology. The digital terrain model of the European seabed will be delivered at a resolution of about 250 metres, four times better than what was previously publicly available on a pan-European scale. Surveying instruments have a precision of centimetres, which would allow the creation and distribution, at least in some regions, of the much higher resolution product that users want.
(3) the 2014-2020 financial framework for the EU offers an opportunity to develop a more sustainable governance structure in which the collection, assembly and dissemination of marine data moves from being a set of projects defined by the Commission to a continuous, integrated process with priorities based on the needs of users in industry, public authorities and the research community.
(4) the rapid expansion of offshore wind power will transform, stimulate and augment the overall marine economy. Benefits of better access to marine data calculated on the basis of the 2010 economy will be underestimates.
(5) the new Horizon 2020 research programme offers an opportunity to improve technologies for gathering and processing marine observations.
(6) Member States and Associated Countries have agreed to pool resources in a Joint Programming Initiative ‘Healthy and Productive Seas and Oceans’ that can provide a framework for coordination of observation programmes.
This Green Paper takes stock of what has been done. It then opens a debate on the best strategy for moving forward to a new phase that meets the challenges defined here and profits from the opportunities to deliver an accessible, sustainable digital mapping of European sea-beds by 2020. It would also provide timely information on the present and past physical, chemical and biological state of the overlying water column and forecasts, together with a process that helps Member States maximise the potential of their marine observation, sampling and surveying programmes.
09. Marine Data Infrastructure, Final Report submitted to DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, November 2009.
10. Commission Recommendation of 16 September 2011 on the research Joint Programming Initiative ‘Healthy and Productive Seas and Oceans’ (2011/C 276/01). 3.1. Industry
Our seas and oceans can provide the stimulus we need to get our economies moving. They can provide challenging, rewarding jobs that meet the expectations of our young people. They can provide the clean energy we need if we are to avoid a climate catastrophe. They can provide protein for healthy diets. They can provide pharmaceuticals or enzymes from organisms that inhabit the greatest extremes of temperature, light, and pressure encountered by life. And a growing global hunger for raw materials is increasing the economic attractiveness of deep-sea mining.
These new opportunities for blue growth and jobs are being driven by two developments. First, a shortage of available land and freshwater is encouraging mankind to look again at the 71% of the planet covered by saltwater. Second, rapid advances in underwater observation, remote handling and construction technology, developed primarily in the petroleum industry, now allow safe operations in deeper waters under a wider range of oceanographic and meteorological conditions.
In some sectors the growth is already happening. For instance, wind energy is the fastest growing form of electricity generation in terms of installed capacity. Already, 10% of wind installations are offshore and this proportion is growing. The European Wind Energy Association reckons that by 2020, 30% of new construction will be offshore and 60% by 2030. Success breeds success. Investments such as electricity grids for these offshore wind platforms will bring growth to other industries in their wake.
However, working at this new frontier will inevitably be costlier and riskier than operating on land if each offshore facility needs to construct its own ancillary services such as cabling or supply networks. Or if all are obliged to carry out separate surveys of the sea bottom, to measure tide and currents, assess marine life that might be disturbed by their activity and monitor risks from tsunamis, storms or unfriendly marine life.
For instance, aquaculture operators need warnings of approaching toxic algal blooms or jellyfish invasions. Mining companies need to know the topography and geology of the seafloor. Insurance companies and investors in ports and tourism need data on past extreme events to estimate the likelihood of future damage and to develop climate-proof coastal infrastructure. Biotechnology companies looking for new pharmaceuticals or enzymes to catalyse industrial processes need to know where to look for the strange life forms that can live without light or withstand extremes of temperature.
Marine knowledge is needed in the licencing, design, construction and operation of offshore installations. A leading licensee of offshore wind energy has argued that marine data should be a public good, that business could be more competitive and the cost of generating offshore energy cut if there were clearer public policies on data ownership, less cost-recovery pricing from public bodies and common standards across jurisdictions and disciplines.
And, since ‘even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the Earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations’ (12), this new marine economy needs to be sustainable. Offshore operators need marine knowledge to assess and limit the environmental impact of any proposed activity.
11. Twelfth meeting of Marine Observation and Data Expert Group, 10 March 2011 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/node/1709
12. Karl Marx, Capital Vol. III Part VI Transformation of Surplus-Profit into Ground-Rent. 3.2. Public authorities
Coastal authorities need knowledge of erosion rates, sediment transport and topography to determine whether protection, accommodation or retreat is the most appropriate strategy for managing shorelines. Fisheries authorities need data on past effort and catch composition to set quotas for the following year. Public health authorities need to assess whether the sea is safe for bathing and seafood safe for eating. Civil protection authorities need to be able to calculate where an oil spill will hit the shore. Coastguards need to know how long survivors of an accident can survive in the water. Environmental authorities need to assess the environmental status of their seas and oceans and to ensure they remain safe and clean. The achievement of EU goals on integrated coastal zone management and maritime spatial planning requires knowledge of human activities and sensitive habitats. Maritime surveillance by radar or sonar is improved with knowledge of sea-surface conditions, temperature and salinity.
3.3. Science
Scientific understanding underpins industrial innovation and environmental protection.
Marine science depends on observations. We cannot run controlled experiments with two planet Earths. Only by looking back at the past can we understand what might happen in the future. Gaps left in the record cannot be filled later. An editorial on this subject in the scientific periodical ‘Nature’ argued that ‘an accurate and reliable record of what is going on can trump any particular strategy for trying to understand it’.
With these observations, scientists can begin to reduce uncertainty about the past and present behaviour of processes such as ocean circulation, ice melting, sea-level rise, carbon uptake, ecosystem shifts or ocean acidification – all of which have significant impacts on human well-being and natural ecosystems. Better monitoring of the seas and oceans is not enough to reduce this uncertainty, but it is certainly necessary. The Economist has suggested that governments are not spending enough on satellite observations.
Reducing uncertainty in the past and present can improve forecasts for Europe’s climate that are fed into the review and assessment process of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Wide international participation and careful peer-review ensure that the Panel’s assessments are the main vehicle for informing government officials responsible for introducing adaptation measures.
3.4. Civil Society
Citizens in a democracy need information for holding their elected representatives to account on issues that affect their neighbourhood, their livelihoods, their health or the planet Earth that they wish to bequeath to their children. Experience has shown it is wrong to assume that the technical background to these issues is best left entirely to the appropriate responsible authorities. An editorial in Nature used the example of the Fukushima accident to make the case that better public access to data would contribute to better risk assessment: ‘This would unleash the diverse creativity of academic researchers, journalists, software geeks and mappers’.
______________________________________________________________________
13. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).
14. Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2002 concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe OJ L 148, 6.6.2002, p. 24-27.
15. Maritime Spatial Planning in the EU – achievements and future development, COM/2010/0771 final.
16. Editorial Nature 450, 761 (6 December 2007).
17. Editorial Economist ‘Something to watch over us’. 12 May, 2012.
18. ‘A little knowledge’, Nature 472, 135 (14 April 2011).
19. Availability and interoperability
4.1. Bottlenecks
The European Commission, in its 2010 Communication ‘Marine Knowledge 2020’ (19), pointed out that bottlenecks were preventing investments in marine data from delivering their potential benefits. Data were held by hundreds of different institutions in the EU – hydrographic offices, geological surveys, local authorities, environmental agencies, research institutes, universities. Finding out who held the data was a major challenge. Obtaining them could take weeks of negotiation. And putting them together to provide a complete picture could be a complex and lengthy process. Many data were typically neither accessible nor interoperable.
4.2. Multiple use of marine data
The same marine observations on physical, chemical and biological parameters can meet the needs of a multitude of end-users. For example, data on ocean temperature and salinity are used for assessing ocean climate change, choosing sites for aquaculture or determining the limits of sonar to detect submarines. Data on seabed substrata are needed to plan the extraction of aggregates or hydrocarbons, ensure secure foundations for wind turbine platforms, or assess the impact of fishing. The same data on marine habitats can be used to assess the impact of a new facility or to report on the state of the environment.
It is this multiple functioning of underlying marine data across disciplines and sectors that makes an open access policy the most efficient option. For such a policy to be efficient and effective, the data need to be publicly available and interoperable. Commission policy is that marine data should be relevant, accessible, free of charge and free of restrictions on use.
19. See footnote 3. 4.3. Competitiveness and Innovation
There is a clear cost to the fragmentation and inaccessibility of marine data. The impact assessment (20) accompanying the Communication estimated that existing users would save €300 million a year if the data were properly integrated and managed. These estimates do not take into account inevitable future growth in the marine economy and the consequent increased demand for data. The first specific objective of ‘Marine Knowledge 2020’ is to reduce costs for industry, public authorities and researchers.
Without better accessibility to marine data, added-value services such as fish stock assessment or vulnerability of coastal infrastructure to storm surges can only be provided by the organisations holding the data. This is inefficient and anti-competitive. Opening up these resources allows new operators to enter the market. Interoperability allows small businesses or academics to develop new products and services based on data from different sources and of different types. The value of this to the EU economy is hard to estimate, but the impact assessment suggested it could be of the order of €200 million per year. The second specific objective of ‘Marine Knowledge 2020’ is to stimulate innovation.
That estimate does not take into account a rationalisation of present marine observation systems that would reduce uncertainty in our understanding of the behaviour of the sea. The economic value of this is even harder to guess, but could be even greater. Indeed, uncertainty is a principal enemy of those responsible for designing offshore structures that can withstand the vagaries of the sea, for managing fish stocks or for designing protected marine areas. It has been estimated (21) that a 25% reduction in uncertainty in future sea-level rise would save public authorities responsible for coastal management approximately €100 million per year.
An optimised, accessible and interoperable marine observation system that helps scientists reduce uncertainty would be a major contribution to climate change adaptation. Ocean acidification or changes in ocean salinity and dissolved oxygen will certainly have an impact on marine ecosystems and our ability to harvest from them. Earlier information will give industries such as that for shellfish aquaculture time to adapt. And, although it is certain that the planet is warming, it is not clear what is going to happen to local climates in Europe over the next decades (22). However, it is known that changes in ocean circulation drive the severity or mildness of Europe’s seasons. With more certainty, forecasts of energy demand or agricultural production can be improved. Investments in adaption can be made in confidence. The third specific objective of ‘Marine Knowledge 2020’ is to reduce uncertainty in our understanding of the behaviour of the sea.
These specific objectives were endorsed by the Council in December 2011 (23).
1. Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable?
______________________________________________________________________
20. European Marine Observation and Data Network Impact Assessment, 8.9.2010, SEC(2010) 998.
21. See footnote 20.
22. The real holes in climate science Nature Vol 463, 21 January 2010.
23. 3139th Environment Council meeting Brussels, 19 December 2011. 5.2. European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet)
The concept of a European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) that would unlock fragmented and hidden marine data resources was first mooted in the 2006 Green Paper for maritime policy (26). EMODnet is a network of organisations supported by the EU’s integrated maritime policy. These organisations work together to observe the sea, to render the marine data collected freely available and interoperable, to create seamless data layers across sea-basins and to distribute the data and data products through the internet.
A first set of preparatory actions was launched in 2009 to set up prototype data platforms. Six thematic assembly groups – for hydrography, geology, physics, chemistry, biology and physical habitats – brought together a network of 53 organisations. These were largely public bodies – hydrographic offices, geological surveys, oceanographic institutes – that already manage marine data themselves. They were supported by private companies with expertise in data processing and dissemination.
These groups constructed internet gateways to data archives managed by Member States and international organisations. They reinforce and build on ongoing efforts within the Member States such as those listed in section 5.1. From these six portals, public or private users of marine data can now not only access the standardised observations themselves, together with data quality indicators, but also data products such as sediment or physical habitat maps for entire sea basins. No restrictions have been imposed on access or use of these data products. The work builds on and reinforces the INSPIRE Directive (27), the Environmental Information Directive (28) and the Directive on the... re-use of public sector information. The Common Information Sharing Environment (CISE)(^{29}) will be able to import EMODnet data and so provide information(^{30}) to maritime authorities in environment, fisheries, transport, border control, customs, and general law enforcement as well as defence.
The work was guided and monitored by an independent group of experts and an interim evaluation(^{31}) has confirmed the soundness of the approach. Accordingly, the work is being extended under the 2011 Regulation to support the Integrated Maritime Policy(^{32}) to cover all European sea basins. A thematic group on human activities will be set up to complement the other six. By 2014, the aim is to deliver a medium-resolution(^{33}) mapping of European seas for these seven themes.
The Regulation also supports prototype ‘sea-basin checkpoints’ for the first time. These are mechanisms to identify whether the present observation infrastructure is the most effective possible and whether it meets the needs of public or private users. The first two will cover the North Sea and the Mediterranean.
The Commission proposal for a new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund(^{34}) under the 2014-2020 financial framework aims to provide financial support for EMODnet’s move towards operational capability. With a secure budget, the Network can move from being a set of finite-duration projects specified by the Commission to a continuous and sustainable process, with priorities defined by the needs of industry, public authorities and the research community. Options for a governance structure for this process are outlined in section 6 of this paper.
The thematic groups allow the appropriate experts to define a common structure for all data within each theme. For instance, biological species observations need at least common descriptions for the time, place and method of sampling, the name of the species and precision of measurement. The interim evaluation of EMODnet(^{35}) found the proposed fields for thematic groups logical, but suggested that consideration be given to merging the hydrography and geology groups. Nearly all nations have separate hydrographic agencies and geological surveys with separate missions, but there is now some overlap. Both are now concerned with environmental protection and some of the instruments and methods used for surveys are the same. Both construct knowledge of the seafloor from multibeam echosounder surveys.
3. Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided?
4. What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? 5.3. GMES Marine Service
The European Earth monitoring programme (GMES)(^{36}) is a flagship of European Union space policy(^{37}). The main objective of its marine service is to deliver products and services that added-value service providers can build on to provide services to public and private users. The vision is to ensure that products are developed from the most advanced technology, satellite observations, computational power and forecasting capability available in Europe.
Under the GMES programme, a marine service has been progressively developed and implemented by 60 organisations. This processes and analyses information from in-situ and space measurements to deliver two classes of information: (1) ocean observations and (2) monitoring and forecasting.
Ocean models are used to deliver three-dimensional past, present and future ocean states(^{38}) at a global and European sea-basin level for different parameters such as sea temperature, currents, salinity, sea ice, sea level, wind and biogeochemistry. Until now, this marine service has been funded through the EU’s research budget. As of 2014, GMES will enter its full operational phase and should be funded through an operational budget.
In addition to the marine service which has, up to now, focused on observation and providing near-real time and forecasted information on the oceans, a GMES climate service is proposed. The simulation models of the current marine service need to be calibrated and validated against observations of the past, so the marine service already has the capacity to store and process these time series of ocean observations. This investment will be useful for determining changes in ocean characteristics for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, as well as providing a valuable building block of the proposed new climate service.
Standards are being developed so that both the GMES marine service and EMODnet can access the same in-situ data.
5.4. Data Collection Framework for fisheries
Since 2001(^{39}), the EU has funded the collection and dissemination of data on EU fisheries by national authorities. Data from surveys, samples and reported catch, effort and discarding enable the impact on the fish stock to be assessed. Parameters such as fleet capacity, employment and profitability also enable analysis of the socio-economic health of fishing communities. The primary purpose is to support management of the Common Fisheries Policy, though a revision in 2008(^{40}) extended the data to the aquaculture and processing sector and widened access for scientific or public awareness purposes.
______________________________________________________________________
36. See footnote 6.
37. Communication ‘Towards a Space Strategy for the European Union that benefits its citizens’ 4.4.2011 COM(2011) 152.
38. Effectively the oceanographic equivalent of a weather forecast.
39. Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 of 29 June 2000 establishing a Community framework for the collection and management of the data needed to conduct the common fisheries policy.
40. Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy. Article 37 of the Common Fisheries Reform proposal(^{41}) goes further. It obliges Member States to collect biological, technical, environmental and socio-economic data and to cooperate regionally. These provisions of the Basic Regulation will replace the 2008 Regulation. The details will be spelled out in a new EU Multi-Annual Programme for 2014-2020.
The Commission proposal for a new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund(^{42}) under the 2014-2020 financial framework proposes that the Data Collection Framework for Fisheries shift from centralised to shared management, so that Member States take over responsibility for managing funding and monitoring implementation from the Commission.
In general, fisheries advice requires data from all countries that fish a particular species or particular area. Once the data are assembled for a specific purpose, the aggregated data may be published in a report. However, the raw data provided by the Member States cannot currently be distributed for other purposes without the consent of those who provided the data. In practice, this procedure is so cumbersome that it never happens. This leads to a lack of independent checks, which severely limits confidence in the results and stifles innovation.
The Commission believes that overcoming issues of personal and commercial confidentiality is straightforward. It is perfectly feasible to distribute fisheries information that meets all requirements for understanding the ecosystem without revealing the activity of individual vessels. The new Multi-Annual Programme 2014-2020 has been framed accordingly.
Currently, EMODnet does not provide access to data collected under the Data Collection Framework.
7. Should data that is assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data?
8. Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet?
9. Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? If so, how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?
5.5. Research
EU Member States spend approximately € 1.85 billion a year on marine research. About half is on infrastructure for facilitating observation. This includes ships, underwater observatories, floating buoys, drifting devices, remotely operated or autonomous underwater vehicles, all equipped with a range of sensors and analytical capabilities. The European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) has currently identified six pan-European infrastructures that will have an essential role for the European marine research community. The Commission’s 2010 Communication on an ‘Innovation Union’ proposes that 60% of infrastructures identified by ESFRI be launched or constructed by 2015.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{41}) Proposal for a Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy (repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008) COM(2011) 425.
(^{42}) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, 2.12.2011, COM(2011) 804 final. The EU’s contribution to marine and maritime research related actions in the Seventh Framework Programme amounted to € 350 million annually, € 25-30 million per year of this is dedicated to marine research infrastructures and research on marine observation technologies (sensors and systems for marine observation). The Framework Programme has also supported the SeaDataNet project, which has been instrumental in harmonising marine data standards and ensuring interoperability between marine databases. SeaDataNet technology is fundamental to the EMODnet platform. Other EU projects make observations to improve our knowledge of the sea.
The Commission’s ‘Horizon 2020’ proposal for a research and innovation programme in the years 2014-2020 includes a larger budget and simpler procedures than the outgoing programme. This research programme can contribute to the ‘Marine Knowledge 2020’ objectives through (1) support to the development and integration of marine research infrastructures at EU level, (2) development of user-oriented and cost-effective marine observation technologies, (3) research projects that will deliver data on the marine environment and its interactions with human activities, including for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
To encourage the development of intellectual property, ideas developed in EU research programmes become the property of the researcher. So new sensors or marine observation platforms will not only support more efficient, effective monitoring of our seas and oceans, but can also provide the basis for export potential in a high-technology sector with a global market.
However, ocean observations themselves cannot be patented and will benefit the economy most if they are made freely available. At present, many of these observations are not disseminated once the research project has finished. This is partly because researchers wish to publish their results before releasing them, but also because there are no incentives or requirements for them to make the effort.
10. What should be the focus of EU support to new marine observation technologies? How can we extend ocean monitoring and its cost effectiveness? How can the EU strengthen its scientific and industrial position in this area?
11. Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project?
5.6. Environmental Reporting
A wide range of data is collected by Member States to implement EU Directives such as the Water Framework Directive, the Bathing Waters Directive, the Habitats Directive, and, most recently, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Member States also report environmental indicators to regional sea conventions such as OSPAR, HELCOM, the Barcelona Convention and the Bucharest Convention. As part of the obligations of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Member States have a legal obligation to report data underlying initial assessments and stemming from monitoring programmes to the Commission and the European Environment Agency. The reporting requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive are the basis of the marine component of the Water Information System for Europe, WISE-Marine. Under Article 19 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, there is a requirement for Member States to provide access to data resulting from the assessments and monitoring. EMODnet will be used to enable this access.
The European Environment Agency has been fully involved with the development of EMODnet. The prototype portals already built in the first phase of the project and the more advanced ones being prepared in the second phase were specifically designed to deliver parameters that can be used for constructing indicators that will be necessary to assess the state of the environment under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
43. Out of a total of € 5.4 billion on average.
44. Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet?
The reporting protocols used for different reporting mechanisms are not necessarily the same, but in the context of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, greater convergence is expected. And while some of the data used to construct the indicators reported to the competent authority or the Commission are publicly available, many are not. 5.7. Climate Change Adaptation
To support the development and dissemination of the knowledge base on adaptation, the Commission launched the European Climate Adaptation Platform, CLIMATE-ADAPT[^44] in March 2012, a publicly accessible internet site to support policy-makers in the development of climate change adaptation measures and policies at EU, national, regional and local levels. CLIMATE-ADAPT features a section on EU marine and fisheries policies, indicators of climate change and a database of adaptation case studies, in particular those from OURCOAST[^45]. The Commission is developing a proposal for an EU Adaptation Strategy, to be adopted in 2013.
A more structured approach to marine observations can deliver more accurate indicators of local changes in climatic parameters such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification to the CLIMATE-ADAPT platform and therefore help the adaptation process.
5.8. International Initiatives
Piecing together a global picture of the marine world and how it is changing requires observations and data from organisations outside Europe as well as inside. More structured and open access to European marine observations and data, as described in this Green Paper, will enable Europe to provide a practical contribution to international efforts to provide global coverage such as the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) and the United Nation process for global reporting and assessment of the marine environment.
14. Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMOD-net and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS?
6 Governance
A sustainable marine data infrastructure requires a process to decide which observations to make, to choose which data products to create and to provide financial support for the process of collection, assembly, processing and dissemination.
6.1. Balance between efforts of EU and Member States
Member States have a legal responsibility to monitor their own waters and their own fishing fleets. Nevertheless, in some cases, there are clear advantages in pooling efforts. The obvious example is observation from Earth-orbiting satellites. It would clearly be inefficient for each Member State to launch a constellation of satellites to measure ocean colour, sea-surface temperature, sea-level and ice extent. Indeed, the EU has supported the development and initial operation of satellites through its GMES programme. The EU also supports survey and sampling programmes in fisheries, where it requires the results for its own purposes.
However, there are other examples where effort at an EU level might be justified. For instance, reducing uncertainty in the magnitude and impact of climate change in Europe is impossible without monitoring the subsurface currents of the Atlantic in areas outside territorial or jurisdictional waters. Doing so does not benefit the Member State doing the monitoring more than any other Member State. It benefits all European countries, even landlocked ones.
The Arctic Ocean is another example where the EU could contribute to ongoing monitoring and mapping programmes to provide support for those who live and work there.
6.2. EU support to assembly and processing of marine data
Up to now, services from each thematic assembly group in EMODnet have been delivered by consortia through procurement contracts, with the six consortia selected through separate calls for tender for each group. In all, 53 different organisations have been involved as partners in the consortia, with many others contributing. Grants to the GMES marine service have been awarded following open calls for proposals. Again, about 60 organisations are involved. The EU budget pays for the delivery of defined outputs in procurements and contributes towards agreed eligible costs in grants. The partnerships in both EMODnet and GMES are heterogeneous. They include research institutes, agencies for meteorology or hydrography and universities. Some private companies provide software expertise.
The Commission has no influence over the composition of these partnerships; they are self-selected. The large partnerships are an indication that the agencies or institutes involved prefer to be joint owners of a common enterprise rather than suppliers to a single lead contractor.
The open calls in both cases ensure transparency and the results in both cases have been very satisfactory. However, as the initiatives mature, there is a need to ensure the long-term continuity of operations and infrastructure. Since much of the work in EMODnet involves the remodelling of national data archives, no partnership without the participation of the major national marine data centres can be complete. This might indicate the desirability of moving to a grant or a negotiated procedure which could be easier if the EMODnet partnerships had a legal status. Governance issues for the GMES marine service include a legal entity for the coordination and an appropriate financial mechanism.
15. What criteria should be used to determine EU financial support of observation programmes other than those that it already supports? Can you provide examples? Could the Joint Programming Initiative for European Seas and Oceans play a role?
16. How could the governance of EMODnet and GMES evolve to better accommodate the need for long term sustainability? 6.3. Involvement of Neighbours
Europe’s seas do not only wash the shores of EU Member States. Understanding the ecological health of the Black Sea or planning a cross-Mediterranean cable requires cooperation with the neighbouring countries that share these sea-basins. For this reason, institutes from these countries have taken part in the first phase of the EMODnet construction. They too are faced with unacceptable levels of unemployment and they too can benefit from knowledge that will help them understand how to take advantage of offshore opportunities.
6.4. Selecting priorities
Mapping and monitoring the sea is, for reasons set out above, essential for sustainable economic growth, environmental protection and understanding climate change. However, public budgets are limited and priorities need to be decided. As we shift from a paradigm of collecting data for specific purposes to collecting them once and using them for different purposes, two specific questions need answering: (1) what observation infrastructure and sampling strategy are needed for a particular sea-basin? and (2) how can the EU’s financial contribution provide the most added-value?
The Data Collection Framework is satisfactory on both counts. A process is in place to define what data need to be collected. Since an objective of the Common Fisheries Policy is to limit the environmental damage of fishing(^{46}), the sampling strategy already goes beyond the interest in maximising the fish yield.
The process to select Earth observation satellites needed to monitor the oceans is similarly satisfactory. It has been defined through the GMES process by determining which parameters Earth-orbiting satellites can actually observe from a height of about 800 kilometres above the ocean. Technological progress and better scientific understanding enable progressive improvements in accuracy and the addition of more parameters. For instance, the operational monitoring of sea-ice thickness will become feasible with the launch of Sentinel-3. The European Environment Agency is in the process of identifying what other (non-satellite) measurements are needed to calibrate and validate GMES forecasting models(^{47}).
For other observations, more needs to be done. Since shifting currents, migrating species and many economic activities do not respect national borders, the question on optimum observation and sampling infrastructure needs to be answered at sea-basin level. Within the integrated maritime policy regulation(^{48}), a prototype mechanism has been set up to help Member States hone their observation and monitoring infrastructure. The ‘sea-basin checkpoints’ for the North Sea and the Mediterranean will evaluate by 2014 how well the present monitoring and assembly network meets the needs of private, public and academic users. They will determine the relative merits of different monitoring systems – ferryboxes, fixed buoys, floats – measuring the same parameter. All information sources will be considered; public and private. This information will help guide Member States in their investments. For instance, should multibeam surveying of the seabed be accelerated, or is more accurate information needed on changes in sea-level?
______________________________________________________________________
46. Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy.
47. Through the Seventh Framework Programme project GiSC (GMES in-situ coordination).
48. See footnote 8. Similar choices need to be made at an EU level. In the proposed marine knowledge component of the Europe Maritime and Fisheries Fund, is it more urgent to focus on assembling data on mineral resources or on marine mammals? Should the EU support surveying or sampling in international waters? Ultimately, Member States must make these decisions in the framework of the Council, but they need to have a proper evaluation of the options to guide them. The answers to these questions will depend on estimated costs and benefits.
49. Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin?
50. What mechanism could be envisaged to manage the evaluation and assessments needed to inform the Commission, Member States and Parliament on priorities for EU support? Private sector involvement
Marine industries will certainly benefit from the measures outlined in this paper, but there is potential for increasing these benefits by encouraging the engagement of the private sector.
According to a 2009 study(^{49}), more marine data is collected by European companies than by the public sector. If a private company collects data for its own purposes then, in principle, there is no reason for public authorities to intervene or interfere. European legislation on access and re-use of these data does not apply.
However, private companies are already obliged to collect data as part of the impact assessment they have to carry out to obtain a licence for certain offshore activity. They may also be obliged to continue monitoring once operations start. In many cases, they are obliged to hand the data collected over to the licensing authority. However, once the licence has been granted, there is no apparent competitive disadvantage in releasing these data into the public domain. The Commission is aware that imposing reporting obligations on private companies under normal circumstances creates an administrative burden that is to be avoided. However, replacing a hotch-potch of different obligations with a single reporting mechanism with common INSPIRE-based standards could reduce the existing burden. A study has been launched to help assess costs and benefits.
There may also be a case for extending reporting obligations once the licence has been granted. The cost of instrumenting offshore platforms to provide continuous information on the state of the sea would be an almost negligible increase in the overall costs of the installation. The idea would be to collect data from all EU platforms as well as other observing platforms and make them publicly available. This could well cost less than the potential benefit to the whole offshore industry of obtaining better knowledge of potential threats such as rogue waves(^{50}), poisonous algae or radioactive leaks. Improving the competitiveness of offshore business has been a prime motivation for ‘Marine Knowledge 2020’. A public-private partnership whereby private companies share the expenses of running the European Marine Observation and Data Network in return for a say in the setting of priorities could accelerate this process.
20. Under what circumstances should data provided by private companies for licencing purposes be made publicly available?
21. Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible?
22. What public-private partnership models can maximise incentives for industry to share data and investments in data as well as benefits to all stakeholders?
______________________________________________________________________
49. Marine Data Infrastructure, Final Report submitted to DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, November 2009.
50. Also known as freak waves, monster waves, killer waves, extreme waves or abnormal waves. Responding to Green Paper
This Green Paper opens a debate on the best strategy for moving forward to accessible, sustainable digital mapping of European seabeds, as well as timely information on the present and past physical, chemical and biological state of the overlying water column and forecasts for the future, together with a process that helps Member States maximise the potential of their marine observation, sampling and surveying programmes.
This website will be open till 15 December 2012. Responses can be sent either in an official capacity or individually. The outcome of the consultation will be published on the website of the Commission’s Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. The affiliation and name of individual contributors replying in a personal capacity will not be published unless specifically authorised.
The Commission has set up a website for responses. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/marine-knowledge-2020/index_en.htm European Commission
Green Paper – Marine Knowledge 2020 – from seabed mapping to ocean forecasting
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
2012 — 23 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-79-25350-8 doi:10.2771/4154
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
Priced publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union): • via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
[^44]: http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu
[^45]: http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3783-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 28,
"total-input-tokens": 56163,
"total-output-tokens": 12092,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
77,
1
],
[
77,
77,
2
],
[
77,
229,
3
],
[
229,
229,
4
],
[
229,
1161,
5
],
[
1161,
1283,
6
],
[
1283,
3329,
7
],
[
3329,
7449,
8
],
[
7449,
10898,
9
],
[
10898,
14586,
10
],
[
14586,
18441,
11
],
[
18441,
20185,
12
],
[
20185,
23574,
13
],
[
23574,
25349,
14
],
[
25349,
28171,
15
],
[
28171,
31452,
16
],
[
31452,
34862,
17
],
[
34862,
38816,
18
],
[
38816,
39423,
19
],
[
39423,
41221,
20
],
[
41221,
44991,
21
],
[
44991,
48515,
22
],
[
48515,
49336,
23
],
[
49336,
52301,
24
],
[
52301,
53304,
25
],
[
53304,
53304,
26
],
[
53304,
54170,
27
],
[
54170,
54170,
28
]
]
} |
b1790d055acf1673ce09cdb6f050137e749bf1b2 | Improving Careers Guidance for Young People in London
The House of Commons Education Committee has today published its findings and recommendations from a short inquiry into careers guidance for young people. This briefing outlines some of the committee’s recommendations and highlights emerging careers guidance practice in London.
Background
In September 2012, the Education Act 2011 placed schools under a new duty to secure access to independent (defined as external to the school) and impartial careers guidance on the full range of 16 to 18 education and training options, including apprenticeships. This new duty applies to pupils in years 9 to 11. There is no discrete funding for this duty and Department for Education statutory guidance states that: “Schools should meet the costs of provision from their overall budgets, including the pupil premium.” At the same time, the duty to provide careers education and work-related learning was repealed.
Once the duty on schools commenced, local authorities were not expected to deliver a universal careers service. They retain responsibility under section 68 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 to encourage, enable and assist the participation of young people in education or training and will continue to assist the most vulnerable young people and those at risk of disengaging with education or work.
In April 2012 the National Careers Service was established to deliver advice to young people and adults, although the services to young people are limited to web-based and telephone advice.
To coincide with these changes, the House of Commons Education Committee decided to hold an inquiry into careers guidance for young people to see how schools were responding to the new duty. The committee’s inquiry report highlights the on-going debate as to the pros and cons of these changes to careers guidance for young people and makes a series of recommendations.
This briefing discusses some of the committee’s recommendations, explores the impact of the statutory changes for London’s young people and, should government accept the committee’s recommendations, provides a flavour of how the implementation of these recommendations will benefit young Londoners.
1 The term ‘schools’ denotes maintained schools, Academies and Free Schools Committee Findings and Recommendations
The committee received 83 written submissions from a range of organisations and individuals, and also held three formal oral evidence sessions, where it heard from a range of witnesses, including London Councils.
The committee concluded that access to good quality independent and impartial careers guidance is essential for all young people, particularly given factors such as the raising of the participation age (from summer 2013, young people will be required to continue in education or training until the end of the academic year in which they turn 17; from 2015 they will be required to continue until their 18th birthday), the expanding range of educational choices available and high levels of youth unemployment.
With reference to the new duty imposed on schools from September 2012, the committee concluded that: “The government’s decision to transfer responsibility for careers guidance to schools is regrettable. International evidence suggests such a model does not deliver the best provision for young people. The weaknesses of the school-based model have been compounded by the failure to transfer to schools any budget with which to provide the service. This has led, predictably, to a drop in the overall level of provision.”
The committee recognises that, as the new responsibility is now in place, further change could lead to greater uncertainty, with a detrimental impact on young people. Its recommendations are consequently to strengthen the existing system.
The report highlights concerns about the consistency, quality, independence and impartiality of careers guidance now being offered, and the worrying deterioration in the overall level of provision for young people. To aid consistency, the committee calls for government to strengthen existing statutory guidance and be more explicit about what a school must do to ensure it is delivering the duty for careers guidance.
A number of recommendations are made to address the committee’s central concern: the quality, independence and impartiality of careers guidance offered to young people. To help ensure quality, it recommends that schools are required to:
- work towards the Quality in Careers Standard, and to procure guidance services only from qualified providers and individuals
- ensure a minimum of one personal careers interview with an independent adviser is available for every young person, as face-to-face guidance is an integral part of good quality careers guidance
- publish an annual careers plan, which would provide transparency about what could be expected in terms of careers work and would set out the resources allocated to these activities.
The report acknowledges that, although the duty to secure independent and impartial careers guidance was transferred to schools, the funding did not follow (schools are expected to provide the service from their existing budgets). With so many competing demands on a school’s time and resources, witnesses considered that it would be unusual for school leadership to prioritise spending time and money on careers guidance without there being an incentive to do so.
The committee found that the existing accountability measures do not provide that incentive. The Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) noted in its evidence that its inspections do not make a clear judgement on careers guidance provision in schools and that it does not inspect against statutory compliance in this area. Faced with this evidence the committee concluded that the Ofsted framework (the general principles for inspection) is not a credible accountability check on the provision of careers guidance by individual schools. It also concluded that the new Destination Measures as they currently stand are not effective for ensuring that schools meet their statutory duty. The committee has recommended that the Department for Education introduces into the statutory guidance a requirement for schools to publish an annual careers plan, to address this weakness in accountability. Its report goes on to say that plans should include information on the support and resources available to its pupils in planning their career development and that schools should be required to review the plan on an annual basis, taking into account the views of students, parents, employers and other learning providers.
Evidence on the capability and capacity of schools to carry out the new duty was also presented to the committee. The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) cited a survey of its members in 2011 which indicated that 30 per cent of its members were extremely concerned about their capacity to meet the new requirements. ASCL believed that the provision of face-to-face guidance was likely to decrease. Other witnesses noted that, while teachers can be important partners for careers professionals, there are dangers if teachers are expected to take on this role alone and without training and support. The Association for Careers Education and Guidance told the committee: “Unless these teachers/tutors receive specialist training in maintaining impartiality and are regularly updated with information about all courses, employment or training opportunities available to their pupils they will be unable to meet the demand” to deliver the statutory duty.
The committee concludes that too many schools lack the skills and capacity to fulfil the duty put upon them without a number of changes being made and that “schools cannot simply be left to get on with it”.
As a result, the committee has recommended that the National Careers Service’s remit be expanded to include a capacity-building and brokerage role for schools. This role would include assisting schools in designing their annual careers plan and promoting quality standards to ensure robust accountability, and the dissemination of local labour market information.
The committee noted the Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Committee report on Apprenticeships and its findings that awareness and resources about apprenticeships in schools and colleges was lacking. The Education Committee concurred with these findings and restated the BIS Committee’s recommendation that the National Apprenticeship Service’s remit also be extended to include the promotion of apprenticeships in schools.
There was support for the government’s decision to extend the duty to young people in year 8 and to 16 to 18 year-olds in school or college (announced during the course of the inquiry), as it was recognised that some young people are now required to make decisions about their future in Year 8, for example for entrance to University Technical Colleges and Studio Schools.
The government’s decision to remove the statutory duty on schools to provide careers education and work-related learning was heavily criticised by witnesses to the inquiry. In response, the committee recommends that the government’s statutory guidance to schools is strengthened to require schools to provide careers education and work-related learning as part of their duty.
The committee commends the efforts made by some local authorities to support their schools in taking on the new duty, particularly by working with them to form consortia and partnerships to procure independent and impartial careers guidance and goes on to recommend that the government’s statutory guidance is strengthened to emphasise the benefits of this approach. However, the committee is also concerned that there appears to be too much variation in local authorities’ interpretation of what constitutes a targeted group and recommends that the Department for Education promotes the activities of the best performing local authorities, so that best practice in identifying and delivering services to targeted young people is shared.
The emerging Careers Guidance picture for London’s young people.
Under the new duty schools are free to make arrangements for careers guidance for young people that fit the needs and circumstances of their students. Although schools are no longer under a duty to provide careers education, there is an expectation that careers education will continue to be delivered under the broader departmental definition of careers guidance. Schools are free to determine how to provide both curriculum and careers activities to provide an overall school careers programme.
This places a particular emphasis on the ability of schools to identify and support young people’s individual guidance needs. Consequently, schools are taking a number of different approaches to meeting the needs of their students and are, in some ways, testing out new means of delivering careers education and guidance.
There is evidence of the good work that a number of schools in London have undertaken to ensure their students have access to quality careers education and guidance. However, there is also evidence that many schools are struggling to navigate the careers market place and the bewildering array of free and commercially available online support packages and tools aimed at young people and the professionals that support them.
In order to capture emerging innovations and approaches to delivering careers guidance and to help identify areas for support, London Councils conducted a survey asking local authority colleagues for information about careers guidance in their area and 23 boroughs have responded so far.
Responses to date indicate strong collaborative working between local authorities and schools in some areas to ensure the delivery of careers guidance and the continued delivery of careers education in many schools. However, responses also highlight a significant reduction in the availability of face-to-face guidance for young people and a very low take-up of quality standards.
Nearly half (48 per cent) of responding authorities indicated that they had been involved in the commissioning of careers guidance with schools in their area. As both schools and local authorities have responsibilities in this area, a joint approach to commissioning provides an opportunity to ensure that a coherent and integrated service is available to young people. Detailed responses to questions on emerging good practice highlighted the tangible benefits of joint commissioning for all involved – from economies of scale, through pooling of resources, to ways of working that encourage regular sharing of information on young people at risk so that the right support can be organised at the right time for young people.
The authorities that responded indicated that schools in their area are delivering face-to-face guidance through a number of channels, with the majority (65 per cent) through commissioned services from a private provider. Other channels of delivery were commissioned services from the local authority, from a college or consortia arrangements with other schools.
In response to the question ‘Which year groups receive face-to-face, individual careers guidance?’, 95 per cent of responding authorities indicated year group 11; 75 per cent year group 10; and 87 per cent year group 9.
At face value this is very encouraging, although when asked to identify gaps and areas for support, many respondents noted a significant reduction in the resources allocated to face-to-face guidance since the change in responsibilities. A few respondents raised concerns that a small number of schools did not appear to have made arrangements for access to independent (i.e. external) careers guidance.
When asked if schools in their area are continuing to deliver careers education, 30 per cent of boroughs that responded indicted that all schools were doing so; and 55 per cent indicated that most schools were continuing delivery. Survey responses indicate that schools use a number of ways to deliver careers education - for example, employer visits and talks, careers events, careers education integrated into tutorial time or embedded in Personal, Social and Health (PHSE) lessons - with the majority (94 per cent) using a mixture of these and other methods. When asked: ‘What proportion of schools in your local authority already hold a quality accreditation for careers education and information, advice and guidance?’ just over half of responding authorities indicated that ‘a few schools’ hold accreditation. Respondents also indicated that there appeared to be very little appetite from schools to achieve a quality accreditation.
Quality accreditation requires a school to invest time and money, which could be genuine barriers when managing competing priorities. However, the figures also suggest a potential lack of understanding and knowledge about accreditation, so we will explore this further.
**Commentary**
Since announcements on unprecedented funding reductions and a changing role for local authorities in education from government in 2010, the careers guidance landscape has changed considerably. Although mention of the Connexions Service still elicits the ‘marmite effect’ of strongly for or against but nothing in between, there are no calls for its return, as evidenced in the Education Committee’s report. However, the many references to a need for consistency strongly suggest a desire for a more robust framework within which schools – and local authorities – could operate.
The committee’s recommendation for the National Careers Service remit to be expanded to capacity-build schools, and for that expansion to be funded, is welcome. The committee suggests that the National Careers Services should particularly support schools with planning, quality assurance and labour market intelligence. Our survey highlights good labour market intelligence as one of the most significant gaps in the new careers guidance model. Should the government support this recommendation, we would seek to work closely with the National Careers Service to ensure that schools have access to timely and accurate labour market information to support the delivery of sound careers education and guidance. Given that this is such an urgent issue we cannot wait, so we are working with a data partner and the London Enterprise Panel to ensure up-to-date labour market information is available to schools as soon as possible.
Our survey clearly highlights partnership working as one of the best ways to ensure the delivery of quality face-to-face guidance. All the examples of good practice we received through our survey refer to partnership working, from co-ordinated commissioning through to careers education, information, advice and guidance networks. The Education Committee has also highlighted the importance of collaboration and partnership in its report.
It is then unsurprising that the survey also raises more support for schools as one of the most significant areas for further support, including stronger statutory guidance, help with sourcing labour market information (as noted above) and continuous professional development. The need to support schools is echoed in recent national reports from the Pearson Think Tank and the Institute for Careers Guidance Studies (Careers 2020), and Careers England (School and Careers Guidance: A survey of the impact of the Education Act 2011). This theme was also picked up in the Mayor’s Education Inquiry.
To tackle this issue and to provide a resource for schools as matter of urgency, we are working with local authority and school colleagues to develop a guide for schools that starts to address a number of areas that schools have identified as areas for further support. Should the National Careers Service remit be expanded to include a capacity-building and brokerage role for schools, this will clearly be welcomed.
We are pleased that our call for all young people to have access to independent face-to-face guidance features prominently in the committee’s recommendations. With a dispersed guidance structure, it becomes all too easy for young people to slip through the ever-growing net of services and service providers, in particular it is also important to look at and consider the needs of young people who are not engaged in education, employment or training (NEET). Often NEET young people need the most support and will need to access quality careers guidance outside of the school system. Many local authorities are working hard to redesign services for vulnerable young people and are working with schools to ensure that these services complement the schools offer. But we must ensure that this work is also supported and complemented by the many centrally funded programmes delivering in local areas which include careers guidance, such as the Youth Contract, so that there are no opportunities for young people to slip through the net.
The changes to the careers guidance landscape cannot be viewed in isolation. Careers guidance has always been a component of a broader range of support, particularly when considering local authorities responsibilities to vulnerable young people. Local authority youth support services have also been undergoing significant change over the past months and this new environment provides new opportunities for young people to access guidance. The recent Future Models for Youth report (funded through the Leaders for London programme) found that there has been a diverse range of creative responses to current financial challenges, with the involvement of young people strongly embedded in change processes.
The new duty for schools to secure access to independent and impartial careers guidance was introduced less than six months ago. Though our recent survey on careers guidance raises some concerns, it is not surprising that the emerging picture is varied. It will be important that conclusions are not drawn too early and we will be working closely with local authorities to look in more detail at the new landscape and seek out emerging good practice. This material will inform our work on the guide for schools and will help us to shape a careers guidance framework for London that will aim to support schools and local authorities to deliver the best possible careers education and guidance for all young Londoners. The Education Committee’s recommendations, published today, provide a helpful corroboration of the issues that London Councils has raised and a useful steer for our work on a London framework.
London’s young people compete for jobs and careers in a world-class city, within a global market. The best careers education and guidance will ensure that our young people not only compete - they succeed.
Author: Yolande Burgess, Strategy Director, Young People’s Education and Skills Click here to send a comment or query to the author
Links: Education Select Committee inquiry into Careers Guidance for Young People Statutory guidance for schools: Careers guidance Future Models for Youth
This member briefing has been circulated to: Portfolio holders and those members who requested policy briefings in the following categories: Children and Young People
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1613-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 12969,
"total-output-tokens": 4075,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2303,
1
],
[
2303,
6149,
2
],
[
6149,
10473,
3
],
[
10473,
14399,
4
],
[
14399,
18488,
5
],
[
18488,
21341,
6
]
]
} |
65cc908142f4d5a606b22cbaf6c06d4566c456c3 | CONTENTS
2 Teacher’s notes
Worksheet themes:
3 / 4 Identity and belonging 5 / 6 Wealth and poverty 7 / 8 Agriculture and trade 9 / 10 War and conflict in the Caribbean
Image overleaf: The National Archives: ref. INF 10/144 (4) Photographs are amazing documents that can cross cultural boundaries and communicate a clear message without a word being spoken. How we read photographs also plays a vital role in the way we see and make judgements about what is happening and what messages are conveyed. How we interpret a photograph is linked to our personal connections with place and the assumptions we make between the photographer and sitter/subject.
This learning resource attempts to examine representations of race, culture and identity using photographic images from the National Archives Collection.
“Seeing comes before words. The child looks and recognizes before it can speak.”
John Berger
The worksheets are themed in four sections and have activities on the reverse. Each worksheet will have contextual information as a starting point to investigate and research other photographs and historical documents. Activities explore ideas through techniques of observation, research, response and review. Teacher’s Notes
Outline of activities on the back of each worksheet
1. Exploring and developing ideas Pupils record from first hand observations and explore ideas.
2. Investigating and researching photography styles Pupils learn about the different ways in which ideas, feelings and meanings are communicated in visual form.
3. Evaluating and developing work Compare ideas, methods and approaches in others’ work and say what they think and feel about their research and fact finding.
4. Knowledge and understanding Analyse and evaluate each other’s work, express opinions and make reasoned judgements.
The photographs have been selected to provide activities to encourage, analytical thinking and observational skills by exploring similarities and differences. This learning resource will offer practical ideas to support children as readers, researchers and writers, developing their skills as historical enquirers and building links between history and cultural identity.
A QR code has been included to access the Flickr site on mobile phones.
You can view all the images on-line by searching ‘Caribbean through a Lens’ on Flickr or by visiting the National Archives website.
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/Caribbean/
Other useful links for further study
http://www.whyarewestindians.co.uk/node/115 http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/caribbeanhistory/twentieth-century-transitions.htm http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/pages/history/story0060.htm http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/caribbeanhistory/glossary.htm http://www.movinghere.org.uk/galleries/histories/caribbean/caribbean.htm
References and Further Reading
Buckley, R. N., Slaves in Red Coats: The British West India Regiments 1795-1815, New Haven and London, 1979
Dyde, B., The Empty Sleeve: The story of the West India Regiments of the British Army, Antigua, 1997
Ellis, J., ‘Drummers for the Devil? The Black Soldiers of the 29th (Worcestershire) Regiment of Foot 1759-1843’, in Journal of Army Historical Research, vol. 80, no. 323, pp. 186-202, Autumn 2002
Ellis, J., ‘Distinguished in Action... The Black Soldiers of the 4th Dragoons 1715-1842’, Journal of the Queen’s Royal Hussars Historical Society, March 2003
Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, E. N., The Black Presence in the Era of the American Revolution (revised edition), Amherst, 1989 Identity and belonging
Materials you will need: pen or pencil and paper, computer and access to the internet
Time: 60mins
The National Archives: ref. INF 10/147(6A) Description: Jamaica. ‘Group of children in Roman Catholic Minor School, Seaford. Children are descendants of German immigrants’. Official Jamaican photograph compiled by Central Office of Information. Publicity statement on reverse. Copyright of Professor TS Simey, Department of Social Sciences, University of Liverpool. Location: Jamaica Identity and belonging
Contextual information
Identity can be defined as a sense of self. All of us have some conception of who, or what we are and the formation of our identity is a major area of our personal development. Establishing links about personal identity and racial identity can be effected by a number of things including self-esteem and confidence. When people move from one place to another it is important to retain a sense of self and belonging. When migrant communities move sometimes identities are lost and communities find it difficult to adapt to their new environments.
Seaford Town is named after Lord Seaford, and is found in the Westmoreland Hills just 25 miles from Montego Bay, Jamaica. The first immigrants to settle in Seaford Town arrived in the middle of December 1835. There were 250 men, women and children who first landed in Rio Bueno, before going on to Reading and then walking inland to Seaford. The original plan was that on arrival they would occupy cottages built for them and be paid small weekly allowances until they could cultivate and grow their own crops successfully.
Activity One
• What can you see in the photograph?
• Why do you think this photograph was taken?
• Compare and make notes of the similarities and differences you can see in the photographs in the Identity and belonging theme.
• Why do you think there are German children in the photograph?
Research
• Seaford wasn’t the only place where Germans settled in Jamaica, find out about other places where German Migrants settled.
• How did they earn money and make a living?
• Why did many Germans families find it difficult to settle in the Caribbean?
Respond
Write a diary insert about a day in the life of one of the children featured in this section. Remember to include lots of detail about your day, write about how you would travel to school, what you would eat at lunchtime and what games might you play during your break. Imagine yourself as one of the school children in the picture, give yourself a name and plenty of character.
Evaluating and developing work
Pupils should have a chance to listen and compare view points at the end of each worksheet. Students can work individually or in smaller groups with an appointed leader/spokesperson. Discuss methods and approaches, share ideas and make connections with other evidence and resources. This ideally should take place at the end of each session where pupils have the opportunity to say what they think about the activity and discuss with the group what they have learnt. Identity and belonging
Materials you will need: pen or pencil and paper, computer and access to the internet
Time: 60mins
The National Archives: ref. 10/147 (9) Description: Jamaica. ‘Elementary School, Love Lane, Kingston’. Photograph No ZZZ 22450H. Official Jamaican photograph compiled by Central Office of Information. Copyright hand stamp by EO Hoppe on reverse. Location: Jamaica Date: 1948 April Identity and belonging
Contextual information
Education in the Caribbean is highly regarded and students are expected to behave and perform immaculately regardless of their status or family background. Many parents in the Caribbean pride themselves on the value of education and recognise its potential to escape poverty and improve life prospects. Children are encouraged to work hard at school, and sometimes there were harsh punishments if you were disobedient. The teachers were strict and many of the children used slate and chalk in the 1950’s, some had books, paper and pens.
Caribbean people saw the importance of education as part of social and financial mobility improving their life chances. For those talented students there were growing opportunities in teaching and gaining qualifications to study at British universities.
Activity One
• What can you see in the photograph? • Why do you think this photograph was taken? • Compare and make notes of similarities and differences of the photographs in the identity and belonging theme. • What expressions are conveyed on the boys faces?
Activity Two
• When you look at this picture, what does it make you think about? • Why do you think the children in this photograph are working outside?
Research
• The Caribbean is known for its hot sunny weather and tourism. The tropical climate in the Caribbean region varies from season to season. • Find out what months are classified as the dry season. • Find out what months are known as the wet season. • Tropical storms and hurricanes have destroyed buildings and crops in the past, find images of Hurricane Janet in 1955 in Barbados and Blow holes in the Cayman Islands in 1957.
Respond
Write a diary insert about a day in the life of one of the children featured in this section. Remember to include lots of detail about your day; write about how you would travel to school, what you would eat at lunchtime and what games you might play during your break. Imagine yourself as one of the school children in the picture; give yourself a name and describe your character.
Evaluating and developing work
Pupils should have a chance to listen and compare view points at the end of each worksheet. Students can work individually or in smaller groups with an appointed leader/spokesperson. Discuss methods and approaches, share ideas and make connections with other evidence and resources. This ideally should take place at the end of each session where pupils have the opportunity to say what they think about the activity and discuss with the group what they have learnt. Wealth and poverty
Materials you will need: pen or pencil and paper, computer and access to the internet
Time: 90mins
The National Archives: ref. CO 1069/401 (4) Description: A House in Jumbie Village on the banks of the Caroni River Location: Frederick Village, Trinidad and Tobago Date: 1949 Wealth and poverty
Context Information
Early settlers built houses from natural materials using the techniques of the Africans and Amerindians. (Amerindians are descendants of the original inhabitants of Guyana.)
These houses were handcrafted with walls made from braided twigs called wattles. These homes were simple in construction, but were very strong and could withstand strong winds and hurricanes. Many houses were bungalows made from wooden boards with tin or palm thatch roofs. They had verandas for sitting outside. Many houses often had big gardens for growing food and keeping animals. Some had dirt floors; others had wooden floors made from locally sourced materials.
Foreign influences began to shape architectural design and details. As migration grew new materials found their way to the Caribbean, increasing trade and the economy.
Homes ranged from large colonial plantation houses built from the wealth made from the slave trade, to the brightly coloured shanty dwellings called “Carbets” or “Ajoupas”.
Activity One
• Look at the picture carefully, and list the building material you think the house is made from.
• Compare and contrast a photograph of your home and where you live, with the photograph here.
Activity Two
• Who might live in this house and what might they do to earn a living?
• Why do you think this house is on stilts?
• If you could ask the man that is sitting on the floor in the doorway a question what would it be?
Research
• What were the names of the first dwellings in the Caribbean?
• Find two examples of shanty dwellings on the Caribbean Through a Lens Flickr website.
Respond
Produce a word bank to describe each house in this section. A word bank is a collection words/phrases inspired by a painting or photograph.
Using the words you have generated, write a poem about what it would be like to live in this dwelling, and how you would make a living from the sea.
Evaluating and developing work
Pupils should have a chance to listen and compare viewpoints at the end of each worksheet. Students can work individually or in smaller groups with an appointed leader/spokesperson. Discuss methods and approaches, share ideas and make connections with other evidence and resources. This ideally should take place at the end of each session where pupils have the opportunity to say what they think about the activity and discuss with the group what they have learnt. Wealth and Poverty
Materials you will need:
- pen or pencil and paper
- computer and access to the internet
Time: 60 mins
The National Archives: ref. CO 1069/233 Description: Government House, Antigua. Principal and West Drawing Rooms. Leeward Islands. Nov. 1934. Location: Antigua Date: November 1934 Wealth and poverty
Contextual information
Many experiences of hardship were common across many islands in the Caribbean. Historians often state that poor housing, unemployment and lack of educational attainment are a legacy of the slave trade. Many people from around the world benefited greatly from the wealth that was made from the slave trade and plantation wealth.
Houses in the Caribbean varied in size and shape and were often influenced by designs and materials found locally. House designs were also influenced by people that came from other countries. This is a picture of a government house in Antigua; most houses of this size in the Caribbean were plantation houses. A plantation house was large and built on the highest ground with large gardens.
Building houses on high ground would ensure cool winds would pass through the property keeping living areas comfortable. By the 18th century, the addition of external galleries and verandas were introduced providing cool living environments. The architectural styles that developed over the next three centuries, reflects the synthesis of different people, from plantation owners of Europe to the slaves they brought from Africa.
The introduction of wrought-iron work, ceramic tiles, balconies and verandas were just a few of design features that were a result of the British Empire and the slave trade. The legacy of the British Empire and the movement of people, skills and ideas increased economy as new communities settled.
Activity One
• What can you see in the photograph?
• What design features can you see that would not normally be featured in a typical Caribbean home?
• Find/draw a picture of your ideal home and include design features that have been influenced by colonialism?
Activity Two
• Compare and make notes of similarities and differences found in the wealth and poverty theme.
• What is the function of a drawing room?
• What room do you think would be used as a drawing room in a smaller house?
Research
• Find two examples of former plantation houses on the Caribbean Through a Lens Flickr website, and write down their location and what it would be used for today?
• Would you stay or buy a former plantation house in the Caribbean, explain your reasons and why?
• Choose one of the names below, find out how these men became wealthy. Write a sentence about the information you have found.
Robert Milligan Sir John Hawkins William Beckford Sir Edward Colston
Respond
Write a poem about your life as a plantation slave, describe your home, what jobs you would do and what you would eat. Write about how you would be treated and how you would feel to be a slave.
Write a poem about your life as a plantation owner, research and find out what roles you would undertake on a day to day basis. Describe your role and how you would ensure the smooth running your plantation.
Evaluating and developing work
Pupils should have a chance to listen and compare view points at the end of each worksheet. Students can work individually or in smaller groups with an appointed leader/spokesperson. Discuss methods and approaches, share ideas and make connections with other evidence and resources. This ideally should take place at the end of each session where pupils have the opportunity to say what they think about the activity and discuss with the group what they have learnt. Agriculture and trade
Materials you will need: pen or pencil and paper
Time: 60mins
The National Archives: ref. CO 1069/353 (23) Description: An expert of the Ashenden Cocoa station, Grenada, examining pods on a cocoa tree. Location: Grenada Date: July 1955 Agriculture and trade
Contextual information
Cocoa, Sugar, Bananas and Coffee
Although the Caribbean may be seen as a paradise by people who go there on holiday, life was not always easy for its inhabitants. Many of those who did not work in the tourist industry made a living growing sugar-cane and other crops such as bananas, coffee and tobacco.
In 1753, it was recorded that there were only 150-300 cocoa trees in Grenada, however after the British took control of the island in 1763, there were 72 estates growing cocoa as well as coffee. Grenada became the hub of British cocoa production. Following slave emancipation and the shortage of labour, cocoa production began to decline.
However, former slaves gradually started to grow cocoa for themselves on small holdings that they had purchased. There was a tenfold increase of cocoa production between 1856-1886, which was linked to an increase in land ownership amongst former slaves.
Research
• Explore your local shops/supermarket and find out what countries the sugar, cocoa and banana have come from.
• Coco is just one of the products traditionally associated with the Caribbean; write a list of other crops that are exported from the West Indies.
• What does the term “Emancipation” mean?
Respond
What Caribbean products can you buy from your local shops/supermarket?
Research a Caribbean dish using one of the food items above.
Have you tried this before?
What foods do you already eat that are similar to these ingredients?
Evaluating and developing work
Pupils should have a chance to listen and compare view points at the end of each worksheet. Students can work individually or in smaller groups with an appointed leader/spokesperson. Discuss methods and approaches, share ideas and make connections with other evidence and resources. This ideally should take place at the end of each session where pupils have the opportunity to say what they think about the activity and discuss with the group what they have learnt. Agriculture and trade
Materials you will need: pen or pencil and paper, computer and access to the internet
Time: 90mins Agriculture and trade
Contextual Information
Since 1975, each Caribbean country had a quota of bananas, enabling them to sell as many as they wanted to Europe. This, the EU hoped, would enable the economies of such developing countries to grow independently, without depending on overseas aid.
The effect of this deal has been to protect Caribbean banana farmers from Latin America competition. Their bananas are cheaper because they are grown on large-scale, mechanised plantations run by giant US-based corporations.
The "banana wars" was the culmination of a six-year trade quarrel between the US (United States) and EU (European Union). The US complained that the EU scheme was giving banana producers from former colonies in the Caribbean special access to European markets.
But the problem this dispute poses for the developing world could be more serious. 71 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states are subject to the Lomé Convention, an agreement created in the 1970s which commits the European Union to support and promote trade with its former colonies.
The WTO (World Trade Organisations) is the only international body which deals with the rules of trade between countries, promoting free trade. Based in Geneva, it superseded the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, GATT, in 1994. It has the power to legislate on disputes and co-ordinate new rounds of negotiations aimed at dismantling barriers to trade throughout the world.
Activity One
• What can you see in the photograph? • Why do you think this photograph was taken?
Activity Two
• Compare and make notes of similarities and differences found in Agriculture and trade theme. • Look at the two pictures and decide which photograph is posed/staged and which one appears to be a more natural representation of local farmers. • Write about each photograph, and describe what you think is happening in each photograph in the Agriculture and trade theme.
Research
• Find out about the banana wars; what countries were involved and how long did this last? • What is the World Trade Organisation? • Write a paragraph about this organisation? • Find out about the Lomé Convention, list some of the ethical reasons why it was introduced?
Respond
Imagine you are a farmer; write a persuasive letter to the World Trade Organisation about why you think free trade should continue in the Caribbean. Write in detail about the problems you have encountered and how free trade would improve your life.
Evaluate and develop work
Pupils should have a chance to listen and compare view points at the end of each worksheet. Students can work individually or in smaller groups with an appointed leader/spokesperson. Discuss methods and approaches, share ideas and make connections with other evidence and resources. This ideally should take place at the end of each session where pupils have the opportunity to say what they think about the activity and discuss with the group what they have learnt. War and conflict in the Caribbean
Materials you will need: Pen or coloured pencils/ felt tip pens and paper, computer and access to the internet
Time: 90mins
The National Archives: ref. INF 10/145 (4) Description: Jamaica. Jamaica Regiment. Drum Major BL Reid of the Jamaica Regiment at Newcastle Hill Station. Photograph No D 78839 issued by Central Office of Information, London. Location: Jamaica Date: 1955 March War and conflict in the Caribbean
Contextual information
Men and women from all parts of the Empire and many smaller Commonwealth nations played a significant role in helping to defeat Germany, Italy and Japan. Some 372,500 African troops fought in East Africa and Burma.
The Indian Army (including Pakistan and Bangladesh) provided the world’s largest volunteer army with 2.5 million men. The Commonwealth Navies provided essential operational support worldwide, as did 5,800 West Indians who served in the RAF.
In 1795 the West Indian Regiment was formed. They fought in numerous campaigns in the West Indies and later in Africa where in 1866 and 1892 two members of the Regiment won the Victoria Cross.
The first black man to win the Victoria Cross was Able Seaman William Hall. He served with the Royal Navy and received his decoration in India at the siege of Lucknow in 1857.
Sergeant William Gordon won the Victoria Cross after throwing himself into the line of fire to save his commanding officer.
During the period between the First and Second World Wars the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air force had enforced a colour bar, limiting entry to the services to British subjects from the colonies. At the outbreak of war in September 1939 the colonial office declared that British subjects from the colonies were eligible to join emergency commissions in Her Majesty’s Forces. This change in policy made it possible for ethnic minorities to join the Armed Forces for the duration of the conflict.
Activity One
• Look at the photograph and describe what you see.
• What does the expression on his face convey?
• Look at the uniform. What can you find out about Major BL Reid’s role by looking at the photograph and reading the caption?
• What is the function of the Battle Standard?
• Can you find samples of insignias used on the uniform of the British West Indian Regiment?
Activity Two
• What is the Victoria Cross? Write about why it is awarded and why it is so special.
• What does the word “gallantry” mean?
• What do you think the term colour bar means?
Research
• Write about the term colour bar and what this would mean for thousands of African Caribbean men and women who wanted to join the war effort.
• The first black man to win the Victoria Cross was Able Seaman William Hall. Find a picture of this man and write a paragraph about his life and his contribution.
• Who was Sergeant William Gordon?
• Research his life and the contributions he made to the war efforts.
Respond
Design a poster to attract and recruit men and women from the colonies to join in the war efforts. Research and find other posters that were used at this time. Think about what would influence you to volunteer and join the war campaign.
Evaluate and develop work
Pupils should have a chance to listen and compare view points at the end of each worksheet. Students can work individually or in smaller groups with an appointed leader/spokesperson. Discuss methods and approaches, share ideas and make connections with other evidence and resources. This ideally should take place at the end of each session where pupils have the opportunity to say what they think about the activity and discuss with the group what they have learnt. War and conflict in the Caribbean
Materials you will need: Pen or coloured pencils/ felt tip pens and paper, computer and access to the internet
Time: 90mins
The National Archives: ref. INF 10/145 (5) Description: Jamaica. Jamaica Regiment. A parade of recruits to the Jamaica Regiment at Newcastle Hill Station. Photograph No D 78835 issued by Central Office of Information, London. Location: Jamaica Date: 1955 March Ministry of Information hand stamps. War and conflict in the Caribbean
Contextual Information
The 1st West India Regiment was formed in 1795 in the Windward Islands of the Eastern Caribbean. One of two units drafted into this regiment was the Black Carolina Corps - a remnant of British loyalist units following the American War of Independence. By 1799 there were twelve single-battalion West India Regiments - some fought in the fierce Caribbean campaigns of the Napoleonic wars and others in the Ashanti wars in West Africa. By 1888 only one regiment remained.
The British West Indies Regiment (BWIR) was known as a "coloured" regiment and as such was often the victim of racial discrimination. Eugent Clarke, was a Clarendonian BWIR veteran. In 1999 at the age of 105, he received France's Legion d'Honneur for meritorious service in WWI. He remembered how his ship docked at Halifax in Nova Scotia due to the presence of German ships in certain waters. Many of his colleagues had their first contact with snow and frostbite. They remained clothed in tropical lightweight khaki uniforms, and were denied issue of the heavier weight uniforms of British soldiers (which were on board) until half of the battalion had already died. Clarke was one of 200 survivors, he was sent with others to Bermuda to convalesce before heading over to Europe. Once there, conditions did not improve.
The men of the BWIR were generally restricted hard labour; digging trenches and carrying supplies to men at the fronts. All suffered from severe weather conditions, frostbite, measles and mumps.
The distinctive Zouave uniform worn by the West India Regiments was first issued in 1858. Queen Victoria was impressed by the uniform of the Zouaves (a light infantry of North African origin). An adaptation of this became the full dress uniform of the West India Regiment until the last regiment was disbanded in 1926 for economic reasons. The Jamaica Military Band (which descends from the Jamaica Militia of 1662 and the band of the old battalions of the West India Regiment) still wears it today.
Activity One
• Look at the photograph and describe what you see. • Can you think of a suitable caption for the photographs in this section? • What year was the Zouave uniform issued to the West Indian Regiment and why was this introduced?
Activity Two
• Can you find images of the full dress uniform of the West Indian Regiment? • Can you find other images of the Jamaica Military Band? • When was the first West Indian Regiment formed and why? • The West Indian Regiment fought in many battles, find out about their involvement in the Napoleonic wars and the Ashanti wars in West Africa
Research
• Read the accounts of Eugent Clarke. Why do you think the West Indian Regiment were treated differently and experienced racial discrimination. • Following the link below, read the telegraph that was written by the he Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor of Barbados on the 20th October 1917. Write a paragraph about attitudes towards race and recruitment of soldiers in the Caribbean at this time.
Respond
The first West India Regiment was formed in 1795 in the Windward Islands in the Caribbean. Can you find other photographs on the Caribbean Through a Lens Flickr website?
Research and compile a list of outstanding men and women from the Caribbean that contributed in the war efforts.
Evaluation and develop work
Pupils should have a chance to listen and compare view points at the end of each worksheet. Students can work individually or in smaller groups with an appointed leader/spokesperson. Discuss methods and approaches, share ideas and make connections with other evidence and resources. This ideally should take place at the end of each session where pupils have the opportunity to say what they think about the activity and discuss with the group what they have learnt.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1615-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 20,
"total-input-tokens": 36524,
"total-output-tokens": 7126,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
231,
2
],
[
231,
1216,
3
],
[
1216,
3525,
4
],
[
3525,
4034,
5
],
[
4034,
6598,
6
],
[
6598,
7004,
7
],
[
7004,
9592,
8
],
[
9592,
9889,
9
],
[
9889,
12321,
10
],
[
12321,
12626,
11
],
[
12626,
16008,
12
],
[
16008,
16269,
13
],
[
16269,
18272,
14
],
[
18272,
18395,
15
],
[
18395,
21367,
16
],
[
21367,
21787,
17
],
[
21787,
25044,
18
],
[
25044,
25503,
19
],
[
25503,
29359,
20
]
]
} |
d2e0421a9099a6b3c28a160ca756ad413e49d8f8 | Caring for your prints, drawings and watercolours
Works of art on paper appear in almost every private or public collection and cover a vast range, both in subject matter and value.
In Europe, paper has been in common use as a picture support since the mid-fifteenth century and is still the material on which the majority of artists’ images are produced. The materials From old master drawings to contemporary prints, the paper is fundamentally made of cellulose in the form of finely broken down plant fibres. In its purest form, cellulose is extremely durable, but additions can cause deterioration, usually through acid degradation, which weakens the fibres. The media used on the paper may be unstable too: pigments can fade or darken, some drawing inks bleed or corrode the paper, pastels and charcoal get smudged, thick paint like oils and gouache can flake.
Causes of damage Any exposure to light harms media and paper, but poor quality mounting and framing damages more works of art on paper than any other agent. Prints, drawings and watercolours can be ruined through contact with unsuitable framing materials, just as they can by amateur restoration and the use of inappropriate techniques in handling, storage and display. Atmospheric pollutants, for example sulphur and particulates, are implicated in the destruction of paper and they can change artists’ colours too. Biological agents, like insects and mould, affect paper, but they will only flourish as a result of uncontrolled environmental factors, such as high humidity and temperature.
Signs of damage Most owners of old watercolours, drawings and prints are familiar with the disfiguring brown spots called ‘foxing’. The stains are caused by bacteria or mould which generally grows on acidic paper when the humidity is high, or when metallic particles from the paper making process become embedded in the fibres.
Watercolour by JMW Turner showing fading of pigments where exposed to light
Paper will turn brown and brittle when cardboard containing unpurified wood pulp is pressed against it and that is how so many framed works of art on paper are damaged. They are stained on the back and have a brown or orange line around the edge of the image where the acidic overmount has ‘burnt’ the paper. Yellow stains on paper, especially in regular patches, can be due to glue or adhesive tapes used to fix the picture into a mount. Self-adhesive tapes are particularly damaging because the adhesive creeps into the paper and becomes impossible to remove. Too much light is usually to blame when you see a watercolour painting with a strange colour balance, or an ink drawing, which has lost its detail. The original colouring can often be found under the mount.
A certain amount of cockling or undulation is usual in handmade paper, but if the work of art is badly distorted, bowing towards the glass in a frame and perhaps wrinkled or even torn at the corners, then it is probably stuck down around the edges. Paper moves naturally in response to changes in humidity and it is better not to restrain it.
What you can do Storage and display The best way to keep most prints, drawings and watercolours is in a specially designed case called a Solander box. The works of art are mounted in conservation quality materials, must rest horizontally in drawers or on shelves. When handling the work of art, you should touch the paper as little as possible and keep your fingers away from the image. Pastel and charcoal drawings need extra care because the image may offset or smudge with the slightest pressure, so you could consider keeping them permanently framed within a mount that has been rebated to prevent any static or friction. Contemporary prints should not be handled directly either, because their immaculate paper is easily marked with skin oil and moisture. Keep them in a mount or acid-free paper folder. Attaching is a good barrier material from atmospheric pollutants or fluctuations in RH.
Protect framed prints, drawings and watercolours from daylight. Particularly avoid south facing light and try not to hang them directly against the interior of the outside wall of a building; the comparatively low temperature can cause condensation and mould growth inside. Conversely, a radiator or spotlight will dry the air out, and incidentally concentrate dust by convection currents. When choosing a suitable storage area, avoid damp cellars and un-insulated attics.
If prints and drawings get really wet, for example from a burst pipe, it is better to lay them out separately on blotting paper to dry with good air circulation, rather than to use an artificial heat source. In the case of a serious flood or a fire, get help from a conservator as soon as possible.
Mounting and framing If you have been to a picture framer recently, you may already know that many now offer mounting and framing to ‘conservation standards’. But you also need to know that these standards are not yet universally agreed or applied. You will still have to specify exactly what you want to safeguard your works of art. Ask the framer to follow the advice in the Institute of Paper Conservation leaflet, Guidelines for Conservation Framing, and explain that you are looking for positive answers to these five questions. Use UV protected glass.
• Will both the front and the back of the mount be made of solid core 100% cotton board (known as ‘museum board’), which is the best quality, or purified wood pulp board (known as ‘conservation board’)? • If there is no window or overmount, will the glazing material be spaced away from the picture surface? • Will the work of art be attached to the backmount only with acid-free paper hinges and a water-soluble adhesive? • Will there be an isolating layer between the backmount and a potentially damaging but necessary frame backboard, made of plywood or hardboard for example? • Will the frame itself have enough depth in the rebate to accommodate the mount, the isolating layer and the backboard and strength to take hanging fittings secured to the frame and not the backboard?
If you are not confident that the framer can meet these standards, ask a paper conservator to help you find one who can.
What you can’t do When it is too late for preventive conservation and the damage is already done, there is little that you as a collector can do to conserve and restore works of art on paper. Traditional remedies such as bread crumbs or bread to clean off dirt and commercially produced tapes to repair tears will do more harm than good.
Contact a paper conservator through the Institute of Paper Conservation and they will advise on the most appropriate treatment for your picture. With professional treatment, the condition of the paper and image can be stabilised so that their deterioration will not progress. Although faded colours cannot be restored to their original brightness and severe paper staining may only be reduced, most damage can be corrected by a skilled conservator.
Finding a conservator IPC operates a professional accreditation scheme to protect the users of conservation services, whether individuals or large public institutions. The scheme is run in partnership with other conservation bodies. Accredited members are designated as ACR MIPC.
IPC supplies free of charge, the names and addresses of ACRs either by geographical area or particular expertise. This service is open to both individuals and institutions, for a single item or collections. ACRs may also give advice on preventive conservation, disaster planning, storage and display.
The Institute of Paper Conservation is the leading organisation devoted solely to the conservation and care of paper, books and related materials. The Institute of Paper Conservation is a mail: information@ipc.org.uk website: www.ipc.org.uk
The recommendations in this leaflet are intended as guidance only. IPC does not assume responsibility or liability.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1616-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4152,
"total-output-tokens": 1676,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
358,
1
],
[
358,
7947,
2
]
]
} |
250df559c3e924a82359d5b09a819a822c8f489c | The book is an ingenious invention. Compact and portable, it has been the primary means of transmitting and preserving mankind’s accumulated knowledge for hundreds of years.
Printers and bookbinders have used a wide variety of materials and structures. Materials include paper, parchment, textile, leather, paste and glue. Causess of damage
These organic materials can be damaged by light, fluctuating and extremes of temperature and humidity, dirt and dust, poor shelving and handling.
Light causes rapid deterioration and fading. All lights cause some damage but daylight, containing high levels of ultraviolet radiation, is the most harmful. Hot and dry conditions desiccate and embrittle leather and paper; damp conditions encourage mould and insects. Accumulation of dirt and dust can trigger chemical degradation.
Shelving and handling can also cause physical and chemical damage. Most of the dirt on book covers and pages is accumulated grime from oily fingertips. While invisible, finger grease becomes all too visible as it oxidises and collects dirt.
Books packed tightly on a shelf are difficult to remove without harming them; removing a book by pulling on its headcap is apt to break it. Leaning books place stress on the entire book structure. Opening a book flat on a table stresses the structure, flattening the spine and stretching the joints. Placing books face down on a flat surface, for example during photocopying, break the binding.
Felt tips and pens may stain; self-adhesive slips (post it notes) leave an invisible residue of adhesive on the page to attract dirt. Newspaper cuttings, flowers and other miscellaneous material left in books leaves stains and collects the bindings.
Unskilled, DIY repairs and indiscriminate rebinding can seriously reduce the value, particularly of rare or special items, and lose irretrievable bibliographic information.
Signs of damage
Torn and loose pages, text blocks out of their covers, broken and detached spines and joints, yellowing self adhesive tapes or discarded paper repairs, ‘fused’ and brittle paper, stains, worm holes, mould all require attention.
What can you do
• Regular dusting is important and gives an opportunity to check the condition of books. When dusting the edge of a book, wipe away from the fore-edge, using a clean cloth or soft brush such as a shaving brush. Dirt brushed down the spine of the book is trapped there forever. A vacuum cleaner can also be used with the lowest suction. Muriatic or fine net can be tied over the nozzle to catch any loose bits that might accidentally fall off.
• Leather dressing is not recommended as it can cause stains, make the leather sticky and degrade paper. Recent tests have shown that such dressings are only cosmetic and do nothing to prolong the life of the leather.
• Handle books with clean hands. Wearing white cotton gloves for handling leather sticky and degrade paper. Recent tests have shown that such dressings are only cosmetic and do nothing to prolong the life of the leather.
• When opening a book on a flat surface, protect the structure from stress by placing another book or a rolled up towel on each side to support it.
• When removing a book from the shelf, either push the two neighbouring books back in order to grab the spine in the middle. If there is room above the book, reach over the top of the book to the fore-edge and then pull it out. If there is no room, push back the books on either side of the one to be removed, to expose enough of its spine to allow you to get a firm grip on it.
• Damaged book, detached spine or boards – to prevent further damage tie up firmly with a flat cloth tape and place in an envelope.
• Reduce exposure to light by keeping lights turned off in rooms that are not in use; block daylight by using curtains or blinds.
• Prevent exposure to rapid changes or extremes in temperature and humidity by keeping books away from sources of heat such as radiators and fireplaces. A cool, dry and stable environment is ideal. Temperatures between 13–19°C and a relative humidity of 45–60% are recommended. Avoid placing them near external walls. Good air circulation is imperative to prevent stagnant air pockets, where condensation will collect and mould might grow. For this reason it is best not to push books right to the back of the shelf.
• Ensure that books standing vertically on shelves are upright and supported by neighbouring books or bookends. It is best to lay large books horizontally in stacks of two or three.
• Important and fragile books may require additional protection. A variety of protective dressings are available from conservation suppliers. A conservator will be able to advise on custom-made boxes.
• If you have to pack books away for storage avoid wrapping them in common household plastics such as bin liners, plastic bags or cling film. These emit harmful gases as they degrade and may also encourage condensation. Don’t place books on fore-edges, as this is likely to damage the structure of a book and loosen the binding.
• Avoid storing boxes of books in attics, garages or basements where temperature and humidity fluctuations are great, where pests may be a problem, and where leaks or floods are common. Allow at least four inches of space between the boxes and the walls, ceilings and floors. Lift boxes up on wooden pallets.
• If books get wet in a flood small numbers can be air-dried. Stand the books up, fanned open, alternating spine to fore-edge, with sturdy bookends at each end to prevent them falling over. Fans can be used to circulate the air and increase evaporation. The room temperature needs to be as low as possible to discourage mould and use dehumidifiers or air conditioners to reduce humidity. A wet book may also be frozen to stabilise it, to be thawed and dried later. Wrap individual books in polythene and place it in a freezer. In the case of a serious flood or a fire, get help from a conservator as soon as possible.
What you can’t do
When it is too late for preventive conservation and the damage is already done, there is little that you as a collector can do. Resist the temptation to do home repairs with any of the wide variety of self adhesive tapes as these are likely to cause further damage and are difficult to remove.
Contact an accredited book conservator through the Institute of Paper Conservation and they will advise on the most appropriate treatment for your book.
Finding a conservator
IPC operates a professional accreditation scheme to protect the users of conservation services, whether individuals or large public institutions. The scheme is run in partnership with other conservation bodies. Accredited members are designated as ACR MIPC.
IPC supplies free of charge, the names and addresses of ACRs either by geographical area or particular expertise. This service is open to both individuals and institutions, for a single item or for a large and diverse collection. ACRs may also give advice on preventive conservation, disaster planning, storage and display.
The Institute of Paper Conservation is the leading organisation devoted solely to the conservation and care of paper, books and related materials.
email: information@ipc.org.uk website: www.ipc.org.uk
The recommendations in this leaflet are intended as guidance only. IPC does not assume responsibility or liability.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1617-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4295,
"total-output-tokens": 1607,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
324,
1
],
[
324,
7383,
2
]
]
} |
813ca1748fb89261fe3f82e760e24d302c6d056e | CCTV
Council owned car parks
CODE OF PRACTICE
## Contents
1 Introduction
- CCTV surveillance 3
- Legislation 3
- Systems and equipment 4
- Purpose of scheme/objectives 4
- Surveillance Camera Code of Practice 4
- Data Protection Act 5
- Changes to code 5
- Responsibilities of the owner of the scheme 5
- Management of the system 5
2 Installation
- Consultation 6
- Sound 6
- Change 6
- Dummy cameras 6
3 Accountability
- Public Information 6
- Staff 6
- Complaints 6
- Breaches of the Code 7
4 Data management
- Control and operation of the cameras 7
- Access to and security of monitors 7
- Statement of intent 7
- Evidential use of recordings 8
- Police access to data 8
5 Third party access to data
- Access/disclosure of images to third parties 8
- Freedom of Information 8
- Other rights/information 8
Appendices:
- A CCTV Car Park Inventory
- B CCTV Activity Log
- C CCTV Subject Access Request Form
1. Introduction
This Code of Practice applies to the use of the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) systems within our Public car parks. The Town Centre CCTV system, although owned by Cheltenham Borough Council, is monitored and used proactively by Gloucestershire Police, the Data Controller, and therefore covered by their codes of practice.
This Code of Practice ensures that issues such as privacy and integrity are properly respected and the use of CCTV and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR – within Regents Arcade) in public places takes place in accordance with the advice and guidelines.
As at 1 April 2014, maintenance and upgrading work to the system has resulted in some cameras not being fully operational.
CCTV Camera Surveillance Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras operated by local authorities in public car parks the prevention and detection of crime.
The operation of CCTV systems must be undertaken with due regard to the following legislation:
- The Data Protection Act 1998
- The Human Rights Act 1998
- The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
- The Freedom of Information Act 2000
- Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
- Surveillance Camera Code of Practice
- Information Security Policy
The system is intended to view activity in public car parks and footways. It will not be used to invade the privacy of any persons in domestic, business or other private premises, buildings or land.
Description of Systems and Equipment This section gives a general description of systems and their uses, it is not exhaustive in nature, nor does it supersede or replace any legislative requirements.
Visible CCTV cameras may be securely fixed on rigid mountings at various locations (see Appendix A for locations and equipment information) cameras conform, as a minimum, to standards of performance laid down by the Secretary of State for Transport. For the avoidance of doubt, the cameras may be;
- ‘Static’ - permanently sited at a particular location
- Of ‘Analogue’ or ‘digital’ image format. • Hard-wired, networked or wireless networked.
Purpose of Scheme Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras operated by local authorities in public car parks are used for the prevention and detection of crime.
Adequate signage displaying the following, or similar, wording will be installed and maintained on the camera pole or within the area of coverage stating:
“Images are being monitored and recorded for the purposes of public safety, crime prevention, and traffic enforcement. This scheme is controlled by Cheltenham Borough Council. For further information contact: 01242 262626”.
The Scheme makes specific arrangements for the provision of recordings for evidential purposes to the police.
Surveillance Camera Code of Practice 2013 The scheme aspires to comply with this code and particularly the 12 guiding principles:
01. Use of a surveillance camera system must always be for a specified purpose which is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and necessary to meet an identified pressing need.
02. The use of a surveillance camera system must take into account its effect on individuals and their privacy, with regular reviews to ensure its use remains justified.
03. There must be as much transparency in the use of a surveillance camera system as possible, including a published contact point for access to information and complaints.
04. There must be clear responsibility and accountability for all surveillance camera system activities including images and information collected, held and used.
05. Clear rules, policies and procedures must be in place before a surveillance camera system is used, and these must be communicated to all who need to comply with them.
06. No more images and information should be stored than that which is strictly required for the stated purpose of a surveillance camera system, and such images and information should be deleted once their purposes have been discharged.
07. Access to retained images and information should be restricted and there must be clearly defined rules on who can gain access and for what purpose such access is granted; the disclosure of images and information should only take place when it is necessary for such a purpose or for law enforcement purposes.
08. Surveillance camera system operators should consider any approved operational, technical and competency standards relevant to a system and its purpose and work to meet and maintain those standards.
09. Surveillance camera system images and information should be subject to appropriate security measures to safeguard against unauthorised access and use.
10. There should be effective review and audit mechanisms to ensure legal requirements, policies and standards are complied with in practice, and regular reports should be published.
11. When the use of a surveillance camera system is in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and there is a pressing need for its use, it should then be used in the most effective way to support public safety and law enforcement with the aim of processing images and information of evidential value.
12. Any information used to support a surveillance camera system which compares against a reference database for matching purposes should be accurate and kept up to date.
Data Protection Act 1998, Human Rights Act 1998, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Information Commissioners Office The scheme complies, and Cheltenham Borough Council is committed to ensuring it complies, with all relevant legislation and guidance.
Changes to the Code Any major changes to this Code of Practice will be approved by the Director of Environmental and Regulatory Services. This Code of Practice will be subject to review as required by the Service Manager who is authorised to make minor amendments.
Responsibilities of the Owner of the Scheme Cheltenham Borough Council, as owner, has responsibility for the compliance with the purposes and objectives of the scheme including operational guidance and the protection of the interests of the public and privacy of the individuals whose images are captured.
Management of the System The day-to-day management of the scheme, and requirements of the Code of Practice, will be undertaken by (post to be determined) or in that officer’s absence by designated staff.
All ensuing references to the (post to be determined) will be deemed to include the designated staff. Access to recordings will comply with specific guidelines and will be recorded and monitored (Appendix A – activity log)
The documentation required to run the scheme has been developed from, and is specifically linked to, the Code of Practice Guidelines. 2. Installation
Consultation The CCTV installations are carried out through consultation with interested parties and are based on evidenced need.
Sound No sound will be recorded in public places.
Change Any technological change, which will have a significant effect upon the capacity of the system, will be fully assessed in relation to the purpose and key objectives of the scheme.
Dummy Cameras No dummy cameras will be used in the scheme as they give a false sense of security and are in contravention to the DPA 1998 Code of Practice.
3. Accountability (post to be determined) with the day-to-day responsibility for the scheme will continuously monitor the operation of the scheme and the implementation of the Code of Practice.
(post to be determined) will undertake spot checks which will include the examination of records and the content of recorded data and recorded in the Activity Log (Appendix A)
Public Information The recording of people in public places will be undertaken fairly and lawfully. CCTV cameras will not be hidden and signs that they are operating will be displayed at the perimeter of the area of coverage.
Copies of the Code of Practice and complaints procedure can be found on the Councils internet site or on application in writing to Customer Relations, Cheltenham Borough Council, Municipal Offices, Promenade, Cheltenham GL50 9SA.
Staff Staff will be made aware of the Codes of Practice and their responsibilities in the implementation of the same.
Complaints The Councils complaints procedure will be the vehicle for complaints. Particulars about how to make a complaint, the name and address of the person to whom the complaint should be made are publicly available via the Councils website, in person or in writing to Customer Relations, Cheltenham Borough Council, Municipal Offices, Promenade, Cheltenham GL50 9SA. Breaches of the Code including those of security These will be dealt in line with the Council’s Information Security Policy and Procedures.
4. Data management
Control and Operation of Cameras
- Information recorded will be accurate, adequate and relevant and not exceed that necessary to fulfil the purpose of the scheme.
- Only authorised staff with responsibility for using the equipment shall have access to operating controls and access recorded in the Activity Log (Appendix B)
- Use of cameras will accord with the scheme objectives and comply with the Code of Practice.
Access to and Security of Monitors Access to view monitors, whether to operate the equipment or to view the images, is limited by the Data Protection Act 1998 to staff with that responsibility. These staff will have been trained and vetted for operations in this area.
An Activity Log (Appendix B) will record names of any persons that have been authorised by the (post to be determined) to have access to view the monitors.
Public access to the monitors shall not be allowed except by pre-arranged appointment with the manager and then only for lawful, proper and sufficient reasons. Visitors will be asked to respect the confidentiality requirements and will have to sign acknowledging this subject to a formal Subject Access Request (Appendix C)
Technical repairs, cleaning and similar tasks should be carried out in controlled circumstances and people undertaking these tasks will be recorded in the Activity Log (Appendix B)
Police visits to review data (under Section 29 Data Protection Act) will be pre-arranged and appointments made. Other visits by Police must comply with the provisions of the Code of Practice and the purpose of the visit must be approved by (post to be determined). Access will be monitored and recorded on the Activity Log (appendix B) with details with images viewed.
Statement of Intent ‘Recorded material’ will be used only for purposes defined in this Code of Practice.
- Access to recorded material will only take place as defined in this Code of Practice.
- Recorded material will only be accessed in accordance with the law, for investigation of crime and identification of a suspect or other lawful objective.
- Recording equipment will be checked regularly to ensure it is in good working order and that the time and date generator is correctly set and displayed and certified in the Activity Log (Appendix B).
- DVD’s required for evidential purposes will be separately indexed and securely stored and any copies handed to the Police will be sealed in an evidence bag. Evidential use of recordings When evidential data is downloaded onto a DVD, staff will be required to provide the Police with evidential statements for continuity purposes.
Police access to data Police may apply for access (under Section 29 Data Protection Act), in accordance with established protocols where they reasonably believe that access to specific data is necessary for the investigation and detection of particular offence or offences or for the prevention of crime.
5. Third Party Access to Data
Access to and Disclosure of Images to Third Parties Only designated staff employed by Cheltenham Borough Council will have access and be authorised to view images on the CCTV system. This is restricted to:
- (post to be determined)
- Other authorised staff
- Other persons authorised by one of the above positions in the investigation of a particular incident or event.
These staff members are only permitted access for the purposes of carrying out their Council duties.
Activity Log (Appendix B) will be completed where the above persons need to download or otherwise allow viewing by third parties.
There will normally be no disclosure of recorded images to third parties other than regulatory bodies. Requests by individual data subjects for disclosure of images relating to them will be considered in line with procedures and an application can be made through Customer Relations, Cheltenham Borough Council, Municipal Offices, Promenade, Cheltenham GL50 9SA
Freedom of Information Any request made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to any material captured, stored or retained as a result of the use of CCTV cameras will be subject to relevant legislation.
Other Rights/Information An individual is entitled to serve a notice on the Council requiring the Council to cease processing images relating to that individual, or another person, on the basis that they are likely to be caused substantial, unwarranted damage or distress. All staff involved in operating the equipment must be able to recognise such a request from an individual.
(post to be determined) is responsible for responding to such requests. Where a staff member receives a request, they must inform (post to be determined) about this immediately.
(post to be determined) has 21 days to respond to the request, and must indicate whether they will comply with the request or not. If (post to be determined) decides that the request will not be complied with they will set out the reasons in the response.
Individual records should be kept referring to all the documents relating to the request and referenced for ease of access and audit purposes.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1618-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 10,
"total-input-tokens": 16640,
"total-output-tokens": 3384,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
48,
1
],
[
48,
915,
2
],
[
915,
2945,
3
],
[
2945,
5375,
4
],
[
5375,
7576,
5
],
[
7576,
9440,
6
],
[
9440,
12035,
7
],
[
12035,
14460,
8
],
[
14460,
14694,
9
],
[
14694,
14694,
10
]
]
} |
06e91a5a2a390e02eec9e8efe540553bce12fac7 | Estates Regeneration: Case Study
Sutton: Mixed sites development
Overview: The estates programme located in LB Sutton involves an extensive 14/15 year programme featuring the development of Durand Close estate in Carshalton, along with the smaller Corbet Close estate and a portfolio of defective Orlit properties. There are 13 other smaller sites captured in these proposals to improve community regeneration and housing provision across the borough. The regeneration project as a whole is expected to provide 680+ homes, with 64 per cent affordable.
The estate regeneration scheme was originally considered by LB Sutton in 1999 following a petition from residents at Durand Close. The borough was then able to include a number of other sites across the borough to benefit from the regeneration proposals. In 2002 a selection of partners got on board culminating in the establishment of the Lavender Housing Partnership in 2003. The partnership includes Affinity Sutton (originally Broomleigh Housing Association); Rydon construction alongside residents representatives.
How were the sites identified? The largest project involved the demolition of a 1960s built estate of 12 deck access blocks of social housing named Durand Close, consisting of 295 primarily three and four bed-roomed flats. The regeneration scheme originally set out to deliver 470 new homes, half of which would be affordable to local residents.
This estate was chosen because in the 1990s it had received media recognition as a ‘problem estate’ and had been compared among the worst estates in England. In 1994 a safer neighbourhood survey was undertaken and identified adverse social issues, with child densities and deprivation levels which were exacerbated by the poor living standards on the estate. There was the cumulative impact of higher than average anti-social behaviour and crime levels. The borough worked with the residents association to implement some local measures including use of garages for a community centre. However in 1999 the residents voted in favour of a comprehensive regeneration scheme.
The small sites identified in the project include a mixture of sites requiring redevelopment such as sheltered housing, battery garage blocks a landlocked derelict site and an old depot site and a smaller estate at Corbet Close.
Funding: The total cost of the project is £170 million, which includes £29 of government grant and a subsidy contribution. Proceeds from the private development for sale have helped with the provision of the rented and shared ownership properties.
Community consultation: The residents of Durand Close agreed a masterplan for the estate in 2006 following a consultation exercise, which resulted in more than 80% of residents in support of the project. The consultation involved active communication with residents groups, FIRST call Consultants and the developer Rydon on design elements of the new homes. The local led partnership forum Lavender Housing Partnership played an instrumental role in making decisions about the project structure and design and ensuring that the development promotes a sustainable community approach.
continued over... Estates Regeneration: Case Study
Sutton: Mixed sites development
**Key successes:** By spring 2016, a total of 450 residents had been rehoused across all the sites, with the provision of 430 new homes to date. A further 120 homes will be delivered on site along with another 131 new homes from the other projects such as the Orlit portfolio and Corbet Close.
**Key Challenges:** During this process concerns were raised by the GLA, about parking, play, open space and layout considerations. The transfer of four sites was put on hold for a number of reasons. Discussions about the allocation of housing to AffinitySutton (Broomleigh HA as was) required agreement in respect of the unit and tenure mix and the additional affordable housing to be provided. The approval of the Secretary of State was also required to give consent to the whole project.
The phased approach to the scheme saw works begin on the first related site in the summer of 2004, and the first demolition on Durand Close beginning with Phase 1a in 2007 and completion of the first new build units on site in summer of 2011. During 2016-18 it is anticipated that Durand Close (The Lavenders) will see the completion of the final phases of redevelopment with the final delivery stage of the project on other sites to be completed between 2017/19.
**Lessons learned:** Role of contractor is critical in terms of on site management during construction phases and maintaining trusted resident liaison. Early resident involvement in Master Planning, design stages and programme/steering group. Ensure local councillors and local community are engaged in the process. Be clear what the Council is able to offer - in term of rehousing, return to site, compensation, leaseholder package, local lettings etc.
**Regeneration outcomes:** The estate regeneration programme has delivered a number of benefits which include high quality housing with mixed use tenures sustainable for the whole community. The schemes has also delivered a new community centre and shop at Durand Close with an improved riverside amenity. The whole project has successfully been delivered with the full involvement of residents throughout the process.
For more information contact: rick.martinez@sutton.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1620-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3690,
"total-output-tokens": 1191,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3177,
1
],
[
3177,
5428,
2
]
]
} |
70bf854d09c8fc9469125d084b3cf8161ce1ca75 | TOP TIPS Advocacy and Writing a Case for Support
At the heart of all good fundraising is an effective Case for Support – a powerful and engaging argument as to why a donor / funder / investor should support your work. Every application needs to be tailored to the specific funding opportunity; preparing a Case for Support with all the key facts and figures about your organisation means you will have all the core elements ready for your fundraising request.
Never assume that funders and donors know who you are or what you do – even when you think they should! Your application may be scored by a panel that knows nothing about your organisation.
1. Who are you? • Who are you and what do you do. How long have you been established? Do you work in partnership with other organisations?
2. What is the need? • How are things now and why do they have to change? • What will happen if things don’t change? • Why is your organisation the best one to change things?
3. What is your Solution? • What is your organisation’s solution to the problem • What are you going to use the money for • Who or what will benefit from the work you plan to do – detail outcomes not outputs. • What will be the difference you make if you are successful – detail the impact. • How will the project be evaluated, how will success be measured?
4. How much will it cost? • How much will this cost? • Detail of the expenditure- be as specific as possible • Try and demonstrate the value for money the project will deliver • Who else is funding – include any funding currently secured, any additional funding being applied for and any match funding which will be leveraged if the application is successful. Remember!
Why are you doing what you are doing?
Why is it important?
Why should a funder / investor / donor support you?
As you think about and create your Case for Support, it helps to ask the following questions:
- Is your message clear, concise, and compelling?
- Would the reader have a solid understanding of your organisation’s programmes, impact, and the people / communities you support?
- How effectively does your Case for Support set the stage for why you need £?
- Is the style of writing engaging? Remember you are one person writing for another; if your style is too formal, although the content may be incredibly informative, it may be too ‘dry’ to make an impact. Does the excitement and passion for your project translate to the text?
- Use personal stories or ‘case studies’ to demonstrate the impact and bring your case for support to life
- Have you written in the present tense? (The answer should be yes!)
- Would a prospective donor / funder / investor be inspired to give after reading your Case for Support?
- Describe impacts not features i.e. 200 people will visit the archive is a feature, what will be the impact of their visit?
- Adjust the message to suit your audience – you will require more than one case for support; each will need to be tailored to the audience. You should not submit a case for support without having endeavored to find out what the objectives of the reader will be.
- Ask others to review your case for support before submitting it.
- Ensure the document ties in with your organisation’s mission, vision and strategy
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1621-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3720,
"total-output-tokens": 798,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1727,
1
],
[
1727,
3303,
2
]
]
} |
afe315186a0505985172d8646d20bc3911f272b9 | Case Study
Cambridge Centre for Christianity Worldwide (formerly known as the Henry Martyn Centre) The Cambridge Centre for Christianity is currently relocating to a new Centre within Westminster College.
Here, Lucy Hughes, the archivist, talks about developing a new forward plans to coincide with the move to new premises.
- **How did you prepare for writing your plan?** This has been an ongoing process, but the main form of preparation has been verbal discussions with other members of the team about how we want to position ourselves, the context for this being the run-up to our move into a newly-refurbished (and extended) building. As archivist, I also prepared for writing plans by reading circulars to relevant newsgroups (the Religious Archives Group) and attending meetings, for example a meeting of the Specialist Repositories Group in London in April 2013, where I heard a talk about Archives Service Accreditation. More recently, I attended a workshop on Archive Service Accreditation in Peterborough.
- **Did you already have a plan in place? If so, were you able to adapt it?** A report on our archive produced in May 2012 by staff from the Private Archives Team at The National Archives, has formed the basis for subsequent plans and remains a very useful reference-point as we move forward. The report has been in many ways a link between the period in which my predecessor as archivist was here, and my own arrival as archivist in October 2012. My predecessor’s perception of the priorities for the archive at the time were reflected and confirmed in that document, and the report reflected the Centre’s sense of its own identity whilst simultaneously offering an objective assessment by an outsider. This has given me a framework within which to operate since I arrived in post.
- **Who else was involved in the process?** The Director of our Centre, Dr Emma Wild-Wood, was closely involved with this process. We have had one-on-one meetings in which we discussed our aspiration to aim for Archives Accreditation, and other related matters.
- **How did you make sure that it fitted with wider organisational plans?** Quarterly staff meetings have given an opportunity to ensure that planning is co-ordinated. The wider organisational context is that the Centre is governed by the Henry Martyn Trust, and the Director updates staff about decisions of the Trust and directives coming from trustees. We are also obliged to co-ordinate with plans made by Westminster College, since our offices, archives and library are located on Westminster premises. This has been particularly important during the period of refurbishment and building work that has been going on since 2013. Again, staff meetings (and more regular informal conversations) are an opportunity to keep abreast of these developments.
- **How did you ensure that stakeholder views were included?** An email list is maintained by our administrator and news of the Centre’s activities and plans is circulated to a range of stakeholders that way. For example, when the change of name was mooted, stakeholders were invited to indicate favoured form of words for the new title and strapline. Responses were taken into account when reaching a decision.
- **How long did the whole process take?** It has been an ongoing process: two years so far! It is two years since we invited the Private Archives Team from The National Archives to come and make recommendations, and we are aiming to launch our new Centre in the summer of 2014 (three months from now). The launch will be an opportunity to draw together plans into a more definitive blueprint, since we will be producing new promotional literature at that time. • **What was the hardest part of getting your plan together?**
The hardest part has been the fact that uncertainties associated with the building work, and changes to architectural plans, have been ongoing. Although there have not been any dramatic changes to the architectural plans, there have been a series of modifications made which will affect provision and working patterns to a certain extent. The move has also been distracting: the packing-up of the library and archive and the dispatch of the collections into temporary storage have taken up staff time, which has been difficult.
• **What has been the most useful part of the plan?**
It has been beneficial to try and develop an integrated approach to the archive, joining up different aspects of what we do and thinking about things in connection. Thinking about access policy, especially, has been useful. A new self-contained Centre (whereas in the past we shared Westminster Library’s space) will hopefully permit us to welcome slightly different kinds of groups and maybe hold some events at the Centre that would not have been feasible in the past. This in turn should affect our relationship with stakeholders.
• **How have you continued to use and develop the plan?**
Having a forward plan has helped to maintain a sense of direction and purpose at a time when changes to our working life have presented challenges. Developing the plan continues – and will continue – as we move into our new Centre. Physical elements like disaster planning (which is location-specific) will increasingly receive attention during the coming months.
• **What tips would you pass on to other archive services for writing their forward plan?**
It is important to attend networking events, seminars and workshops offered to professionals in the sector where possible. These are always inspiring and help to get a perspective on what you do. Wherever possible, step back and see the broader picture, as it can be easy to get absorbed with one particular aspect of provision at the expense of others.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1622-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 8974,
"total-output-tokens": 1335,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
100,
1
],
[
100,
1854,
2
],
[
1854,
3710,
3
],
[
3710,
5602,
4
],
[
5602,
5763,
5
]
]
} |
f2efdcd81dd009f881d556e441e192fedf3ff2df | Case study
Archivist Caroline Sampson discusses forward planning at the University of Leicester and Warwickshire County Council
© Crown copyright 2014
You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence or email psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third-party copyright information, you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Caroline Sampson has recently moved to the University of Leicester as part-time University Archivist. Prior to this Caroline worked as County Archivist and Head of Cultural Services and Warwickshire County Council. Here she describes how she has developed forward plans and why they are important.
- **Why are forward plans important?**
At Warwickshire, I found forward planning to be a valuable tool that gave everyone a chance to get involved and to share a sense of what the service was aiming to achieve. I was also able to use the plan to deflect spontaneous, casual or random claims on our time! Leicester’s archive service is relatively new and has a number of challenges to address. Forward planning will help me to capture what needs to be done, what order to do it in, and who will be able to help with various components.
- **How did you prepare for writing your plan?**
My first step is to do a personal brainstorm of all the tasks, problems, opportunities, etc. that are buzzing in my head. I can then turn an uncluttered mind to the contributions from colleagues, users and stakeholders.
- **Did you have already a plan in place? If so, were you able to adapt it?**
In Warwickshire, the archive service’s planning process complemented plans created at divisional and directorate level. Our planning took these into account alongside previous archive service plans and any relevant project plans.
- **Who else was involved in the process?**
We had “all staff” planning sessions which I tried to make informal so that people didn’t feel uncomfortable about raising new points or challenging what was being suggested by others. We engaged with colleagues in other services with whom we worked closely so that we understood up front whether they were planning work that would make claims on our time and also to seek their input to tasks we were leading on where appropriate.
- **How did you make sure that it fitted with wider organisational plans?** We mapped all the suggestions to Warwickshire County Council’s priority objectives so that all stakeholders could see the contribution the record office was making to the council’s core business.
- **How did you ensure that stakeholder views were included?**
We looked at the feedback and data from recent PSQG surveys and user feedback from other sources. We also shared draft copies of the plan with our User Forum which included representatives of key stakeholder groups at sessions designed to give User Group members a chance to challenge and contribute.
- **How long did the whole process take?**
There were clearly peak periods of activity leading to when the plan had to be published in line with council deadlines but I tried quite hard for it not to be an intense and irksome task that was done once a year then forgotten about until the next time. We used the plan throughout the year and individuals would think ahead to what items could be included in the next forward plan.
- **What was the hardest part of getting your plan together?**
The council had a tendency to change the format it wanted services to use for their plans year on year, and leave it to the last minute to confirm the template. This tended to create an additional editing job which could prove time-consuming.
- **What has been the most useful part of the plan?**
Making sure all staff have a shared understanding of what the service is prioritising at any one time and being able to use it to prevent last minute “good ideas” which haven’t been properly thought through from monopolising large amounts of time.
- **How have you continued to use and develop the plan?**
In my experience one plan morphs into another, so it becomes a rolling framework for long-term improvement and development.
- **What tips would you pass on to other archive services for writing their forward Plan?** Share the load with colleagues from your own and complementary services. Make the plan work for you, rather than seeing it as an administrative task that’s been foisted on you by someone else. And last but not least, bring chocolate to the planning and monitoring meetings to celebrate your successes to date!
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1623-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 6838,
"total-output-tokens": 1112,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
552,
1
],
[
552,
2523,
2
],
[
2523,
4404,
3
],
[
4404,
4713,
4
]
]
} |
82b4822d5d5b93bdbb338e96bdec92d30c5374d8 | CASE STUDY: BODLEIAN LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
January 2014
ABSTRACT
This case study covers the Bodleian Library and the University of Oxford, and their provision of a “private cloud” local infrastructure for its digital collections including digitised books, images and multimedia, research data, and catalogues. It explains the organisational context, the nature of its digital preservation requirements and approaches, its storage services for research data, the technical infrastructure, and the business case and funding. It concludes with the key lessons they have learnt and future plans.
ORGANISATIONAL CONTEXT
The Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford has been a legal deposit library for 400 years. In addition to its books and journals it holds a wide range of archives and special collections. For example, the BEAM service within the library looks at personal archives that are hybrid collections of analogue and digital material.
The Library was involved with the Google Books digitisation project and a OS map digitisation project, and is currently part of a project with the Vatican to digitise maps.
The Library’s role in supporting researchers includes services for managing their research data. The University’s research data management strategy involves a top level, multi-agency approach - the Library, Research Services, Oxford e-Research Centre, and central IT services have all been involved. The Research Support Portal offers a central reference point for Research data management to Oxford academics. In general, the central IT service provides operational support and the Library deals with archiving of data.
The Library, Oxford e-Research Centre, and central IT service all offer their own storage services that have been described as “private cloud”: IT services offers conventional storage for research data on a monthly rental basis; the Library offers archival storage for deposits (usually from humanities scholars) which may or may not have a related web presence: and the Oxford e-Research Centre offers storage with access to the academic Data Grid. Data for long term deposit goes into the archival storage, but currently there is a one-off single payment which covers ongoing storage costs. They are also looking currently at alternative cost models for small deposits and unfunded research.
The options for storage and archiving are set out via the Research Support Portal. The Library will provide a quote for archiving digital material generated from a research grant, costed on the standard basis for a “Small Research Facility”. For larger/more complex datasets they can collaborate with other institutions, e.g. the Oxford eResearch Centre.
**DIGITAL PRESERVATION:**
**Significance**
Digital Preservation is of major importance to the Library. As a legal deposit library “that’s what we do”.
The University also needs to comply with Research Council mandates for retention of data. The requirement is typically for ten years preservation of most digital research data, but in practice storage costs diminish so much that after ten years it may be more costly to review the data than to continue preserving it.
For digitised materials they are working mostly with humanities, but born digital research datasets are coming from different disciplines such as sciences and social sciences, which don’t have the same metadata standards, traditions or expertise, and therefore this needs new skills in the Library.
They are at a transition stage where over the next 4-5 years the largest collections will be born digital rather than digitised.
**Current approaches**
For hybrid archives the material is very varied. They are given old devices from which they have to extract the data and do format translation/migration. If digitising themselves, they have more control, and so far have only had to migrate from TIFF to JPEG 2000, a choice which was driven more by engineering and costs than preservation imperatives. The Library use their own platform based on simplified FEDORA. The FEDORA system doesn’t actually do preservation processes, so they do checksums and use JOVE, Open Planets etc. for characterisation and other preservation functions. For hybrid archives/personal digital materials, they use Forensic Toolkit software on incoming data – this is costly software but identifies valuable files and the formats for possible migration.
There is a diversity of research data formats which are often machine-specific and proprietary so they can’t be migrated easily. They have looked at bit stream preservation and keeping context information for these formats.
**How they would want this to change over the next 3 years**
Currently they have different approaches to different material. They would like to see more packaged tools that could be applied across the board and more automation, e.g. for the workflow involved in characterisation. Currently, they have long workflows with lots of dependencies. Cloud Virtual Machines could help speed up dealing with processing and checking images at ingest, etc.
**Range of content types and volumes of digital material**
Currently they have 300 Tb of which a small amount is born digital material. Over the next three years they are planning to start to archive data at a Petabyte scale. Currently, the content is overwhelmingly images and text but that range is expanding with the addition of AV and other file formats over time.
**PRIVATE CLOUD STORAGE FOR DIGITAL PRESERVATION**
Oxford has been managing its own local virtualized storage for preservation and describes this as private cloud. They are not procuring cloud storage from an external service. They do not view most external cloud providers as a viable proposition for them currently, as their ongoing revenue payment models do not match the research funding model of fixed duration payments for projects, and are therefore potentially too costly over time. They are also worried about getting data out and any costs for this being affordable. Some external specialist archiving services are interested in proper long term storage and might be a better match. For example they might consider Arkivum if the cost profile was favourable. The Bodleian are actively looking for partners for a consortium approach but the infrastructure is not there yet. They have some discussions with Cambridge which would be an obvious partner, and also have strong ties with Stanford. They can see preservation advantages in having a copy of the data elsewhere, stored in a geographically distant location with a preservation partner institution.
**TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE**
They use FEDORA, home-grown software, PRONOM, and DROID. They also use Forensic Toolkit and are looking at HYDRA tools. They don’t plan on having a single ingest or delivery route as the material is too diverse.
The private cloud is based on VMware ESX running across a number of clustered servers.
**BUSINESS CASE AND FUNDING**
The main issues in a business case for cloud storage for digital preservation in the University are the cost and risk profiles.
To fit in with fixed term research project grant funding they need the ability to pay up front for perpetual and/or 10+ year storage of research data rather than by annual payments. Most third-party cloud services have an ongoing revenue cost that is harder to fit in to this funding model (Arkivum is currently the main exception to this as it offers a single payment option for 10-20 years). Local storage however can charge capital costs to a grant proposal and provide a degree of upfront payment for the costs. However, this is not the sole funding model as services are also needed for unfunded projects and some current and future costs may be funded or partly funded via overheads on research grants.
They feel there can be asymmetric risk in using an external provider: the risk can be higher for the client than the provider. If the provider goes bust there may beno mechanism to get data out in good time. The exceptions to this are cloud providers that have an escrow copy as part of their service, or where an institution can operate two separate cloud service providers in parallel to mitigate the risk (but this has costs and management overheads). KEY LESSONS THEY HAVE LEARNT
- Archiving and digital preservation is often much less well developed than people think.
- The Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model is a mixed blessing – fine as model but in practice not necessarily scalable, and too rigid if adhered to slavishly;
- It is not simple, if like a university you are working with very large data volumes. At scale you need to have the network infrastructure and bandwidth to use the cloud;
- The balance of risk when using external providers can be asymmetric; there is no guarantee of longevity for commercial providers and in the event of data loss, far more damage would be done to the institution's reputation than to that of the cloud provider. You need to mitigate these risks in your chosen implementation and exit strategies;
- Using a shared private cloud (perhaps similar to the Digital Preservation Network in USA) or a consortiums of like-minded institutions might be more viable for archives. The US and Australia are at a more advanced stage in this.
FUTURE PLANS
The growth in research data and the need to archive it will require a significant re-engineering of provision at all levels across the University in coming years.
FURTHER INFORMATION
Research Data Management at Oxford - http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/rdm/
Bodleian Library - http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/bdlss
VMware ESX - http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/VMware-ESX-and-VMware-ESXi-DS-EN.pdf
Arkivum: http://www.arkivum.com/ The Digital Preservation Network - http://www.dpn.org/
The Open Archival Information System (OAIS) Reference Model - http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=57284
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1624-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 17177,
"total-output-tokens": 2248,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1987,
1
],
[
1987,
3960,
2
],
[
3960,
6230,
3
],
[
6230,
8281,
4
],
[
8281,
9767,
5
],
[
9767,
9970,
6
]
]
} |
cf93ab326a3fdf3d04d6f0510f2a57c12cea08b6 | CASE STUDY: THE PARLIAMENTARY ARCHIVES
January 2014
ABSTRACT
This case study covers the Parliamentary Archives and their experience of procuring via the G-Cloud framework and running public cloud storage as part of their digital preservation infrastructure. For extra resilience/an exit strategy they have selected two cloud service providers with different underlying storage infrastructures. The archive is not storing sensitive material in the cloud and is using local storage systems for that material. It has a locally installed preservation system (Preservica Enterprise Edition) which is integrated with cloud and local storage. As such it is an example of an archive using a hybrid set of storage solutions part-public cloud and part-locally installed for digital preservation.
ORGANISATIONAL CONTEXT
The Parliamentary Archives manages, preserves, and provides historic access to the archives of the House of Lords, the House of Commons and to other records relating to Parliament. They also provide a records management service for both Houses. Its remit is to preserve and make available its collections to the public, and they operate a full archive service and public search room. Digital is part of this equation, and they have an established digital repository and digital preservation policy and strategy. The Parliamentary Archives is a shared service of both Houses of Parliament and is not subject to the Public Records Act.
In 2012 Parliament developed a new ICT policy, specifying Cloud First. In future, when procuring new or existing services, Parliament will consider and fully evaluate potential cloud solutions first – before they consider any other option. The Parliamentary Archives became early implementers of the new policy when reviewing their digital preservation storage requirements.
They were the first department in Parliament to procure via the G-Cloud framework. The parliamentary procurement office managed this process for them. DIGITAL PRESERVATION
Significance
Digital material is of major significance in their collections and they have support and buy-in for their work in digital preservation from management boards of both Houses. There is a lot of digitisation by Parliament as well as born digital material. The digitisation programmes include original archives and historic editions of publications such as Hansard and other parliamentary printed material. The significance, range and volume of digital material for preservation can only increase.
Current approaches
They have established Record Disposal Practices which define retention policies of Parliamentary records. The records management team is based within the Archives, so they can coordinate well and they have a joined up approach to selection policy and archiving.
They have a locally installed preservation system, Preservica Enterprise Edition, which is integrated with cloud and local storage (see below).
How they would want this to change over the next 3 years
They are now entering the last phase of the digital preservation project, which is delivering enhancements to SDB and will end on 31 March 2014. Following that, digital preservation will move fully on to a “business as usual” footing. Up to now they have been concentrating on ingest, so over the next three years they will be developing a process for preservation planning and will be thinking more about how to promote the use of the material and broaden the range of information systems from which they can ingest.
Range of content types and volumes of digital material
They currently have about 50 Tb of priority material to ingest. Over the next three years the quantity will only increase, and they will have more complex formats to handle. Digital material currently includes Hansard, web archives, EDRMS records, and Standing Committee papers. Formats are mostly standard office types, as well as PDF, JPEG, TIFF, Audio Visual (AV) and CAD material, plus web archive files, and XML structured data exported from internal systems. The amount of potential AV material is huge, depending on future decisions about selection. There is also a separate analogue AV archive that could be digitised.
**CLOUD STORAGE FOR DIGITAL PRESERVATION**
The experience of procuring and managing cloud storage for preservation has been informative. They identified their requirements and reviewed cloud storage options in light of them. The main issues were maintaining their ability to fulfil legal obligations such as Freedom of Information, sovereignty, managing data integrity, information security, and getting the data back in the event of business failure or a decision to change provider, etc.
There was some initial concerns about data security in the cloud but they took the decision only to use the cloud for storing open data, which is already in the public domain. Remaining material is stored locally. They may review this decision in future with a view to using relevant cloud service providers which are accredited for storing higher impact level material.
There were also concerns over dependencies on a single service provider. For example, in the event of business failure, so for risk management purposes they have chosen to use two cloud providers in parallel with different underlying technologies. One is using Amazon S3, and the other is based on EMC Atmos.
They found the process of procurement through G-Cloud itself to be very straightforward. What was more complex first time around was agreeing the contract as the standard terms and conditions available at the time did not have the safeguards they desired on getting the data back in a timely fashion on exit. The G-Cloud framework has since been updated and the procurement for the second cloud service was quicker. They have also realised that while there are a lot of suppliers on G-Cloud, many are re-sellers of the same underlying cloud service e.g. Amazon S3, so there is not as much choice of underlying infrastructure as first appears. They started to use the system operationally with the first cloud provider in August 2013. The second provider is due to come on stream in 2014. TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Main software systems used for electronic content management, preservation and access services
For most preservation functions they are using Preservica EE out of the box, but have needed some configuration and enhancements for ingest from specific local systems. Preservica EE integrates with CALM, their archive cataloguing system. As noted above local archival storage is supplemented with that from two cloud service providers. Their Cloud storage is predominantly a deep archive and is not used by end users as they access separate copies. There is a bespoke online delivery system to provide public access to repository content, which integrates with the archive catalogue, Portcullis.
They are taking in material from a variety of in house systems but like most public sector bodies Parliament tends to standardise on Microsoft for most office functions so these predominate.
BUSINESS CASE AND FUNDING
Main issues in their business case for cloud storage for digital preservation
The wider business case for preservation was already in place before the Cloud First policy was instituted, but had to be revised to reflect the different cost model of less upfront capital investment, but more ongoing revenue expenditure. This wasn’t a difficult case to make as Cloud First was a strategic decision Parliament had already adopted. Their initial budget profile needed reworking however in light of experience of use. They needed to predict volumes and usage and found it is important to get good figures here, as typically you pay most for your highest volume direction (in or out). They are mostly ingesting as the Cloud storage is not directly accessed by end users. They have a digital asset register so they can predict what will be coming in, storage demands, and future costs, but a lot depends on how quickly you can ingest.
KEY LESSONS THEY HAVE LEARNT
1. Look carefully at the contractual arrangements for your exit strategy. Note however within framework agreements, you are quite limited in what changes you can make to the terms and conditions as these have already been defined in the pre-selection phase.
2. Spend a lot of time getting your requirements right before you start.
3. Suppliers may cite excellent durability figures, but their claims are not always scientifically based. It can be difficult to define your durability requirements in a way that allows you to assess suppliers against them.
4. The quality of your information about likely usage is fundamental for budgeting for your use of cloud service providers. Try to establish accurate figures for your future storage and activity levels. A digital asset register can help here in assessing future ingest requirements and likely costs if you are primarily using cloud for deep storage.
5. The ongoing revenue commitment for the cloud on the basis of what you use, as opposed to a big upfront capital investment for local IT infrastructure, has pros and cons. It is important for management to understand and endorse the different cost model.
6. Despite early concerns, their experience of the cloud has been very positive. Other archives can take confidence from their success in working through practical approaches to using cloud for digital preservation and to addressing the most common issues raised.
**Future Plans**
1. They will be implementing the second cloud storage provider.
2. They are only storing impact level 0 public data in the cloud at the moment, but might consider storing closed data in the cloud when appropriate supplier certification is in place.
**Further Information**
Parliamentary Archives http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/
Digital Preservation in Parliament http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/digitalpreservation/
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1625-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 13091,
"total-output-tokens": 2091,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1976,
1
],
[
1976,
3897,
2
],
[
3897,
6158,
3
],
[
6158,
8214,
4
],
[
8214,
10001,
5
]
]
} |
071ce9a83f117c640cf3276a3a6e82ed14a3bc69 | Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 6: Social
Release date: 24 September 2020
Coverage: United Kingdom
Geographical breakdown: Country
Issued by: Forest Research 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT
Enquiries: Robert Stagg 0300 067 5238 statistics@forestresearch.gov.uk
Statistician: Sheila Ward 0300 067 5236
Website: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/statistics/ Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 Key findings .................................................................................................................. 4 6.1 Visits to woodland - household surveys ......................................................... 5 6.1.1 England ........................................................................................................... 7 6.1.2 Wales ............................................................................................................... 12 6.1.3 Public Opinion of Forestry Survey - Woodland visitors ....................... 13 6.1.4 Public Opinion of Forestry Survey - woodland visitors by age group 16 6.2 Visits to woodland - on-site surveys ............................................................... 17 6.2.1 Scotland All Forests Survey ........................................................................ 18 6.2.2 Northern Ireland Forest Service day visitors ............................................ 19 Introduction
This chapter contains statistics on:
- the number and profile of visits to all woodlands from household surveys; and
- the number and profile of visits to Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service woodlands from on-site surveys and administrative sources.
The statistics in this chapter need to be viewed in the context of broader changes in the UK population, with an increasing and ageing population.
More recently, the Covid-19 pandemic has led to an increase in visits to the outdoors. Initial studies are providing some information on these changes, but these have not been incorporated into this release yet. For further information, see:
- [https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/people-and-nature-survey-for-england](https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/people-and-nature-survey-for-england) (see monthly interim indicators);
- [https://gov.wales/national-survey-wales-monthly-survey-july-2020](https://gov.wales/national-survey-wales-monthly-survey-july-2020)
- [https://www.nature.scot/outdoor-visits-and-engagement-nature-during-coronavirus-lockdown](https://www.nature.scot/outdoor-visits-and-engagement-nature-during-coronavirus-lockdown) and
- [http://www.outdoorrecreationni.com/news/new-survey-highlights-importance-of-accessing-outdoors-safely-during-covid-19/](http://www.outdoorrecreationni.com/news/new-survey-highlights-importance-of-accessing-outdoors-safely-during-covid-19/).
Geographical coverage for social statistics varies. Estimates are presented at country level and, where possible, UK or GB totals are included. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Most of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released by other organisations. The latest year figures for day visitors to Forest Service sites in Northern Ireland are published for the first time in this release. Figures for earlier years have not been revised from those previously published. For further details on revisions, see the Social section of the Sources chapter.
The frequency with which the estimates in this chapter are updated varies depending on the data sources used. Whilst some of the information presented is now several years old, it represents the latest available data and has been included to provide a more rounded picture of the social use of forests in the UK. Further information on the advantages and disadvantages of household surveys and of on-site surveys is provided in the Social section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all social tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/.
Key findings
The main findings are:
- There were an estimated 368 million visits to woodlands in England in 2018-19.
- Around one half (49%) of visits to woodlands in England in 2018-19 were within 2 miles.
- “Health and exercise” and “fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather” were important reasons for visits to woodlands in England and Wales.
- Walking was the most common activity on visits to woodland in England.
- Around 465 thousand people visited Forest Service sites where a charge is made in Northern Ireland in 2019-20. 6.1 Visits to woodland - household surveys
The information shown below in Table 6.1 has been obtained from the following general population household surveys.
- Scottish Recreation Survey (2009 to 2012)
- Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey (2011, 2014)
- Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (England, 2009-10 onwards)
- Scotland's People and Nature Survey (2013, 2017/18)
It is likely that differences in survey design and methodology have contributed to a considerable proportion of the differences in results between these surveys. The figures in Table 6.1 should not be interpreted as time trends but instead as separate results from each survey. Further information on the differences between surveys is provided in the Recreation section of the Sources chapter.
In common with all sample based surveys, the results from each survey are subject to the effects of chance, depending on the particular survey method used and the sample achieved, thus confidence limits apply to all results from these surveys.
Results from the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment 2018-19 estimate a total of 368 million visits to woodlands in England (Table 6.1). This is a statistically significant decrease from the 2017-18 figure of 437 million visits.
The Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey 2014 estimated a total of 68 million visits to woodlands by Welsh residents. This is a statistically significant decrease from the estimated total of 86 million in 2011, but similar to the 2008 estimate (64 million).
Scotland's People and Nature Survey 2017/18 reports an estimated total of 117 million visits to woodlands in Scotland. This is a statistically significant increase from the 2013 estimate of 90 million visits.
### Table 6.1 Number of visits to woodland by journey starting point
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | |------|---------|-------|----------| | 2009 | 317 | .. | 57 | | 2010 | 326 | .. | 63 | | 2011 | 358 | 86 | 65 | | 2012 | 357 | .. | 62 | | 2013 | 378 | .. | 90 | | 2014 | 417 | 68 | .. | | 2015 | 446 | .. | .. | | 2016 | 439 | .. | .. | | 2017 | 437 | .. | 117 | | 2018 | 368 | .. | .. |
**Sources:**
- England 2009 on: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), carried out by TNS;
- Wales 2011, 2014: Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey carried out by TNS;
- Scotland 2009 - 2012: Scottish Recreation Survey (ScRS), carried out by TNS;
- Scotland 2013, 2017: Scotland's People and Nature Survey (SPANs), carried out by TNS.
**Notes:**
1. MENE covered trips taken in England, including those from holiday bases, by respondents living in England. Results relate to 12 month periods from March to February.
2. The Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey totals shown are for trips with woodland as the main destination.
3. The Scottish Recreation Survey ran from July 2003 until December 2012. It was replaced by Scotland’s People and Nature Survey that ran from March 2013 to February 2014 and from May 2017 to April 2018. Both surveys covered visits to the outdoors for leisure and recreation in Scotland by people living in Scotland. The total shown is for all trips that included a visit to woodland.
4. In each survey, visits to overseas destinations are excluded.
5. .. Denotes data not available.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 6.1.1 England
Household surveys in England
In March 2009 fieldwork commenced on the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) survey, which includes collecting information on visits to the outdoors in England. Further information on the survey, including copies of annual reports and online data viewers to access more detailed results, is available at www.gov.uk/government/collections/monitor-of-engagement-with-the-natural-environment-survey-purpose-and-results.
Tables 6.2a to 6.2e shows the main characteristics of visits to woodlands over the most recent 5 years.
In 2018-19, walking was the main mode of transport for almost one half (47%) of visits to woodland.
Table 6.2a Mode of transport to visit woodlands - England 2014-15 to 2018-19
| Main mode of transport | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | |------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | On foot | 60 | 60 | 54 | 53 | 47 | | Car / van | 36 | 36 | 42 | 44 | 45 | | Bicycle | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England.
Notes:
1. All trips that included a visit to woodland.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Around one half (49%) of visits to woodland were within 2 miles.
Table 6.2b Distance travelled to visit woodlands - England 2014-15 to 2018-19
| Distance travelled (one way) | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | |-----------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Less than 1 mile | 39 | 32 | 28 | 29 | 25 | | 1 to 2 miles | 25 | 31 | 28 | 27 | 24 | | 3 to 5 miles | 19 | 20 | 21 | 23 | 26 | | 6 to 10 miles | 9 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 10 | | Over 10 miles | 9 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 16 |
Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England. Notes:
1. All trips that included a visit to woodland.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Health or exercise was the most popular reason for visiting woodlands in England in 2018-19 (70%).
Table 6.2c Motivation for visits to woodlands - England 2014-15 to 2018-19
| Motivation for visit | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | |--------------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | For health or exercise | 53 | 60 | 55 | 56 | 70 | | To exercise your dog | 66 | 65 | 60 | 53 | 53 | | For fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather | 39 | 41 | 39 | 41 | 46 | | To relax and unwind | 35 | 42 | 37 | 37 | 40 | | To enjoy scenery | 32 | 38 | 34 | 36 | 34 | | To be somewhere you like | 23 | 26 | 25 | 26 | 29 | | For peace and quiet | 22 | 27 | 33 | 26 | 29 | | To enjoy wildlife | 27 | 30 | 28 | 28 | 28 | | To spend time with family | 17 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 28 |
Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England.
Notes:
1. All trips that included a visit to woodland.
2. Excludes other reasons for visiting, each reported by fewer than 20% of respondents in 2018-19.
3. Respondents were able to select more than one option, so results do not sum to 100%.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Walking (with or without a dog) was the most popular activity on visits to woodland in England in 2018-19.
Table 6.2d Activities on visits to woodlands - England 2014-15 to 2018-19
| Activities during visit | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | |-------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Walking without a dog | 22 | 23 | 31 | 56 | 56 | | Walking with a dog | 68 | 66 | 59 | 36 | 36 | | Playing with children | 6 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 15 | | Eating or Drinking Out | 5 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 15 | | Cycling/ mountain biking | 4 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 6 |
Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England.
Notes:
1. All trips that included a visit to woodland.
2. Excludes other activities, each reported by fewer than 5% of respondents in 2018-19.
3. Respondents were able to select more than one option, so results do not sum to 100%.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Most visits to woodlands in England (62%) lasted up to 2 hours in 2018-19.
Table 6.2e Duration of visits to woodlands - England 2014-15 to 2018-19
| Duration of visit | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | |-------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Up to 1 hour | 51 | 50 | 43 | 45 | 39 | | 1+ to 2 hours | 28 | 29 | 29 | 26 | 23 | | 2+ to 3 hours | 8 | 9 | 11 | 12 | 18 | | Over 3 hours | 5 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 11 |
Source: Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE), Natural England.
Notes:
1. All trips that included a visit to woodland.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 6.1.2 Wales
Household surveys in Wales The National Survey for Wales began in March 2016 and replaced a number of separate surveys of households in Wales, including the Welsh Outdoor Recreation Survey (WORS). The survey is completed by around 12,000 people each year and covers a wide range of topics. Further information on the survey, including copies of reports and data, is available at https://gov.wales/national-survey-wales.
Table 6.3 shows the reasons provided for their visit to the outdoors by respondents who stated that the main destination of the visit was woodland. “Health and exercise” and “fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather” were the most important reasons reported for visits to woodlands in Wales.
Table 6.3 Reasons for visit to woodland or forest – Wales
| Reason for visit | 2016-17 | 2018-19 | |----------------------------------------|---------|---------| | For health or exercise | 47 | 55 | | For fresh air or to enjoy pleasant weather | 50 | 47 | | For pleasure / enjoyment | 42 | 42 | | To spend time with family | 39 | 41 | | To relax and unwind | 34 | 41 | | To enjoy scenery and wildlife | 38 | 39 | | To exercise the dog | 38 | 30 | | For peace and quiet | 22 | 29 | | To spend time with friends | 16 | 22 |
Source: National Survey for Wales (Welsh Government). Notes:
1. Visits where the main destination was woodland.
2. Respondents were able to select more than one option, so results do not sum to 100%.
3. Excludes other reasons for visiting, each reported by fewer than 20% of respondents in 2018-19. 6.1.3 Public Opinion of Forestry Survey - Woodland visitors
The Public Opinion of Forestry Survey is carried out every two years and obtains people's attitudes to forestry and forestry-related issues, including visits to woodland. Copies of reports and detailed data tables are available at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/statistics-by-topic/public-opinion-of-forestry/.
The results shown in Tables 6.4 and 6.5 and Figure 6.1 have been taken from the UK and country reports on the latest surveys in 2019 and from surveys in earlier years. The reports also include other recreation-related results, such as whether the woodlands visited were in towns or the countryside and any reasons given by survey respondents for not visiting woodlands.
In the UK 2019 survey, over three fifths (63%) of respondents said that they had visited woodland in the last few years for walks, picnics or other recreation (Table 6.4). Table 6.4 Woodland visitors(^1)
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | Northern Ireland | UK | |------|---------|-------|----------|------------------|----| | 2003 | 66 | 62 | 64 | 77 | 67 | | 2005 | 65 | 69 | 50 | 67 | 65 | | 2007 | 76 | 79 | 75 | 62 | 77 | | 2009 | 77 | .. | 57 | .. | 77 | | 2010 | .. | .. | .. | 72 | .. | | 2011 | 68 | 68 | 75 | .. | 67 | | 2013 | 65 | 64 | 76 | .. | 66 | | 2014 | .. | .. | .. | 75 | .. | | 2015 | 55 | 64 | 78 | .. | 56 | | 2017 | 62 | 72 | 84 | .. | 61 | | 2019 | 63 | 77 | .. | 78 | 63 |
Source: UK/GB, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys\
Base: UK/GB = 4,000 respondents (2003 to 2007), 2,000 respondents (2009 to 2019);\
Scotland and Wales = 1,000 respondents each;\
Northern Ireland = 120 respondents (2003), 1,000 respondents (all other years).\
Notes:
1. Those stating that they had visited woodland in the last few years.
2. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% (for surveys with around 2,000 respondents) and ±4.7% (for surveys with around 1,000 respondents).\
To compare results over time, a difference of at least 5 percentage points (for surveys each with around 2,000 respondents) and at least 7 percentage points (for surveys each with around 1,000 respondents) is required to indicate that there is a significant difference.
3. .. Denotes data not available (survey not run that year or question not asked).
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Survey respondents were asked how frequently they had visited during the previous summer and winter. Figure 6.1, which presents aggregated UK results for the 2015 to 2019 surveys, shows that respondents visited much more often during the summer, with 44% of respondents visiting at least once a month in the summer compared to around one quarter (27%) in the winter.
**Figure 6.1 Frequency of visits to woodlands**
| Frequency | Summer | Winter | |--------------------|--------|--------| | Several times per week | 10 | 6 | | Several times per month | 18 | 9 | | About once a month | 17 | 12 | | Less often | 14 | 20 | | Never | 42 | 54 |
Source: UK Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys, 2015 to 2019. Base: Average visit frequencies from last three UK surveys: 2,000 respondents per survey. Notes:
1. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% in any individual year and no more than ±1.1% for the 3 surveys combined.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 6.1.4 Public Opinion of Forestry Survey - woodland visitors by age group
In the UK 2019 Public Opinion of Forestry survey, 71% of respondents aged 35 to 54 said that they had visited woodland in the last few years for walks, picnics or other recreation (Table 6.5). This compares with around three fifths (61%) of respondents aged 16 to 34 and 56% of those aged 55 or over.
Table 6.5 Woodland visitors(^1) by age group
| Year | Aged 16 to 34 | Aged 35 to 54 | Aged 55 and over | Total | |------|---------------|---------------|------------------|-------| | 1999 | 73 | 74 | 55 | 67 | | 2001 | 75 | 77 | 63 | 72 | | 2003 | 71 | 72 | 60 | 67 | | 2005 | 66 | 74 | 56 | 65 | | 2007 | 79 | 82 | 69 | 77 | | 2009 | 78 | 84 | 69 | 77 | | 2011 | 65 | 74 | 63 | 67 | | 2013 | 62 | 75 | 60 | 66 | | 2015 | 54 | 62 | 53 | 56 | | 2017 | 60 | 68 | 55 | 61 | | 2019 | 61 | 71 | 56 | 63 |
Source: UK and GB Public Opinion of Forestry Surveys, 1999 to 2019. Base: 2,000 respondents (1999, 2001, 2009 to 2019); 4,000 respondents (2003 to 2007). Notes:
1. Those stating they had visited woodland in the last few years.
2. The range of uncertainty around any result should be no more than ±3.5% (for surveys with around 2,000 respondents) and ±2.3% (for surveys with around 4,000 respondents). To compare results over time, a difference of at least 5 percentage points (for surveys each with around 2,000 respondents) is required to indicate that there is a significant difference.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 6.2 Visits to woodland - on-site surveys
The previous section provided information on visits to all woodlands (regardless of ownership), based on data from household surveys. This section provides information on visits to Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales/ Forest Service woodland only, based on data from on-site surveys and administrative sources.
The information provided in this section covers:
- Visits to the National Forest Estate in Scotland (Forestry and Land Scotland woodlands) from the All Forests Scotland surveys run from 2004 to 2007 and in 2012-13. An updated estimate of total visits in 2016 is also provided.
- Day visitors to Northern Ireland Forest Service sites where an admission charge was made. 6.2.1 Scotland All Forests Survey
All Forests surveying in Scotland has been undertaken on two occasions. The first All Forests Survey in Scotland was carried out across a three-year period from June 2004 to June 2007, and estimated that around 8.2 million visits are made annually to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland. An estimated 150-200 thousand visits to events in forests and around 300 thousand visits during the hours of darkness (when fieldwork was not undertaken) were also made, giving an overall total of around 8.7 million visits per year.
The second All Forests Survey was carried out from November 2012 to October 2013, and estimated an annual total of 9.1 million visits (including visits to events and in the hours of darkness) to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland. This represents a 5% increase on the estimated overall total of 8.7 million visits from the 2004-2007 survey.
The estimated number of visits has been updated using data from 224 automatic counters at 165 sites. For sites without counters, estimates have been produced using the results from the 2012-13 All Forests Survey and advice from local managers. This gives an overall estimate of 10.2 million visits to Forestry and Land Scotland woodland in 2016, a 12% increase from 2012-13.
Further information is available on the Forestry and Land Scotland website at https://forestryandland.gov.scot/what-we-do/tourism-and-recreation/research-resources-guidance. 6.2.2 Northern Ireland Forest Service day visitors
Information on visitors to Forest Service sites in Northern Ireland is provided by the Forest Service and relates only to sites where an admission charge is made.
In Northern Ireland in 2019-20, 465 thousand people visited those Forest Service sites where an admission charge was made (Table 6.6). This represented a 13% decrease from the previous year, and is reflective of new partnership agreements with local councils for the management of recreation facilities in Forest Service forests coming into effect.
Table 6.6 Day visitors to Northern Ireland Forest Service sites
| Year | Visitors to Forest Service sites | |----------|----------------------------------| | 2010-11 | 468 | | 2011-12 | 430 | | 2012-13 | 340 | | 2013-14 | 364 | | 2014-15 | 397 | | 2015-16 | 432 | | 2016-17 | 584 | | 2017-18 | 509 | | 2018-19 | 532 | | 2019-20 | 465 |
Source: Forest Service Notes:
1. Number of people visiting sites where an admission charge was made, excluding campers.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1691-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 19,
"total-input-tokens": 39714,
"total-output-tokens": 7918,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
367,
1
],
[
367,
1481,
2
],
[
1481,
3931,
3
],
[
3931,
4800,
4
],
[
4800,
6536,
5
],
[
6536,
8293,
6
],
[
8293,
9698,
7
],
[
9698,
10668,
8
],
[
10668,
12350,
9
],
[
12350,
13548,
10
],
[
13548,
14380,
11
],
[
14380,
16162,
12
],
[
16162,
17104,
13
],
[
17104,
18978,
14
],
[
18978,
20109,
15
],
[
20109,
22120,
16
],
[
22120,
22878,
17
],
[
22878,
24328,
18
],
[
24328,
25765,
19
]
]
} |
3716d5e1fe0e5d3cf2b168288f044af30d9a9b29 | This table applies **on or before 23 July 2013**.
The table below shows which territories are classified in ‘category 1’ and ‘category 3’ for the purposes of penalties for offshore non-compliance. Territories not listed here (other than the UK) are in ‘category 2’. Penalties for domestic (UK) matters fall into category 1.
### Category 1
- Anguilla
- Aruba
- Australia
- Belgium
- Bulgaria
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- Cyprus
- Czech Republic
- Denmark (not including Faroe Islands and Greenland)
- Estonia
- Finland
- France
- Germany
- Greece
- Guernsey
- Hungary
- Ireland
- Isle of Man
- Italy
- Japan
- Korea, South
- Latvia
- Lithuania
- Malta
- Montserrat
- Netherlands (not including Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba)
- New Zealand (not including Tokelau)
- Norway
- Poland
- Portugal
- Romania
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
- Spain
- Sweden
- United States of America (not including overseas territories and possessions)
### Category 3
- Palau
- Panama
- Paraguay
- Peru
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- San Marino
- Seychelles
- Sint Maarten Category 3 Suriname Syria Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago United Arab Emirates Uruguay
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1692-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 2977,
"total-output-tokens": 408,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1089,
1
],
[
1089,
1177,
2
]
]
} |
6b1b4df4a31d81905ca051c94f1485b210c22fa1 | This table applies **on or after 24 July 2013**.
The table below shows which territories are classified in ‘category 1’ and ‘category 3’ for the purposes of penalties for offshore non-compliance. Territories not listed here (other than the UK) are in ‘category 2’. Penalties for domestic (UK) matters fall into category 1.
**Note:** Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories of the UK are, unless listed, in category 2.
**Category 1**
- Anguilla
- Aruba
- Australia
- Belgium
- Bulgaria
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- Cyprus
- Czech Republic
- Denmark (not including Faroe Islands and Greenland which are in category 2)
- Estonia
- Finland
- France (includes overseas Departments of France; the overseas collectivities of France are in category 2)
- Germany
- Greece
- Guernsey (includes Alderney and Sark)
- Hungary
- Ireland
- Isle of Man
- Italy
- Japan
- Korea, South
- Latvia
- Liechtenstein
- Lithuania
- Malta
- Montserrat
- Netherlands (not including Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba)
- New Zealand (not including Tokelau)
- Norway
- Poland
- Portugal (includes Madeira and the Azores)
- Romania
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
- Spain (includes the Canary Islands and other overseas territories of Spain)
- Sweden
- Switzerland Category 1 United States of America (not including overseas territories and possessions of the United States of America which are in category 2)
Category 3 Albania Algeria Andorra Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Brazil Cameroon Cape Verde Colombia Congo, Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Curaçao Cuba Democratic People's Republic of Korea Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Gabon Guatemala Honduras Iran Iraq Jamaica Kyrgyzstan Lebanon Macau (China and Hong Kong are in category 2) Marshall Islands Micronesia, Federated States of Monaco Nauru Nicaragua Niue Palau Panama Paraguay Peru Seychelles Sint Maarten Suriname Syria Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago United Arab Emirates Category 3 Uruguay
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1693-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 4548,
"total-output-tokens": 658,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1229,
1
],
[
1229,
1922,
2
],
[
1922,
1940,
3
]
]
} |
3ee21d22bbef5b85fcd0d6c0b0ab3059d9180051 | Forestry Statistics 2020 Chapter 7: Employment & Businesses
Release date: 24 September 2020
Coverage: United Kingdom
Geographical breakdown: None
Issued by: Forest Research 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH12 7AT
Enquiries: Robert Stagg 0300 067 5238 statistics@forestresearch.gov.uk
Statistician: Sheila Ward 0300 067 5236
Website: www.forestresearch.gov.uk/statistics/ Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Key findings ........................................................................................................................................... 4 7.1 Employment: Annual Business Survey (ABS)................................................................. 5 7.2 Employment in primary wood processing ................................................................. 6 7.3 Health & safety....................................................................................................................... 7 7.4 Establishments in the primary wood processing industries ......................... 10 7.5 VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses ................................................................. 11 Introduction
This chapter contains information on:
- employment in forestry and wood processing;
- health & safety; and
- numbers of businesses.
All of the statistics presented in this chapter relate to UK totals. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Most of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released. Some of the figures in this chapter have been revised since Forestry Statistics 2019. For further details on revisions, see the Employment section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all Employment & Businesses tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Key findings
The main findings are:
- The Annual Business Survey (May 2020) reported average employment(^1) in 2018 of 16 thousand in forestry, 10 thousand in sawmilling and 6 thousand in panel mills.
- There was estimated to be a total of 7.3 thousand full time equivalent staff employed(^1) by primary wood processors in the UK in 2019, a 4% decrease from the total for 2018.
- Accident rates in forestry and wood products have tended to decline in recent years but are still higher than the averages in agriculture and manufacturing respectively.
- There were 204 establishments in the primary wood processing industries in the UK using UK-grown roundwood in 2019.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) There are a number of differences in the scope of the employment figures reported from the Annual Business Survey (ABS) and the full time equivalent figures obtained from the annual surveys of the UK timber industry run by Forest Research (FR). In particular, the ABS figures cover employment by all businesses in the relevant sectors that pay VAT and/ or PAYE. This will include businesses that do not use UK grown timber. The FR surveys include businesses below the VAT and PAYE thresholds, but exclude businesses that do not use UK grown timber. 7.1 Employment: Annual Business Survey (ABS)
The Annual Business Survey (ABS), carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), includes statistics on employment broken down by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007). In wood processing, SIC 16 (wood products) and SIC 17 (pulp, paper and paper products) have a much wider scope than the data on employment in primary wood processing (Table 7.2a), as they include primary processing of imported material and also some secondary processing.
The latest ABS survey was published in May 2020 and includes data to 2018. It recorded average employment in 2018 of 16 thousand in forestry, 10 thousand in sawmilling and 6 thousand in panel mills (Table 7.1).
Table 7.1 Employment in forestry and wood processing(^2), 2014-2018
| Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)(^1) | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | |---------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Forestry | 16 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 16 | | Wood products | | | | | | | Sawmilling | 9 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 10 | | Panels | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | | Secondary products | 65 | 56 | 67 | 60 | 73 | | Total | 79 | 69 | 81 | 74 | 89 | | Pulp, paper & paper products | 57 | 56 | 56 | 55 | 62 |
Source: Annual Business Survey - average employment in year (Office for National Statistics, May 2020)
Notes:
1. Categories are based on the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page.
2. Excludes other wood-using industries.
3. Pulp, paper & paper products breakdowns for all years have been suppressed in the figures released by ONS. Data produced by the Confederation of Paper Industries, presenting estimates on a different basis are provided in table 7.2b. 7.2 Employment in primary wood processing
Information on employment in primary wood processing is obtained annually via the sources used to collect data on UK-grown timber (presented in Chapter 2).
There was estimated to be a total of 7.3 thousand full time equivalent staff employed by primary wood processors in the UK in 2019 (Table 7.2a), a 4% decrease from the total for 2018.
Over one half (57%) of the total employment in 2019 worked in sawmills and over one quarter (29%) worked in wood-based panel mills.
Table 7.2a Employment in primary wood processing, 2015-2019
| Year | Sawmills | Pulp & paper | Wood-based panels | Fencing | Total | |------|----------|--------------|-------------------|---------|-------| | 2015 | 4,310 | 702 | 2,100 | 361 | 7,474 | | 2016 | 4,434 | 697 | 2,250 | 388 | 7,769 | | 2017 | 4,577 | 700 | 2,110 | 405 | 7,792 | | 2018 | 4,310 | 693 | 2,175 | 399 | 7,577 | | 2019 | 4,118 | 663 | 2,075 | 397 | 7,253 |
Source: industry surveys, industry associations. Notes:
1. Some businesses operate sawmills and round fencing mills. Employment for such businesses may be recorded under sawmills, round fencing manufacturers or shared between the two categories.
Table 7.2b presents the estimated total number of direct employees at all UK paper and board mills. Direct employment fell by 13% from 2014 to 2015, and has fluctuated between 7.8 thousand and 8.0 thousand since then.
Table 7.2b Direct employment in paper and board mills, 2014-2019
| | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | |------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Direct employees | 9,170| 7,970| 7,911| 7,849| 7,939| 7,860|
Source: Confederation of Paper Industries. Notes:
1. Figures exclude contractors, self-employed and employees at ancillary sites.
2. Covers all mills producing paper in the UK. This differs from the employment data in table 7.2a, which is restricted to mills using UK grown roundwood. 7.3 Health & safety
Accidents involving absence from work of at least seven days are required to be reported to the Health & Safety Executive (HSE). Prior to this time, reporting was required for absences of at least three days.
The latest major accident rates for Great Britain, covering 2018-19, show levels similar to 2017-18 rates for both forestry and the wood products sector. Over the longer term, the rates for both sectors have generally declined, but they continue to remain higher than the averages in agriculture and manufacturing respectively (Table 7.3 and Figure 7.1). Table 7.3 Accidents to employees(^1) in forestry and wood processing(^3), 2014-15 - 2018-19
| Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)(^2) | Number of major accidents(^4) | Major accident rate rate/1000 employees | Total number of reported accidents | Total reported accident rate/1000 employees | |---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | Forestry | | | | | | 2014-15 | 26 | 1.7 | 101 | 6.5 | | 2015-16 | 34 | 2.0 | 111 | 6.5 | | 2016-17 | 31 | 1.9 | 120 | 7.3 | | 2017-18 | 37 | 2.2 | 94 | 5.7 | | 2018-19 provisional | 33 | 2.2 | 88 | 5.8 | | Wood products | | | | | | 2014-15 | 136 | 2.4 | 510 | 8.9 | | 2015-16 | 129 | 2.5 | 561 | 10.9 | | 2016-17 | 149 | 3.0 | 557 | 11.1 | | 2017-18 | 124 | 2.3 | 515 | 9.7 | | 2018-19 provisional | 135 | 2.3 | 560 | 9.4 | | Pulp, paper & paper products | | | | | | 2014-15 | 75 | 1.3 | 303 | 5.4 | | 2015-16 | 67 | 1.4 | 284 | 6.1 | | 2016-17 | 71 | 1.5 | 257 | 5.5 | | 2017-18 | 60 | 1.1 | 245 | 4.3 | | 2018-19 provisional | 72 | 1.4 | 275 | 5.4 |
Source: Health & Safety Executive.
Notes:
1. Employees only; excludes self-employed.
2. Categories are based on the [UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007)](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/standard-industrial-classification-sic-2007) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page.
3. Excludes other wood-using industries.
4. Major accidents include fatal accidents, which averaged below 1 per year for forestry and 1 per year for wood processing. There were no fatal accidents in the period shown for pulp, paper and paper products. Figure 7.1 Accidents to employees: Total reported accidents per 1000 employees, 2004-05 to 2018-19
Rate per 1000 employees
Source: Health & Safety Executive. Notes:
1. Employees only; excludes self-employed.
2. Categories are based on the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page.
3. As a result of a change in reporting requirements, data from 2012-13 is not directly comparable with previous years. 7.4 Establishments in the primary wood processing industries
Table 7.4 shows the number of primary wood processors, according to the sampling frames used for Forest Research surveys of establishments using UK timber.
The figures in Table 7.4 do not correspond with the VAT and PAYE registration information given in Table 7.5. The figures here count establishments (sites) rather than businesses and include those that do not need to register for VAT or PAYE. They also have a different basis for classification, so some businesses that are excluded from Table 7.5 because of their VAT/PAYE classification are included in this table (typically businesses where primary wood processing is a small part of their total activity), and some businesses included in Table 7.5 are excluded here (usually because they do not use UK-grown timber).
The number of establishments in the primary wood processing industries using UK-grown roundwood has reduced from 261 in 2010 to 204 in 2019, a 22% decrease.
Table 7.4 Number of establishments in the primary wood processing industries using UK-grown roundwood
| Year | Sawmills | Pulp & paper mills | Wood-based panel mills | Round fencing manufacturers | Total¹ | |------|----------|--------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------|--------| | 2010 | 188 | 2 | 7 | 64 | 261 | | 2011 | 184 | 2 | 7 | 63 | 256 | | 2012 | 180 | 2 | 7 | 60 | 249 | | 2013 | 175 | 2 | 6 | 60 | 243 | | 2014 | 173 | 2 | 6 | 56 | 237 | | 2015 | 171 | 2 | 6 | 50 | 229 | | 2016 | 166 | 2 | 6 | 50 | 224 | | 2017 | 163 | 2 | 6 | 49 | 220 | | 2018 | 155 | 2 | 6 | 46 | 209 | | 2019 | 150 | 2 | 6 | 46 | 204 |
Source: industry surveys, industry associations
Notes:
1. A single mill may be recorded twice, as a sawmill and a round fencing manufacturer. 7.5 VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses
Table 7.5 shows the number of VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses classified under forestry and primary wood processing. The headings shown potentially include businesses not traditionally regarded as forestry or primary wood processing, and some businesses traditionally included in forestry and primary wood processing are excluded as they are classified to other headings of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC).
A total of 4,185 forestry businesses, 530 sawmilling businesses, 125 wood-based panel businesses and 230 pulp & paper businesses were registered for VAT and/or PAYE purposes in the UK in 2019.
There has been an overall increase in forestry businesses over the last ten years, whilst sawmilling and pulp and paper businesses have declined.
Table 7.5 Number(^1) of VAT and/or PAYE registered businesses by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)(^2), 2010-2019
| Year | Forestry | Sawmilling | Panels | Pulp & paper | |------|----------|------------|--------|--------------| | 2010 | 3,095 | 640 | 135 | 255 | | 2011 | 3,170 | 605 | 135 | 250 | | 2012 | 3,375 | 585 | 135 | 255 | | 2013 | 3,505 | 560 | 130 | 240 | | 2014 | 3,685 | 555 | 130 | 230 | | 2015 | 3,925 | 555 | 125 | 230 | | 2016 | 4,050 | 550 | 125 | 225 | | 2017 | 4,060 | 540 | 120 | 240 | | 2018 | 4,150 | 540 | 130 | 240 | | 2019 | 4,185 | 530 | 125 | 230 |
Source: UK Business: Activity, Size and Location: 2019 (Office for National Statistics, October 2019).
Notes:
1. All figures are rounded by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to the nearest multiple of 5.
2. Categories are based on the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1694-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 11,
"total-input-tokens": 24152,
"total-output-tokens": 4812,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
381,
1
],
[
381,
1265,
2
],
[
1265,
2048,
3
],
[
2048,
3284,
4
],
[
3284,
5396,
5
],
[
5396,
7494,
6
],
[
7494,
8080,
7
],
[
8080,
12808,
8
],
[
12808,
13329,
9
],
[
13329,
15835,
10
],
[
15835,
17859,
11
]
]
} |
e4d78af04887df4f1b1c589861d9005f9094f2a5 | This table applies for inaccuracies penalties **before 24 July 2013**.
**Note:** Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories of the UK are, unless listed, in category 2.
| Category 1 | Category 3 | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Anguilla | Albania | | Aruba | Algeria | | Australia | Andorra | | Belgium | Antigua and Barbuda | | Bulgaria | Armenia | | Canada | Bahrain | | Cayman Islands | Barbados | | Cyprus | Belize | | Czech Republic | Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba | | Denmark (not including Faroe Islands and Greenland these are both in category 2) | Brazil | | Estonia | Cameroon | | Finland | Cape Verde | | Estonia | Colombia | | France (Includes overseas Departments of France; the overseas collectivities of France are in category 2) | Congo, Republic of the | | Germany | Cook Islands | | Greece | Costa Rica | | Guernsey (includes Alderney and Stark) | Curaçao | | Hungary | Cuba | | Ireland | Democratic People’s Republic of Korea | | Isle of Man | Dominica | | Italy | Dominican Republic | | Japan | Ecuador | | Korea, South | El Salvador | | Latvia | Gabon | | Lithuania | Grenada | | Malta | Guatemala | | Montserrat | Honduras | | Netherlands (not including Bonaire, St Eustatius and Saba) | Iran | | New Zealand (not including Tokelau) | Iraq | | Norway | Jamaica | | Norway | Kyrgyzstan | | Norway | Lebanon | | Portugal (Includes Maderia and the Azores) | Macau (China and Hong Kong are in category 2) Marshall Islands | | Portugal (Includes Maderia and the Azores) | Mauritius | | Portugal (Includes Maderia and the Azores) | Micronesia, Federated States of | | Romania | Monaco | |---------|--------| | Slovakia | Nauru | | Slovenia | Nicaragua | | Spain (Includes the Canary islands and other overseas territories of Spain) | Niue | | Sweden | Palau | | United States of America (not including overseas territories and possessions of United States of America which are in Category 2) | Panama | | | Paraguay | | | Peru | | | Saint Kitts and Nevis | | | Saint Lucia | | | Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | | | San Marino | | | Seychelles | | | Sint Maarten | | | Suriname | | | Syria | | | Tokelau | | | Tonga | | | Trinidad and Tobago | | | United Arab Emirates | | | Uruguay |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1695-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3642,
"total-output-tokens": 763,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
5907,
1
],
[
5907,
6527,
2
]
]
} |
41083c8349d995b76f420795b957a2c737278914 | This table applies for inaccuracies penalties on or after 24 July 2013.
**Note:** Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories of the UK are, unless listed, in category 2.
| Category 1 | Category 3 | |------------|------------| | Anguilla | Albania | | Aruba | Algeria | | Australia | Andorra | | Belgium | Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba | | Bulgaria | Brazil | | Canada | Cameroon | | Cayman Islands | Cape Verde | | Cyprus | Colombia | | Czech Republic | Congo, Republic of the | | Denmark (not including Faroe Islands and Greenland these are in category 2) | Cook Islands | | Estonia | Costa Rica | | Finland | Curaçao | | France (Includes overseas Departments of France; the overseas collectivities of France are in category 2) | Democratic People's Republic of Korea | | Germany | Ecuador | | Greece | El Salvador | | Guernsey (Includes Alderney and Sark) | Gabon | | Hungary | Guatemala | | Ireland | Honduras | | Isle of Man | Iran | | Italy | Iraq | | Japan | Jamaica | | Korea, South | Kyrgyzstan | | Latvia | Lebanon | | Liechtenstein | Macau (China and Hong Kong are in category 2) Marshall | | Lithuania | Islands | | Malta | Micronesia, Federated States of | | Montserrat | Monaco | | Netherlands (not including Bonaire, St Eustatius and Saba) | Nauru | | New Zealand (not including Tokelau) | Nicaragua | | Norway | Niue | | Poland | Palau | | Portugal (Includes Maderia and the Azores) | Panama | | Romania | Paraguay | | Slovakia | Peru | | | Seychelles | | | Sint Maarten | Slovenia Spain (Includes the Canary Islands and other overseas territories of Spain) Sweden Switzerland United States of America (not including overseas territories and possessions
which are in category 2)
Suriname Syria Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago United Arab Emirates Uruguay
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1696-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3503,
"total-output-tokens": 608,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1653,
1
],
[
1653,
1938,
2
]
]
} |
50bb7335c21c0cf95bbae7a1f923b97dabe2fddd | Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 Key findings .................................................................................................................. 4 8.1 Timber prices ........................................................................................................ 5 8.2 Gross value added .................................................................................................. 8 8.3 Government expenditure on public forests ......................................................... 10 8.4 Other government expenditure on forestry ....................................................... 12 8.5 Grant schemes ...................................................................................................... 14 Introduction
This chapter contains statistics on:
- timber prices;
- gross value added (GVA);
- Government expenditure on forestry; and
- grant schemes.
Estimates for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are included, where possible, in addition to UK or GB totals. Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
Most of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released. Some of the figures for earlier years have been revised since Forestry Statistics 2019. For further details on revisions, see the Finance & Prices section of the Sources chapter.
A copy of all Finance & Prices tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Key findings
The main findings are:
- The Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index for Great Britain was 14.8% lower in real terms in the year to March 2020, compared with the previous year.
- The Softwood Sawlog Price Index for Great Britain was 18.6% lower in real terms in the 6 months to March 2020, compared with the corresponding period of the previous year.
- Gross value added (GVA) in primary wood processing (sawmilling, panels and pulp & paper) was £1.88 billion in the UK in 2018. GVA in forestry was £0.67 billion.
- Net expenditure on public forests by Forestry England and by Forestry and Land Scotland totalled £26.2 million in 2019-20. A further £89.9 million was spent by the Forestry Commission and Scottish Forestry on other activities.
- A total of £80.6 million was paid in grants by the Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry and the Welsh Government in 2019-20. 8.1 Timber prices
Timber Price Indices are based on sales of softwood (conifers) by Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland and Natural Resources Wales and are released every 6 months.
The Coniferous Standing Sales Price Index monitors changes in the average price received per cubic metre for timber that Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales sold standing, where the purchaser is responsible for harvesting.
The Softwood Sawlog Price Index monitors changes in the average price received per cubic metre of sawlogs (roundwood with a top diameter of 14 cm or more, destined to be sawn into planks or boards) sold at roadside by Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales.
Standing timber and sawlogs are distinct markets and may show different price movements. The data are averages for historic periods, so may be slow to show any turning points.
These indices are used to monitor trends in timber prices and to provide information on the state of the UK timber industry. They are also used by the UK timber industry, alongside other economic indicators, in contract reviews.
There is little other information currently available on wood prices before primary processing and no price index is available for broadleaves. Prices for outputs of primary wood processing are collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the Producer Price Indices (PPIs), and these are available in the MM22 dataset which gives detailed PPIs monthly.
Table 8.1 presents the coniferous standing sales and sawlog price indices for Great Britain to March 2020.
The coniferous standing sales price index for Great Britain was 14.8% lower in real terms in the year to March 2020, compared with the previous year (Table 8.1). The softwood sawlog price index was 18.6% lower in real terms in the 6 months to March 2020, compared with the corresponding period in the previous year. These decreases follow a generally increasing trend in both indices in recent years. Table 8.1 Coniferous standing sales and sawlog price indices(^1) for Great Britain, 2012-2020
| Year | Standing sales(^2) in nominal terms(^3) | Standing sales(^2) index in real terms(^4) | Sawlog index in nominal terms(^3) | Sawlog index in real terms(^4) | |------|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------| | 2012 | 83.9 | 90.2 | 88.2 | 95.0 | | 2013 | 78.6 | 82.8 | 97.9 | 103.4 | | 2014 | 90.9 | 93.9 | 109.5 | 113.4 | | 2015 | 108.8 | 110.9 | 103.2 | 106.1 | | 2016 | 98.5 | 99.5 | 97.1 | 98.7 | | 2017 | 110.0 | 108.5 | 110.8 | 109.6 | | 2018 | 143.5 | 139.2 | 133.9 | 130.1 | | 2019 | 185.5 | 176.2 | 180.6 | 172.3 | | 2020 | 161.0 | 150.1 | 149.7 | 140.2 |
Source: Timber Price Indices: data to March 2020
Notes:
1. The price indices are constructed from information on sales by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland/Natural Resources Wales only.
2. The standing sales index uses the Fisher method with 5 year chain linking to take account of changes in the size mix over time.
3. Nominal prices are the actual prices at that point in time.
4. Real terms values are obtained by using the GDP deflator to convert to "constant prices" (in this case prices in 2016). This allows trends in timber prices to be tracked without the influence of inflation.
5. The standing sales index excludes sales by Natural Resources Wales from April 2017.
6. Sawlog prices in Wales in the year to March 2018 include long term contract rates for the clearance of infected larch. Figure 8.1 Coniferous standing sales and sawlog price indices\\textsuperscript{1,2} in real terms\\textsuperscript{3} for Great Britain, 2012-2020
Source: Timber Price Indices: data to March 2020
Notes:
1. The price indices are constructed from information on sales by Forestry England/ Forestry and Land Scotland/ Natural Resources Wales only.
2. The standing sales index uses the Fisher method with 5 year chain linking to take account of changes in the size mix over time.
3. Real terms values are obtained by using the GDP deflator to convert to "constant prices" (in this case prices in 2016). This allows trends in timber prices to be tracked without the influence of inflation.
4. The standing sales index excludes sales by Natural Resources Wales from April 2017.
5. Sawlog prices in Wales in the year to March 2018 include long term contract rates for the clearance of infected larch. 8.2 Gross value added
Gross value added (GVA) measures the contribution to the economy of each individual producer, industry or sector in the United Kingdom. It is the difference between the value of outputs and the value of intermediate consumption, so mainly comprises employment costs and profits.
The Annual Business Survey (ABS) carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) includes statistics on gross value added for different industries, classified using the UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007). Further information on the ABS is available from the ONS website.
Table 8.2 shows that, in 2018, GVA in primary wood processing (sawmilling, panels and pulp & paper) was reported to be £1.88 billion and GVA in forestry was £0.67 billion. Table 8.2 Gross value added in forestry and wood processing(^3), 2014-2018
| Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)(^1) | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | |---------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Forestry | 540 | 658 | 596 | 698 | 673 | | Wood products | | | | | | | Sawmilling | 356 | 474 | 413 | 420 | 579 | | Panels(^2) | 436 | 323 | 316 | 363 | 453 | | Secondary products | 1,955| 2,478| 2,850| 2,532| 2,666| | Total | 2,747| 3,275| 3,579| 3,315| 3,698| | Pulp, paper & paper products | | | | | | | Pulp & paper | 596 | 738 | 610 | 707 | 845 | | Articles of paper & paperboard | 3,197| 2,749| 2,786| 2,607| 2,528| | Total | 3,793| 3,487| 3,396| 3,314| 3,373| | Total wood processing | 6,540| 6,762| 6,975| 6,629| 7,071| | Total primary wood processing | 1,388| 1,535| 1,339| 1,490| 1,877|
Source: Annual Business Survey (Office for National Statistics, May 2020)
Notes:
1. Categories are based on the [UK Standard Industrial Classification (SIC 2007)](https://www.ons.gov.uk) categories. Further details on the SIC codes used are provided in the Sources: Employment and businesses page.
2. The 2014 to 2016 and 2018 figures for panels have been suppressed in the figures released by ONS, so the figures here cover both panels and the manufacture of assembled parquet floors (SIC 16.22) for those years. Panels accounted for 99% of the total of SIC codes 16.21 (panels) and 16.22 in 2017.
3. Excludes other wood-using industries. 8.3 Government expenditure on public forests
Table 8.3 provides information on net expenditure on public forests by Forestry England and by Forestry and Land Scotland. This covers expenditure less income for land that is owned or managed by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland. Other expenditure by the Forestry Commission and Scottish Forestry is covered in Table 8.5.
Figures for Wales on a comparable basis are currently unavailable.
Net expenditure on public forests by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland in 2019-20 totalled £26.2 million. This comprised £22.4 million in England and £3.8 million in Scotland.
Recreation, conservation & heritage accounted for £78.7 million of the total expenditure in 2019-20, harvesting & haulage for £40.8 million and other expenditure on public forests for £107.0 million.
Timber sales generated a total income of £136.2 million in 2019-20. Recreation, conservation & heritage accounted for a further £32.0 million and other income from public forests for an additional £32.1 million. Table 8.3 Funding public forests - net expenditure(^1,2,3)
| | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | 2019-20 | |----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | **GB** | | | | | | | Harvesting & haulage | 37.9 | 35.9 | 36.8 | 36.4 | 40.8 | | Recreation, etc.(^4) | 67.8 | 70.9 | 72.7 | 70.2 | 78.7 | | Other | 89.2 | 89.0 | 96.4 | 110.4 | 107.0 | | Timber | -99.1 | -104.3 | -111.3 | -131.2 | -136.2 | | Recreation, etc.(^4) | -24.8 | -29.6 | -31.4 | -31.5 | -32.0 | | Other | -26.8 | -27.7 | -24.8 | -27.5 | -32.1 | | **Net expenditure** | **44.2** | **34.2** | **38.4** | **26.8** | **26.2** | | **England** | | | | | | | Harvesting & haulage | 10.6 | 10.6 | 11.3 | 14.0 | 16.2 | | Recreation, etc.(^4) | 45.0 | 49.7 | 49.4 | 49.4 | 57.8 | | Other | 29.2 | 31.3 | 32.9 | 38.3 | 36.6 | | Timber | -36.7 | -38.9 | -43.4 | -53.2 | -50.8 | | Recreation, etc.(^4) | -21.1 | -26.2 | -28.3 | -27.8 | -27.9 | | Other | -9.3 | -8.6 | -5.8 | -8.8 | -9.5 | | **Net expenditure** | **17.7** | **17.9** | **16.1** | **11.9** | **22.4** | | **Scotland** | | | | | | | Harvesting & haulage | 27.3 | 25.3 | 25.5 | 22.4 | 24.6 | | Recreation, etc.(^4) | 22.8 | 21.2 | 23.3 | 20.8 | 20.9 | | Other | 60.0 | 57.7 | 63.5 | 72.1 | 70.4 | | Timber | -62.4 | -65.4 | -67.9 | -78.0 | -85.4 | | Recreation, etc.(^4) | -3.7 | -3.4 | -3.1 | -3.7 | -4.1 | | Other | -17.5 | -19.1 | -19.0 | -18.7 | -22.6 | | **Net expenditure** | **26.5** | **16.3** | **22.3** | **14.9** | **3.8** |
Source: Forestry England, Forestry and Land Scotland
Notes:
1. Expenditure by Forestry England and by Forestry and Land Scotland only. Excludes expenditure incurred by other departments.
2. Excludes notional cost of capital and any surplus/deficit on sale of properties.
3. Excludes gain on revaluation of biological assets and value of timber felled.
4. Recreation, etc. includes conservation and heritage.
8.4 Other government expenditure on forestry
Table 8.4 provides information on other expenditure (excluding public forests) by the Forestry Commission and Scottish Forestry. It includes expenditure by National Offices in England and Scotland as well as expenditure on GB level functions. Figures for Wales on a comparable basis are not currently available. Expenditure on land that is owned or managed by Forestry England/Forestry and Land Scotland is covered in Table 8.3.
In addition to expenditure on public forests, the Forestry Commission/Scottish Forestry spent a total of £89.8 million on other activities in 2019-20 (Table 8.4).
Together, the Forestry Commission and Scottish Forestry used £65.4 million for grants and partnership funding and £12.8 million for policy, regulation & administration in 2019-20. A further £11.6 million of funding was provided to Forest Research by Defra, the Forestry Commission and the Devolved Administrations.
### Table 8.4 Other government expenditure on forestry(^1,2)
| | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | 2019-20 | |----------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | **GB** | | | | | | | Grants and partnership funding(^3) | 57.2 | 61.6 | 57.6 | 62.9 | 65.4 | | Policy, regulation & administration | 13.1 | 12.2 | 11.9 | 12.1 | 12.8 | | Research - GB funded(^4) | 8.4 | 9.6 | 10.5 | 11.8 | 11.6 | | International & GB support services(^4,6) | 32.1 | 28.4 | 25.4 | 21.6 | 0.0 | | Less recovery of support service costs from countries(^6) | -20.7 | -16.1 | -13.1 | -11.3 | 0.0 | | **Total** | 90.1 | 95.7 | 92.3 | 97.1 | 89.8 | | **England** | | | | | | | Grants and partnership funding(^3) | 24.8 | 24.0 | 13.8 | 8.3 | 5.8 | | Policy, regulation & administration(^5) | 1.8 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 0.7 | | **Total** | 26.6 | 26.2 | 15.7 | 9.0 | 6.5 | | **Scotland** | | | | | | | Grants and partnership funding(^3) | 32.4 | 37.6 | 43.8 | 54.6 | 59.6 | | Policy, regulation & administration(^5) | 11.3 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 11.4 | 12.1 | | **Total** | 43.7 | 47.6 | 53.8 | 66.0 | 71.7 |
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Forest Research
Notes:
1. Forestry Commission/ Scottish Forestry expenditure only. Excludes expenditure incurred by other departments.
2. Excludes miscellaneous income.
3. EU co-financing not subtracted from grant expenditure. In England authority for the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) grant scheme rests with Defra. Grant expenditure funded by Defra that is managed by the Forestry Commission is excluded from this table.
4. The estimates for GB funded research relate to Forest Research income from Defra, the Forestry Commission and Devolved Administrations. The increase in "Research - GB funded" and corresponding decrease in "International & GB support services" from 2015-16 to 2016-17 largely reflect organisational change within the Forestry Commission, with the transfer of some functions into Forest Research in April 2016.
5. Country costs for "policy, regulation & administration" include shares of GB support service costs.
6. Central services were disbanded following reorganisation of the Forestry Commission in April 2019.
8.5 Grant schemes
Private sector woodland in Great Britain is supported by a range of grants for creating new woodland and managing existing woodland. The Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS) was introduced in 1988, at the same time as tax relief was phased out. In Scotland, WGS was replaced by the Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme (SFGS) in 2003, by Rural Development Contracts in 2006 and has now been replaced by the Forestry Grant Scheme. The English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) was launched in July 2005 and has now been replaced by Countryside Stewardship and other grants (e.g. the Woodland Carbon Fund and the HS2 Woodland Fund). Better Woodlands for Wales (BWW) was launched in December 2005 and has now been replaced by Glastir (administered by the Welsh Government).
Because of the differences between these schemes, it is increasingly difficult to provide comparable statistics across the three countries. The following tables provide information relating to planting and grants:
- Table 1.13a and 1.13b for total areas of new planting;
- Table 1.14a and 1.14b for total areas of grant-funded restocking;
- Table 8.4 for expenditure by the Forestry Commission/Scottish Forestry on grants and partnership funding;
- Table 8.5 (below) for grant expenditure by the Forestry Commission (including grant expenditure managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of Defra), by Scottish Forestry and by the Welsh Government. Table 8.5 presents information on grant money paid in 2010-11 to 2019-20. A total of £80.6 million was paid in grants in 2019-20, a 5% increase from the total for the previous year.
At a country level, £52.2 million was paid in grants in Scotland in 2019-20 (an increase of 4% from the previous year), £22.4 million was paid in England (a 9% increase) and £6.0 million in Wales (an increase of 1%).
Table 8.5 Grant money paid, 2010-11 to 2019-20
| | England¹ | Wales² | Scotland³ | GB | |--------|----------|--------|-----------|-----| | 2010-11| 28.7 | 3.8 | 18.9 | 51.4| | 2011-12| 32.5 | 5.4 | 34.2 | 72.1| | 2012-13| 32.8 | 5.0 | 32.3 | 70.1| | 2013-14| 33.9 | 4.1 | 35.5 | 73.5| | 2014-15| 32.4 | 1.8 | 39.2 | 73.4| | 2015-16| 23.0 | 3.6 | 27.5 | 54.1| | 2016-17| 23.8 | 3.3 | 30.5 | 57.5| | 2017-18| 13.5 | 4.7 | 37.9 | 56.1| | 2018-19| 20.5 | 5.9 | 50.2 | 76.6| | 2019-20| 22.4 | 6.0 | 52.2 | 80.6|
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Welsh Government
Notes:
1. England includes grant scheme expenditure managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of Defra.
2. Wales relates to grant paid by the Welsh Government.
3. Scotland includes grants paid under the Forestry Grant Scheme and legacy schemes (including Rural Development Contracts). The total grant money paid in Great Britain has fluctuated over recent years, with levels often dipping around the times that new grant schemes are introduced, followed by a sharp recovery.
**Figure 8.2 Grant money paid in Great Britain, 2003-04 to 2019-20**
| Year | England | Wales | Scotland | |--------|---------|-------|----------| | 2003-04| | | | | 2004-05| | | | | 2005-06| | | | | 2006-07| | | | | 2007-08| | | | | 2008-09| | | | | 2009-10| | | | | 2010-11| | | | | 2011-12| | | | | 2012-13| | | | | 2013-14| | | | | 2014-15| | | | | 2015-16| | | | | 2016-17| | | | | 2017-18| | | | | 2018-19| | | | | 2019-20| | | |
Source: Forestry Commission, Scottish Forestry, Welsh Government
Notes:
1. England includes grant scheme expenditure managed by the Forestry Commission on behalf of Defra.
2. Wales relates to grant paid by the Welsh Government.
3. Scotland includes grants paid under the Forestry Grant Scheme and legacy schemes (including Rural Development Contracts).
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1697-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 16,
"total-input-tokens": 34736,
"total-output-tokens": 7206,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
852,
2
],
[
852,
1697,
3
],
[
1697,
2582,
4
],
[
2582,
4604,
5
],
[
4604,
7318,
6
],
[
7318,
8212,
7
],
[
8212,
8981,
8
],
[
8981,
10866,
9
],
[
10866,
11914,
10
],
[
11914,
14054,
11
],
[
14054,
15231,
12
],
[
15231,
17492,
13
],
[
17492,
19276,
14
],
[
19276,
20668,
15
],
[
20668,
22043,
16
]
]
} |
3363c7a710c9d6fc6fafc4e186803b7b3d32925a | Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 Key findings .................................................................................................................. 4 9.1 Forest cover: international comparisons .............................................................. 5 9.2 Forest area by country .......................................................................................... 7 9.3 Annual changes in forest area .............................................................................. 8 9.4 Forest carbon stocks ............................................................................................ 10 9.5 Wood removals .................................................................................................... 12 9.6 Production of wood products .............................................................................. 15 9.7 Apparent consumption of wood products ............................................................ 18 9.8 World trade in forest products ............................................................................ 21 Introduction
This chapter contains information about world forestry, presenting global figures by region alongside data for the UK and the EU. Topics covered include woodland area, carbon stocks, wood removals, production and apparent consumption of wood products and international trade in forest products.
The data are produced by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Further information on the data sources and methodology used to compile the figures is provided in the Sources chapter.
All of the statistics presented in this chapter have been previously released by the FAO. For further details on revisions, see the International Forestry section of the Sources chapter.
Data for the European Union (EU) relate to all 27 current EU members, excluding the UK, for all of the years shown. Data for Europe cover 26 of the EU members (excluding Cyprus), the Russian Federation and a number of other European countries, including Norway, Switzerland, Serbia and Ukraine.
A copy of all International Forestry tables can be accessed in spreadsheet format from the Data Downloads web page at www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/data-downloads/. Key findings
The main findings are:
- At around 13% forest cover in 2020, the UK is one of the least densely forested countries in Europe. This compares with 46% for Europe as a whole and 31% worldwide.
- The global forest area reduced by around 4.7 million hectares (0.1%) per year between 2010 and 2020.
- Carbon stocks in forest living biomass have increased in Europe, North & Central America and Asia between 1990 and 2020, but have shown an overall decrease at a global level over this period.
- A total of 4.0 billion m$^3$ underbark of wood was removed from global forests in 2018, of which around one half (49%) was for use as woodfuel and the remainder was industrial roundwood (for use by wood processors).
- Global production of wood products in 2018 totalled 492 million m$^3$ of sawnwood, 404 million m$^3$ of wood-based panels and 408 million tonnes of paper & paperboard.
- Europe consumed around one quarter (24%) of all sawnwood, around one fifth (21%) of the world's wood-based panels and almost one quarter (23%) of all paper and paperboard in 2018.
- The UK was the second largest net importer (imports less exports) of forest products in 2018, with net imports of US $8.6 billion. The largest net importer was China. 9.1 Forest cover: international comparisons
The FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) is a collation of forest data undertaken by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) at the global level every five years.
The UK is one of the least densely forested countries in Europe with around 13% of its total land area covered in forest in 2020 (Figure 9.1, Table 9.1). This compares with 46% for Europe as a whole and 31% worldwide.
Figure 9.1 Forest cover as a percentage of total land area: World, 2020
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Table 9.1 Forest cover as a percentage of total land area: international comparisons, 2020
| Country | Forest area (million ha) | Total land area (million ha) | Forest as % of land area | |------------------|--------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------| | Europe | | | | | United Kingdom | 3 | 24 | 13 | | Denmark | 1 | 4 | 15 | | Finland | 22 | 30 | 74 | | France | 17 | 55 | 32 | | Germany | 11 | 35 | 33 | | Ireland | 1 | 7 | 11 | | Italy | 10 | 29 | 33 | | Spain | 19 | 50 | 37 | | Sweden | 28 | 41 | 69 | | Other EU | 47 | 124 | 38 | | **Total EU¹** | **159** | **400** | **40** | | Russian Federation | 815 | 1,638 | 50 | | **Total Europe²** | **1,017** | **2,213** | **46** | | Africa | 637 | 2,989 | 21 | | Asia | 623 | 3,109 | 20 | | North & Central America | 753 | 2,133 | 35 | | Oceania | 185 | 849 | 22 | | South America | 844 | 1,746 | 48 | | **World** | **4,059** | **13,039** | **31** |
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is included in EU total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
2. The Europe region covers 26 EU countries (excluding Cyprus), the UK, the Russian Federation and other countries, including Norway, Switzerland, Serbia and Ukraine.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.2 Forest area by country
Figure 9.2 shows the countries with the largest forest areas. Around one half (49%) of the total forest area of 4,059 million hectares in 2020 is located in four countries (the Russian Federation, Brazil, Canada and the USA).
Figure 9.2 Forest area by country, 2020
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.3 Annual changes in forest area
The global forest area has reduced from around 4,128 million hectares in 1990 to 4,059 million hectares in 2020. This represents a decrease of around 7.8 million hectares (0.2%) per year between 1990 and 2000, of around 5.2 million hectares (0.1%) per year between 2000 and 2010 and of around 4.7 million hectares (0.1%) per year between 2010 and 2020 (Table 9.2).
The forest area has reduced in most regions since 1990, except for Europe and Asia (where areas have increased).
Table 9.2 Annual changes in forest area by region, 1990-2020
| Region | 1990-2000 | 2000-2010 | 2010-2020 | |-------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------| | Europe | | | | | UK | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | | EU¹ | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | | Total Europe | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | | Africa | -0.4 | -0.5 | -0.6 | | Asia | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | | North and Central America | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Oceania | -0.1 | -0.1 | 0.2 | | South America | -0.5 | -0.6 | -0.3 | | World | -0.2 | -0.1 | -0.1 |
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is included in EU total but is part of FAO’s Asia region.
2. UK figures for 2020 are 2018-based estimates. Revised estimates (from Chapter 1) suggest that Table 9.2 slightly under-estimates the change in forest area in the UK in the most recent time period.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Between 2010 and 2020, the largest decrease in forest area was in Brazil (1.5 million hectares per year on average) and the largest increase was in China (1.9 million hectares per year on average) (Figure 9.3).
**Figure 9.3 Countries with largest changes in forest area, 2010-2020**
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
Notes:
1. Countries with changes of at least 0.3 million hectares per year only.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.4 Forest carbon stocks
Carbon stocks in forest living biomass have increased in Europe and North & Central America between 1990 and 2020, but have shown an overall decrease at a global level over this period (Table 9.3).
The overall decrease has mainly been driven by declines in South America and Africa, where forest areas have decreased. Carbon stocks in biomass also increased slightly in Asia, where carbon sequestered in new plantations has balanced out carbon losses from areas of deforestation.
Table 9.3 Carbon stocks in forest living biomass by region, 1990-2020
| Region | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2015 | 2020 | |-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Europe | 45 | 48 | 51 | 53 | 55 | | Africa | 59 | 56 | 54 | 52 | 51 | | Asia | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | | North and Central America | 39 | 40 | 41 | 41 | 42 | | Oceania | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | | South America | 106 | 102 | 98 | 97 | 96 | | **World** | **298** | **296** | **294** | **295** | **295** |
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. Notes:
1. A giga tonne is a thousand million tonnes (10^9 tonnes).
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Figure 9.4 Forest carbon stock per hectare by region, 2020
Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.5 Wood removals
A total of 4.0 billion m$^3$ underbark of wood was removed from global forests in 2018, of which around one half (49%) was for use as woodfuel and the remainder was industrial roundwood (for use by wood processors) (Table 9.4).
North & Central America and Europe together accounted for around three fifths (59%) of all industrial roundwood removals in 2018. Globally, removals of industrial roundwood increased by 11% between 2015 and 2018, resulting from increases in all regions.
Nearly three quarters (73%) of woodfuel removals in 2018 took place in Asia and Africa. Globally, removals of woodfuel increased by 2% between 2015 and 2018.
Table 9.4 Wood removals by region, 1990-2018
| Region | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2015 | 2018 | |-----------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | **Industrial roundwood** | | | | | | | **Europe** | | | | | | | UK | 6 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | | EU$^1$ | 311 | 335 | 331 | 338 | 378 | | **Total Europe** | 517 | 519 | 533 | 574 | 650 | | Africa | 61 | 71 | 72 | 75 | 79 | | Asia | 268 | 273 | 379 | 403 | 442 | | North & Central America | 595 | 632 | 485 | 516 | 561 | | Oceania | 34 | 47 | 57 | 64 | 77 | | South America | 110 | 147 | 198 | 217 | 248 | | **World** | 1,585| 1,690| 1,723| 1,849| 2,057| | **Woodfuel** | | | | | | | **Europe** | | | | | | | UK | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | | EU$^1$ | 67 | 85 | 115 | 120 | 122 | | **Total Europe** | 138 | 109 | 154 | 170 | 180 | | Africa | 445 | 551 | 644 | 679 | 700 | | Region | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Asia | 897 | 808 | 764 | 735 | 719 | | North & Central America| 162 | 129 | 129 | 136 | 160 | | Oceania | 9 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 10 | | South America | 162 | 185 | 162 | 171 | 180 | | **World** | **1,814** | **1,795** | **1,863** | **1,902** | **1,948** |
**Total roundwood**
| Region | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |--------|------|------|------|------|------| | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 6 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 11 | | EU¹ | 378 | 420 | 446 | 458 | 500 | | **Total Europe** | **655** | **628** | **687** | **744** | **830** | | Africa | 506 | 623 | 715 | 754 | 779 | | Asia | 1,166| 1,081| 1,144| 1,138| 1,160| | North & Central America | 757 | 761 | 613 | 652 | 721 | | Oceania | 43 | 60 | 68 | 74 | 87 | | South America | 272 | 332 | 359 | 388 | 428 | | **World** | **3,399** | **3,485** | **3,586** | **3,751** | **4,005** |
Source: FAO.
Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is included in EU total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. Figure 9.5 Wood removals by region, 2018
Source: FAO.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.6 Production of wood products
Global production of wood products in 2018 totalled 492 million m$^3$ of sawnwood, 404 million m$^3$ of woodbased panels and 408 million tonnes of paper & paperboard (Table 9.5).
Europe produced around one third (34%) of all sawnwood in 2018 (mainly in EU countries), with over one quarter (29%) in Asia and a further quarter (27%) produced in North & Central America. Overall, sawnwood production increased by 10% between 2015 and 2018, driven by increases in most regions.
Wood-based panels were more commonly produced in Asia, accounting for around three fifths (60%) of global production in 2018. Around one fifth (22%) were produced in Europe (mainly in EU countries) and 12% in North & Central America. At a global level, wood-based panel production increased by 5% between 2015 and 2018, mainly driven by an increase in Europe.
Asia also accounted for almost one half (47%) of paper and paperboard production in 2018, with around one quarter (26%) in Europe and a further 21% in North & Central America. At a global level, paper and paperboard production increased slightly (by 0.4%) between 2015 and 2018.
### Table 9.5 Production of wood products by region, 1990-2018
| Region | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2015 | 2018 | |-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | **Sawnwood (million m³)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | | EU¹ | 80 | 98 | 98 | 100 | 108 | | **Total Europe** | 149 | 130 | 139 | 149 | 169 | | Africa | 8 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 12 | | Asia | 105 | 61 | 86 | 125 | 141 | | North and Central America | 129 | 146 | 102 | 127 | 135 | | Oceania | 6 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | | South America | 22 | 32 | 30 | 26 | 27 | | **World** | 419 | 385 | 376 | 447 | 492 | | **Wood-based panels (million m³)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | | EU¹ | 34 | 48 | 53 | 56 | 60 | | **Total Europe** | 48 | 59 | 71 | 79 | 90 | | Africa | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | | Asia | 27 | 46 | 143 | 237 | 241 | | North and Central America | 44 | 61 | 42 | 48 | 48 | | Oceania | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | | South America | 4 | 8 | 15 | 16 | 18 | | **World** | 126 | 178 | 275 | 386 | 404 | | **Paper & paperboard (million tonnes)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 5 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 4 | | EU¹ | 59 | 83 | 91 | 87 | 89 | | **Total Europe** | 74 | 100 | 106 | 104 | 106 | | Region | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | |-------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Africa | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | | Asia | 57 | 95 | 170 | 192 | 192 | | North and Central America| 92 | 111 | 94 | 89 | 88 | | Oceania | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | | South America | 8 | 11 | 15 | 15 | 16 | | **World** | **235** | **325** | **392** | **407** | **408** |
Source: FAO.
Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is included in EU total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.7 Apparent consumption of wood products
Apparent consumption (defined as production + imports - exports) of wood products around the world totalled 486 million m$^3$ sawnwood, 404 million m$^3$ wood-based panels and 408 million tonnes of paper and paperboard in 2018 (Table 9.6).
Two fifths (41%) of all sawnwood in 2018 was consumed in Asia and around one quarter each in North & Central America (26%) and in Europe (24%). Reflecting the increased production of sawnwood (see Table 9.5), apparent consumption of sawnwood increased by 10% overall between 2015 and 2018. This was driven by increases in apparent consumption in most regions.
Asia consumed around three fifths (59%) of the world's wood-based panels in 2018, around one fifth (21%) was consumed in Europe and 14% in North & Central America. Apparent consumption of wood-based panels worldwide increased by 5% between 2015 and 2018, largely resulting from increased demand in Europe.
Nearly one half (49%) of all paper and paperboard in 2018 was consumed in Asia, around one fifth (23%) in Europe and a further one fifth (21%) in North & Central America. At a global level, apparent consumption of paper and paperboard increased by 1% between 2015 and 2018. Table 9.6 Apparent consumption of wood products by region, 1990-2018
| Region | 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2015 | 2018 | |-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | **Sawnwood (million m³)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 13 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 11 | | EU-28¹ | 83 | 89 | 82 | 78 | 87 | | **Total Europe** | 158 | 121 | 110 | 106 | 115 | | Africa | 10 | 10 | 17 | 19 | 17 | | Asia | 112 | 78 | 116 | 170 | 197 | | North and Central America | 119 | 143 | 95 | 119 | 128 | | Oceania | 6 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | | South America | 20 | 27 | 26 | 20 | 19 | | **World** | 426 | 387 | 372 | 443 | 486 | | **Wood-based panels (million m³)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | | EU-28¹ | 36 | 45 | 48 | 50 | 58 | | **Total Europe** | 52 | 57 | 67 | 73 | 86 | | Africa | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | | Asia | 25 | 50 | 139 | 233 | 238 | | North and Central America | 44 | 64 | 48 | 56 | 58 | | Oceania | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | | South America | 3 | 6 | 12 | 13 | 13 | | **World** | 127 | 181 | 272 | 383 | 404 | | **Paper & paperboard (million tonnes)** | | | | | | | Europe | | | | | | | UK | 9 | 12 | 11 | 9 | 9 | | EU-28¹ | 53 | 72 | 74 | 71 | 73 | | **Total Europe** | 71 | 90 | 95 | 91 | 93 | | Region | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 8 | |-------------------------|----|----|----|----|----| | Africa | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 8 | | Asia | 62 | 103| 178| 198| 200| | North and Central America| 88 | 110| 91 | 86 | 87 | | Oceania | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | | South America | 8 | 12 | 16 | 16 | 17 | | **World** | **236** | **325** | **391** | **404** | **408** |
Source: FAO.
Notes:
1. The EU covers 27 member states as at September 2020. This excludes the UK. Cyprus is included in EU total but is part of FAO's Asia region.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. 9.8 World trade in forest products
Figures 9.6 and 9.7 show the largest net importers and exporters (by value) of forest products in 2018. This covers trade in roundwood, sawnwood, wood-based panels, wood pulp and paper and paperboard, but excludes trade in secondary processed wood (e.g. furniture made from wood). Values are expressed in US dollars (the units reported in the data published by FAO).
The UK was the second largest net importer (imports less exports) of forest products in 2018, with net imports of US $8.6 billion (Figure 9.6). The largest net importer in 2018 was China (US $42.3 billion) and Japan was the third largest net importer (US $7.7 billion).
Figure 9.6 Largest net importers of forest products, 2018
Source: FAO Notes:
1. Excludes trade in secondary wood products.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter. The largest net exporters (exports less imports) of forest products in 2018 were Canada (with net exports valued at US $20.5 billion), Finland (US $13.0 billion) and Sweden (US $11.5 billion) (Figure 9.7).
**Figure 9.7 Largest net exporters of forest products, 2018**
| Country | Value of imports and exports ($billion) | |-------------|----------------------------------------| | Canada | 20.5 | | Finland | 13.0 | | Sweden | 11.5 | | Brazil | 10.0 | | Russia | 10.0 | | Indonesia | 9.0 | | Chile | 5.0 | | New Zealand | 3.0 | | Austria | 3.0 | | Uruguay | 1.0 |
Source: FAO
Notes:
1. Excludes trade in secondary wood products.
These figures are outside the scope of National Statistics. For further information see the Sources chapter.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1698-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 22,
"total-input-tokens": 45561,
"total-output-tokens": 8634,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
1192,
2
],
[
1192,
2384,
3
],
[
2384,
3625,
4
],
[
3625,
4316,
5
],
[
4316,
7227,
6
],
[
7227,
7686,
7
],
[
7686,
9618,
8
],
[
9618,
10148,
9
],
[
10148,
11594,
10
],
[
11594,
11817,
11
],
[
11817,
13800,
12
],
[
13800,
15176,
13
],
[
15176,
15341,
14
],
[
15341,
16491,
15
],
[
16491,
18571,
16
],
[
18571,
19366,
17
],
[
19366,
20592,
18
],
[
20592,
22678,
19
],
[
22678,
23403,
20
],
[
23403,
24312,
21
],
[
24312,
25443,
22
]
]
} |
c84ed76fabfc07ec05bf7a913a0c9dfc0780b3bf | The Scrutiny Panel is currently undertaking a review looking at how partners, including the private sector, can work together to influence the local economy.
**Key lines of Inquiry:**
- How can schemes, such as Apprenticeship Programmes, be developed and expanded so that they deliver for both local employees, employers and local residents?
- What is the vision for skills and learning issues, particularly low skills?
- What support is there for those that are in long term unemployment?
- What are the areas for potential growth in jobs?
- What can other organisations/groups/individuals do to help?
- Whether a mapping skills gap exercise has been undertaken to identify the type of skills that are in short supply; and what the findings of this exercise are
- How specific services can be used to generate business investment
- How can the offer of commercial land in the borough be improved to ensure a steady stream of quality premises that are accessible by new and established organisations?
- What could feasibly be done to improve the physical infrastructure in and around the town?
- How it can be ensured that those who are seldom heard or isolated are engaged with?
The expected outcomes of this Scrutiny Review are:
- To make informed recommendations to all relevant parties on the most appropriate approaches in influencing the local economy CORE QUESTIONS:
A series of key questions have been put together to inform the evidence base of the Scrutiny Panel:
1. In your opinion how can schemes, such as Apprenticeship Programmes, be developed and expanded so that they deliver for both local employees, employers and local residents?
2. What is your organisation’s vision for skills and learning issues, particularly low skills?
3. What support does your organisation offer for those that are in long term unemployment? Or are you aware of the support available for those in long term unemployment, please provide details
4. Within your organisation, what are the areas for potential growth in jobs?
5. In your opinion, what can other organisations/groups/individuals do to help?
6. Are you aware of the types of skills that are in short supply? Please can you provide details
7. How do you feel specific services can be used to generate business investment.
The Northampton Alive brand needs to be used more to act as a Marketing vehicle for inward investment supported by the BID which has within its new Business Plan the activity of Working with partners, landlords and property agents to market the town centre to potential new retailers and investors in line with recommendations from an updated retail strategy for the town centre.
The BID can also provide support by meeting with the Council lead and the investor / business interested in locating in the town centre to provide a business perspective on the current situation in the town centre.
There also needs to be a coordinated approach to any enquiry being made by businesses who are seeking to locate in Northampton through the Economic Regeneration team of the NBC. 8. In your opinion, how can the offer of commercial land in the borough be improved to ensure a steady stream of quality premises that are accessible by new and established organisations?
The largest site in the town centre (the area of concern for the BID) is of course the old Bus Station site. The Grosvenor Shopping Centre has had a limited make-over and there are a number of properties around the town centre which offer potential development opportunities.
The key to ensuring that there is a steady stream of quality premises in the town centre is for there to be a clear vision and plan for the town centre and evidence to support the fact that the plan is being implemented. This will provide confidence to potential investors and businesses who are considering investment and growth in Northampton.
The BID has a key role to play in working with the Council in providing a business input into the development of the town centre and providing the confidence for businesses to invest in refurbishment and development of properties and sites.
9. What could feasibly be done to improve the physical infrastructure in and around the town?
The key elements of the town centre’s infrastructure which need to be improved are the standards of the street surfaces, notably in Abington Street, and the Market Square.
10. In your opinion what are the reasons why businesses invest in Northampton and elsewhere?
Geographical location, ease of access to key road infrastructure and relatively cheaper property and business rates than further south.
11. How it can be ensured that those who are seldom heard or isolated are engaged with?
12. Do you have further information regarding how partners locally, including the private sector, can work together to influence the economy, which you would like to inform the Scrutiny Panel?
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1699-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 5647,
"total-output-tokens": 1084,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1362,
1
],
[
1362,
3062,
2
],
[
3062,
4897,
3
]
]
} |
158a933f38381111f4676041aeaacf74a4f7e173 | Chairing skills Councillor workbook
## Contents
| Section | Page | |--------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Foreword | 3 | | Chairing skills | 4 | | Why effective chairing is important | 4 | | The key roles of a chair | 6 | | The meetings you may be asked to chair | 6 | | Handling the mechanics of any meeting | 9 | | Encouraging participation and discussion | 10 | | Handling conflict – dealing with the personalities | 13 | | The legalities of council meetings | 17 | | Chairing for success – reaching and presenting decisions | 18 | | Final summary | 20 | | Appendix – Sources of further information and support | 21 |
This councillor workbook includes references to materials published by the Local Government Group (LG Group), and Local Government Improvement and Development (LG Improvement and Development), now both the Local Government Association (LGA). This workbook has been designed as a learning aid for elected members. It makes no judgment about whether you have been a member for some time, or whether you have been elected more recently. If you fall into the former category the workbook should serve as a useful reminder of some of the key skills, approaches and tactics that enable you to chair meetings effectively.
For members who are new to local government, the workbook provides essential guidance on the nature of the chairing role and some tried and tested methods for handling the various meetings you may be asked to attend.
The workbook can be used as a stand-alone learning aid or as an adjunct to other material you may cover. It offers few firm rules for members as it is recognised that each individual must decide how best to use and develop their influencing skills, based on individual preference and confidence. As such, the workbook should serve more as a direction marker rather than a road map.
In practical terms, the document will take between two to three hours to work through. You do not need to complete it all in one session and may prefer to work through the material at your own pace. The key requirement is to think about your own approach in influencing other people - how the material relates to your local situation, the people you serve and the council you represent.
In working through the material contained in this workbook you will encounter a number of features designed to help you think about your role in chairing meetings. These features are represented by the symbols shown below:
- **Guidance** – this is used to indicate research, quotations, explanations and definitions that you may find helpful.
- **Challenges** – these are questions or queries raised in the text which ask you to reflect on your role or approach – in essence, they are designed to be thought-provokers.
- **Case studies** – these are ‘pen pictures’ of approaches used by other people or organisations.
- **Hints and tips** – these represent a selection of good practices which you may find useful.
- **Useful links** – these are signposts to sources of further information and support, outside of the workbook, which may help with principles, processes, methods and approaches. A full list of useful additional information and support is also set out in the appendices to the workbook. Why effective chairing is important
Meetings are a traditional and essential component of local government. For both members and managers, meetings serve as a forum for discussion and agreement, planning and monitoring, communication and leadership. Used appropriately, meetings can challenge, inspire, illuminate and inform. And while they are not the only meetings that members will be asked to attend, committee meetings, in particular, are a mainstay of the political management process.
Nobody wants to attend an unfocused and unproductive meeting. It’s a waste of everyone’s time. Formal group discussions need focus and direction to stop them becoming just social ‘chit chat’ or a rambling discourse on the state of world affairs. And open debate needs a degree of stewardship, to enable all views to be heard and conclusions to be based on reasoned arguments, consensus or compromise. This is the essential role of the chairperson or ‘chair’.
Effective chairing is important because it can:
- **Provide for clear leadership and direction** – ensuring that discussions are held within some framework for debate, ie based on an agreed agenda and adhering to established ground rules, standing orders or protocols for how the business should be conducted.
- **Ensure that debates are focused and balanced** – involving discussion from all of those who wish to articulate a view, particularly where conflicting viewpoints are being expressed.
- **Enable decisions to be reached** – allowing participants to agree on the way forward and any further action that needs to be taken, eg for the allocation of resources to meet agreed priorities.
What is a chair?
Any chair has two main roles - neither of which is about being sat on:
- To represent the council at formal and informal meetings and ensure that discussions are carried out in accordance with the council’s constitution and procedural rules.
- To make sure that meetings are run effectively and inclusively, in line with any agreed agenda, to deal with the business at hand. This will include preparation and follow-up, as well as taking charge during the meeting itself. • **Contribute to group or team working** – allowing people to build rapport and contribute to group/committee discussions. This can often help to inform, unite and inspire people.
• **Ensure that resources are used to best effect** – saving time and energy and allowing information, views and evidence to be gathered in an efficient and timely manner.
______________________________________________________________________
**Exercise 1 – your recent experience of chairing meetings**
Think about any recent meetings you have attended which were chaired by other people. Write down a list of some of the positive and negative ways that the chairs in these meetings attempted to manage the discussions:
Positive aspects of chairmanship you observed
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Negative aspects of chairmanship you observed
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
The remaining sections of this workbook will consider all aspects of the chairing role and some approaches and tactics you can consider in improving your effectiveness as a chair and tackling some of the positives and negatives you have outlined above. The key roles of a chair
There are no hard and fast rules about how you chair a meeting. The approach you take and the style you adopt will depend largely on the nature of the meeting, the people involved and your own personality. That aside, there are some key roles that most chairs adopt:
- **The spokesperson** – summing up other people’s views and being comfortable to put these across to all kinds of people, including large groups.
- **The organiser** – making sure that everyone is prepared for meetings and knows when and where they are going to be and what is going to be discussed. For most formal committee meetings, the mechanics of this will be undertaken by your committee clerks.
- **The communicator** – making sure that everyone understands what is going on before, during and after the meeting.
- **The action person** – making sure that meetings are not just a ‘talking shop’ but have a purpose and result in action.
- **The mediator** – sometimes finding a compromise between two people or two conflicting ideas - being fair and not letting your own feelings get in the way.
Sometimes these roles can be delegated to others, although it is important to recognise that the chair will retain the overall responsibility. For example, if you are not the world’s most efficient organiser, you may prefer to work closely with your vice-chair or one of the council’s committee clerks in ensuring that all of the practical arrangements for running meetings are covered effectively.
Top tips for effective chairs
- Know the issues and topics being discussed – read the background papers, chat to fellow members and get briefings from your officers.
- Understand the other group members – get to know the personalities and who helps or hinders your role.
- Know how things should be done – get to know the council’s standing orders - without having to look them up.
- Be active outside meetings – build support and rapport with group members and encourage ideas/ contributions from people outside of the committee/group.
The meetings you may be asked to chair
Many of the meetings you chair will be formal committee meetings (eg full council, overview and scrutiny or regulatory committees) or ‘task group’ meetings with officers and/or partner agencies. These will need to be chaired in accordance with the council’s constitution and standing orders and any other procedures or ‘protocols’ that apply. Your officers will be able to brief you on the full extent of your responsibilities in chairing these meetings. Outside of this, however, you may also be asked to chair other group discussions, eg public meetings, board meetings for voluntary or community groups, appointment panels, committees of enquiry etc. The nature of these meetings may require you to modify your approach, eg:
- **Setting, tone and style** – some meetings may be better held in settings outside of council buildings to reduce the perceived ‘formality’ of the discussions. It may also be advisable to chair the meeting in a more relaxed style, eg allowing people to talk to, question and challenge others without going ‘through the chair’.
- **Encouraging contributions** – discussing and deciding things ‘by committee’ may work well for much of the council’s business, but may hinder group discussions elsewhere. It may be useful to think about breaking a large gathering into smaller task groups to enable more people to contribute or to find other ways to maximise the inputs from those attending.
- **Reaching decisions** – not everyone will be comfortable to commit to decisions arrived at in a group meeting, eg some people will need time to think through the actions proposed or may need to seek approval from the people they represent before signing up. As chair, you will need to manage people’s expectations about what is realistic and achievable.
______________________________________________________________________
**Sheffield City Council – encouraging public contributions**
Sheffield City Council has produced some online advice for members of the public who wish to attend and provide information to its scrutiny meetings. The ‘Scrutiny Witness Charter’ provides information on what to expect at meetings and tips for giving evidence and claiming expenses.
http://tinyurl.com/7qwqwf8
______________________________________________________________________
**Guidance on holding public meetings**
The ‘Councillor Information’ section of the Local Government Improvement and Development (LG Improvement and Development) website contains a feature on ‘Holding Public Meetings’ and provides useful advice on how to encourage people to turn up, choose a suitable venue, make a good start, keep control and get the most from your meeting.
http://tinyurl.com/blsyhk8 Exercise 2 – chairing different types of meeting
As a member you may be asked to chair different types of meetings in addition to the more traditional committee meetings you may be familiar with. Imagine you have been asked to chair the following. Write down how your approach might differ for each, in terms of; (a) the setting, style and tone of the meeting, and (b) how you could encourage useful contributions from those attending:
A public meeting to discuss the growing racial tensions in your ward:
(a) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
(b) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
A scrutiny meeting, with ‘expert witnesses’ from the health and community sectors, to discuss the action needed to address the local increase in rates of teenage pregnancy:
(a) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
(b) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Look again at the ideas you have written down. Are you sure that the setting and style would help to create the right atmosphere for discussion? Would your approach encourage good contributions from a wide range of participants? It is likely that this style of meeting would produce some ideas for action, ie some tangible things that could be done to address the concerns expressed by people. If not, why not? Handling the mechanics of any meeting
There are a number of basic tasks that need to be undertaken by the chair for any committee or group meeting. This includes action before, during and after the meeting:
| Before the meeting | During the meeting | After the meeting | |--------------------|--------------------|-------------------| | Clarify the meeting’s objectives. | Create a good first impression – welcome people and clarify roles and responsibilities. | Summarise key points - who will do what and by when. | | Ensure that the right people are invited to attend. | Focus on what the meeting must achieve and gain commitment to the agenda. | Ensure the minutes record key agreements, facts, opinions or quotes. | | Ensure that all necessary documents are produced. | Establish the ground rules. | Agree details for the next meeting. | | Check the venue is suitably equipped and set out. | Steer discussions in a structured way - manage the time and personalities. | Thank everyone for their contribution. | | Develop some contingency plans for nonattendance. | Encourage a wide variety of views and opinions. | Ensure that follow up takes place, ie progress on agreed action points. | | Prepare yourself - mentally and physically. | | |
Preparation is crucially important and chairs need to have read all agenda items and background papers before any meeting. You may also wish to consult with other members, officers, partner agencies, ward groups or constituents on non-confidential items. Being fully briefed and confidently prepared to discuss all of the matters on the agenda will help you to concentrate on managing the timetable, discussions and personalities at the meeting - the latter may not be so easily planned for! Encouraging participation and discussion
As a chair, your most important tasks during the meeting are to encourage participation and prompt discussion. This is primarily about creating the best conditions for others to engage in debate and come forward with their opinions and suggestions. Only through dialogue can you understand what people think and where they stand on any given subject. If you are concerned about the degree of participation in your group, consider the following:
- Are there only one or two main contributors to most debates?
- Are there noticeably silent people in the group?
- Does there look to be a rigid ‘contribution hierarchy’, where some people are reluctant to speak unless others have done so?
- Is there a gender bias or any other form of cultural bias?
- Does more than one person talk at once and do others appear not to listen?
If the answer to any of these is ‘yes’, you might like to consider the two main ways in which you can encourage greater participation:
- **Asking open and searching questions** – probing, testing and challenging others through questioning to enable you to gather information and get to the nub of any issue under discussion.
- **Listening actively** – encouraging people to speak through ‘active listening’, ie using nods, eye contact, silence, smiles and comments to prompt others to share their views.
### Effective questioning
To prompt discussion you can use a range of techniques:
- **Closed questions** – direct questions that require a one word answer, eg ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
- **Open questions** – the ‘how’, ‘why’ and ‘what’ type of questions that require a more expansive response.
- **Leading/limiting questions** – questions designed to limit the range of possible answers, eg ‘Is it true that…?’
- **Soft commands** – prompts which sound like questions to elicit information, eg ‘Perhaps you could explain…’
- **Paraphrasing/summarising** – repeating what you have heard and asking for a confirmation of accuracy.
Questioning is a powerful and essential tool for any chair. Good questioning can enable you to:
- get to the ‘heart of the matter’
- gather evidence and clarify and expand on initial views or early information
- elicit information without making respondents feel intimidated or prejudged
- facilitate inclusion, buy-in and ownership of problems and build rapport with people. However, effective questioning is not always as easy as it sounds and will require you to think about:
- What purpose the questioning is designed to serve, eg to illicit information, challenge, prompt, test or encourage. Identifying possible questions in advance of the meeting is a good tip.
- Making the person being questioned feel comfortable – particularly those not used to public meetings, eg using their name, talking in plain English, allowing them time for a response, summarising what they have said and using positive body language (ie nodding, giving good eye contact and looking attentive).
- Using the most appropriate questions to get the best response and information, eg by their nature, ‘open’ questions should elicit a more expansive response than ‘closed’ questions, which can feel intimidating to those being questioned.
A good way of putting all of this together is to use linked phrases to move smoothly from one type of question to another, eg “You mentioned earlier that…” It is also worth watching for some of the non-verbal signals that people send out (ie their body language and tone) to ensure that the words people use are consistent with the other messages they are conveying! Exercise 3 – preparing your questions before the meeting
Case study - waste crime clampdown Fly-tippers were among the targets during the biggest crackdown on waste crime ever in the district. Almost 100 commercial vehicles were pulled over for spot checks at a border patrol in the district during January. All were asked to produce their vehicle documents.
Council staff and partner agencies were particularly on the lookout for traders who charge businesses or homeowners for the removal of waste and then fly-tip illegally.
Nineteen notices were issued for offences and five investigations were started which could lead to prosecutions. People were also arrested or fined for other offences:
- three vehicles were seized by the police for insurance offences
- two businesses will be prosecuted for trading standards offences
- two uniforms and false paperwork were seized.
Imagine you have been asked to chair a meeting to discuss the issues arising from the ‘waste crime clampdown’ in your council. Identify below any questions you would want to raise at the meeting:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Handling conflict – dealing with the personalities
Chairing council meetings can sometimes be a demanding process because of the personalities involved. People respond in different, sometimes unpredictable, ways when trying to convince others of their point of view - particularly when this is overlaid with the essential politics of local government. Arguments are common and conflict is not unusual. This is true enough in one to one situations, but is particularly so in group meetings. A number of psychologists have put forward theories of ‘group dynamics’ to explain this phenomenon.
A basic appreciation of how ‘group dynamics’ works is useful in understanding the ways in which groups of people tend to behave when brought together on a shared task or activity. This can have a big impact on your ability to chair meetings effectively.
Tuckman’s theory of ‘group dynamics’
In 1965, D Tuckman set out his theory of ‘group dynamics’ in an article for the Psychological Bulletin\*. He observed that different groups of people tend to go through a similar lifecycle of stages in working together:
1. Forming - coming together as a group, finding out about each other, deciding what the group’s concerns and emphases should be.
2. Storming - coming to terms with differences within the group.
3. Norming - agreeing objectives, priorities, procedures and ways of relating to each other.
4. Performing - getting on with the work, without having to spend a lot of time and energy deciding what needs doing and how it should be done.
Tuckman’s model was developed further by Michael Argyle in his book Social Interaction.
- Tuckman, D.W. Developmental Sequence in Small Groups, Psychological Bulletin 1965, 63(6) 284-299 Recognising that people often behave differently in groups can help you, tactically, to be more effective in chairing meetings. Much of this is about watching and listening to group behaviour and exercising your own judgement about when to intervene and when to sit back as discussions unfold and people exchange views or come into conflict. For example:
* **Who contributes the most and least to group discussions** – are they aware of it and could you challenge them?
* **Who are the silent people** – is their silence about dissent or fear and could your intervention encourage them to be more vocal?
* **What is the atmosphere in the group** – could you mediate to create more congenial conditions?
* **Have the discussions reached a sticking point** – could you broker some negotiation or compromise to move things forward?
* **Does anybody impose their decisions on others** – could you ask for a secret ballot to prevent this?
* **Who are the rebels, bullies, critics and scapegoats** – can you employ different tactics to deal with each?
Handling the personalities is a key part of the chairing role. Similarly, you can expect a fair amount of political wrangling in council meetings. You are there to manage these debates and to remain impartial wherever possible. If you can avoid being the source of political disagreements that will help and being able to articulate the areas of common ground should help to build some consensus on the contentious issues.
**Handling tips**
**The aggressor** – acknowledge the aggression in a neutral manner without taking sides (eg ‘You appear to be passionate about the idea of…’) and intervene by saying something like, ‘Councillor X has given us his view that…what do others think?’ If the aggression persists, you could consider adjourning the meeting to let tempers cool and remind the aggressor of his/her responsibilities.
**The dormouse** – don’t assume that their silence is any sign of disinterest. Ask them regularly whether they have any views to contribute and listen actively when they do. If the silence persists, chat to them outside of the meeting and ask if they are happy with their role.
**The rambler** – watch the group’s body language for any signs of frustration and use polite questions or interventions to move the conversation on. If the problem persists, you may wish to consider having a time limit for individual contributions – but make sure this applies to all. One of the key relationships here is likely to be with the vice-chair of the committee or meeting. It is not uncommon for vice-chairs to be chosen from a different political grouping to that of the chair. Whatever their political differences, the chair and vice-chair will need to work in close harmony, so it’s worth taking steps to build some rapport:
- **Treat each other with respect** – put aside any personal agendas, rivalries and differences you may have and focus on the business at hand.
- **Discuss and agree your respective roles** – who will do what and when, including the arrangements required when one of you is unable to attend a meeting.
- **Build some trust and understanding** – delegate some of your duties if both of you are comfortable with this.
- **Ask for feedback on your role and performance** – listen to what they have to say and show them you have taken this seriously by changing or modifying your approach. Imagine you are chairing a meeting and are confronted with the following characters. Identify what tactics you would employ to deal with each:
A noisy and aggressive member who insists on shouting people down when they disagree with him?
A persistently quiet member who looks attentive but rarely says anything without being prompted?
A member who has a tendency to be long-winded in sharing her thoughts with the group to the agitation of others? The legalities of council meetings
Local authorities are creatures of statute and can only do what is in their legal powers. Similarly, individual members must operate within both a legal and ethical framework – and this covers the meetings they attend.
The council’s legal staff will be able to talk you through the legalities and constitutional rules of attending and chairing council committees and meetings. They will also be able to explain the conventions on ethics and probity and the standards of conduct expected of members.
In addition to this, chairs should also be aware of the legalities surrounding ‘privilege’ (see text box) and ‘confidentiality’. The Access to Information Act 1985 defines some information as being ‘exempt’ from open, or public, discussion. These items can only be discussed in a closed session of any committee, away from the press or public gaze, and members must treat the information as confidential.
However, it is not uncommon for committee members to ask for an item to be moved to the ‘closed’ sections of the agenda in order to avoid embarrassment, eg where a political decision has led to some breakdown in service delivery, but the facts of the matter are not confidential. Unless there is a clear justification for doing so, the chair should avoid agreeing to members’ requests in these situations. If there are any doubts about the legalities involved, the council’s legal staff should again be consulted.
Privilege – the law of defamation
The law of defamation is potentially a dangerous and expensive one for councillors. Councillors can be sued for defamation by saying or writing anything that will “lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking people”.
Councillors have some limited protection and to allow them freedom of speech they are given qualified privilege in council meetings. This can protect them against being sued for defamation for something they say in defending or supporting the interests of their council, or as part of their duty. But it applies only if they honestly believed what they said and were not motivated by malice.
Defamation is a complex matter and councillors should take advice from the council’s solicitor if a difficult situation is likely to arise.
‘Councillor’s Guide’ (2011/12), LG Improvement and Development Chairing for success – reaching and presenting decisions
While councils thrive on meetings, these are usually formal events, rather than social occasions, and often have one clear purpose – to make decisions.
Reaching decisions may require you, as chair, to act as negotiator, influencer or diplomat in enabling the group to reach a conclusion, consensus or compromise. The following tactics can help:
- **Aiming for ‘win/win’ agreements wherever possible** – so that everyone gets part of what they want.
- **Exploring options together** – being open to the idea that a third position may exist and that you can get to this idea through collaboration and discussion.
- **Listening first and talking second** – understanding where people are coming from before attempting to negotiate with them.
- **Describing what you see rather than being judgmental** – for example, “on the basis of what you’ve said, you don’t look to be supportive…”
- **Being empathetic** – showing you understand people’s situation, needs and feelings.
- **Maintaining your assertiveness** – but avoiding displays of unnecessary emotion (weakness or aggression) and unhelpful behaviours, eg irritators such as “I think what I’ve said is very reasonable”.
- **Keeping people and problems separate** – recognising that in many cases people are not just ‘being difficult’ – real and valid differences can lie behind conflicting positions. By separating the problem from the person, real issues can be debated without damaging working relationships.
Having enabled the committee or group to reach its decisions, a final task is to ensure that the minutes of the meeting record these in a way that will ensure some action. This is usually in the form of ‘recommendations’, which should be ‘SMART’.
This is particularly important for overview and scrutiny committees which may be recommending action by a cabinet or executive. Any recommendations that are not SMART are unlikely to influence the real decision makers, so it’s worth spending some time getting the wording right.
**SMART recommendations**
- **Specific** – clear about what is required and the evidence or argument to support any proposed direction.
- **Measurable** – capable of being monitored and success or completion to be judged.
- **Action-oriented** – focused on what needs to be done, rather than general notions of intent.
- **Realistic** – grounded in the reality of the council’s situation, ie its staffing and financial capabilities.
- **Time-limited** – set within clear deadlines, milestones or timetables for action. Exercise 5 – identifying SMART recommendations
Read through the vague decisions below and write your own SMART recommendations, to turn these into action points that can be addressed by the council:
The committee agreed that the council should host a get together of interested local people from across the borough to have a discussion about possible ways of improving domestic waste collection services - all possible options to be considered.
The committee agreed that some ways of funding should be identified for improving the provision of leisure services (specifically parks and gardens) in the coming months with a view to increasing customer satisfaction. Meetings are part of the lifeblood of local government and good chairmanship can have many benefits. As an effective chair, you will need to understand the key roles that you have, how to handle the mechanics of different meetings and how best to encourage participation while dealing with the personalities you face. And all of this needs to be undertaken in the context of the rules and legalities that apply to your council meetings.
This may sound like a tall order, but like most things in life, chairing skills can be learnt and time and practice in the role will help to sharpen your confidence and abilities. Equally, it can be a rewarding and fulfilling role, allowing you to contribute to the essential workings of your council and learning skills that may be useful in the other aspects of your life.
“A committee is a group that keeps minutes and loses hours.”
Milton Berle, Comedian
Where do you go from here?
Look back over the material contained in earlier sections of this workbook and consider the following:
(a) What key action points can you identify to improve the way you chair meetings, ie. what three or four things might you start doing, keep doing or stop doing?
(b) Have you identified any gaps in your knowledge or shortcomings in your personal skills? If so, please set these out below and identify how any further training or development might help you, eg further reading/research, attending courses, coaching, mentoring, work shadowing etc. Appendix – sources of further information and support
Printed publications
Councillor’s Guide 2012/13, Local Government Association.
Social Interaction, Argyle, M., Tavistock Press.
The Facilitator’s Handbook, Heron, J., Kogan Page.
The Role of the Non-Executive Member, LG Improvement and Development.
Useful websites
www.local.gov.uk
The Local Government Association (LGA) website is a valuable source of help and advice for all those in local government.
www.cfps.org.uk
The website of the Centre for Public Scrutiny contains useful and specific information on chairing overview and scrutiny meetings.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1700-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 22,
"total-input-tokens": 38202,
"total-output-tokens": 7393,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
36,
1
],
[
36,
1296,
2
],
[
1296,
3662,
3
],
[
3662,
5806,
4
],
[
5806,
7237,
5
],
[
7237,
9777,
6
],
[
9777,
11893,
7
],
[
11893,
13251,
8
],
[
13251,
14991,
9
],
[
14991,
17363,
10
],
[
17363,
18577,
11
],
[
18577,
20459,
12
],
[
20459,
22185,
13
],
[
22185,
24632,
14
],
[
24632,
25576,
15
],
[
25576,
26027,
16
],
[
26027,
28342,
17
],
[
28342,
30915,
18
],
[
30915,
31582,
19
],
[
31582,
33061,
20
],
[
33061,
33676,
21
],
[
33676,
33676,
22
]
]
} |
8494aa7d01c7395c8c5077ce9bcc38bc46f2d2fc | 1 Purposes
1.1 The purpose of the Scrutiny Panel was to:
- To examine the extent to which individuals and families are experiencing food poverty, the range of contributing factors and the changes that have been made to the way the Council and partners support residents during hardship.
- To review the impact and concentration of food poverty across the Borough of Northampton
Key Lines of Enquiry
- What are the impacts of food poverty?
- How widespread is food poverty in the borough?
- What strategic approaches are in existence to tackle food poverty?
- What approaches are in existence to reduce people’s dependency on food aid, such as Food Banks? To receive an understanding of how food poverty is addressed
- To evaluate how the Borough Council, together with its partners, can collectively respond to food poverty
- To identify the specific issues relating to food poverty
- To identify the existence and impact of “holiday hunger”
- To identify how food poverty differs across the borough of Northampton and the reasons for this
1.2 A copy of the scope of the Review is attached at Appendix A.
2 Context and Background
2.1 Following approval of its work programme for 2019/2020, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, at its meeting in April 2019 commissioned Scrutiny Panel 3 to undertake the review – Food Poverty. An in-depth review commenced in June 2019 and concluded in September 2020. Due to unprecedented situation of the Covid19 pandemic, meetings were cancelled during March 2020 and July 2020. 2.2 A Scrutiny Panel was established comprising Councillor Dennis Meredith (Chair); Councillor Cathrine Russell (Deputy Chair); Councillors Mohammed Aziz, Alan Bottwood, Emma Roberts and Zoe Smith. Paul Foster, Emmanuel Church and Clive Ireston, Northamptonshire Food Poverty Network were co-opted to the Review.
2.3 This review links to the Council’s corporate priorities, particularly corporate priority - improving the health and wellbeing of local people.
2.4 The Scrutiny Panel established that the following needed to be investigated and linked to the realisation of the Council’s corporate priorities:
3 Evidence Collection
3.1 Background data, including:
- Presentation to set the scene: To identify the prevalence of the problem locally
- Relevant national and local background research papers
- Definitions – Food Poverty
- Causes of food poverty
- Best practice and successful initiatives in Northampton and comparable Local Authorities
- Relevant Council Policies and Strategies
- Relevant Statistics and relevant reports, including:
- Poverty indicators
- Demographics (national and Local)
- UN report on food poverty
- Institute of Fiscal Studies report on food poverty
- Relevant Legislation, including:
- Child Poverty Act 2010
- Changes to Universal Credit
- Introduction to benefits and the impact
- Best practice external to Northampton
- Internal expert advisors: Cabinet Member for Housing and Wellbeing, NBC Head of Housing and Wellbeing, NBC Head of Revenues and Benefits, LGSS Cabinet Member for Community Safety, NBC Chair of the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) and the Community Safety Team Cabinet Member for Finance, NBC Section 151 Officer, NBC
External expert advisors:
- Community Law, Northampton
- Child Poverty Action Group
- Education Services, Northamptonshire County Council
- Director of Children’s Services, Northamptonshire County Council
- Community and Voluntary Sector
- Northamptonshire Citizens Advice Bureau
- RESTORE
- Public Health, Northamptonshire County Council
- Rapid Relief
- Representations of the Sikh Community
- Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, NCC
- Head Teachers of local primary and secondary schools (written evidence)
- Local Youth Clubs, including Community Spaces
- Partnership Manager, Department of Work and Pensions
Site visits
3.2 Background reports and information
Presentation to set the scene
Progress regarding PC terminals in community venues are being investing and Northampton Partnership Homes (NPH) are looking to put PCs in all of their Hubs.
Officers working in the Council’s One Stop Shop, each month donate items of food that can be donated to those in need. This is funded totally by the staff who do this mainly because they come into contact with people on a daily basis that require food donations and other assistance.
Food Banks are licensed to donate food. Should a family or individual be in real need for food but cannot obtain a food voucher, they can receive a food parcel from the One Stop Shop. Concern was raised that staff feel the need to provide such food parcels; it should be a more structured provision.
Should someone need a food bank voucher they are required to complete a standard form that amongst other questions asks for details of the number of individuals living in the property. Individuals can receive three vouchers from an Agency – the purpose being to prevent dependency upon food vouchers.
Food Banks operate on different days around the borough.
3.3 Various Definitions of Food Poverty
There are various definitions of food poverty for example:
The definition of food poverty used by Restore: - “Food poverty is the inability to afford, or to have access to, food to make up a healthy diet. It is about the quality of food as well as quantity. It is not just about hunger, but also about being appropriately nourished to attain and maintain health.”
A key definition of deprivation used by local authorities is:
those areas (and their residents) which fall within the top 20% most deprived LSOAs nationally (i.e. Dectiles 1 and 2 nationally). There are 422 LSOA’s in Northamptonshire. In the IMD 2015 release 69 of these were in the top 20% nationally, 29 in the 1st Dectile and 40 in the Second.
A further definition of food poverty according to the Department of Health is “the inability to afford, or to have access to, food to make up a healthy diet”. It is closely related to household food insecurity which is the inability to be able to secure social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Hunger as a term to describe the physical feeling of insufficient food is used by a number of
1 Department of Health, Choosing a Better Diet: a food and health action plan, 2005 2 http://www.fao.org/3/y4671e/y4671e06.htm organisations working with people unable to afford food as a means of communicating messages to the wider public, including the Trussell Trust, FareShare, Magic Breakfast, and Church Action on Poverty. Hunger is one consequence of food insecurity but not an inevitability. The Department of Health defines food poverty as: ‘The inability to afford, or to have access to, food to make up a healthy diet.
3.4 Statutory and Social Overcrowding
Definition of Statutory Overcrowding Two standards – the ‘room standard’ and the ‘space standard’ – are used to assess whether a home is ‘statutorily overcrowded’ under Part 10 of the Housing Act 1985.
If either or both of these standards are breached, the home will be deemed to be statutorily overcrowded.
The Room Standard Section 325 of the Housing Act 1985 specifies that there is overcrowding wherever there are so many people in a house that any two or more of those persons, being ten or more years old and of opposite sexes (and who are not living together as a couple) have to sleep in the same room. Report Title Statutory and Social Overcrowding
For these purposes, children under the age of ten may be disregarded and a room means any room normally used as either a bedroom or a living room. A kitchen can be considered to be a living room provided it is big enough to accommodate a bed.
When interpreting this definition, a local authority looks at how the sleeping arrangements within the premises could be organised, rather than how they are actually organised.
This means, for example, that a man and a woman living as a couple with two children of opposite sexes and aged ten years or more who have two living rooms (for example, bedrooms) may not be statutorily overcrowded because each member of the couple could occupy a separate room with one of the children (of the appropriate sex).
Under Section 325 of the Housing Act 1985, there is no limit on the number of people of the same sex who can live in the same room. However, there may be a contravention of the space standard.
The Space Standard The space standard involves the calculation (undertaken in two ways) of the number of people permitted for the dwelling. The lower number (of the two calculations) is the permitted number for the dwelling. The first test is based on the number of living rooms in the dwelling (disregarding rooms of less than 50 square feet) and the following levels of occupancy:
- One room = two persons
- Two rooms = three persons
- Three rooms = five persons
- Four rooms = seven and a half persons
- Five rooms or more = ten persons plus two persons for each room in excess of five rooms
For the purpose of this test, a child below the age of one does not count and a child between one and ten counts as a half person.
The second test is based on floor areas of each room:
- Less than 50 square feet = no-one
- 50 square feet to less than 70 square feet = half a person
- 70 square feet to less than 90 square feet = one person
- 90 square feet to less than 110 square feet = one and a half persons
- 110 square feet or larger = two persons.
Northampton Partnership Homes’ website contains advice on how housing applicants can establish whether or not they are statutorily overcrowded.
**Meaning of Social Overcrowding**
Although the term ‘social overcrowding’ is often used in Northampton, it is not a term that has any legal basis or definition.
It is understood that the term was first used many years ago to distinguish between statutory overcrowding and situations in which a household has fewer bedrooms than specified in the Housing Allocations Scheme Lettings Criteria.
‘Social overcrowding’ is not a term that is used by other local authorities. Many use the term ‘overcrowding’ to describe a situation in which a household has one bedroom less than they need, and ‘severe overcrowding’ to describe a situation in which a household has at least two bedrooms less than they need.
**Assessment of Overcrowded Households on Northampton’s Housing Register**
At present, households that are overcrowded but not statutorily overcrowded will only be able to join Northampton’s Housing Register if they have other housing needs or their accommodation is having a serious impact on their health or wellbeing. Housing applicants who are statutorily overcrowded and eligible to join the Housing Register and will be placed in the Emergency Band of the Housing Register.
Development of West Northamptonshire’s Housing Allocations Scheme
Work is underway to develop a new Housing Allocations Scheme for West Northamptonshire. This needs to be in place by 1 April 2021.
Officers from Northampton Borough Council and Northampton Partnership Homes have agreed that the new Housing Allocations Scheme should enable all overcrowded households to join the Housing Register if they are eligible.
Although consideration will need to be given to the merits of these and other changes, Officers are recommending that:
- Tenants of West Northamptonshire Council or partner Registered Providers who are living in West Northamptonshire, are severely overcrowded and have at least two bedrooms less than the number of bedrooms to which they would be entitled to under the Housing Allocations Scheme will be placed in Band A of the Register. This will take into account all rooms that can reasonably be used as bedrooms;
- Tenants of non-partner Registered Providers who are living in West Northamptonshire, are severely overcrowded and have at least two bedrooms less than the number of bedrooms to which they would be entitled to under the Housing Allocations Scheme will be placed in Band B of the Register. This will take into account all rooms that can reasonably be used as bedrooms; and
- Tenants of West Northamptonshire Council or partner Registered Providers who are living in West Northamptonshire, are overcrowded and have one bedroom less than the number of bedrooms to which they would be entitled to under the Housing Allocations Scheme will be placed in Band B of the Register. This will take into account all rooms that can reasonably be used as bedrooms.
3.6 Core Questions
3.7.1 The Scrutiny Panel devised a series of core questions that it put to its key witnesses over a cycle of meetings (Copy at Appendix D).
3.7.2 Key witnesses provided a response to these core questions at the meetings of the Scrutiny Panel held on 25 September 2019, 20 November, 25 November, 14 January 2020 and 2 March 2020. 3.7.3 Salient points of evidence:
**Cabinet Member for Housing and Wellbeing**
- Hunger in young people can be seen as malnutrition and also slower development. Hunger in schools has an impact on education and concentration.
- There is a stigma around poverty
- Poor quality food is also poor value for money
- Zero hours contract often have an impact on poverty and food poverty
- There is a good referral system into food banks
- Help is available regarding budgeting from organisations such as CAB, Housing and Money Advice and Community Law
- A key role is to raise awareness and understanding around the causes and impact of poverty and food poverty. The Night Shelter is a good example of the positive impact good quality food can have on people’s health and esteem
- Initiatives are in place as schools for those children that come in hungry such as free breakfast clubs. They are therefore provided with both a free breakfast and a free lunch during school days.
- NPH runs a food bank and also makes referrals. It is a food bank for Council tenants.
- Many homeless people are not receiving any benefits and a lot are suffering from extreme malnutrition
- Bed and breakfast accommodation has not been used very much for homeless families over the last 18 months. 35 hours of outreach work is provided on the streets each week.
- Should a family present as homeless at the One Stop Shop, they would be provided with food free of charge and officers would then assess their needs.
**Head of Revenues and Benefits, Local Government Shared Services (LGSS)**
- Revenues and Benefits does not have a direct statutory responsibility for food poverty; it administers the benefit system and collects Council Tax. The benefits system changed in 2009.
- There will be full migration to Universal Credit from December 2019. The migration to UC started in December 2019 and was (pre-Covid 19) expected to go on to 2024 and potentially beyond. As of 16 September 2019, there were 11,350 claims for housing benefit, in May 2019 it had been 14,000 – April 20, 10,194 and currently 9,846
There is a six-week waiting period for Universal Credit that has been causing issues and problems. Money management support is important for example pay bills such as rent first.
Childcare costs are paid four weeks in arrears- what does this relate to as we don’t pay child care costs?
Since 2009 there have been other Welfare Reforms such as a freeze on the indexation for rents. There is also the bedroom tax, and a cap to Benefits –Hardship funding for all CTR customers, an increase in the LHA rate and business support grants were also changes recently made due to Covid-19
There is £9 million outstanding in Housing Benefit - is this debt ?
1,445 discretionary housing payments were made last year – that is for 19/20 in full, if you need the previous year, please let me know
A Council Tax Reduction Scheme is in place; everyone now has to pay at least 35% of the Council Tax bill for their property but some Groups are protected.
A Vulnerable Persons Policy is in place and an Income Assessment is undertaken.
There are around 14,500 court summons each year.
Since 2015, The Authority collects itself or uses debt collectors.
Revenues and Benefits do signpost individuals to the relevant Agencies and Groups for independent advice and support.
- Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) receives localised funds, in 2013 it was capped and it is now often used for white goods, furniture etc – Not relevant there hasn’t been a fund for over 5 years I would delete.
- The Crisis Loan System is administered by NCC
- £437,000 has been given out in discretionary housing payments this year – this is the total awarded for 2019/20, £271,00 had been paid by 30.09.19.
Cabinet Member for Community Engagement and Safety
- Food poverty can have a negative impact on both physical and mental health.
- There are clear links between levels of deprivation and food poverty. A key definition of deprivation used by local authorities is those areas (and their residents) which fall within the top 20% most deprived LSOAs nationally (i.e. Dectiles 1 and 2 nationally). There are 422 LSOA’s in Northamptonshire. In the IMD 2015 release 69 of these were in the top 20% nationally, 29 in the 1st Dectile and 40 in the Second.
- A good indicator would be the number of children that receive free school meals and the areas in which they live. Such data would be available through public health.
- More than £900,000 is awarded to the community and voluntary sector by NBC each year. A number of these grants support food aid and food provision projects and are available for groups to apply to.
- Northampton Borough Council provides various grants to organisations that are providing food provision in the Town. These grants have been allocated through Councillors utilising their community fund at ward level and through the small grants scheme, which have supported organisations such as Elsie’s Café and Re:Store.
- £900,000 has been awarded in grant funding in respect of food aid.
- The Cabinet Member Community Safety and Engagement would be meeting with the Director of RESTORE imminently regarding joint working.
- There are a number of good schemes in the Borough that are set up to have an impact on ‘holiday hunger’. The below list provides a list of those that we were aware of over the summer 2019:
**Re:Store** - 12.00 - 1.00 lunch, 1.00 - 2.30 Play activities primary school age 0 - 10. For free hot meals, referrals from schools - (Spring Lane and Castle Academy, pupil premium)
**St David’s Community Cafe** - Thursdays 12.30 lunch, followed by Time for Tots 1.30 - 3.00. Children up to 12 yrs. welcomed, activities provided for them. Community Cafe open Tuesday and Thursday 9.30 - 12.30 for breakfast and snacks. Saturday 9.00 - 10.30, donations welcome.
**Kidz Link, St David’s church rooms**. Wednesday 5.30 - 7.00. Games and activities for up to 12 yrs. Snack provided.
**Castle Hill, Spring Boroughs** - Mondays/Wednesdays/Fridays 12.00 - 1.00 serving freshly cooked food for families. **Elsie's Cafe** - Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday 10.00 - 2.00- free meal for children accompanied by paying adult. Bread to take away. (Would need funding to do this)
**Martial Arts Academy** - Summer Activity programme various town locations - Free activities 10.00 - 1.00. Water, fruit and snack provided.
**FISH** – Food in School Holidays every Thursday August 1, 8,15,22,29 12 – 2 at Blackthorn Community Centre. Free lunch for children and children’s entertainer for families in Blackthorn Goldings and Rectory Farm. We are concerned about numbers at these events so please only tell people in those areas about it. (led by Emmanuel Church, Growing Together and Blackthorn Primary school)
**Director of Public Health, Northamptonshire County Council**
Comprehensive presentation
Salient points:
It’s important to define what we mean by “food poverty” so that we can properly understand what the impacts of this might be and to accurately measure how widespread this problem is.
**Food poverty** according to the Department of Health is “the inability to afford, or to have access to, food to make up a healthy diet”(^3). It is closely related to **household food insecurity** which is the inability to be able to secure social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life(^4).
**Hunger** as a term to describe the physical feeling of insufficient food is used by a number of organisations working with people unable to afford food as a means of communicating messages to the wider public, including the Trussell Trust, FareShare, Magic Breakfast, and Church Action on Poverty. Hunger is one consequence of food insecurity but not an inevitability.
A clear direct impact of not having access to a healthy diet is malnutrition. As illustrated in **Figure 1** below, the malnutrition that arises as a result of food insecurity can manifest as
______________________________________________________________________
(^3) Department of Health, Choosing a Better Diet: a food and health action plan, 2005
(^4) [http://www.fao.org/3/y4671e/y4671e06.htm](http://www.fao.org/3/y4671e/y4671e06.htm) undernutrition, **hunger and underweight** but may also come in the form of **nutrient deficiencies with healthy weights** or **overweight/obesity**.
The poor health and wellbeing and risk of chronic ill-health related to food poverty are not only due to the direct dietary risks but also due to associated social and psychological impacts e.g. chronic stress related to food poverty and poverty more generally, poor school performance due to acute hunger. It is also important to consider the differences between acute hunger and chronic food insecurity.
Poverty has been further defined in terms of the way that it effectively excludes individuals from participation in what might be regarded as the customary life of society (Levitas, 2006).
Figure 1. Pathways to multiple forms of malnutrition from food insecurity
Food poverty or food insecurity are challenging conditions to measure and there is a lack of robust or systematic measures in the UK. Other measures, however, can be useful in estimating the size of the problem.
______________________________________________________________________
5 Levitas, L. (2006) The concept of measurement and social exclusion, in C. Pantazis, D. Gordon and R. Levitas (eds.) *Poverty and social exclusion in Britain. The Millenium survey*. Bristol: Policy Press.
6 The State of Food Security [http://www.fao.org/3/i9553EN/i9553en.pdf](http://www.fao.org/3/i9553EN/i9553en.pdf) Food poverty is clearly linked to poverty more generally and poverty can be measured in a number of ways. One useful metric is “income deprivation” which measures the number of people who are in receipt of various means tested benefits. In 2015 the total number of people affected by income deprivation in Northampton was 27,279(^7) of whom 7,806(^8) were children and 6,193(^9) older people.
Use of emergency food aid (i.e. food banks) can give an indication of the levels of need around acute food poverty. It should be noted that while the existence of emergency food aid provision reflects the growth of both episodic and chronic severe food poverty it measures just one aspect of this and so doesn’t capture those who manage food insecurity in different ways (^{10}).
Re;Store coordinate food parcels across 6 churches in Northampton Borough and in 2018 distributed 4500 parcels (website reference)(^{11}). There are other emergency food aid providers (including those who provide meals to the homeless and rough sleepers) that are not included in this figure. Nationally, the Trussell Trust saw a 20% increase between 2017-2018 in the number of food parcels given out in the summer holidays(^{12}).
The 2019 update to Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) identifies the top 20 most deprived small areas (lower super output areas – LSOAs) in the proposed West Northamptonshire [see Appendix 1]. It shows that 19 of the 20 areas are in Northampton Borough and that one small area in the borough is within the 1% most deprived LSOAs in England (Bellinge Ward: Fieldmill Road area, Billing Aquadrome).
Another important factor to consider is accessibility of food, and in particular fresh fruit and vegetables. ‘Food Deserts’ describe areas where there are no shops selling affordable healthy food.
(^7) Income Deprivation domain of Indices of Deprivation 2019 (^8) IDACI 2019 (^9) IDOPI 2019 (^{10}) http://www.healthscotland.scot/media/2222/food-poverty.pdf (^{11}) https://www.restorenorthampton.org.uk/ (^{12}) https://www.trusselltrust.org/2019/07/16/uk-food-banks-fear-busiest-summer-ever-ahead/ This is particularly an issue for those with mobility issues or lack of access to transport.
Map 1. Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) Northamptonshire 2019
The University of Southampton has developed a methodology\\textsuperscript{13} to estimate risk of food poverty across local communities and it was last updated in September 2019. The map below shows the food poverty estimates at MSOA level across the borough of Northampton. Other presentations of the data are available here.
Map 2. Proportion of households at high risk of food poverty in Northampton Borough 2019
\\textsuperscript{13} Identifying populations and areas at greatest risk of household food insecurity in England, D. Smith et al. University of Southampton, 2018. Further details on methodology available from Public Health Intelligence, NCC. In order to understand approaches to tackle food poverty it’s important to understand the root causes of food poverty. An analysis by the House of Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee “Sustainable Development Goals in the UK follow up: Hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity in the UK” identified three themes relating to the causes of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition:
- Low incomes and rising living costs:
- Universal Credit and the benefits system; and
- Cuts to funding for local social care services.
Further to this, Sustain, in their guide to developing Food Poverty Action Plans suggest three broad approaches to tackle food poverty that complement the three key themes identified by the Environmental Audit Committee, namely;
Taking a preventative approach a. Improving access to financial and debt advice as well as maximising access to welfare and discretionary funds including fuel poverty funds.
b. Improving access to healthy start vouchers, breastfeeding support and free school meal provision and access to affordable locally grown produce.
c. Promoting fair incomes and the Living Wage
Shaping crisis provision (or more immediate provision) d. Improving access to food aid by developing signposting tools for frontline staff and ensure this is delivered in a non-stigmatising way.
e. Improving nutritional value of food aid.
f. Promoting greater coordination and networking of assistance providers.
Taking a wider approach
g. Measuring and monitoring food poverty at a local level
h. Using planning and business rate relief systems to shape local areas and support social supermarkets and community food growing
i. Provide stable and affordable housing as well as access to energy efficiency measures
j. Make reducing food inequalities a priority across a range of strategies and plans and/or integrate food poverty actions within a wider food plan
Innovative digital approaches can be employed as part of actions to address food poverty across these themes. In partnership with CAST (Centre for the Acceleration of Social Technology), Oxfam is exploring how digital technology can challenge and address the causes of food poverty in the UK.
A review by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), Church of England, Oxfam GB and The Trussell Trust “Emergency Use Only: Understanding and reducing the use of food banks in the UK”(^\\text{14}) gives the following recommendations for preventing need for food banks:
- Improve access to short-term benefit advances: increase awareness, simplify the claim process and improve data collection to identify support needs.
- Reform sanctions policy and practice: increase access to hardship payments, clarify communications about sanctions, mitigate the impact whilst a sanction is being reconsidered and address issues for Housing Benefit.
- Improve the ESA regime: ensure claimants are not left without income whilst challenging a decision made because of missing medical certificates or missed appointments.
- Sustain and improve access to emergency financial support through Local Welfare Assistance Schemes.
- Ensure Jobcentres provide an efficient and supportive service for all clients.
- Improve Jobcentre Plus Advisers’ awareness of, and ability to respond to, mental health problems.
- Improve access to appropriate advice and support.
(^{14}) [https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/Foodbank%20Report_web.pdf](https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/Foodbank%20Report_web.pdf) Crisp et al 2016\\textsuperscript{15} explores the value of community led approaches to reducing poverty in neighbourhoods, including:
- Approaches impacting on the 'material' forms of poverty, reducing housing or fuel costs or creating employment opportunities
- Approaches impacting on the 'non-material' aspects by enhancing health and wellbeing, improving quality of housing, the condition of the physical environment and increasing levels of social participation.
Approaches are neighbourhood based; need adequate funding and are reliant on skills and leadership and a strong voluntary and community sector. Approaches include:
- Voluntary action
- Food banks
- Community organising and social action
- Neighbourhood enterprise
- Community-based credit unions
- Developing physical assets
- Community-led housing
This conceptual distinction between material and non-material forms of poverty provides a useful framework for understanding the broad range of poverty-related outcomes that community-led approaches may have. This is summarised in Table 1 below. The framework enables distinctions to be drawn between interventions that might not prevent 'material' poverty but could mitigate some of the 'non-material' impacts of poverty that are part of the experience of poverty.
Table 1: Potential impacts on poverty of community-led activities
| Activities may impact on 'material' poverty where they generate outcomes around: | Activities may impact on 'non-material' poverty where they generate outcomes around: | |---|---| | Jobs | Education | | Employment | Health | | Worklessness | Housing (availability, quality or security) | | Enterprise | Community safety | | Local economic growth | Physical environment | | Living costs (e.g. food, fuel or housing) | Social interaction | | | Community cohesion | | | Community empowerment |
Nationally, the Government has recognised the need to understand better and measure the impact of food poverty. A national index of food insecurity is to be incorporated into an established UK-wide annual... survey run by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that monitors household incomes and living standards.
More widely, parliament, via the Environmental Audit Committee published a report in 2019 recommending greater action to reduce food poverty across the UK.
There are also a number of voluntary sector organisations who campaign around Food Poverty. Schemes such as ‘The Sustainable Food Cities Award’ incorporates a strand on tackling food poverty, diet related ill-health and access to affordable healthy food as part of the criteria for award.
Locally, alongside emergency food aid provision to address acute poverty there have been partnership efforts in recent years to address the root causes of food poverty. Northamptonshire Community Foundation currently host the Northamptonshire Food Poverty Network who are active in promoting issues of food poverty across the
Some of the NCC Public Health Team’s activities to address food poverty are listed below:
As part of the support for the Borough and Districts Health and Wellbeing Fora, a Public Health Healthy Town grant was made available in 2018-19 for them to apply for projects that support the health and wellbeing of local residents. Out of the 17 projects supported 5 projects are food related.
Breastfeeding – Health Visitors commissioned by the public health team provide infant feeding support including breastfeeding drop-ins as one of the key areas to reduce impacts of food poverty.
The Healthy Start Scheme is a statutory UK-wide government scheme that provides a ‘nutritional safety net’ for pregnant women and families on qualifying benefits and tax credits. Women who are at least 10 weeks pregnant and families with children under 4 qualify if the families received the relevant benefits. Pregnant women under 18 are also eligible, regardless of whether they receive benefits. The scheme includes food vouchers and vitamin supplements. The uptake of Healthy Start vouchers in Northampton borough in August 2019 was 56%. Nationally the uptake in this period was 52%. A recent recruitment to a public health role has the function to develop a coordinated plan of existing work to tackle obesity across the County and identify key gaps that can be collectively worked on through a whole systems approach.
There are also projects around fuel poverty and healthy schools that seek to improve people’s uptake of means tested support e.g. support to reduce fuel poverty and to provide free school meals.
Food poverty is an issue affecting the whole county and while there will be geographical and demographic variation the core issues, principles, actions and goals will be similar across all the boroughs and districts.
With the move to the two unitary authorities a way forward could be to use this issue to come together across the County and consider the following actions for local authorities recommended by Sustain:
- Developing a **food action plan** to tackle food poverty
- Improving the uptake of Healthy Start vouchers
- Promoting breastfeeding via the Baby Friendly Initiative
- Harnessing the value of children’s centres
- Ensuring low-income families have adequate access to childcare
- Ensuring children’s access to food 365 days a year
- Becoming a Living Wage employer and promoting the Living Wage
- Ensuring all residents have physical access to good food
- Supporting and enhancing meals on wheels provision
- Supporting financial advice services and providing crisis support
Food poverty is a complex issue and so has multiple and overlapping causal factors and impacts on health and wellbeing.
As noted by the Trussell Trust there are a widening group of people affected by food poverty, destitution and hunger(^\\text{16}). Those vulnerable to food poverty are likely to be disadvantaged in other ways that have a negative impact on health and wellbeing.
Some specific associations with higher risk of food banks use include those who have a disability or health condition, lone parents and families with 3 or more children, those who have experienced adverse life events such as bereavement or loss of a job plays a role in food bank usage.
(^{16}) Trussell Trust, 2019 The State of Hunger A national survey conducted by the NEU indicates teachers concerned over pupils missing meals during the school holidays\\textsuperscript{17} and describe how the impacts of lack of school meals during the holidays and how these are compounded by:
- Increased pressure on family food budget
- Increased costs in Child care
- Increased Fuel bills (even cooking food has a cost)
- Social contact is diminished
- School readiness and learning decline
- Family Stress elevated
There is national evidence of adults skipping meals to save money so that their children can eat. For example, in London in 2018 33% skipped meals\\textsuperscript{18}
One project funded by the NCC Public Health Grant – Food with Dignity – was set up to address the issue of holiday hunger. As part of its application it recorded:
KCU (Kettering Community Unit) food bank statistics and local feedback:
Between October 2017 and September 2018, 1,495 adults and 1,032 children were fed through the food bank. Since the start of rollout of Universal Credit (October 2018), there has already been over a 30% increase on the figures in food parcel requirements. In areas where full rollout has been going for 1 year, the average increase in food bank usage is 52%.
Researchers at Thomas Coram speaking with children on the impacts on their lives\\textsuperscript{19}
- Children in low income families are going hungry and missing out on healthy food and social activities that their peers take for granted. Lack of money and food cause children physical pain, feelings of guilt and shame and a sense of social exclusion; Children in lone parents’ families are at greater risk of food poverty than others, reflecting broad poverty trends. Since most lone parents are mothers, the health implications of parental sacrifice are gendered;
\\textsuperscript{17} https://neu.org.uk/press-releases/neu-survey-increase-amount-teenagers-going-hungry-during-summer-holidays
\\textsuperscript{18} GLA, 2018 Final London Food Strategy
\\textsuperscript{19} CPAG 2019 Living Hand to Mouth • Free school meals are sometimes delivered in a discriminatory and stigmatising way and often don't buy enough to fill someone up.
They recommended:
• Healthy free school meals should be available to all children at school. Solutions to food poverty must address the root causes of low and irregular wages, inadequate benefits and the high cost of essentials that leave parents struggling to make ends meet.
Northamptonshire County Council supports disadvantaged groups who are vulnerable to food insecurity through a number of its statutory services as well as non-statutory offers.
The Adult Learning Service provides a “healthy cooking on a budget” course to provide communities with skills to prepare healthy meals with fruits and vegetables while
As noted above the Public Health within NCC provides support around reducing the burden of food poverty in the following ways:
• Intelligence – o The public health team have a responsibility to produce Joint Strategic Needs Assessments that identify local health and wellbeing priorities.
• Commissioning – o Through our commissioned services (primarily the Public Health Nursing Service) we: ▪ Work with health visitors to improve uptake of Healthy Start scheme ▪ Maintain level 3 accreditation for the Baby Friendly Initiative as part of the public health nursing contract. ▪ Work with health visitors to promote breastfeeding as part of infant feeding offer
• Partnership and project working- o Our work also includes areas that have an impact on the determinants of food poverty including: ▪ Projects working with schools to improve uptake of free school meals. ▪ Projects to reduce fuel poverty and address other wider determinants including access to training and employment will contribute to reducing food poverty. ▪ Obesity prevention activities including promoting cooking on a budget skill and shaping food environments to reduce accessibility of fast food. Bringing together local leaders Identify a strategic group to come together and map the need, current provision and develop a way forward across:
Tackling the underlying causes of food poverty This includes working on local economic development, access to training and good quality jobs as well as a living wage and improving access to benefits.
Improving access to existing support for those at risk of food poverty This includes improving uptake of free school meals, healthy start vouchers and other related support for prevention of acute food poverty.
Working at local community level to address food poverty This includes improving access to affordable healthy foods through working on local community growing schemes and working with local businesses.
Pupil premium for deprivation is provided to schools on the basis of the number of pupils on the school roll that have ever eligible for FSM, (including those not currently eligible for FSM). Pupil Premium is also awarded on the basis of other elements of need e.g. children who have previously been “looked after children” and children of those previously in service in the armed forces.
Nationally, data on pupil premium values is reported according to the upper tier authority or parliamentary constituency that the school is located in and not lower tier authorities.
Free School Meals (FSM) eligibility, conversely, is available at borough level and is presented below:
Table 2. - Free School Meals Eligibility - January School Census 2019
| District | % Eligible | Eligible | Total on Roll | |----------------|------------|----------|---------------| | Northamptonshire | 10.4% | 12300 | 118504 | | Location | Unemployment Rate | Population | Food Poverty | |-------------------|-------------------|------------|--------------| | Corby | 12.5% | 1598 | 12831 | | Daventry | 9.3% | 1009 | 10897 | | East Northants | 8.6% | 1022 | 11920 | | Kettering | 10.2% | 1688 | 16517 | | Northampton | 11.7% | 3934 | 33642 | | South Northants | 4.5% | 812 | 18097 | | Wellingborough | 12.3% | 1543 | 12513 | | PRU | 47.5% | 96 | 202 | | Special | 31.7% | 598 | 1885 |
Public Health promoted the development of a food poverty strategy and note that the process of developing a food poverty strategy can of itself have wider impacts such as:
- Raising the profile of food poverty, especially with local decision-makers
- Developing a shared positive vision
- Creating a sense of empowerment for experts by experience
- Empowering diverse groups to raise their voices to call for food justice
- Ensuring the local council and other partners take ownership of agreed actions
- Sharing of good practice across local authority boundaries to support specific projects
______________________________________________________________________
**Partnership Manager, Department of Work and Pensions**
- Unemployment rate is 3.7% and is the lowest since the 1970s. More people have moved into work.
- The Department of Work and Pensions works closely with many organisations to support deprived areas and has outreach workers.
______________________________________________________________________
20 Developing food poverty action plans 2019, Sustain “Entitled to calculation” can be undertaken and Officers can then look at the individual’s circumstances. Individuals would never be asked to move from a Legacy Benefit to Universal Credit unless this was financially better for them. Officers help individuals make best use of the income that they have.
Universal Credit pays more the less an individual earns. It is based on earnings. If an individual is on a zero hours contract and does not work at all this then remains consistent; a taper for Universal Credit is detailed on the website of the Department of Work and Pensions.
The employer must notify HMRC of the earnings of each employee.
- There is huge process that takes place before sanctions are implemented. Sanctions are the last thing that HMRC wants to introduce. The aim is to get the individual’s money right and ready from the first assessment.
- The potential causes of individuals having to use food banks can be considered this to be mismanagement of money. HMRC can do entitlement assessments.
- HMRC works collaboratively with partner organisations to help people. It has a claim commitment but it needs individuals to tell officers about their circumstances. Individuals can contact HMRC for assistance.
- The Partnership Manager goes to Corby and Towcester food banks and works with them to see what their income is and assist them. Sarah Holton confirmed that she was very happy to attend a food bank in Northampton and work with users. Housing is always going to be an issue as rents can often be very high; HMRC cannot influence the rents. Costs of housing is often higher than housing benefit of the housing element of Universal Credit.
- HMRC has partner organisations that can assist people with claims.
- DWP has a visiting team.
- The Universal Credit app is easy to use.
- Under a Legacy contract, should individuals work more than 16 hours a week their benefit would be reduced and their claim closed. With Universal Credit, if an individual’s earnings fluctuated – e.g. more earnings, less credit the account would only close if they earnt more than Universal Credit. If the job comes to an end, they can notify change of circumstances and a re-assessment is done.
- There is a programme of training in place that comprises 39 vulnerabilities. Mental health training includes suicide and ex-offenders. She highlighted that her Office is not a trainer to give support regarding mental health but they can and do signpost.
- It was realised that some individuals are fearful to go to the Job Centre. There are lots of posters in the Job Centre regarding partner agencies.
- A lot of outreach takes place through schools and advice can be given.
- The Partnership Manager regularly visits NBC and is part of the Welfare Reform meetings; that comprise a number of partners. Improvements come from these meetings. Chief Executive, Hope Centre
- Food poverty is just one way of looking at poverty as a whole. Food poverty is not some separate thing: it is labelled in this way simply because in a world of surplus food, people think they can ameliorate it with the surplus they have or is available. The term is superfluous: we are talking about poverty. But if it helps the public to become motivated about poverty as a whole, because they believe they can make a difference, as with homelessness, then it has awareness value. Therefore, poverty impacts on health, wellbeing, mental health, child development, obesity/malnutrition, dental poor health, crime, unemployment, future prospects and civil harmony. An unequal society is bad for itself, as studies such as the ‘Spirit Level’ have shown.
- National data suggests that as many as 14m or 21% of the population are in some form of poverty(^\\text{21}). Given that Northampton is comparably poorer than the average for Britain by a ratio of 1:1.12 (based on salary average), this suggests that in Northampton, with a population of 225000, there are 53000 people (or 23.52%) in relative poverty. These are people who on a weekly basis experience issues of poverty which include issues with food. Within this total, 9.33% can be defined as destitute, or 4944 people(^\\text{22}). Realistically, this can be seen as a likely shorthand figure for those who might access regular food aid provision but others will need help periodically from sources beyond their immediate families.
- Transferrable Canadian data(^\\text{23}) suggests that no more than 20% of people in the highest levels of need ever approach food aid provision, for reasons of stigma etc.
- The above figure includes a disproportionate number who are of ethnic minorities; and women are generally thought to most likely to offer food to their children before themselves, meaning even within poor families, women are more likely to experience food issues. Obviously, the figures are averaged, so this masks concentration in areas of greatest deprivation.
- The government gives some tax encouragement to food retailers to share surplus food. Beyond this, there is no strategic action beyond broader welfare provision. That which is done is solely at the inspiration of individual organisations, both statutory (e.g. Partnership Homes, NCC Public Health, as
(^{21}) https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/ ; https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN07096
(^{22}) https://naccom.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/destitution2018_0.pdf
(^{23}) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11266-018-0039-2 supplied) and mainly charitable, often church based. There is a county food poverty group but this is not strategic; it largely engages only in strategic campaigning. It does very little to co-ordinate or support food aid providers nor engineer any organised supply or sharing of food.
- Within the voluntary sector nationally the Trussell Trust is in essence a franchise system for local foodbanks, from a Christian perspective: it has no local co-ordinary function, even amongst its own registered foodbanks. IFAN is a loose alliance of other providers, of which Hope is a member (and former board member) but does little co-ordination, mainly focusing on national campaigning.
- Within the retail industry there is no strategic co-ordination, either nationally or locally. Fareshare is a national charity with regional (not local) branches supported by various companies, but it is not strategic. If you want food from Fareshare, you contact them and they arrange this, but it is chaotic and unstrategic, and often of variable quality, focused on short life, sometimes unusable items near use by date, which is not supplied in a co-ordinated way, can become unusable between their supply to food aid providers and its distribution to customers. It contains little ambient food. This is a just a fragment of the food supplied by supermarkets, which is offered chaotically to charities every day of the week, wasting time and money with multiple wasted journeys for a smashed pallet of rotten veg or pop, as is often the case. Much of that which they give away has no nutritional value.
- The closest to strategic food aid is not in practice organised at all by any single entity, but each year, in two waves, supplies a vast amount of the food that is in turn supplied by food aid providers across the UK. These are the Christian festivals of Harvest and Christmas, where Churches and Schools (and the general public, at Christmas) voluntarily choose to collect and supply food to charities like Hope and others. It is co-ordinated, if at all, only by organisations like Hope, to try to co-ordinate donations to enable their management and not become overwhelmed. This is a vast operation and can involve in Hope’s case perhaps 30 tonnes of donated ambient long life items being gathered, collected, sorted and stored in two quite short, concentrated periods. Because of Hope’s size and efficiency, we are the closest to offering a structured way of managing what is in effect a spontaneous outpouring of kindness, but even we struggle at Christmas where we receive as much in clothes as food. If we have surplus, we then pass on to others (there is a degree of sharing amongst foodbanks generally, it isn’t structured, it just comes from relationships and mutual respect).
- Because of this seasonality, most foodbanks and Hope are running low after Easter 2020, with real issues later in the summer 2020.
- There is a real need for structured leadership of local food aid, with co-ordination to get short life food to organisations who can use it best; to co- ordinate pickups and manage the supermarkets. In practice there is competition, for the supermarket food, where slots to access their offerings are fiercely fought over. Some providers are especially competitive.
- Hope is moving to seeing its large warehouse (the single biggest in the county, by some distance) as being a community food hub where we, through size and organisation and funding, can support smaller foodbanks to access food through us. We would welcome opportunity to do this on a more structured basis, becoming a local distributor to other local food aid projects, a role really needed.
- There are two broad ways of looking at why people are food poor: one, that they are feckless, lazy, can’t manage the money, don’t know how to cook, have too many children, are drug addicts, spend their money on fags etc etc. The second is that the low level of wages and benefits, in relation to other costs, like food, travel, and most of all, housing, mean that regardless of their personalities or individual characteristics, they are largely poor because they don’t have enough money, including if they are working. Hope would generally recognise the latter view as being more broadly accurate. The best way to reduce such poverty would be a functioning welfare state or incomes policy with government commitment to ending poverty but sadly this not the case, as poverty increases daily and will likely get worse. The solutions to this at individual level may include education and teaching, but we are not aware of much structured work of this type and are in any case, secondary to improved income levels.
- At the local level a commitment by the council and pressure on its contractors do become Living wage employers would help, setting an example and applying leverage.
- In terms of activity within food aid settings, Hope supports the progressive approach in part of the food aid movement as members of IFAN. This model of practice includes such activity as:
- Campaigning against low wages and benefits
- Growing food locally
- Support for people to learn new skills and get better paid work
- Empowering service users to be voices for change, improving confidence etc
- Sale based methods of food aid, such as social supermarkets, selling food at proper prices, rather than making it entirely charitable.
- Hope does all these (see ‘Big Hunger’ MIT 2017 by Andy Fisher for further examples of such initiatives). There are a number of other examples of progressive work but these are not means of reducing dependence on food aid but do have other value, such as refusing to supply large quantities of unhealthy food to users, not requiring referrals by health or social care professionals, not limiting to 3 parcels in crisis only, dignified offer of food, no evangelising as a condition for food etc).
- It is sometimes suggested that the addition of wrap around services can reduce continuing use of food aid. This includes benefits advice, access to drugs, alcohol and mental health support, plus education. All of these are potentially useful and Hope makes all of these available. However, they should be used in the context of the measures above and not conditional; i.e. there can be no assumption that people must take such services up to access food aid. There should be no presumption of need for such services as they are only in some cases the cause of need. Whether better take up of already inadequate benefits provides any real solution is arguable. Even where people have everything they are entitled to, they still experience food poverty.
- The benefits system and proper wages are the most effective methods.
- Aside from small scale efforts conducted by specific agencies and groups for their own customers, and the work carried out by Partnership Homes and the educational role of Public Health, previously submitted, the overwhelming response at any scale is from the voluntary sector and the churches.
- The churches offer foodbanks, Hope offers a social supermarket, where food and toiletries are supplied at charge, usually 1/3 or less of retail price, with lots of free items (sanitary products, toothbrushes and toothpaste etc). People pay a membership fee of £2 a month, but thereafter can attend every week, whereas in foodbanks people are often restricted to 3 visits in crisis, although often that is relaxed. You often have to be referred to foodbanks; you can self-present to Hope, our only condition being evidence of benefit status, including in work benefits.
- The other main distinction between foodbanks and Hope’s offer is the volume of fresh food, especially veg and fruit. Many foodbanks mostly have access to ambient food only, and have much more limited amounts of fresh. This reflects the donation pattern. Hope avoids this by growing a lot of veg ourselves on our extensive allotments, and by sourcing fresh food. Some foodbanks grow a little veg themselves, but not in the serious manner Hope attempts (as an example, we have 14x as much growing land as Re: Store).
- There is some wrap around support at some local foodbanks, and at Hope. We have a student social worker attending most sessions to refer into Hope’s wider provision. This is unconditional in offer.
- We feed about 250 people a week.
- There is also Elsie’s café, or Shop Xero. Technically this is not a food poverty project, as anyone can go in and buy; its main ethos is food waste rather than poverty, though inevitably people on low incomes go to their shop, so it makes some contribution.
- It should also be recognised that Hope’s day centre and street-based food distribution offers food support to some of the most destitute, including the homeless. Long before there were food banks, there were soup kitchens, feeding not just homeless people, as they still do. We see up to 130 people a day in the Hope day centre.
- Greater co-ordination of food aid would be welcome, but not necessarily by the Borough, but the Borough can be influential in encouraging this, as could NCC. Food aid is a voluntary sector/faith community thing, and given so little funding is made available, attempting to co-ordinate that which it does not fund would not be appropriate. If funding were available then it would be a different matter, but the key role and leadership of the independent sector should be recognised and retained.
- We have talked about setting an example by wages etc earlier.
- The Borough and NCC could also make larger amounts of land available for growing veg, but this would need revenue support for gardeners. A local sustainable food strategy would be a good idea, as Hope played a significant role within during 2018 but has been unable to continue due to other pressures in 2019.
- Making available free or discount warehouse space to enable Hope or others to organise and store food would be a help. Our current warehouse is a major financial challenge. Making shop space available would be really helpful.
- The shortage of food to provide to people in need is the single, overwhelming issue.
- The overwhelming canard of food poverty is that it can be ‘solved’ by greater use of food ‘waste’, or surplus food, mainly from supermarkets. Supermarkets are becoming very adept at managing their stock lines so the amount of fresh, short life food they have is reducing all the time. We have said before, what they make available is literally only the things they cannot sell, much of which is very unhealthy. Shops give away almost nothing fresh, and little of nutritional value, and they never supply ambient in volume, as profit rules here. You can access better stuff through upchain communication with the industry via Fareshare etc but locally only really Hope and Shop Zero are organised enough to do this, and again, volume is really quite limited and in practice Hope and others pay to receive this, it’s not free. Most of what Hope offers has been donated by the general public. There is quite simply not enough food in any category available to feed all of the people who could be in need or even might seek help. If all of the most acutely in need group came in for food aid, i.e. the c.5000 people identified above, the collective food aid providers of Northampton simply could not feed them. We could do so perhaps for a few weeks after Christmas, when our stores are full, but they would be emptied before Easter. There simply is not enough donated food, or food waste available to meet the potential level of need out there at the present time. To achieve this would require food retailers to donate a much higher volume of food, including fresh produce and ambient food at scale, and the general public to donate vastly more, and for a much larger amount of food to be grown by Hope or others. This is not a matter of small-scale tinkering, but really significant change in behaviour and attitude by everyone, including advertising to overcome stigma and encourage take up.
Hope is exploring sourcing fresh or even ambient food on the wholesale market and will trial this in 2020. This will effectively just be a shop where we don’t aim to make the excessive profit of the ordinary food retail sector, but do cover costs, where access is again restricted to those on low incomes. Lease of a building or shop at zero cost would be a great help here, enabling us to keep the food price low.
Holiday hunger is simply another way of describing poverty, breaking down food poverty into yet another category.
Deputy CEO, Northamptonshire Community Foundation and facilitator of Northamptonshire Food Poverty Network
Northamptonshire Food Poverty Network was convened in 2012 as part of the community leadership role of Northamptonshire Community Foundation when it recognised as a grant maker and funder an emerging trend of an increasing number of food banks and food aid providers applying for funds and the increase of local communities experiencing food insecurity.
During 2013 and 2014 the community foundation received £10,000 over the two-year period to convene the network and support the strategy of the council to tackle poverty in Northamptonshire. Other key members of the network were also funded including Phoenix Resource Centre receiving £10,000 per year over two years to provide storage and transport support to sharing resources between food banks. This funding ended by 2015.
Since 2016 Northamptonshire Food Poverty Network has strategically aligned with a network of food poverty alliances through the national End Hunger UK campaign and commits to campaigning, training and events. Local campaigns and events have included launching a Fair Deal for Kids appeal with Northampton Chronicle and Echo: https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/how-can-8-400-northampton-children-be-living-hand-to-mouth-in-2018-we-relaunch-fair-deal-for-kids-campaign-1-8445606, End Hunger UK campaign week, media and campaign training for network members, regular press releases of food insecurity, working in partnership with Oxfam to bring a food insecurity exhibition to Northampton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQmEEjBUiSM, promoting the findings of the Children’s Future Food Inquiry, working on a campaign with BBC Radio Northampton focusing on child food insecurity and a programme of events bringing in national charity and aid agencies to talk about policy and best practice to tackle food insecurity. Northamptonshire Community Foundation continues to fund members of the network and key food aid providers to deliver their services. The End Hunger UK Campaign seeks to raise awareness of food poverty and is supported by a coalition of national charities and local food poverty alliances including Northamptonshire Food Poverty Network. It calls on the Government to do their part to address the root causes of food poverty and ensure public policy reduces rather than exacerbates food poverty. We also provide an online food aid directory. A recent campaign win is the commitment of the measurement of food insecurity by the Government. The first statistics are due for release in April 2020: https://www.endhungeruk.org/2019/02/27/campaign-win-uk-government-agrees-to-measure-household-food-insecurity/
- Government, councils, health bodies and other statutory agencies should play a central role in reducing food poverty in the UK. This should complement the role of the voluntary and community sector. Action by government, councils and others should address the root causes of food poverty and avoid unreasonable demands being placed on charities, faith organisations, volunteers and others responding to local need.
- The Department of Health defines food poverty as ‘The inability to afford, or to have access to, food to make up a healthy diet.’
- Food poverty currently affects 8.4 million people in the UK who struggle to get enough to eat. This includes many households with people in work, families with children, as well as older and disabled people.
- It can affect children who lack free school meals during the holidays; parents on low incomes going without food so that their children can eat; working people whose low wages leave them struggling to buy healthy food; or older people unable to prepare meals without support.
- Hunger and unhealthy diets are symptoms of poverty. The root causes are the structural inequalities in household incomes and access to food. This includes low and insecure wages impacted by zero-hour contracts and/or pay that does not reflect the minimum living wage; an inadequate welfare safety net; lack of access to affordable and healthy food.
- The government must urgently address these inequalities. All households must have enough money to thrive, not just survive, through a living wage or an adequate welfare safety net, and healthy food should be more readily available and less expensive than unhealthy food.
- Key local contributory factors identified by members of Northamptonshire Food Poverty Network on rising food insecurity and child food insecurity:
- Housing – particularly the number of families in temporary accommodation, no of families in overcrowded accommodation e.g. family of 2 adults 2 children are now not classed as overcrowded if they live in a one bed flat. Many of our families live in these cramped conditions – how can this help family life?
- Universal credit – and the rise of food bank usage
- Long term impact on children – being raised in poverty with parents who are not supported and who are unable to offer aspiration
- Reduction in funding for essential services – CAMHS, Social care – thresholds getting higher so that more people are not getting any support
- Demise of services for families – closure of children’s centres, cuts to support voluntary organisations
- lack of services and that in our area it was really just us, Free2Talk and the schools
- Schools could play a role to encourage both local and national Government to take matter seriously---real lack of awareness
- Theresa May AS Prime Minster offer of policy to support those who are ‘just about managing’; instead the numbers have increased and many more people are struggling – people in work are in poverty. Nationally, there are not enough policies that are not accommodating people who are working but struggling.
- Locally, the issues around Sure start are still manifesting itself – many of the above low-income families would use that agency for advice and consultation and also exacerbated by the whole cut to library services. Many projects have closed down or reduced their service offer which has a knock-on effect.
- There’s an expectation that a voluntary organisation will be picking up a lot of this - they too are struggling to meet the needs.
- There is a lack of staffing resources and so there is a lack of collaborative problem solving between public services and charities.
- Brexit will add to the above pressure as policies stand and has overtaken the above issues relating to poverty.
- Universal credit, especially for people who had never had to budget for a month at a time and for the long first period when you first go on it.
- Housing - both NPH and private landlords and how many families we come across are living in conditions listeners would be shocked by for example people are now expected to use their living space as a bedroom so we have families with 2 young children in a one bed flat etc
- Effects of long-term unemployment and also how difficult it is to start work when you know if you come off universal credit and the job then doesn’t work out you will have to wait another 5 weeks for any payment to come through.
- Key evidence and data submitted by the Deputy Chief Executive, Northamptonshire Community Foundation and facilitator of Northamptonshire Food Poverty Network:
- United Nations Philip Alston Report on extreme poverty in the UK 2019: [https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/39/Add.1](https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/39/Add.1)
- Summary: The Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, undertook a mission to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 5 to 16 November 2018. Although the United Kingdom is the world’s fifth largest economy, one fifth of its population (14 million people) live in poverty, and 1.5 million of them experienced destitution in 2017. Policies of austerity introduced in 2010 continue largely unabated, despite the tragic social consequences. Close to 40 per cent of children are predicted to be living in poverty by 2021. Food banks have proliferated; homelessness and rough sleeping have increased greatly; tens of thousands of poor families must live in accommodation far from their schools, jobs and community networks; life expectancy is falling for certain groups; and the legal aid system has been decimated. The social safety net has been badly damaged by drastic cuts to local authorities’ budgets, which have eliminated many social services, reduced policing services, closed libraries in record numbers, shrunk community and youth centres and sold off public spaces and buildings. The bottom line is that much of the glue that has held British society together since the Second World War has been deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos. A booming economy, high employment and a budget surplus have not reversed austerity, a policy pursued more as an ideological than an economic agenda.
- Poverty Report: [https://socialmetricscommission.org.uk/social-metrics-commission-2019-report/](https://socialmetricscommission.org.uk/social-metrics-commission-2019-report/)
- Summary: More than 14 million people, including 4.5 million children, are living below the breadline, with more than half trapped in poverty for years, according to a new measure aimed at providing the most sophisticated analysis yet of material disadvantage in the UK. The measure seeks to forge a fresh political consensus between left and right over how to define and track poverty, with the aim of encouraging better-targeted poverty interventions, and making it easier to hold politicians to account. It finds poverty is especially prevalent in families with at least one disabled person, single-parent families, and households where no one works or that are dependent for income on irregular or zero-hours jobs.
- **Children's Future Food Inquiry:** [https://foodfoundation.org.uk/childrens-future-food-inquiry/](https://foodfoundation.org.uk/childrens-future-food-inquiry/)
- **Summary:** In a society that believes in compassion and justice, it is unacceptable that children's development is being restricted by the effects of poverty. The number of children experiencing symptoms of food insecurity, or whose family income is evidently insufficient to afford a healthy diet amounts to between 2.5 and 4 million; between 20% and 30% of all children in the UK. We cannot allow this to continue. One in three children (4.1 million) are living in poverty in the UK. For their families to be able to afford the Government's recommended diet, they would have to spend an estimated 35% of their income on food, once their housing costs have been taken care of. This is not a realistic option, given the restrictive effects of the rising cost of living, prevalence of low-paid, insecure jobs, and the freeze on benefits. On average, after housing costs, households with children spend around 18% of their income on food. A proportion of children living in poverty experience food insecurity. UNICEF estimates on the basis of a small but nationally representative survey that 2.5 million (19%) British children live in food insecure households. This means that there are times when their household does not have enough money to acquire enough food, or they cannot buy the full variety of foods needed for a healthy diet. The devastating consequences Hunger is an extremely debilitating experience. It damages physical health. It is a cause of great personal distress. It is a social harm. Food insecurity brings profound anxiety and stress into family life which can trigger depression, aggressive behaviour in children, a sense of hopelessness, and overwhelming stress for parents struggling to give their children the best start. It affects children’s school attendance, achievement and attainment: children who are hungry in class cannot concentrate or may be disruptive. In addition, the long summer holidays are estimated to result in weeks of learning loss for some children through a combination of social isolation, low levels of stimulation and activity, and poor diets. Food insecurity also affects the quality of children’s diets, which brings increased risks of obesity and poor child growth. The magnitude and importance of childhood food insecurity requires systemic change, rather than short term, ad hoc projects.
**CEO, Community Law (CLS)**
- Whilst Community Law (CLS) have directly referred 42 clients to a food bank in the last 12 months, it considers a lot of its work prevents the need to make such referrals. CLS also has a policy of only making such referrals when the individual is its client and actively engaging with advice; this is to prevent a foodbank referral simply be used as a ‘sticky plaster’ to solve a problem in the short term rather than addressing the long term or underlying reason for the need. For the last 6 months, CLS has held a fortnightly advice session within the Cafe at Emmanuel Church when they hold their foodbank session. Since it started there, it has advised 52 people, all of whom have presented as being in need of food, but who also have expressed that their issues with food are related to money issues. It provides the people it sees with advice on benefits, debt and fuel poverty all to provide a holistic approach to addressing the difficulties they have with a view to reducing the risk of them returning to food poverty in a very short period of time
- Independent benefit, debt and fuel poverty advice is very effective and addressing food poverty. It places people in the best possible position to be able to afford food. It does this in a number of ways:
- It ensures people are accessing all the money they are entitled to
- Their debts are managed by making realistic and affordable arrangements/moratoriums agreed
- All relevant grants are applied for to clear any energy debt
- People know what is a priority and do not spend their limited funds on things which are not a priority at the expense of essential items
- People’s outgoings are reviewed and reduced wherever possible, such as checking energy supplier and switching where appropriate
- To receive an understanding of how food poverty is addressed CLS provide specialist benefit, debt and fuel poverty advice. One of the root causes of food poverty is usually related to lack of money to buy food. The advice set out above addresses this.
- It is also an agency who make active referrals to foodbanks as appropriate so that people are not left without food. CLS along with numerous other agencies, retain emergency food which is donated by staff and given to clients when there is not an available food bank session.
- CLS believes investment in independent advice to address the money issues people in the borough are facing is one very positive way to address food poverty. Demand outstrips supply presently with almost every drop-in advice session held at the Guildhall being oversubscribed coupled with a 2-3 wait for appointments. Staff are placed under a lot of pressure, trying to respond to more urgent cases and manage large caseloads due to a lack of available appointments.
Director, RE: STORE
- Poverty as a whole is complex and multi-faceted, there is no single cause or single solution. Families and individuals facing food poverty have often faced many other types or aspects of poverty, including insecure housing, lack of finance fuel (so no heating/lighting/cooking facilities), adequate clothing and essentials. This has a negative impact on physical and mental health, especially if lived experience for several years (or in some cases for multiple generations). In the same way, food poverty increases this spiral of deprivation. Those accessing emergency food provision are most often desperate and ashamed, at their lowest point. Restore offers hope, dignity and solutions to a way forward. This can be practical - addressing housing needs, access to benefits, or building skills to work towards employment or become more self-sufficient. Many have reported that they are isolated and unsupported elsewhere, so Restore also offers emotional and spiritual support and care, through welcoming into a safe non-judgemental environment, listening, signposting to specialist services such as MIND, offering prayer where appropriate, and building peer support.
- Food poverty covers all areas of our borough, and some are more actively mobilised to address their need through food banks, whereas other areas (cultures, age groups, communities) may be more self-sufficient or support themselves within their own communities. However, it does know that Central Northampton has a significantly higher number of clients accessing Northampton Food Bank and our related services than any other area, with more than double the number in the next postcode area. This Data has been collected from the Distribution Points of Northampton Food Bank across the town (Duston, Eastfield, Spinney Hill, Kings Heath and Central Northampton).
- Below the table highlights client location. Further breakdown. The highest areas of need are as follows (based on 100-400 clients in this postcode area): NN1 - ALL Northampton Central NN2 6 & NN2 7 - Kingsthorpe, Kingsley Park, Semilong, Sunnyside, Whitehills NN3 2 - Abington (Birchfield Rd area) NN3 5 & 8 - Lings, Blackthorn, Goldings, Thorplands, Rectory Farm NN 3 9 - Little Billing NN4 8 - Briar Hill, Far Cotton & Delapre NN5 5 - St James NN5 7 - Kings Heath: Together Re-Store seeks to work collaboratively to tackle food poverty, joining together services which offer food banks, food co-operatives, zero-waste schemes, and other forms of meal provision. Most of these services area crisis provision, with some services, like Re:store also addressing the reason for food poverty and helping people to make positive changes. The Network also advocates and campaigns for change at a local and national level.
Re:store operates Northampton Food Bank with Distributions Points across the town and across the whole week (Duston, Eastfield, Spinney Hill, Kings Heath and Central Northampton). This is a referral based system, where households can receive 5 parcels a year, if they meet criteria (an interruption to usual income such as loss of job or benefit problems, so not just low income). Whilst around 5000 clients each year access this service, we are aware of thousands of households that are living in food poverty constantly that would not meet this criterion. Re:store offers a holistic response alongside providing crisis support through the Food Bank and Growbaby. The Distribution Point at Re:store HUB (Thursdays at Re:store) has professionals such as Citizen’s Advice and Mind on site to offer advice, support and guidance to deal with the cause or symptoms of the poverty. We have a range of trained volunteers and a lead Support Worker to also support, assist and signpost guests to address issues at hand. There are a range of other skills based opportunities, including supported volunteering, available to assist individuals to move forward from the point of crisis. Northampton Food Bank has always aimed to offer a hand up not just a hand out. Provision has changed and adapted over the years in response to the need and 3 other local service provision. For example, from 2017-19 we were offering a free hot meal twice a week, but as numbers increased and support needs were not being addressed as effectively it highlighted a dependency on the “hand out”. Instead now the community cafe (HUB) is coffee & cake and there is an emphasis on support element, whilst still being friendly and welcoming to all.
- Local charities and churches are attempting to address food poverty (in terms of emergency help) but actually there are systemic problems which are resulting in food poverty which are not being addressed, so the problem will never actually be resolved unless all parties work together to identify these problems and address them - and those experiencing food poverty need to be involved in this process. 7. How can the Borough Council, together with its partners, can collectively respond to food poverty? A good start would be to meet with Northamptonshire Food Poverty Network - gathering together all those working with the public, and also inviting those who have experienced food poverty. Hearing the reality first hand, and working out solutions together. It is a problem that the “Big Society” cannot solve alone. 8. In your opinion what are the specific issues relating to food poverty? Partly answered in the first questions, but our experience (evidenced by Citizen’s Advice on site) is that the main problems that are related would be housing insecurity (threats of eviction, short-term tenancies, lack of access to affordable housing etc) and financial barriers (benefits being interrupted/stopped, unfair sanctions which take time to appeal, zero-hour contracts, job insecurity). Many of those experiencing food poverty have previously worked or are working but lacking job security or the hours ‘promised’ on zero-hour contracts - often not being told that they are not needed until they turn up for work. Being on such contracts prevents access to benefits and lack of work means individuals cannot pay rent/bills/buy food etc. At a local government level, the lack of community and support services in Northampton has an impact on the most vulnerable in the town. Many adult and family services have been cut, including mental health and elderly care, meaning voluntary services are left plugs the gap. Likewise, the closure of community facilities such as libraries, and lack of investment in local parks, places and activities, means a reduction in community cohesion and peer support. Whilst this seems detached from the issue at hand, actually it has a dramatic impact as so many of those we support are isolated and do not know where to go for support, and certainly lack help from within their local community. Yes Restore is aware of holiday hunger, it has run special lunches though Summer 2019, and the year before, 2018 special food provision through the food bank. Both operated through referrals from local schools, identified by the Family Support Worker. However there was a low uptake to both projects. This does not reflect the lack of need, but the stigma and fear for families that still is attached to community projects addressing food poverty. However Re:Store is now engaging 60-80 adults and children each week through our family outreach activities, so feel this may help to overcome this.
Northampton Food Bank Re:store operates Northampton Food Bank with Distributions Points across the town and across the whole week (Duston, Eastfield, Spinney Hill, Kings Heath and Central Northampton). This is a referral based system, where households can receive 5 parcels a year, if they meet criteria (an interruption to usual income such as loss of job or benefit problems, so not just low income). All food donated by individuals in Northampton, all volunteers from the local community. Growbaby Provision of food, clothes, toys and baby equipment (0-5yrs). Referrals from range of family support services, and donations from the local community. Drop-in session with a welcoming play area, free snacks and a more private area where the parent/ caregiver can select the clothing they need for their child as well as talk to our team for further practical or emotional support. Nest Award-winning play session with range of support services on site (including health professionals). Range of play activities led by qualified professionals working in voluntary capacity. Free snacks and high quality music time. Open to all, no referral needed. Attracts range of families from all backgrounds, including many with English as Second Language or who are otherwise isolated or vulnerable. Re:store Hub Free community cafe, with advice and support services, including Citizen’s Advice. Access point for Northampton Food Bank. Various courses and opportunities running alongside this including wellbeing classes and money management support. Allotment Re:store Allotment is a volunteer led project, that seeks to grow skills and independence through growing fruit and vegetables. Participants are invited for a 4- 5 week course, to learn how to sow, grow and harvest edible plants, and welcomes complete beginners through to those with green fingers! Inspire Supported volunteering and mentoring scheme. Providing training opportunities and support to gain skills for life. It is ideal for those who are either struggling with confidence and self-esteem, are out of work, or wanting to develop skills in the workplace. The programme is tailored to each individual, with personal goals being set that are worked towards. Individuals are paired with a suitable mentor from Central Vineyard Church who meet up with them regularly to support them in reaching their goals.
Despite Re:store running a town-wide Food Bank, it is not a long term solution to food poverty. 10 Years ago it began as a short-term support, but the extent it is now used highlights it has become part of the expected support network for the town. The local government needs to look at policies that impact the most vulnerable and support services (or the closure of them).
CEO, Citizen’s Advice Bureau
- CAB uses a case book system that tracks key issues and the statistics can be narrowed down by Borough, Ward etc.
- An example of case work was provided: a woman needed food for her 7 year old as well as nappies and milk for her 4 month old, she wouldn’t go to a food bank but wasn’t able to budget properly and had not receive the correct advice. She had presented at CAB for advice and support
- There is often a shortfall in the housing benefit and what landlords charge for rent
- CAB pays rent for its space in the One Stop at the Guildhall and that further grants would be of assistance
- CAB supported the Council Tax reduction scheme of 34% but would support 100% for the most vulnerable
- Council Tax is not proportionate to people’s incomes. 50-70 Local Authorities in England and Wales provides 100% reduction in Council Tax to the most vulnerable
- CAB has found that 55% of people that claim Universal Credit have gone without essentials compared to 37% of those on legacy benefits
- People are now coming in to CAB for advice regarding day to day debt
3.6 Deputations to the meetings of the Scrutiny Panel
Public addresses and deputations were made to meetings of the Scrutiny Panel, key points:
- NBC is a Living Wage Foundation Living wage employer. It needs to take the next step and make it a contractual obligation for its contractors.
- Holiday hunger is about children not being able to access a hot meal during the school holidays. It is a real, material deprivation.
- Food poverty does not sit on its own. Many households, with children, cannot use food bank food because they cannot cook- because they have no cooker, or no fuel, or no pots- or none of these. Poverty goes very deeply over time, eroding all resources. Some poverty is more visible than others. Households with children are not particularly vulnerable and are particularly vulnerable. BAME communities are not well served by food banks. Often their dietary needs are not met at all.
16-18,000 children in Northampton are living in poverty.
Often children in poverty come from a working family.
There is a need for both the County Council and Northampton Borough Council to have an Ant-Poverty Strategy
3.7 Desktop research - Published reports and Data
Child Poverty Action Group (End Child Poverty) - Statistics
3.7.1 The Child Poverty Action Group reports a number of facts around poverty in general:
- There were 4.1 million children living in poverty in the UK in 2016-17.
- London is the area with the highest rates of child poverty in the country.
- Child poverty reduced dramatically between 1998/9-2011/12 when 800,000 children were lifted out of poverty. Since 2010, child poverty figures have flat-lined. The number of children in absolute poverty has increased by 0.5 million since 2010.
- As a direct result of tax and benefit decisions made since 2010, the Institute for Fiscal Studies project that the number of children in relative poverty will have risen from 3.6m to 4.3 million by 2020.
- Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. Two-thirds (67 per cent) of children growing up in poverty live in a family where at least one member works.
- Children in large families are at a far greater risk of living in poverty – 42% of children in poverty live in families with three or more children.
- Families experience poverty for many reasons, but its fundamental cause is not having enough money to cope with the circumstances in which they are living. A family might move into poverty because of a rise in living costs, a drop in earnings through job loss or benefit changes.
- Child poverty blights childhoods. Growing up in poverty means being cold, going hungry, not being able to join in activities with friends. For example, 50 per cent of families in the bottom income quintile would like, but cannot afford, to take their children on holiday for one week a year.
- Child poverty has long-lasting effects. By GCSE, there is a 28 per cent gap between children receiving free school meals and their wealthier peers in terms of the number achieving at least 5 A\*-C GCSE grades.
- Poverty is also related to more complicated health histories over the course of a lifetime, again influencing earnings as well as the overall quality – and indeed length – of life. Men in the most deprived areas of England have a life expectancy 9.2 years shorter than men in the least deprived areas. They also spend 14% less of their life in good health. Women share similar statistics.
- Child poverty imposes costs on broader society – estimated to be at least £29 billion a year. Governments forgo prospective revenues as well as commit themselves to providing services in the future if they fail to address child poverty in the here and now.
- Childcare and housing are two of the costs that take the biggest toll on families’ budgets.
Source: [http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/key-facts/](http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/key-facts/)
The full report can be accessed [here](http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/key-facts/).
Statistics produced by the Child Action Group in relation to children living in poverty in Northampton during the period 2017/2018.
| Local Authority | Before Housing Costs | After Housing Costs | |-----------------|----------------------|---------------------| | | Number of children | % of children | Percentage point change since 2016/17 | Number of children | % of children | Percentage point change since 2016/17 | | | 10895 | 15.0% | 0.8% | 25725 | 26.8% | -0.3% |
United Nations Report: Visit to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
3.8 A report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights was received by the Human Rights Council in June and July 2019.
3.8.1 The reported summary of the report is detailed below: Summary The Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, undertook a mission to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 5 to 16 November 2018. Although the United Kingdom is the world’s fifth largest economy, one fifth of its population (14 million people) live in poverty, and 1.5 million of them experienced destitution in 2017. Policies of austerity introduced in 2010 continue largely unabated, despite the tragic social consequences. Close to 40 per cent of children are predicted to be living in poverty by 2021. Food banks have proliferated; homelessness and rough sleeping have increased greatly; tens of thousands of poor families must live in accommodation far from their schools, jobs and community networks; life expectancy is falling for certain groups; and the legal aid system has been decimated. The social safety net has been badly damaged by drastic cuts to local authorities’ budgets, which have eliminated many social services, reduced policing services, closed libraries in record numbers, shrunk community and youth centres and sold off public spaces and buildings. The bottom line is that much of the glue that has held British society together since the Second World War has been deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos. A booming economy, high employment and a budget surplus have not reversed austerity, a policy pursued more as an ideological than an economic agenda.
The key sections of the report are around:
a. Government’s reaction to preliminary findings b. Understanding poverty in the UK c. Dismantling the safety net d. Shortcomings of Universal Credit e. Poverty amongst specific groups f. Devolved administrations g. Brexit
The full report can be accessed here
3.9. The Trussell Trust – Published Statistics
A report of the Trussell Trust regarding the information that it publishes in relation to the number of emergency food supplies given to people in crisis by Trussell Trust food banks is published twice a year.
Trussell Trust reports that between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019 its food bank network distributed 1.6 million three-day emergency food supplies to people in crisis, which it states is an increase of 19% on the previous year. It goes on to comment that more than half a million of these went to children.
Regional breakdown of the figures for 2018/2019 are also reported by Trussell Trust.
| East Midlands | Adults | Children | Total | |---------------|--------|----------|-------| | 47,331 | 28,328 | 75,659 | Trussell Trust advises that its statistics are a measure of volume rather than unique users, and on average people needed around two food bank referrals in the last year. It collects its data by using an online system into which food banks enter data from each food bank voucher, and the number of three-day emergency food supplies is recorded.
An example is provided: “if a family of three was referred to a food bank twice in one year, this would count as six supplies on the system because it would reflect six instances on which a supply went to someone in the household. However, if a family of three were only referred to a food bank once, this would count as three supplies.”
It is highlighted by Trussell Trust that its figures cannot be used to fully explain the scale of food bank use across the UK, because our figures relate to food banks in our network and not to the hundreds of independent food aid providers. There are more than 1,200 food bank centres in its network across the UK.
Trussell Trust reports that the top three reasons for referral to a food bank in the Trussell Trust network in 2017-2018 were:
- Income not covering essential costs 33.11%
- Benefit delays 20.34%
- Benefit changes 17.36%
The full report can be accessed here.
House of Commons Library – Food Banks in the UK
The summary of the report detailed in the House of Commons Library – Food Banks in the UK (Published 1 October 2019):
“The primary source of data on food bank use is the Trussell Trust. This national charity provides food parcels to people referred to it by professionals such as doctors, health visitors, social workers and the Citizens Advice who meet certain requirements. Other charities also operate food banks or similar services, but there is no centrally collected data on them, except in Scotland. The data used here is mostly from the Trussell Trust, and so it should be considered incomplete – there are some areas where the Trussell Trust does not operate, but where other services may have delivered food parcels.
This briefing has sections on:
- The 2000 food banks in the UK, of which 1,200 are run by the Trussell Trust and 800 are independent
- Food parcel distribution statistics including the 19% rise from April 2018 to March 2019 in Trussell Trust figures
- Regional data; the North West being the part of the UK where the largest total number of Trussell Trust food parcels are distributed • Food banks and parcels in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with Scottish independent food banks being available in addition to Trussell Trust statistics, permitting a more complete picture • Government introduction of food insecurity indicators, following an announcement made in February 2019 • Other food aid provision, such as meal providers, social supermarkets and initiatives aimed at school children”
The Briefing Paper makes specific reference to the research undertaken by the Trussell Trust, a briefing note detailing its research is contained in an earlier agenda item of this meeting.
A copy of the full report can be accessed here
3.10 Institute for Fiscal Studies Report: Living Standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: 2019
The introduction of the report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies states:
“This report examines how living standards – most commonly measured by households’ incomes – have changed for different groups in the UK, and the consequences that these changes have for income inequality and for measures of deprivation and poverty. In this latest report, we focus in particular on those people who are poorest in society, with two of our three main chapters focusing on poverty.
The analysis in this report is chiefly based on data from two UK household surveys. The first is the Family Resources Survey (FRS), a survey of around 20,000 households a year, which contains detailed information on different sources of household incomes. We use household income variables derived from the FRS by the UK government’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). These measures of incomes underlie the DWP’s annual statistics on the distribution of income, known as ‘Households Below Average Income’ (HBAI). The FRS/HBAI data are available for the years from 1994–95 to 2017–18. They are supplemented by HBAI data derived from the Family Expenditure Survey (FES) for the years up to and including 1993–94. We also use data from the FES, and its later equivalents the Expenditure and Food Survey (EFS) and the Living Costs and Food Survey (LCF), to look at measures of households’ expenditure to help us to measure and understand the material living standards of poorer households.
The main outcomes of interest in this report are measures of household income. We use the measure of income that is used in the HBAI statistics. Further details regarding the methodology of HBAI can be found in Appendix A, but a few key points are worth summarising here:
• Income is measured at the household level, i.e. as the total income of all individuals living in the same household. A household for these purposes is not the same as a family, which is defined simply as a single adult or couple and any dependent children they have. For instance, young adults living together (other than as a couple) would be classified as in the same household but not in the same family. • Income is rescaled (‘equivalised’) to take into account the fact that households of different sizes and compositions have different needs. • Income is measured after deducting income tax, employee and self-employed National Insurance contributions, and council tax, and it includes income from state benefits and tax credits. Income is measured both before housing costs have been deducted (BHC) and after they have been deducted (AHC).
All cash figures are presented in 2017–18 prices and all income growth rates are given after accounting for inflation. We adjust for inflation using measures of inflation based on the Consumer Prices Index, which are the same measures as are used by DWP in the government’s official HBAI statistics.
Because the data on household incomes are produced and released with some lag, we complement the results using another data set, the Labour Force Survey (LFS), for which Living standards, poverty and inequality in the UK: 2019 Institute for Fiscal Studies the latest available data cover 2018–19. Although these data do not measure household income, they provide high-quality information on the UK labour market, trends in which are key in determining living standards. This data set allows us to present results that are more up to date than those using household income data alone.
Since all the analysis is based on a sample from the population, all estimated statistics are subject to sampling error. It is therefore important to gauge whether changes are large enough that we can be confident they reflect real changes in the population as a whole, rather than random variation in the sample from one year to another. We frequently test whether estimated changes are ‘statistically significant’. In our analysis, being ‘statistically significant’ implies that an estimate is statistically significantly different from zero at the standard 5% significance level.
The rest of this report proceeds as follows. Chapter 2 contains our analysis of changes in average incomes in the UK, and how incomes have changed for richer and poorer people, and the knock-on consequences for income inequality. We also examine how household incomes have changed for people of different ages in recent years. Chapter 3 analyses changes in poverty, and the living standards of poorer households in general. We examine how ‘material deprivation’ (the inability to afford important material goods and services) has changed for families with children and for pensioners. Finally in this chapter, we examine the increase in relative pensioner poverty that has occurred in recent years. Chapter 4 analyses measures of – and trends in – severe poverty, which affects people with incomes significantly below the headline poverty lines. This is challenging because household surveys struggle to measure those with the very lowest (and the very highest) incomes in society, so we make use of a range of data sources to do so.
Finally, accompanying the release of this report, the same authors have written a standalone working paper (Bourquin et al., 2019), which examines the gradual, but important, rise in in-work poverty (the poverty rate for working-age families living in a working household) in the UK over the last 25 years. In it, we look at the role that changes in the labour market, tax and benefit system, and housing costs have played in this development. It forms part of the research undertaken as part of this report.”
The conclusion of the report details:
“Conclusion - Before summing up, it is worth reiterating a point we made in the introduction to this chapter. It is always likely to be difficult, even with the large-scale household survey data that are typically used to analyse the distribution of living standards, to pick up the most severe forms of poverty in the UK or, as some call it, destitution. Populations such as the homeless will, by definition, not appear in these surveys. Of those who can appear in a household survey, those in the most severe hardship may not reliably respond, or it may be difficult to distinguish them from people who are in fact much better off but whose resources have been under-recorded.
It is possible that there is increasing severe hardship among a very small proportion of the population which is simply undetectable with any confidence in these key data sources. There is some evidence in this respect, such as a rising number of people rough sleeping. But none of the analysis in this chapter has spoken to the frequency of destitution in the UK. We have, however, tried to assess what has happened to more severe forms of poverty than those measured by the headline statistics.
On none of our measures of severe poverty do we find any evidence of a significant rise in severe poverty 'hiding' behind the relatively small changes seen in headline measures of income poverty since 2010–11. Material deprivation rates (using both more and less severe thresholds) have clearly declined over the period, and the frequency with which people report being unable to afford those items most indicative of more severe poverty – such as keeping the home warm or keeping up with bills and debt repayments – has fallen by about as much as the frequencies for other items. Income and expenditure measures of severe poverty suggest little change, however. This discrepancy is not due to material deprivation falling only among those families not in poverty, because we see declines across the income distribution. It may be partly explained by the basic items, access to which is tracked by material deprivation measures, becoming cheaper (relative to other goods and services), though this evidence is only suggestive. Looking over a longer period, the modest declines in headline income poverty that have been seen since the mid 1990s do not appear to be reflected in more severe forms of poverty, with income- and expenditure-based measures suggesting a small increase over the period. However, some of this increase is driven by those with very low incomes who in fact on average have higher living standards; more generally, the unreliability of low incomes in survey data and the long-run fall in the coverage of spending in the LCF mean that we should be cautious in putting too much weight on these results.
In general, we find that those regions and nations of Great Britain that have higher rates of headline poverty also have higher rates of severe poverty, whichever measure of the latter we use; though severe poverty is slightly more concentrated in London and slightly less concentrated in the rest of the South than headline poverty.
We also find that the composition of those in severe poverty is more tilted towards social renters and workless households than for those in headline income poverty. But these trends are changing: just as private renters and working households are making up an increasing share of those in headline income poverty, they are also making up an increasing share of those in severe poverty.
As already stressed, drawing conclusions about those in severe poverty is made more challenging by the limitations of the data available. Some of these difficulties are at least partially surmountable. For example, the under-reporting of income could be made less acute if surveys were linked to administrative benefit and tax records. The increased use of internet shopping and credit and debit cards also may make higher-quality expenditure data possible. Surveys themselves could be improved by expanding the sample size and putting more resources into ensuring that as many households as possible respond.
Such improvements would by no means solve every difficulty with the analysis of severe poverty, which is by its very nature a challenging topic to study. But the ability of policymakers to tackle severe poverty, should they want to do so, is somewhat dependent upon the quality of the data available."
The full report can be accessed here.
3.11 Children’s Future Food Inquiry
Detailed below is the executive summary of the Children’s Future Food Inquiry. “The scale of the challenge
In a society that believes in compassion and justice, it is unacceptable that children's development is being restricted by the effects of poverty. The number of children experiencing symptoms of food insecurity, or whose family income is evidently insufficient to afford a healthy diet amounts to between 2.5 and 4 million; between 20% and 30% of all children in the UK. We cannot allow this to continue.
One in three children (4.1 million) are living in poverty in the UK. For their families to be able to afford the Government's recommended diet, they would have to spend an estimated 35% of their income on food, once their housing costs have been taken care of. This is not a realistic option, given the restrictive effects of the rising cost of living, prevalence of low-paid, insecure jobs, and the freeze on benefits. On average, after housing costs, households with children spend around 18% of their income on food. A proportion of children living in poverty experience food insecurity. UNICEF estimates on the basis of a small but nationally representative survey that 2.5 million (19%) British children live in food insecure households. This means that there are times when their household does not have enough money to acquire enough food, or they cannot buy the full variety of foods needed for a healthy diet.
The devastating consequences
Hunger is an extremely debilitating experience. It damages physical health. It is a cause of great personal distress. It is a social harm. Food insecurity brings profound anxiety and stress into family life which can trigger depression, aggressive behaviour in children, a sense of hopelessness, and overwhelming stress for parents struggling to give their children the best start. It affects children’s school attendance, achievement and attainment: children who are hungry in class cannot concentrate or may be disruptive. In addition, the long summer holidays are estimated to result in weeks of learning loss for some children through a combination of social isolation, low levels of stimulation and activity, and poor diets. Food insecurity also affects the quality of children’s diets, which brings increased risks of obesity and poor child growth. The magnitude and importance of childhood food insecurity requires systemic change, rather than short term, ad hoc projects.
Our findings
We focus on three food settings that characterise children’s lives: pre-school settings, school and home, and examine the policies and programmes in place that are intended to support children to eat well. We look at these settings in all four UK nations. We document the evidence on whether these policies are reaching children living in poverty, and we present the views of children and those who work with them on how these policies work in practice.”
A copy of the full report can be accessed here 3.11 Site Visits
3.11.1 On Thursday 22 August 2019, Councillor Dennis Meredith (Chair), together with Tracy Tiff Democratic and Member Services Manager, met with the lead Support Worker for the Food Bank.
Key information gathered from the site visit:
- Restore’s hope for the town is to see people’s lives restored and for the town to be renewed, the town thriving, businesses growing and people happy and enjoying themselves.
- Restore has over 100 referral Agencies and began over ten years ago.
- Restore costs £100,000 to run and currently it receives a partnership grant from NBC of £6,000 per year.
- The Foodbank and Café is open from 10am to 12 noon, it is open to anyone who can have a free tea/coffee/squash and a pastry. The pastries have been donated by a local supermarket. Originally the HUB was open twice weekly but it was not an appropriate setting for families so it changed to a café style. On average there are normally around 30 attendees with 10-20 food parcels given out. Most food is donated by the public and there are various food drop off points. Fresh vegetables such as onions, potatoes, green vegetables, and root vegetables are useful.
- A number of the main supermarkets have a contract with “Fareshare” where donations made to the supermarkets go to the distribution centre of Fareshare and foodbanks have to pay for the distribution costs to receive the donations.
- Restore offers a wide variety of services in addition to being a foodbank – including: Tuesdays – “Growbaby” - family services and attendees can pick up clothes, food, toys and baby equipment. It is for children 0-5 2 years. CAB are present during each session as are Health Visitors, Homestart. This is the only centre in the town that also provides for families and is not just a foodbank.
- Dental hygiene is a problem with children with a number having to have their milk teeth extracted due to decay. A dental hygienist attends the family sessions.
- Tuesdays and Wednesdays are dedicated to family days. Around 50-60 come in. Music is played, children play and can have a snack. In the school holiday period more is offered for older children too and on a Wednesday a free school dinner is offered; around 20 attend but the centre could accommodate 60. • 25% of people are living in poverty in Northampton.
• The organisation – Inspire, supports people to reach their maximum potential, providing mentoring and supporting people into volunteering. An example was provided whereby a woman had come in for a food parcel five years ago and now runs the Inspire Project.
• Individuals are referred to restore from specialist Agencies, schools, GPs, Children’s services, Money Advice etc.
• Restore receives very little help for donations from the main food outlets
• The Support Worker reported that zero hours contracts can create poverty. For example a Warehouse operative, on zero hour’s contract, works nights and also volunteers at the Foodbank. Should he have no work at any given period, he still has the regular bills to be paid and does not receive benefits whilst working. He often gets ready for work, arrives at the depot to be told there is no work available that night
• The Support Worker advised that often individuals and families do not have a network to turn to should they have financial difficulties and pressures. They often then turn to high interest loan companies and pay day loans which can re-enforce the spiral of poverty.
• General referrals come mainly from CAB, Jesus Centre, and One stop shop. Individuals must meet generic criteria to be referred. People can access food parcels five times a year. Each food parcel is aimed to last three days. Should a repeat referral be required, there needs to be a new referral. Once referred, individuals can access foodbanks at different locations and times, which best suits them – for example Duston or Eastfield. The food voucher is valid for one week and it then expires.
• When individuals come for a food parcel from this Foodbank, they fill out a tick list of the types of food and supplies they require. Whilst the pack is being made up, they are directed to the café for a drink and a pastry. An example was given of client B who was seven months pregnant but had not told anyone. Restore helped her and got equipment for her such as a pram, mosses basket, baby clothes etc.
• In May 2019, 936 items were given out and £70,000 of food is given out each year, all of which is provided via donations. Restore does not spend over £800-£1,000 per year on extra supplies.
• From April to the end of the summer is the period when supplies are at their lowest and it would be useful if schools could be contacted regarding 3 potential donations. Most needed food supplies are tinned meat, tinned vegetable and UHT milk. A local allotment will donate excess produce to the foodbank and this is delivered on a Wednesday ready for the foodbank opening on Thursday. There is a need to wider promote this to other allotments. Any leftover fresh produce is given to the homeless.
On Monday 2 September 2019, Councillor Catherine Russell, together with Geraldine Mahney, Customer Services Manager, visited the foodbank – Seventh Day Adventist Church and met with key volunteers and visitors. This was a hands on visit where we greeted and supported visitors which gave us a great insight into how the bank operated. Key information gathered from the site visit:
- Seventh Day Adventist Church are one of the six food banks and are part of RESTORE. Restore are a charity that support vulnerable people in Northampton through practical means.
- All foodbanks have access to RESTORE data base. Visitors will already have a voucher number and the volunteers will access the system and record those who have used the voucher.
- On Monday 2 September 2019 there were 65 open vouchers awaiting for people to visit a bank within Northampton.
- The site visit saw 11 visitors on Monday, of which 5 families (3 with 2 Children and 2 with 1) and 6 individuals.
- Vouchers are valid for 7 days but discretion can be used allowing an expired voucher to be used.
- The site visit met a lovely community of volunteers who regularly support Seventh Day Adventist Church foodbank. It is a huge commitment as the food bank needs setting up the Sunday evening in readiness for Monday.
- This particular food bank has 5 regular volunteers who attend most Monday’s, a further 3 who attend occasionally.
- Setting up on a Sunday is done by the same four regular volunteers. This is due to the physical nature of moving boxes etc.
- Storage within premises is not ideal as storage is upstairs.
- Each week approximately £100.00 a week is spent to replenish (this food bank only).
- Good relationships are formed with some supermarkets but there are discrepancies between what some supermarkets will and will not donate.
- There is an additional cost for the large plastic storage boxes.
- Bread is collected from Tesco on Sunday morning and Sunday afternoon, from 2 local Tesco stores. This is strongly reliant on two volunteers.
- Monday AM fresh goods are collected from four Aldi and one Lidl stores. This can include more bread, fruit, veg, flowers etc. This is strongly reliant on two volunteers driving around to collect this produce before the food bank opens. • The products in the greatest demand include: - Long life milk, cereals, beans, pasta, rice, pasta sauce, drinks and toiletries, especially wet-wipes, shampoo and deodorant. Actions/concerns to consider: • Form relationships with companies who would donate boxes. • Obtain premises within this area that would accommodate a permanent food bank, • One thing that would help tremendously is if premises were provided to allow the Foodbank to be setup all through the week and thus enable to doors to open on other days or evenings. It would also help to have it in a location in another part of town where there might be a greater concentration of people who require help from a Foodbank. • Complete research on local supermarkets to identify what they do with food that is close to the expiry date and what additional support is available. • Increase communication to encourage donations and support. NBC are part of the Northants Chambers networking group who meet regularly. Could we arrange for a presentation on food poverty and support from these business and provide contact details for RESTORE to make arrangements
4 Equality Impact Assessment
4.1 Overview and Scrutiny ensures that it adheres to the Council’s statutory duty to provide the public with access to Scrutiny reports, briefing notes, agendas, minutes and other such documentation. Meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and its Scrutiny Panels are widely publicised, i.e. on the Council’s website, copies issued to the local media and paper copies are made available in the Council’s One Stop Shop and local libraries.
4.2 The Scrutiny Panel was mindful of the eight protected characteristics when undertaking this scrutiny activity so that any recommendations that it made could identify potential positive and negative impacts on any particular sector of the community. This was borne in mind as the Scrutiny Panel progressed with the review and evidence gathered.
4.3 So that the Scrutiny Panel obtains a wide range of views, a number of key witnesses provided evidence as detailed in section 3 of this report.
4.4 Details of the Equality Impact Assessment undertaken can be located on the Overview and Scrutiny webpage.
5 Conclusions and Key Findings
5.1 After all of the evidence was collated the following conclusions were drawn:
Definitions of Food Poverty
5.1.1 The Scrutiny Panel noted that there a number of definitions for food poverty. The definition used by Restore is the inability to afford, or to have access to, food to make up a healthy diet. It is about the quality of food as well as quantity. It is not just about hunger, but also about being appropriately nourished to attain and maintain health.” Additionally, there are clear links between levels of deprivation and food poverty. A key definition of deprivation used by local authorities is those areas (and their residents) which fall within the top 20% most deprived LSOAs nationally (i.e. Dectiles 1 and 2 nationally). There are 422 LSOA’s in Northamptonshire. In the IMD 2015 release 69 of these were in the top 20% nationally, 29 in the 1st Dectile and 40 in the Second. A further definition of food poverty according to the Department of Health is “the inability to afford, or to have access to, food to make up a healthy diet”(^{24}). It is closely related to household food insecurity which is the inability to be able to secure social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life(^{25}). Hunger as a term to describe the physical feeling of insufficient food is used by a number of organisations working with people
(^{24}) Department of Health, Choosing a Better Diet: a food and health action plan, 2005
(^{25}) http://www.fao.org/3/y4671e/y4671e06.htm unable to afford food as a means of communicating messages to the wider public, including the Trussell Trust, FareShare, Magic Breakfast, and Church Action on Poverty. Hunger is one consequence of food insecurity but not an inevitability. The Department of Health defines food poverty as: ‘The inability to afford, or to have access to, food to make up a healthy diet.
**Risks relating to food poverty**
5.1.2 The Scrutiny Panel noted that the poor health and wellbeing and risk of chronic ill-health relates to food poverty are not only due to the direct dietary risks but also due to associated social and psychological impacts e.g. chronic stress related to food poverty and poverty more generally, poor school performance due to acute hunger, It is also important to consider the differences between acute hunger and chronic food insecurity.
5.1.3 Households that cannot secure adequate food that its nutritious impacts on food poverty and this includes poor health, chronic illness, poor mental health, crime, obesity, diabetes, heart condition and poor education.
5.1.4 The Scrutiny Panel recognised that food poverty can have a negative impact on both physical and mental health.
**Food poverty - children**
5.1.5 The Under Secretary has contacted all Head Teachers of primary and secondary schools in the UK to identify the issue of child food insecurity. Evidence gathering indicated that the impact of food deprivation meant children were living in relative poverty with 60% of the median income; this information could be provided to the Panel as he felt it was important so that the statistics could be cross referenced. He explained that food banks can’t always provide fresh provisions therefore an understanding of the types of food offered would be a useful question to ask as there has also been some work done regarding the nutritional value of the food. As of the January School Census 2019, 11.7% (3934) of pupils were eligible for free school meals from a total of 33,642. A report, compiled by the End Child Poverty coalition, shows that 13,633 children are living in poverty in Northampton.
5.1.6 The Scrutiny Panel realised that food poverty sits within wider poverty. Poverty within Northampton has increased from 16,000 to 18,000 children. There is a lot of concern and misery for the families throughout the area. Schools and health visitors are aware of this issue. The Scrutiny Panel highlights that there is a need to ensure that no children throughout Northampton are seen to be hungry. Holiday hunger is also an issue, and something needs to be done about this. It was noted that during the unprecedented situation of Covid19 that free school meals vouchers had been provided during school holidays and would include the summer break of 2020 also. It was further recognised that often children in poverty come from a working family. Regularly, people living in poverty have no electricity, saucepans or a cooker and obtain food from a food bank but do not have the facilities to cook it. There is a need for an Anti-Poverty Strategy.
5.1.7 The Scrutiny Panel notes that free meals are provided in nurseries in Scotland.
**Food Poverty – reviews and statistical data**
5.1.8 Central Government has confirmed it will begin to measure food insecurity from April 2019. Evidence gathering highlighted that in order to understand approaches to tackle food poverty it’s important to understand the root causes of food poverty. An analysis by the House of Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee “Sustainable Development Goals in the UK follow up: Hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity in the UK” identified three themes relating to the causes of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition:
1. Low incomes and rising living costs:
2. Universal Credit and the benefits system; and
3. Cuts to funding for local social care services.
5.1.9 Food poverty is clearly linked to poverty more generally and poverty can be measured in a number of ways. One useful metric is “income deprivation” which measures the number of people who are in receipt of various means tested benefits. In 2015 the total number of people affected by income deprivation in Northampton was 27,279(^{26}) of whom 7,806(^{27}) were children and 6,193(^{28}) older people.
5.1.10 A review by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), Church of England, Oxfam GB and The Trussell Trust “Emergency Use Only: Understanding and reducing the use of food banks in the UK”(^{29}) gives the following recommendations for preventing need for food banks:
- Improve access to short-term benefit advances: increase awareness, simplify the claim process and improve data collection to identify support needs.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{26}) Income Deprivation domain of [Indices of Deprivation 2019](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/indices-of-deprivation-2019)
(^{27}) [IDACI 2019](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/idaci-2019)
(^{28}) [IDOPI 2019](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ido-pi-2019)
(^{29}) [https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/Foodbank%20Report_web.pdf](https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/Foodbank%20Report_web.pdf) • Reform sanctions policy and practice: increase access to hardship payments, clarify communications about sanctions, mitigate the impact whilst a sanction is being reconsidered and address issues for Housing Benefit. • Improve the ESA regime: ensure claimants are not left without income whilst challenging a decision made because of missing medical certificates or missed appointments. • Sustain and improve access to emergency financial support through Local Welfare Assistance Schemes. • Ensure Jobcentres provide an efficient and supportive service for all clients. • Improve Jobcentre Plus Advisers’ awareness of, and ability to respond to, mental health problems. • Improve access to appropriate advice and support.
Emergency Food Aid
5.1.11 Use of emergency food aid (i.e. food banks) can give an indication of the levels of need around acute food poverty. Food Banks are primarily for adults and families and the Scrutiny Panel noted that it is important that children have direct access to food through schools and nurseries. Initiatives are in place as schools for those children that come in hungry such as free breakfast clubs. They are therefore provided with both a free breakfast and a free lunch during school days. There is a good referral system into food banks. The Night Shelter is a good example of the positive impact good quality food can have on people’s health and esteem. Northampton Partnership Homes (NPH) runs a food bank and also makes referrals. It is a food bank for Council tenants. Volunteer tenants put the food parcels together however NPH delivers them which ensures dignity remains. Food parcels distributed by NPH was put in place due to the need for crisis intervention. The number of parcels and their locations is reported on a monthly basis.
5.1.12 During the evidence gathering the Scrutiny Panel heard that Officers working in the Council’s One Stop Shop, each month donate items of food that can be donated to those in need. This is funded totally by the staff who do this mainly because they come into contact with people on a daily basis that require food donations and other assistance.
5.1.13 Various statistics were provided to the Scrutiny Panel. The Emmanuel Church provides 40 parcels a week for around 100 people with referrals generally coming from schools. The Hope Centre has around 120 people come in for food daily whilst there is a separate food provision that helps 250 families per week. Re Store coordinate food parcels across 6 churches in Northampton Borough and in 2018 distributed 4500 parcels. 5.1.14 The Scrutiny Panel notes that it is expected that the food banking system would continue to grow.
5.1.15 It is highlighted that there is a stigma around poverty and poor-quality food is also poor value for money. Zero hours contract often have an impact on poverty and food poverty.
**Assistance available and Partnership Working**
5.1.16 The Scrutiny Panel recognises that there is a lot of assistance available regarding budgeting from organisations such as CAB, Housing and Money Advice and Community Law. The Scrutiny Panel recognised that approaches are often neighbourhood based; there is a need adequate funding and are reliant on skills and leadership and a strong voluntary and community sector. Approaches include:
- Voluntary action
- Food banks
- Community organising and social action
- Neighbourhood enterprise
- Community-based credit unions
- Developing physical assets
- Community-led housing
5.1.17 The Panel acknowledges that there are lots of Groups and organisations doing different things in relation to food distribution, which needed looking at collectively to ensure the sharing of information; which is very important across all of the Groups; as every Group needed to know about each other’s work so that there was no duplication.
5.1.18 The Scrutiny Panel emphasised that, in the run up to West Northamptonshire Authority, there is a need to consider joint responsibility of Agencies regarding homelessness, poverty and food poverty. There is lots of partnership working and work completed already and there is need to be able to maintain drive. Evidence gathering highlighted that a main barrier is leadership. There is a need for strong leadership and a clear vision. Leaders should be drawn together to provide the necessary direction. The Scrutiny Panel further emphasised that there is a need to have individuals with the relevant passion to lead e.g. Food Poverty Champions who can identify the partners who have the motivation and drive to bring all together. Goals will be similar across all the boroughs and districts. With the move to the West Northamptonshire Authority, the Scrutiny Panel agreed that a way forward could be to use this issue to come together across the County and consider the following actions for local authorities recommended by Sustain:
- Developing a food action plan to tackle food poverty
- Improving the uptake of Healthy Start vouchers
- Promoting breastfeeding via the Baby Friendly Initiative
- Harnessing the value of children’s centres
- Ensuring low-income families have adequate access to childcare
- Ensuring children’s access to food 365 days a year
- Becoming a Living Wage employer and promoting the Living Wage
- Ensuring all residents have physical access to good food
- Supporting and enhancing meals on wheels provision
- Supporting financial advice services and providing crisis support
5.1.19 The Scrutiny Panel recognises that there is a need to do more to co-ordinate between food providers. Hope has worked with Northamptonshire Poverty Network but more needs to be done and co-ordinated. A summer festival, or similar, to “unlock” food would be useful. The Scrutiny Panel felt that the promotion of food poverty to allotment holders and shops would be useful regarding them providing any excess produce.
5.1.20 There will be full migration to Universal Credit from December 2019. As of 16 September 2019, there were 11,350 claims for housing benefit, in May 2019 it had been 14,000. There is a five-week waiting period for Universal Credit that has been causing issues and problems. Money management support is important for example pay bills such as rent first. A Council Tax Reduction Scheme is in place; everyone now has to pay at least 35% of the Council Tax bill for their property but some Groups are protected.
5.1.21 HM Revenues and Customs (HMRC) works collaboratively with partner organisations to help people. It has a claim commitment, but it needs individuals to tell officers about their circumstances. Individuals can contact HMRC for assistance. HRMC works with food banks in Corby and Towcester and speaks with customers regarding their income and the types of support available to them. The Universal Credit app is easy to use. In addition, there is a programme of training in place that comprises 39 vulnerabilities. Mental health training includes suicide and ex-offenders. A lot of outreach takes place through schools and advice can be given. It was recognised that the Manager, HMRC regularly visits NBC and is part of the Welfare Reform meetings; that comprise a number of partners. Improvements come from these meetings.
5.1.22 It was realised that some individuals are fearful to go to the Job Centre. There are lots of posters in the Job Centre regarding partner agencies. A lot of outreach takes place through schools and advice can be given. 5.1.23 The Scrutiny Panel supports the living wage employer.
6 Recommendations
6.1 The purpose of the Scrutiny Panel was to:
- To examine the extent to which individuals and families are experiencing food poverty, the range of contributing factors and the changes that have been made to the way the Council and partners support residents during hardship.
- To review the impact and concentration of food poverty across the Borough of Northampton
Key Lines of Enquiry
- What are the impacts of food poverty?
- How widespread is food poverty in the borough?
- What strategic approaches are in existence to tackle food poverty?
- What approaches are in existence to reduce people’s dependency on food aid, such as Food Banks? To receive an understanding of how food poverty is addressed
- To evaluate how the Borough Council, together with its partners, can collectively respond to food poverty
- To identify the specific issues relating to food poverty
- To identify the existence and impact of “holiday hunger”
- To identify how food poverty differs across the borough of Northampton and the reasons for this
6.1.2 Scrutiny Panel 1 therefore recommends to Cabinet that:
6.1.3 That it is investigated where the gaps in food banks within Northampton are.
6.1.4 That child poverty needs are included in any Strategy in relation to poverty. Food poverty strategy and note that the process of developing an Anti-Food Poverty Strategy can of itself have wider impacts such as:
- Raising the profile of food poverty, especially with local decision-makers
- Developing a shared positive vision
- Creating a sense of empowerment for experts by experience
- Empowering diverse groups to raise their voices to call for food justice
- Ensuring the local council and other partners take ownership of agreed actions
- Sharing of good practice across local authority boundaries to support specific projects
6.1.5 That Food Poverty Champions, who can identify the partners, who have the motivation and drive to bring all together lead on the production of an Anti-Food Poverty Strategy.
6.1.6 That with the move to the West Northamptonshire Authority, the way forward in relation to the production of an Anti-Food Poverty Strategy includes the following actions for local authorities as recommended by Sustain:
- Developing a food action plan to tackle food poverty
- Improving the uptake of Healthy Start vouchers
- Promoting breastfeeding via the Baby Friendly Initiative
- Harnessing the value of children’s centres
- Ensuring low-income families have adequate access to childcare
- Ensuring children’s access to food 365 days a year
- Becoming a Living Wage employer and promoting the Living Wage
- Ensuring all residents have physical access to good food
- Supporting and enhancing meals on wheels provision
- Supporting financial advice services and providing crisis support
6.1.7 That the Manager, HM Revenues and Customs is formally invited to visit food banks in Northampton, to work with customers and aid regarding budgeting and where further help can be obtained.
6.1.8 That the Universal Credit app. Is widely promoted.
6.1.9 That Officers are instructed to work with partners in generating more events such as a summer festival where assistance in relation to food poverty can be highlighted.
6.1.10 That the Health Start Voucher Scheme is promoted.
6.1.11 That promotion of food poverty is highlighted to allotment holders and shops regarding giving away excess produce as emergency food aid. 6.1.12 That it is recommended to the West Northamptonshire Authority that Northampton is promoted and becomes a living wage and sustainable food town.
6.1.13 That the West Northamptonshire Authority is asked to lobby for national campaigns and challenge national Policy on food poverty.
6.1.14 That a copy of this report is provided to the MPs within West Northamptonshire.
**Overview and Scrutiny Committee**
6.1.15 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee, as part of its monitoring regime, reviews the impact of this report.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1701-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 62,
"total-input-tokens": 121122,
"total-output-tokens": 32203,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1521,
1
],
[
1521,
2925,
2
],
[
2925,
4214,
3
],
[
4214,
6404,
4
],
[
6404,
8679,
5
],
[
8679,
10681,
6
],
[
10681,
12884,
7
],
[
12884,
14827,
8
],
[
14827,
16910,
9
],
[
16910,
18998,
10
],
[
18998,
21135,
11
],
[
21135,
22497,
12
],
[
22497,
24629,
13
],
[
24629,
25464,
14
],
[
25464,
26641,
15
],
[
26641,
28941,
16
],
[
28941,
30998,
17
],
[
30998,
33055,
18
],
[
33055,
35208,
19
],
[
35208,
37260,
20
],
[
37260,
39220,
21
],
[
39220,
40911,
22
],
[
40911,
42625,
23
],
[
42625,
45480,
24
],
[
45480,
48153,
25
],
[
48153,
51222,
26
],
[
51222,
53858,
27
],
[
53858,
56675,
28
],
[
56675,
59126,
29
],
[
59126,
61766,
30
],
[
61766,
64635,
31
],
[
64635,
67531,
32
],
[
67531,
70478,
33
],
[
70478,
73477,
34
],
[
73477,
75634,
35
],
[
75634,
78228,
36
],
[
78228,
79571,
37
],
[
79571,
82730,
38
],
[
82730,
85853,
39
],
[
85853,
87981,
40
],
[
87981,
90441,
41
],
[
90441,
92076,
42
],
[
92076,
94635,
43
],
[
94635,
97063,
44
],
[
97063,
100295,
45
],
[
100295,
104516,
46
],
[
104516,
108056,
47
],
[
108056,
110940,
48
],
[
110940,
113203,
49
],
[
113203,
115779,
50
],
[
115779,
116339,
51
],
[
116339,
118282,
52
],
[
118282,
119792,
53
],
[
119792,
122121,
54
],
[
122121,
124827,
55
],
[
124827,
127278,
56
],
[
127278,
129846,
57
],
[
129846,
132157,
58
],
[
132157,
134720,
59
],
[
134720,
136374,
60
],
[
136374,
138228,
61
],
[
138228,
138754,
62
]
]
} |
e4fc11c8327b2151dcfe095cfd24deeffc263d92 | Chamberlain and Hitler, 1938
What was Chamberlain trying to do?
This resource was produced using documents from the collections of The National Archives. It can be freely modified and reproduced for use in the classroom only. Introduction
After World War I, the map of Europe was re-drawn and several new countries were formed. As a result of this, three million Germans found themselves now living in part of Czechoslovakia. When Adolf Hitler came to power, he wanted to unite all Germans into one nation. In September 1938 he turned his attention to the three million Germans living in part of Czechoslovakia called the Sudetenland. Sudeten Germans began protests and provoked violence from the Czech police. Hitler claimed that 300 Sudeten Germans had been killed. This was not actually the case, but Hitler used it as an excuse to place German troops along the Czech border.
During this situation, the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, flew to meet Hitler at his private mountain retreat in Berchtesgaden in an attempt to resolve the crisis. Three of the documents here are extracts from Chamberlain's own record of the meeting. The other two documents are useful evidence of the kind of advice Chamberlain was getting at home in Britain.
Tasks
Look at Source 1 a, b & c
1. This is an extract from a letter from Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Germany, September 6th, 1938.
a) Do you think the German people were nervous about the outcome of the Sudetenland talks? What makes you think that? b) What do you think that Nevile Henderson means when he says that "Benes will never go far enough till he is made to do so"? c) What did Nevile Henderson want the British press to do about Hitler? d) What do you think Henderson's opinion was of Hitler? e) How might Henderson's view affect what Chamberlain did when he met Hitler?
Look at Source 2 a, b & c
2. This is an extract from the Minutes of the conversation between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler at Berchtesgaden
a) Write a summary of this part of the meeting by adding one sentence to each of these three starters:
• Hitler said: "... • Chamberlain queried: "... • Hitler replied: ".....
b) What threat does Hitler make here? c) How does Chamberlain respond? d) What does Chamberlain suggest to Hitler? e) Sudetenland was part of Czechoslovakia. No Czech representative was present at this meeting. Did Chamberlain have the right to make this offer?
f) Hitler was capable of being charming, of lying and of bullying. Find examples of all three of these aspects of his personality in Sources 1a, 1b and 1c.
Look at Source 3
3. This is the conclusion of a note from General Ismay to the British Cabinet sent on September 20th, 1938, marked "Secret". Ismay was Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence.
a) What does General Ismay, writing in September 1938, assume will happen to Czechoslovakia? (Remember that at this time Czechoslovakia was still an independent country which included the Sudetenland.)
b) What effect does he think the German conquest of Czechoslovakia will have on German military strength?
c) Does he recommend that Britain should fight Germany now, or later?
d) What are his reasons?
e) How might General Ismay's views affect what Chamberlain did when he met Hitler later, at Munich on September 29th?.
4. Use the sources above as well as any other knowledge you may have about the situation in the Sudetenland to answer the following:
a) "Chamberlain's appeasement policy made war more likely because Hitler thought he could get away with anything."
b) "Chamberlain's appeasement policy bought a valuable year for Britain to get ready for the war which was bound to come."
c) "Chamberlain believed that Hitler was a man of his word."
d) "The decision to give the Sudetenland to Germany let down the Czech people."
What are the arguments for and against each of the following statements about appeasement? Which one do you think is the most accurate? Give reasons for your choice.
Background
The Treaty of Versailles, made in 1919 at the end of the First World War, was intended to make a lasting peace. Many people felt that the Treaty had caused terrible resentment in Germany on which Hitler had been able to play in order to achieve power. The government believed that Hitler and Germany had genuine grievances, but that if these could be met ("appeased") Hitler would be satisfied and become less demanding.
Hitler was open about his refusal to accept many of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Soon after he became Chancellor of Germany in 1933 he began to re-arm the country, breaking the restrictions placed on the German armed forces. In 1936, he sent German troops into the Rhineland and in March 1938 he joined Germany and Austria. Czechoslovakia was the logical next step for his aggression and German Nazis in the Sudetenland were told to stir up the trouble that led to the crisis examined here. Edvard Benes, the leader of Czechoslovakia was concerned that if Germany was given the Sudetenland, most of the Czech defences would be handed over to the Germans and they would be left defenceless.
Chamberlain's flight to Berchtesgaden was followed by another to Godesberg a week later and then another to Munich on September 29th. At Munich, Chamberlain got an international agreement that Hitler should have the Sudetenland in exchange for Germany making no further demands for land in Europe. Chamberlain said it was "Peace in our time". Hitler said he had "No more territorial demands to make in Europe." On October 1st German troops occupied the Sudetenland: Hitler had got what he wanted without firing a shot.
Although people in Britain were relieved that war had been averted, many now wondered if appeasement was the best decision. They did not think it would stop Hitler, and simply delayed the war, rather than prevented it. Even while Chamberlain was signing the Munich Agreement, he was agreeing a huge increase in spending to increase Britain's armament in preparation for war. He must have known from the situation outlined to him by General Ismay, that Czechoslovakia was lost, that war was bound to come.
Six months later, in March 1939, German troops took over the rest of Czechoslovakia. Poland seemed to be the next most likely victim of Nazi aggression and Chamberlain made an agreement with the Poles to defend them in Germany invaded. Hitler did not think Britain would go to war over Poland, having failed to do so over Czechoslovakia. He sent his soldiers into Poland in September 1939. The same day, Britain declared war on Germany.
Chamberlain struggled on as Prime Minister until May 1940 when he resigned and Winston Churchill, a bitter critic of appeasement, took over. Chamberlain died in November 1940, however he continued to be vilified for appeasement in general and for his actions in September 1938 in particular, long after his death and the conclusion of the war.
**Teachers Notes**
Students can use the sources provided to build up a picture of both Chamberlain and Hitler's character. Chamberlain's account of his meeting with Hitler forms the centre of this enquiry and reveals how Hitler arguings forcefully, then angrily, then reasonably again to gain maximum effect.
Students could add up the criticisms which could be levelled at Chamberlain, from naivety in his view of Hitler, to national self-centredness in his failure to consult with his allies and his readiness to sacrifice the Czechs.
Time and the opening of documents that were secret at the time, add different perspectives to this issue. Chamberlain was of the generation which survived but was deeply revolted by the First World War. Is it unfair of us to criticise him for mis-judging Hitler? Students could try to construct the case for Chamberlain. Is this the same as a case for appeasement?
Sources
Image : CN 11/6 - Neville Chamberlain in France Source 1 : FO 371/21737 - Letter from Nevile Henderson, the German Ambassador Source 2a, b & c : FO 371/21738 - Chamberlains notes from his meeting with Hitler. Source 3 : CAB 21/544 - Report by General Ismay on the potential outcomes if Czechoslovakia is given to the Germans.
Schemes of Work
Hot war, cold war why did the major twentieth-century conflicts affect so many people? Key Stage 3, Unit 18. Source 1: Extract from a letter from Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Germany, September 6th, 1938 (FO 371/21737)
It is no exaggeration to say that the world is waiting with anxiety the message which Hitler has to deliver at Nuremberg. He cannot get out of delivering it that must be realized. The anxiety is no less great in Germany than elsewhere. And dictators can and must speak more clearly than the leaders of a democracy. That is why I have been pressing these last weeks for a clarification of the situation at Prague. Peace will never go far enough till he is made to do so; or the whole of the Cartagena points is better than any treaty later, here or no war.
I suppose the chances of Hitler coming out at Nuremberg with what will amount to peace or what will amount to war (though there is sure to be) are about 50-50. I opt for the former. If I am right I do wish it might be possible to get at any rate the Trianon, Beaverbrook Press to write up Hitler as the apostle of Peace. It will be terribly shortsighted if this is not done. Cannot the News Dept. help? Source 1: Transcript of Extract from a letter from Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Germany, September 6th, 1938 (FO 371/21737)
It is no exaggeration to say that the world is awaiting with anxiety the message which Hitler has to deliver at Nuremberg. He cannot get out of delivering it: that must be realised. The anxiety is no less great in Germany than elsewhere. And dictators can & must speak more clearly than the leaders of a democracy, That is why I have been pressing these last weeks for a clarification before Nuremberg of the situation at Prague. Benes will never go far enough till he is made to do so: & the whole of the Carlsbad points is better than any terms he is likely to get later, war or no war.
I suppose the chances of Hitler coming out at Nuremberg with what will amount to peace or what will amount to war (thunder there is sure to be) are about 50-50. I opt for the former. If I am right I do wish it might be possible to get at any rate the Times, Camrose, Beaverbrook Press etc to write up Hitler as an apostle of Peace. It will be terribly shortsighted if this is not done. Cannot the News Dept help?
We make a great mistake
when our Press persists in abusing him. Let it abuse his evil advisers but give him a chance of being a good boy. If our object is to achieve results that is the only line to take. If our only satisfaction is to slang him, then we must abandon hope of ever getting results.
{Camrose was the owner of the Daily Telegraph at the time.} Source 2: Extracts from the Minute of the conversation between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler at Berchtesgaden (FO 371/21738)
He said that he had from his youth been obsessed with the racial theory and he felt that Germans were one, but he had drawn a distinction between the possible and the impossible and he recognised that there are places where Germans are where it is impossible to bring them into the Reich; but where they are on the frontier it is a different matter, and he is himself concerned with ten millions of Germans, three millions of whom are in Czechoslovakia. He felt therefore that those Germans should come into the Reich. They wanted to and he was determined that they should come in.
It was impossible that Czechoslovakia should remain like a spearhead in the side of Germany.
So I said "Hold on a minute; there is one point on which I want to be clear and I will explain why: you say that the three million Sudeten Germans must be included in the Reich; would you be satisfied with that and is there nothing more that you want? I ask because there are many people who think that is not all; that you wish to dismember Czechoslovakia."
He then launched into a long speech; he was out for a racial unity and he did not want a lot of Czechs, all he wanted was Sudeten Germans. He said that he had from his youth been obsessed with the racial theory and he felt that the Germans were one, but he had drawn a distinction between the possible and the impossible and he recognised that there are places where Germans are where it is impossible to bring them into the Reich; but where they are on the frontier, it is a different matter, and he is himself concerned with ten millions of Germans, three millions of whom are in Czechoslovakia. He felt therefore that those Germans should come into the Reich. They wanted to and he was determined that they should come in.
It was impossible that Czechoslovakia should remain like a spearhead in the side of Germany -
So I said "Hold on a minute: there is one point on which I want to be clear and I will explain why: you say that the three million Sudeten Germans must be included in the Reich: would you be satisfied with that and is there nothing more that you want? I ask because there are many people who think that is not all; that you wish to dismember Czechoslovakia."
He then launched into a long speech: he was out for a racial unity and he did not want a lot of Czechs. all he wanted was Sudeten Germans
I was then going on to some further questions on the subject when he said "But all this seems to be academic; I want to get down to realities. Three hundred Sudetens have been killed and things of that kind cannot go on: the thing has got to be settled at once: I am determined to settle it: I do not care whether there is a world war or not: I am determined to settle it and to settle it soon and I am prepared to risk a world war rather than allow this to drag on."
To that I replied: "If the Fuehrer is determined to settle this matter by force without waiting even for a discussion between ourselves to take place what did he let me come here for? I have wasted my time.
I could give him my personal opinion which was that on principle I had nothing to say against the separation of the Sudeten Germans from the rest of Czechoslovakia, provided that the practical difficulties could be overcome. Source 3: Conclusion of Note from General Ismay to the British Cabinet sent on September 20th, 1938 (CAB 21/544)
15. The broad conclusions of this Note may be summarized as follows:
(a) A German absorption of Czechoslovakia will enhance her military prestige, increase her war potential, and probably enable her to dispose of stronger land forces against France and ourselves than she can do at present.
(b) So far as air power is concerned, Germany may be able to maintain her lead over the Franco-British Air Forces in air striking power. On the other hand, it is open to us, provided that we make the necessary effort, to catch her up, or at least greatly reduce her lead, in the matter of defence (both active and passive) against air attack. By so doing we shall have heavily insured ourselves against the greatest danger to which we are at present exposed; indeed by substantially reducing Germany's only chance of a rapid decision, we shall have provided a strong deterrent against her making the attempt.
(c) It follows, therefore, that, from the military point of view, time is in our favour, and that, if war with Germany has to come, it would be better to fight her in say 6-12 months' time, than to accept the present challenge. Source 3: Transcript of Conclusion of Note from General Ismay to the British Cabinet sent on September 20th, 1938 (CAB 21/544)
15. The broad conclusions of this Note may be summarized as follows:
(a) A German absorption of Czechoslovakia will enhance her military prestige, increase her war potential and probably enable her to dispose of stronger land forces against France and ourselves than she can do at present.
(b) So far as air power is concerned, Germany may be able to maintain her lead over the Franco-British Air Forces in air striking power. On the other hand, it is open to us, provided that we make the necessary effort, to catch her up, or at least greatly reduce her lead, in the matter of defence (both active and passive) against air attack. By so doing we shall have heavily insured ourselves against the greatest danger to which we are present exposed: indeed by substantially reducing Germany's only chance of a rapid decision, we shall have provided a strong deterrent against her making the attempt.
(c) It follows, therefore, that, from the military point of view, time is in our favour and that, if war with Germany has to come, it would be better to fight her in say 6-12 months' time, than to accept the present challenge.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1702-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 12,
"total-input-tokens": 18689,
"total-output-tokens": 4356,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
228,
1
],
[
228,
2343,
2
],
[
2343,
4820,
3
],
[
4820,
7799,
4
],
[
7799,
8372,
5
],
[
8372,
9454,
6
],
[
9454,
10954,
7
],
[
10954,
12263,
8
],
[
12263,
13204,
9
],
[
13204,
14347,
10
],
[
14347,
15592,
11
],
[
15592,
16845,
12
]
]
} |
a52cf09cdd5c78be526d7566accc41e69a970d86 | Championing archives and libraries within local planning
Guidance for archives and libraries
June 2019 Arts Council England in partnership with The National Archives
## Contents
01. Foreword 3
02. Introduction 5
03. National Planning Policy Framework 8
04. The Local Plan 10
05. Neighbourhood Planning 12
06. Developer Contributions 13
07. Section 106 16
08. The Community Infrastructure Levy 18
09. Libraries and Archives Engagement with Planning 23
10. Conclusions and Recommendations 26
11. Further Information and Guidance 28
12. Acknowledgements 29
13. Foreword
Placing archives and libraries at the heart of local planning
The archive and library sectors have a long tradition of inspiring and enabling individuals and communities to explore their local area’s history and heritage, engage in its present and influence its future. From group activities and events to individual research, archives and libraries can link people with their surroundings in deeply personal and meaningful ways.
At The National Archives we recognise the common ground shared by archives and libraries in creating better places to live. Collective advocacy can enable archives and libraries to play a greater role in the development of their local areas. We want all archives and libraries to be represented in their communities.
As the population grows and demand for housing increases, we want to see archives and libraries being part of local infrastructure development decisions. In order to realise this ambition we have been working in partnership with the Arts Council England libraries team to develop and produce this guide on championing archives and libraries within local planning.
By working strategically with the library sector we aim to support colleagues at both pragmatic and strategic levels. The updates on changes to the planning frameworks provide an insight into the potential opportunities for both archives and libraries to realise benefits for themselves and the communities they serve.
Crucially, the guidance also comprises a springboard from which both sectors can work in partnership to raise awareness of the contribution archives and libraries can make to local planning issues, undertake high level advocacy and influence key stakeholders going forward.
Val Johnson Director of Research and Collections The National Archives Libraries, archives and place shaping
Arts Council England and The National Archives have commissioned this report to provide guidance for public libraries and archives on influencing local authority planning. Libraries and archives have benefited from planning support through Section 106 funding for many years. This is because they are seen as playing an important role in establishing a community and in contributing to the place shaping agenda.
What do we mean by place shaping?
Place shaping as an idea is a reaction to the current model where local government agendas are defined by central government. This can result in service provision that does not meet the needs of specific communities as one size cannot fit all. In July 2017, Arts Council England published a report compiled by Shared Intelligence on the contribution that public libraries make to place shaping. ‘Rewriting the Story: The Contribution of Public Libraries to Place Shaping’ examines the role that five library services serving five very different communities play in contributing to this agenda.
People feel that libraries enhance and enrich their community and their area; estate agents point to them in their brochures as a contributory factor in influencing people to choose a particular neighbourhood in which to settle. They are perceived to be safe, neutral and trusted spaces, free from political agendas and able to give unbiased but verifiable information on major topics. Libraries reach all sections and demographics within the community.
Arts Council England and The National Archives recognise the role they have to play in brokering partnerships and raising awareness at a national level. Using its convening power and its role as the development agency for public libraries, Arts Council England will continue to work with key sector stakeholders such as Libraries Connected and CILIP to support libraries in engaging with planning processes. We are aware that, as planning regulations are constantly being updated, this is an ever-changing landscape and we are keen to keep this area alive and up to date.
We have agreed to work collaboratively with The National Archives in response to the recommendations in this report, undertaking high level advocacy within the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Planning Advisory Service (PAS). Wherever possible, we will undertake ‘single conversations’ with local authorities and the LGA and review existing documentation to ensure it is relevant and fit for purpose.
Sue Williamson Director: Libraries Arts Council England This guide is intended for anyone working within or with library and archive services. It aims to provide you with information about the planning process. Understanding the operating context of planning can help you to influence decision-makers and ensure your library or archive (or both) are considered in future neighbourhood planning activities.
A survey of archive and library staff undertaken in late 2018 noted that most respondents had some level of engagement with planning departments. However, the majority of respondents to this survey either didn’t know or stated no to the question ‘Is your library and/or archive included within a local neighbourhood plan?’
In addition to this, most survey respondents stated that they had not received any funding through developer contributions (Community Infrastructure Levy or S106) within the last five years.
This guide aims to raise awareness of the planning process and enable library and archive staff to broker discussions with planners and others across the council responsible for infrastructure developments.
Libraries and archives have a vital role to play in defining their areas, giving communities a sense of space and purpose. One way to make sure this continues is to ensure libraries and archives are being considered early on in any wider local development plans.
Funding through developer contributions can never cover the core costs of library and archive services. They are a means by which a council can offset the impact of new housing and other developments on a local area and its infrastructure.
Of course, libraries and archives are a core component of local infrastructure and should be considered as part of wider regeneration and development plans. Through effective engagement early on in the planning process, libraries and archives can influence the planning decisions which shape towns, cities and villages across the country.
This guide outlines information about:
- The national planning context
- Local and neighbourhood plans
- Developer contributions: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section 106 (S106)
- Archives, libraries and planning: engagement to date
It includes updates on planning frameworks nationally and was developed following consultation with the library and archive sectors. It builds on an earlier guide to CIL and S106 for museums and archives which was commissioned by The National Archives and the London Museum Development team in 2017. This 2019 guide also draws on guidance from the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) and the 2013 Town and Country Planning Association’s (TCPA) ‘Improving Culture, Arts and Sporting Opportunities through Planning. A Good Practice Guide’.
The TCPA good practice guide is recommended as accompanying reading to this guide. It highlights how culture, arts and sport can be used to meet local planning needs. The guide also includes useful checklists and specific guidance for libraries, archives and museums.
Historically, libraries and archives have primarily benefited from S106 developer contributions. While CIL has been in existence for a number of years there are limited examples at present of library or archive developments which are supported by CIL. Therefore, the libraries and archives referenced in this document refer to examples of projects which were supported mainly by S106 contributions.
This is not a static area. Arts Council England and The National Archives are aware that some library and archive services are in the planning stages of projects which involve CIL developer contributions. If you are working on a CIL supported project and would like to share your experience please contact:
The National Archives: asd@nationalarchives.gov.uk
Arts Council England: enquiries@artscouncil.org.uk or 0161 934 4317
______________________________________________________________________
**Capital expenditure and financing**
It is worth bearing in mind the wider context for capital expenditure and financing in local authorities across England. This informs the decisions of local planners and decision makers within local authorities. The data presented below is based on the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government’s ‘Local Authority Capital Expenditure and Receipts, England: 2017-18 Final Outturn’ report.¹
The report notes that capital expenditure in England covers a range of areas of which culture and related services accounts for 4% of the overall expenditure.
______________________________________________________________________
¹ [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/748292/Local_Authority_Capital_Expenditure_and_Receipts\_\_England_2017-18_Final_Outturn.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/748292/Local_Authority_Capital_Expenditure_and_Receipts__England_2017-18_Final_Outturn.pdf) Total financing for local authority capital expenditure was £25.1 billion for 2017/18. Grants from private developers (contributions) and leaseholders made up just 5% of this overall total. Archives and libraries are well positioned to support the delivery of cultural well-being and are often providing vital services to communities. It is useful to be aware of this context in discussions with planning advisors.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)(^2) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. It provides a framework within which locally prepared plans for housing and other development can be produced.
The NPPF must be taken into account in the preparation of local development plans. This includes local and neighbourhood plans and any spatial development strategies produced by combined authorities or elected mayors (as is the case in London).
The NPPF is the sole government planning policy guidance document. It consolidates and replaces previous government guidance such as Planning Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance Notes.
Sustainability is a golden thread within NPFF. The framework covers all aspects of planning and development, specifically:
- Plan-making
- Decision-making
- Delivery of new homes
- Building a strong, competitive economy
- Ensuring the vitality of town centres
- Promoting healthy and safe communities
- Promoting sustainable transport
- Supporting high-quality communications
- Making effective use of land
- Achieving well-designed places
- Protecting Green Belt land
- Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
- Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
- Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
- Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals
Within the section on ‘Promoting healthy and safe communities’, the framework suggests that local authorities should aim to provide planning policies and the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, and that decisions should:
a) plan positively for the provision and use of shared spaces, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments;
b) take into account and support the delivery of local strategies to improve health, and social and cultural well-being for all sections of the community;
c) guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs;
(^2) National Planning Policy Framework, 2019 d) ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise, and are retained for the benefit of the community; and
e) ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.3
The chart below highlights the relationship between National Planning Policy, local development plans, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), planning permission and implementation of CIL and Section 106.
| National Planning Policy and Guidance | • National Planning Policy Framework (2019)\
• Set of national policies covering the economic, social and environmental aspects of development\
• Local plan, Joint Plans, Spatial Development Strategies (Mayor), Neighbourhood plans\
• Supporting guidance (eg. Supplementary Planning Documents)\
• Requirement for robust evidence base eg. Infrastructure Development plan | | Local Policy Development Plans | • Local plan, Joint Plans, Spatial Development Strategies (Mayor), Neighbourhood plans\
• Supporting guidance (eg. Supplementary Planning Documents)\
• Requirement for robust evidence base eg. Infrastructure Development plan | | Community Infrastructure Levy | • Development, implementation and governance of CIL\
• Linked to local plan (justified through robust evidence)\
• Determined in accordance with national and local policy\
• Secure developer obligations where necessary through Section 106 agreements (where development is of a relevant scale)\
• Payment of CIL on commencement of development | | Obtaining planning permission | • Determined in accordance with national and local policy\
• Secure developer obligations where necessary through Section 106 agreements (where development is of a relevant scale)\
• Payment of CIL on commencement of development | | Governance of CIL and Section 106 | • Spend and delivery must be in accordance with S106 agreement or for CIL infrastructure to support development which links back to local plan. |
Image credit: Planning Advisory Service, January 2019
3 National Planning Policy Framework, 2019 The Local Plan
Local authorities are required to produce a Local Plan for the development and use of land. The Local Plan should span a 15 to 20 year period and include information on sites identified for development and guidelines on planning permission. All decisions on planning applications are should be made in accordance with policies and strategic priorities which are outlined within the Local Plan. Local Plans must be supported by a proportionate evidence base and must conform with requirements set out in the NPPF.
Your ability to influence the Local Plan will depend in part on how far in development it is. Early engagement will be of greater benefit than waiting to respond to a draft consultation. In other words, get in early, don’t wait for the point at which developer contributions are sought (CIL and S106). Ensure your library and archive is referenced within the wider strategic framework for local development. The Local plan should align with the council’s corporate strategies and priorities.
In London, the boroughs’ local development documents have to be ‘in general conformity’ with the London Plan, which is also legally part of each borough’s development plan.
Case study 1: Kent archives and library centre
Engaging developers and council members in the creation of a combined library and archive service.
Kent County Council’s History and Library Centre’s landmark building in Maidstone was built on unused Kent County Council land. It brought library and archive services together in one central location. Through the project, four separate services – Maidstone and County Central Public Libraries (including the headquarters function), East Kent Archives, the archive collection at Kings Hill, and the Centre for Kentish Studies – were relocated to the new History and Library Centre, including all associated staff, archives, and files.
The new building opened to the public in April 2012 and was officially launched by HRH The Duke of Kent in December 2012.
The main driver for the project was to consolidate the county archives and staff from three centres into one central location. Furthermore, the existing archive facilities at the Centre for Kentish Studies in County Hall were no longer fit for purpose and needed modernisation. Case study 1: (continued)
The Kent History and Library Centre provides a new, modern fit-for-purpose building. It delivers integrated, open and accessible provision for both Kent archives (including a public search room, a conservation studio, and strong rooms to house 14 kilometres of archives and records dating back to 699 AD) and Maidstone Public Library which includes 40,000 books, DVDs, 25 computers with free internet access, Wi-Fi, and IT assistance provided by volunteers. An extensive range of local and family history resources (such as maps, photographs, books and online resources) are available with self-service book issue and return, a photocopier, scanner and a print magnifier. In addition to birth and death registration, the centre provides facilities for book groups and author events, community activities and volunteering opportunities.
The total cost of the project was £12.25 million, including the build and fit-out. The cost was largely met from the sale of the sites that were vacated, plus additional Section 106 funding from the Council. Key partners included Housing 21 and West Kent Housing, who provided social housing and whose involvement was crucial to the development to make it financially viable.
Outcomes
- Political will was vital in achieving the goal of creating an exciting new History and Library Centre for Kent. Council members were committed to achieving the ambition for a new County archive and town centre library for Maidstone, in line with Kent County Council’s corporate priorities.
- A key benchmark of performance is that our satisfaction rates that have increased by 95% in 2011 and 97% in 2018. Satisfaction with quality and appropriateness of staff advice has increased from 98% in 2011 to 100% in 2018.
- The Kent History and Library Centre building achieved a ‘Very Good’ BREEAM building sustainability rating.
- The archive service has now attained a key goal of achieving archive accreditation from The National Archives. The service has also begun to digitise key areas of the collections to further enhance the reach of the archives beyond Maidstone.
5. Neighbourhood planning
Neighbourhood planning was introduced through the Localism Act in 2011. It allows local communities and business districts to develop statutory neighbourhood planning documents. These can be adopted by the local planning authority as part of the statutory Local Plan, and it will be used for making decisions on planning applications. It is an important and powerful tool that gives communities statutory powers to shape how their communities develop.4
Groups such as Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs), health and wellbeing boards, clinical commissioning groups and cultural and leisure groups play an important role in neighbourhood planning.
This new statutory level of planning for community groups and businesses provides an opportunity for area-focused planning. Neighbourhood planning can be a powerful tool in delivering culture, arts and sports facilities in the local area if all the key stakeholders are involved and communities are sufficiently resourced to undertake the preparation process. It can also lever in additional money from developments through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). (In parish areas where a neighbourhood plan is in place the CIL charging authority must pass on 25% of CIL funds resulting from the grant of planning permission in the neighbourhood plan).5
Examples of where CIL funds have been used through neighbourhood plans include:
- Keats Community Library, Hampstead (£12,850)
- Kensal Rise Community Library, Brent (£95,500)
- Cricklewood Library, Brent (£93,996)
- Preston Community Library, Brent (£267,983)6
The funds were allocated to capital costs of repair, refurbishment and equipment.
______________________________________________________________________
4 Locality, Neighbourhood Planning, https://locality.org.uk/services-tools/neighbourhood-planning/ 5 TCPA, https://www.tcpa.org.uk/culture-guidance 6 Planning Advisory Service Developer contributions are contributions from developers which are assigned to local infrastructure. They are collected primarily through two mechanisms:
- Section 106 planning obligations
- Community Infrastructure Levy
**S106 planning Obligations** Section 106 of the 1990 T&CPA gives the right to negotiate obligatory contributions that are necessary to grant planning permission and are secured through a legal agreement.
**Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)** Introduced in 2008 Planning Act and cil regualtions 2010 (as amended) to supplement S106. Fixed change(s) based on viability of development types in different areas. Must mostly be spent on delivering infrastructure to support development in an LPA’s area.
Image credit: Planning Advisory Service, January 2019 Case study: Nottinghamshire County Council and Inspire
Maintaining and developing strong libraries
Nottinghamshire County Council has a statutory responsibility under the terms of the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act, to provide ‘a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof’.
In Nottinghamshire, public library services are delivered through a network of library buildings and mobile libraries, under contract with Inspire: Culture, Learning and Libraries, a non-profit organisation. These libraries are at the heart of the communities. They provide access to books and DVDs, a wide range of information services, the internet, Wi-Fi, and delivery of a wide range of cultural, heritage and learning programmes and activity.
The County Council has a commitment to maintain and develop a strong libraries network across the County and confirms the purpose of libraries as being places that aim to be at the heart of Nottinghamshire’s community life and that offer facilities to:
- Inspire the enjoyment of books and reading
- Create knowledge through access to learning, information and local heritage
- Stimulate and encourage cultural activities
- Offer excellent and inclusive customer service for all every time
The County Council has a clear vision that its libraries should be:
- Modern and attractive
- Located in highly accessible locations
- Of suitable size and standard for intended users
Therefore, contributions from developments which place demand on library services are required in order to maintain this statutory responsibility and vision for libraries.
The table below outlines how contributions are calculated and what they can be used to pay for. Further details are available in the Planning Obligations Strategy. | What contributions could pay for | Construction and fit out costs of extensions/alterations to existing libraries, and stock costs. | |----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Type and size of development which may trigger need | • Residential (including student accommodation) of over 50 dwellings. May trigger a requirement for a contribution\
• Where new development generates a need for additional library provision, a contribution will be required\
• The need for a contribution will be established by comparing the current capacity of the library and population it serves against the number of people likely to be generated by the new development\
• Where the existing library’s capacity would be exceeded, a contribution will be required | | How are the costs calculated and what are they? | Where new development places demands on the library above its physical capacity, ie a new library or an extension to an existing facility is required, the following standard build cost charges (including stock) will be applied:\
• Building costs linked to the RICS BCIS Tender Price Index and new build prices\
• Fitting out costs including furniture and technology based upon current fitting out costs of new provision in Nottinghamshire\
Where such a contribution is required the cost will be determined at the time of the planning application and will be subject to negotiation with the developer.\
**Stock costs only:**\
Where a library building is able to accommodate the extra demand created due to a new development but it is known that the stock levels are only adequate to meet the needs of the existing catchment population, a ‘stock only’ contribution will be sought.\
The National Library standard upper threshold cites a recommended stock level of 1,532 items per 1,000 population. At an average price of £10 per stock item (based on Askews Library Services book prices at September 2017), the costs for the provision of stock only is as follows:\
• £35.24 per dwelling (based on 2.3 occupants per dwelling). When contributions for stock are sought they will be calculated as follows:\
o Number of dwellings x 2.3 per dwelling = Number of people generated by the development\
o Number of people generated by development x 1.532 (items per 1,000 population) x £10 (cost per stock item) | | Form in which contributions should be made | Land, where required, and either the costs of construction of buildings to the County Council’s specification and fitting out costs including initial book stock and IT, or contributions towards stock increases. |
Credit: Nottinghamshire County Council, Planning Obligations Strategy. Section 106 (S106) planning obligations allow for the provision of local infrastructure on the site of a proposed development. It aims to reduce the impact of the development within the site identified. S106 obligations remain in use alongside CIL and they are commonly used to support affordable housing. However, they can also be used to:
- restrict the development or use of the land in any specified way
- require specified operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over the land
- require the land to be used in any specified way; or
- require a sum or sums to be paid to the authority (or, to the Greater London Authority) on a specified date or dates or periodically.7
The details of S106 agreements are outlined within a planning obligation:
‘The planning obligation is a formal document, a deed, which states that it is an obligation for planning purposes, identifies the relevant land, the person entering the obligation and their interest and the relevant local authority that would enforce the obligation. The obligation can be a unitary obligation or multi-party agreement. The obligation becomes a land charge.’8
Developments cannot be charged for the same items of infrastructure through both planning obligations under S106 and CIL. Each charging authority can implement their own approach to how they use S106 and CIL and it will also depend on the type of development being undertaken and the needs of the area in which the development is proposed.
At the time of writing this guide, the S106 contributions for a single library or archive are limited to a maximum of five housing developments. This limit may be revised or removed in future legislation.
______________________________________________________________________
7 Planning Advisory Services, Section 106 obligations, 19/11/16 8 Planning Advisory Services, Section 106 obligations, 19/11/16 Case study: Milton Keynes Council
Special tariff supporting cultural development
In 2004 Milton Keynes Council alongside the Homes and Communities Agency introduced a special building tariff. This tariff aimed to fund social and physical infrastructure in its strategic expansion areas – Milton Keynes, Eastern Western and Northern.
Unlike a typical S106 agreement, Milton Keynes was able to borrow money from the Homes and Communities Agency to forward-fund infrastructure against expected tariff receipts, as HM Treasury was confident about the long-term certainty of receipts. Under the tariff model, the developer pays 75% of the charge on completion rather than upfront, reducing their need for borrowing and allowing for greater certainty for both partners.9
To date the tariff has yielded £311 million (building is still ongoing as of 2019). Of this, £3.6 million was allocated to museums and archives and £2.8 million was allocated to the Milton Keynes Museum Expansion project (referenced as the City Museum in the 2005 Supplementary Planning Document). A further £170,000 has been used for developing the City Archive plans – the remainder is capital for the new archive build once the planning is complete.
Milton Keynes Council’s Supplementary Planning Document for Social Infrastructure (2005) identifies the main requirements for infrastructure and facilities, which may be required as a consequence of development in Milton Keynes. The document ensures that the Council meets the Local Plan policy objectives with regards to providing key social infrastructure for effective functioning of the city.
Planning Obligations (sometimes referred to as S106 contributions) within Milton Keynes Council are usually made under S106 of the Town Country Planning Act 1990. To date, Milton Keynes Council has not implemented CIL.
Future plans for culture in Milton Keynes are outlined in the Creative and Cultural Strategy (2018). It sets out a vision of Milton Keynes as an internationally recognised creative and cultured city, known for the excellence and diversity of its borough-wide, year-round cultural offer. It includes plans for a new redeveloped Central Library and City Archive.
9 Centre for Cities, https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/delivering-change-building-homes-need/can-cities-make-opportunities/mil-ton-keynes-tariff-funding-infrastructure-upfront/ The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was introduced in 2010 as ‘a tool for local authorities in England and Wales to help deliver infrastructure to support the development of the area.’(^\\text{10}) It is a levy placed on all new developments which rely on local infrastructure. Unlike Section 106, the CIL can be used by a local authority to support the development of infrastructure away from the specific site of development. This approach to funding infrastructure is considered by the government to be fairer, faster and more transparent than Section 106 (which is still in place).
CIL regulations do not specify the types of infrastructure which can be funded. It is up to each authority to decide. In England, the levy is collected by district and metropolitan district councils, London borough councils, unitary authorities, national park authorities, The Broads Authority, Mayoral Development Corporations and the Mayor of London. It is up to each authority to decide how to best implement the levy in their area and to identify the priority areas of infrastructure to allocate the funds to.
**CIL headlines**
- It is a local authority’s choice to adopt CIL as a ‘Charging Authority’
- It is a charge for the developer calculated per square metre of development
- Charging rates of CIL vary by geography, type of land use and scale
- CIL has to be spent on the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure
- It replaces some – but not all – Section 106 planning obligations
- Where an LA is a ‘Charging Authority’ the payment of CIL is mandatory although there are some limited opportunities for relief or exemption
- The Mayor of London has adopted a Mayoral CIL to fund Crossrail. All London Boroughs are required to collect the Mayoral CIL
In 2017 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) published a report on the value, impact and delivery of CIL. The report noted that CIL charging by local authorities was initially slow, by March 2015 only 54 authorities had adopted the levy. It also highlighted the following:
- The partial take-up of CIL has resulted in a complex patchwork of authorities charging and not charging CIL. It varies across town, district and unitary areas
- Development is delayed by negotiations for Section 106 planning obligations, which can be sought alongside CIL contributions
- Developers can seek to reduce previously agreed Section 106 planning obligations on the grounds that they will make the development unviable. This renegotiation reduces accountability to local communities
(^{10}) Planning Practice Guidance, Community Infrastructure Levy, 9/11/2016 • CIL is not responsive to changes in market conditions • There is a lack of transparency in both CIL and Section 106 planning obligations – people do not know where or when the money is spent • Developer contributions do not enable infrastructure that supports cross boundary planning
If you have library and/or archive services based across different councils you will need to establish which planning teams have implemented CIL as it may not be consistent across a county.
While initial take up of CIL was slow this has increased significantly. In 2017, 151 authorities were charging CIL in England (44% of all potential charging authorities). A further 74 authorities have taken steps towards adopting CIL, meaning 225 authorities (66%) are either charging CIL or have taken steps towards doing so.
Where land values are higher, CIL has been adopted sooner. Areas that have not adopted CIL have conducted viability analysis and maintain that they would need to set rates very low or at zero in order for development to be viable in the area.
A regional analysis of collection rates by the Local Government Chronicle highlighted that 69% of all CIL collected between 2014 and July 2018 was raised in London and the South East (see chart below).
London and the Greater London Authority have collected significantly more CIL money than any other region. However, it is worth noting there are two types of CIL collected in London, The Mayoral CIL and individual borough’s CIL. The Mayoral CIL is restricted to funding roads and other transport facilities, including Crossrail. It was introduced in 2012 to help finance the major new rail link that will connect central London to Reading and Heathrow in the West and Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the East.
Total CIL collected and spent (by region)
| Region | Total CIL collected (£) (2014 – July 2018) | Total CIL money unspent (£) (2014 – July 2018) | |-------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------| | Greater London Authority| 750M | | | London | 500M | | | South West | 250M | | | West Midlands | 0 | | | South East | 0 | | | East of England | 0 | | | North West | 0 | | | Yorkshire | 0 | | | North East | 0 | | | East Midlands | 0 | |
Image credit: Local Government Chronicle, November 2018
11 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589635/CIL_Research_report.pdf 12 Supporting Housing Delivery Through Developer Contributions, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 13 https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/mayoral-community-infrastructure-levy A regional analysis of collection rates by the Local Government Chronicle ‘showed 69% of all CIL collected between 2014 and July 2018 was raised in London and the south-east’.
**What can CIL be used to fund?**
CIL can be used to fund a broad range of infrastructure including museums, archives and libraries. The decision on what to fund lies with each individual authority. The levy cannot be used to fund affordable housing as this is made possible through Section 106 agreements.(^{14})
This flexibility gives local areas the opportunity to use the levy to support the delivery of their development plans. The levy is intended to support the provision of new infrastructure, not for repair or maintenance. It can only be used to increase the capacity of existing infrastructure or repair failing existing infrastructure if it is deemed necessary to support development.(^{15})
Since the adoption of the CIL, restrictions have been imposed on the pooling of planning obligations, even if CIL is not yet in place. Local authorities cannot pool more than five Section 106 obligations together (dating back to March 2010) to pay for a single infrastructure project or type of infrastructure.
**Exemption of CIL**
There are two forms of relief which may be available for charities – full and discretionary. A charity landowner can apply for full relief if the development will be used ‘wholly, or mainly, for charitable purposes’ and they meet the requirements of Regulation 43.
An authority can also choose to offer discretionary relief to a charity landowner where the greater part of the chargeable development will be held as an investment, from which the profits are applied for charitable purposes (see Regulation 44 for details). If you are planning a development you will need to apply for an exemption or relief on CIL. You should do this as early as possible in the planning cycle and complete the relevant forms required.
| Section 106 | CIL | |-------------|-----| | Used for site specific requirements and must meet the legal tests for set out in Regulation 122 and 123 of the CIL Regulations 2010 as amended. | Not restricted to mitigating the impact of development on a specific site. It can be used to fund infrastructure anywhere, providing it supports development in the local planning authority’s area. | | Negotiated mainly on larger scale developments. | Rates are non-negotiable and includes relevant developments at a smaller scale. | | Carries pooling restrictions – councils are limited to securing a maximum of five planning obligations per infrastructure project regardless of whether the development is implemented. | No pooling restrictions – the majority of the fund goes into one ‘infrastructure fund’ for the council to develop its own arrangements. | | Cannot be used to fund infrastructure on the Regulation 123 list or any infrastructure where there is no list. | Can fund items on and off the Regulation 123 list. |
Credit: Planning Advisory Service, January 2019
(^{14}) Planning practice guidance, Community Infrastructure Levy 10/11/16
(^{15}) Planning practice guidance, Community Infrastructure Levy 10/11/16 Regulation 123 lists
A report by DCLG, ‘Supporting housing delivery through developer contributions’, published in 2018, noted that there is a considerable amount of confusion and variation in relation to Regulation 123 lists. The report states that in many cases the lists do not serve a useful purpose, as authorities sometimes add as little as possible on the lists and they can be updated at any time without consultation.
Some Regulation 123 lists set out generic expenditure headings, while others list particular pieces of infrastructure. Some lists also have little relationship with local infrastructure plans.
It was therefore proposed within this report that Government remove regulatory requirements for Regulation 123 lists which do not provide clarity or certainty about how developer contributions will be used.16
Case study: Warwickshire County Council
Developer contributions supporting libraries
Warwickshire County Council has responsibility for 31 libraries across the county. Developer contributions (CIL and S106) are used to improve, enhance and extend library facilities or services of a specified library service point, including:
- Providing new and replacement library stock
- Targeted collections
- Targeted promotions to inform new residents of the Development of available services
The CIL has only been introduced in Warwick District Council and Stratford District Council. There is a system in place which allows the library service to calculate and apply for developer contributions. It works as follows:
- The library team receive a list of weekly planning applications
- These are checked to establish that developments are greater than 25 dwellings, to meet with community infrastructure levy criteria
- Planning application details are checked in respect of housing mix and location
- Application details are entered onto a spreadsheet, which will calculate expected influx of people and amount of contribution to be requested
- The nearest library to the development that will benefit from the Section 106 request is identified and listed in the application
- A standard response tab is completed (see example below) from details transposed within the spreadsheet
- Completed forms are returned to the planning department
When plans have been approved, building commences and the development hits a trigger. The planning team then notify the relevant people, who then raise an invoice, including indexation, to the developer
16 DCLG, ‘Supporting housing delivery through developer contributions’: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691182/Developer_Contributions_Consultation.pdf Case study: Warwickshire County Council (continued)
Invoices are checked regularly for payment and spreadsheets updated for each library with the amount and date income was received. Records of the expenditure are maintained against each development. If the income is not spent within seven years, the developer is within their rights to request the money be returned.
Warwickshire County Council have identified some challenges with the use of developer contributions for libraries, such as those outlined below:
‘[We] understand that libraries are funded by Council Tax revenue. Therefore, to request a contribution for this development amounts to double counting. It is estimated that the residents of the scheme will generate an additional £11.9m in Council Tax revenue over 10 years.’
Sample standard response tab
| Planning Reference | Name of Development | |--------------------|---------------------| | 19/01234/FUL | Anytown, Bell Lane |
1. WCC may seek contribution to support the expansion of service to meet customer needs generated by residential developments.
2. Monies will be used to improve, enhance and extend the facilities or services of a specified library service point where local housing development will mean an expected increase in numbers of people using those facilities. This may include purchase of additional stock, targeted collections, additional seating/study spaces or related facilities, improved family facilities and targeted promotions to inform new residents of services available to them.
3. A contribution request will be made if the number of dwellings is 25 or more.
4. The following calculation will be applied - (av. % of residents who are members of the library within the county x n° of expected inhabitants of development) x cost per visit 2013/14
5. Calculation is based on the av. % of residents who are members of the library within the county x no of expected inhabitants of development x annual cost per visit (£)\*
| Number of Dwellings\*\* | 600 | |-----------------------|-----| | Expected n° of inhabitants from development | 1252.5 |
On behalf of the Library Service, the contribution required under s.106 is £11,423.00
- Annual cost per visit based on 2013/14 cost per visit £2.85 multiplied by avg. n° visits per registered users. \*\* Expected number of inhabitants is based on the following ready reckoner. Where no breakdown is provided claims will be based on 3 beds. Between November and December 2018, archive and library staff across England were invited to respond to a survey on planning. The aim of the survey was to establish the level of engagement between archives, libraries and local planning departments. There were 91 responses to the survey. A small majority of respondents (42) stated their primary place of work as a library. There were 31 archive respondents and 18 working across both libraries and archives.
**In what sector do you principally work (or work with)?**
- Archive: 15
- Library: 37
- Both: 25
**Engagement with planning departments**
Most respondents noted that they have some engagement with planning departments. Fifty respondents stated that they had a little engagement and 11 respondents stated a lot.
Within the filtered responses there was little difference in the responses other than proportionally more library respondents (19%) stating they have a lot of engagement with planning departments compared to archive respondents (3.2%).
**What if any engagement do you have with your local planning department?**
- None: 29
- A Little: 50
- A Lot: 11
- Don’t Know: 1 Neighbourhood plan
The majority of respondents either didn’t know (40) or stated no (30) to the question: ‘Is your library and/or archive included within a local neighbourhood plan?’ Only 21 respondents stated yes. Proportionally more library respondents (33%) stated that they were included than archive respondents (9.7%).
Funding
The majority of respondents (68) stated that they had not received funding from CIL or S106 within the last five years; 23 respondents stated that they had.
Have you received funding for your archive or library from planning related initiatives within the last 5 years?
There was a significant difference between libraries and archives in this response. Only one archive respondent (3.2% of total) stated that they had received funding from planning related initiatives in comparison to 19 (45.2%) library respondents. What funding has been used for
In relation to funds received, 18 respondents added comments. Common themes included:
- The majority of respondents (14) made a specific reference to Section 106
- Funds have been used for improvements, refurbishments, and small and large scale capital projects
- Items funded included:
- new and refurbished libraries
- cultural space creation
- redeveloped outside space
- lift installation
- community meeting rooms with kitchen areas
- creation of confidential meeting spaces
- RFID kiosks
- new scanning equipment and a digital microfilm reader
- flexible shelving (to allow flexible use of space)
- reminiscence packs
- acoustic pods
- improvement of children’s area
- improvement to customer/partner welfare facilities (loos, kitchens etc)
- Wi-Fi provision on a mobile library.
- stock
- digital equipment
- refreshed ICT infrastructure
- installation of Open Plus Swipe card access
Comments included:
‘We have been granted funding, about 5 years ago, though it is yet to come through.’ There was one other respondent who noted a delay in receiving S106 funding.
‘We have received £100,000s of mainly s106 funding towards new and improved public libraries, based on a formula approach, in turn, based on MLA/ACE guidance. Further details available on request.’ The use of MLA guidance was raised outside of the survey by a respondent as needing to be updated.
‘S106 now limited as CIL has replaced it for major developments. CIL will mean less but better-targeted funding over a longer period when combined with other services and their needs.’ 10. Conclusions and recommendations
It is fair to say that CIL and S106 are not by any means a source of core funding for libraries and archives. However, both services have an excellent track record of working with wider council partners to benefit from planning initiatives.
Planning regulations will continue to change and it is important that within these changes libraries and archives are aware of the potential impact of new approaches on their services. By working in collaboration with planners they can keep you updated on key changes. You can continue to highlight the benefits library and archive services bring to communities and why they should be an integral consideration in any form of town or neighbourhood planning.
Arts Council England and The National Archives recognise the role they have to play in brokering partnerships and raising awareness at a national level. They have agreed to work collaboratively in response to the following recommendations:
1. Continue to raise awareness of planning frameworks and updated regulations and clarify how libraries and archives can engage in local planning. *Suggested actions:*
- Update this guide as required
- Regional teams to disseminate the key messages in this guide
- Staff at Arts Council England and The National Archives to liaise with the Local Government Association and Planning Advisory service about key updates
2. Continue to raise awareness with other strategic bodies of the role libraries and archives have in place making and planning. *Suggested actions:*
- The National Archives and Arts Council England representatives to meet with Local Government Association and Planning Advisory Service collectively to discuss the ways in which libraries and archives respond to local and national planning agendas.
3. Develop and raise awareness of how and where developer contributions (both S106 and CIL or any other form) are supporting libraries and archives and any arising opportunities. *Suggested actions:*
- Arts Council England and The National Archives to feature initiatives and new developments
- Arts Council England and The National Archives to feature case studies highlighting the use of developer contributions on websites.
4. Consider how libraries and archives can work with the wider cultural sector in relation to planning initiatives. *Suggested actions:*
- Arts Council England to consider how libraries and archives can work with the wider cultural sector in relation to planning initiatives
- Identify how best to support heads of service to be part of wider planning decisions, especially where culture is being considered.
5. Promote single conversations between archive and library services within local authorities. *Suggested actions:*
- Regional Arts Council England library and The National Archives archive teams to liaise and identify ways in which they can collaborate to support joint library and archive conversations
- The National Archives and Arts Council England to schedule future national meetings of library and archive sector staff.
6. Review existing documentation to establish if it still relevant and fit for purpose. *Suggested actions:*
- Review and update the standard charge based on MLA guidance on square footage
- Investigate the possibility of updating the Town and Country Planning’s ‘Improving culture, arts and sporting opportunities through planning toolkit’.
11. Further information and guidance
Community Infrastructure Levy, an overview, Department of Communities and Local Government
The Planning Portal website provides guidance and a range of forms which can be useful when applying for exemption or relief from CIL
Mayor of London, Community Infrastructure Levy provides details on the charges and use of the levy
The Planning Advisory Service provide advice on planning obligations including Section 106 obligations
Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, Section 106
Town and Country Planning Association have developed resources and publications for arts and cultural organisations to support their role in planning and development.
They also have a publication highlighting culture case studies
LocalGov, Scrapping the Levy: Why we need a change in approach to CIL
Locality: https://neighbourhoodplanning.org
LGA and CLOA, People, Culture Place, the role of culture in placemaking
CLOA, The Role of Local Authorities in Leading Place Making
Worcestershire County Council, Your Place Matters: Community Planning for the Future of Rural Buildings in their Setting
Project for Public Spaces, What is Placemaking 12. Acknowledgements
Thank you to all the contributors to this guide including:
John Cairns, Arts Council England Fiona Davidson, Arts Council England Sophie Lancaster, Arts Council England James Urquhart, Arts Council England Tina Morton, The National Archives Rachael Ferry-Jones, Planning Advisory Service Ayub Khan, Warwickshire County Council Julie Mansbridge, Warwickshire County Council James Pearson, Kent County Council Murray Evans, Kent County Council Peter Gaw, Inspire: Culture, Learning and Libraries Peter Cribb, Inspire: Culture, Learning and Libraries Shane Downer, Milton Keynes Council
All the people who responded to the survey and the participants of a workshop in January 2019: Arts Council England: Anna Hassan, Chris Fardon, Christine Chambers, Claire Robe, Clancy Mason, David Gaffney, Jenna Birley, Jill Brown, Kate Earl, Katie Lusty, Lauren Taylor, Lisa Elmer, Nicholas Baumfield, Rebekah Jones, Sean Kelly, Sue Williamson, Salla Virman, Lynne Taylor.
CILIP: Nick Poole
Libraries Connected: Isobel Hunter
The National Archives: Caroline Sampson, Hannah Jones, Owen Munday, Philippa Turner, Tim Powell, Mike Rogers
This report was produced by Mairead O’Rourke of CultureRunner on behalf of Arts Council England and The National Archives.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1703-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 30,
"total-input-tokens": 58317,
"total-output-tokens": 12224,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
168,
1
],
[
168,
548,
2
],
[
548,
2342,
3
],
[
2342,
4920,
4
],
[
4920,
7219,
5
],
[
7219,
9708,
6
],
[
9708,
9898,
7
],
[
9898,
12453,
8
],
[
12453,
14547,
9
],
[
14547,
16829,
10
],
[
16829,
18951,
11
],
[
18951,
20845,
12
],
[
20845,
21627,
13
],
[
21627,
23422,
14
],
[
23422,
26167,
15
],
[
26167,
27996,
16
],
[
27996,
30381,
17
],
[
30381,
33047,
18
],
[
33047,
36710,
19
],
[
36710,
39877,
20
],
[
39877,
42567,
21
],
[
42567,
45015,
22
],
[
45015,
46159,
23
],
[
46159,
47016,
24
],
[
47016,
48642,
25
],
[
48642,
50885,
26
],
[
50885,
52069,
27
],
[
52069,
53239,
28
],
[
53239,
54510,
29
],
[
54510,
54510,
30
]
]
} |
d7c1a503a88351e325b47c28f198652c461a8da5 | Annual Report and Resource Accounts of The National Archives 2009-10
including the Annual Report of the Advisory Council on National Records and Archives 2009-10
Annual Reports presented to Parliament by HM Treasury on behalf of the Lord Chancellor pursuant to s.1 (3) of the Public Records Act 1958 c. 51
Resource Accounts presented to the House of Commons pursuant to s.6 (4) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 c. 20
Resource Accounts presented to the House of Lords by Command of Her Majesty
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 15 July 2010
HC 95 London: The Stationery Office Price: £19.75 | Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Introduction | 4 | | Who we are | 6 | | What we’ve done – our performance in 2009-10 | 12 | | Annex A Resource Accounts 2009-10 | 19 | | Management commentary | 19 | | Remuneration report | 27 | | Statement of Accounting Officer’s responsibilities | 31 | | Statement on internal control | 32 | | Audit certificate and report | 35 | | Accounts summary | 36 | | Notes to the accounts | 42 | | Annex B Additional financial information – for departmental reporting requirements | 61 | | Annex C The National Archives’ vision | 66 | | Annex D Advisory Council on National Records and Archives: Annual Report 2009-10 | 67 | | Annex E Independent Complaints Reviewer: Annual Report 2009-10 | 70 | As the UK government archive, our priority is to ensure that important information is preserved, and that it can be accessed and used. Our archive collection is the only source in the world for many historical records and resources. Members of the public and academic researchers depend on being able to study our records, and on the expert support we provide to help people identify and interpret them.
We are concerned with the past and the future. Our work across the public sector is helping ensure that the next generation of historians will have access to essential records of how our country is governed, and how our society functions. We work closely with government, helping it manage its information effectively. This means it can work more efficiently, and ensures that important information survives to add to the national collection.
This has been a challenging year. We went through a rigorous review process, identifying areas where we could operate more efficiently, or stop providing services not essential for our core priorities. The objectives we set for this programme were vital, and allowed us to deliver efficiency savings that let us reinvest in making essential improvements to our site and services. Without these, we could not maintain the quality of front-line services that our customers require, or sustain appropriate environmental conditions in our repositories – crucial for ensuring the long-term survival of fragile and irreplaceable records.
Replacing outdated environmental equipment has also made us a more sustainable organisation, reducing our environmental impact. Installing power-saving technology – and building staff engagement with green issues – has enabled us to cut our overall power use by almost 10%. Despite the challenges we faced in 2009-10, we continued to focus on maintaining the quality and value of our front-line public services. We welcomed over 90,000 visitors to our reading rooms, who studied more than 590,000 original documents from our collection. Demand for our web services also continued, and we received over 20 million online visits during the course of the year.
Many people want access to records to help them learn about their families’ pasts, and publishing records online makes them much more accessible. We have pioneered a solution based on non-exclusive licensing partnerships with commercial companies. This allows us to digitise records on a scale that taxpayer funding simply could not allow. We estimate that our publishing partners have invested around £50 million in putting our records online since 2003. And this approach has contributed to a growth in our commercial income of 30% in 2009-10, creating essential funds that we reinvest in our services and facilities.
Our biggest ever partnership project of this kind – digitising the 1911 Census – was completed in 2009-10. These records are hugely popular: there were over 4.9 million downloads from our Census partner’s website this year.
There are countless uses for the information we hold, and it is of immense value to academic researchers. In 2009-10 we began work to strengthen links with the academic community, and supported several major research projects. One example is a project to study climate change using information from historical ships’ logs, run by the University of Sunderland, the Met Office and the British Atmospheric Data Centre.
Making sure that people can access government data empowers individuals and communities, and fuels our digital economy. Our mandate is to ensure that valuable information of this kind is published by the UK public sector: we champion transparency, fairness and consistency for information re-users. In 2009-10 we played a key role in creating government’s data.gov.uk website. It provides free access to thousands of government datasets that citizens and commercial companies can use, creating new applications and services.
As government’s web services grow, we have also ensured that citizens can find information that could have been lost through broken links. Our Web Continuity service launched in December 2009: it redirects users to information stored in our UK Government Web Archive when it is no longer available on live websites. This service rerouted over 14 million hits in March 2010.
None of the services that we provide to the public and to government would be possible without the dedication, professionalism and expertise of our staff. They have helped to make public records and public sector information more accessible and more valuable than ever before, and to ensure the sustainability of critical government information. Finally, I’d also like to take this opportunity to thank Natalie Ceeney, who was Chief Executive of The National Archives until March 2010. During her tenure here she led the organisation through significant change and success and helped transform the way the public sector thinks about information management.
We will continue our vital role in the coming year.
Oliver Morley Acting Chief Executive 30 June 2010 Who we are
Executive Team
Oliver Morley Acting Chief Executive
Carol Tullo Director, Information Policy and Services
Clem Brohier Director, Finance and Performance
Caroline Ottaway-Searle Director, Human Resources and Organisational Development
Jeff James Director, Operations and Services
David Thomas Director, Technology and Chief Information Officer
Chris Mumby Acting Director, Customer and Business Development
Non-executive Directors
Bronwen Curtis CBE Non-executive Director
Mark Addison Non-executive Director
Trevor Spires CBE Non-executive Director
Professor the Baroness Young of Hornsey OBE Non-executive Director Our remit
The National Archives is a government department and an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. We are the official archive of the UK government and for England and Wales, preserving and protecting one of the largest collections of historical public records in the world.
Our role is to make sure that important government information is sustainable: that it can be preserved and kept identifiable for as long as it is needed, so it can be accessed by the appropriate audiences. Our expertise in every aspect of creating, storing, using and managing official information makes us a key resource for government, for the wider archive sector, and for the public. Our comprehensive service can assist at every stage in the life cycle of government information, right from the earliest planning of information management processes and storage strategies.
- We support the effective creation, management and use of official information by government, facilitating policy development and effective delivery of public services.
- We champion and facilitate the re-use of public sector information by all, including citizens, community groups and businesses.
- We provide expert advice and guidance to support historical researchers, scholarly users and members of the public in accessing the information held in our collection.
We provide a service for the whole of government, helping to continually build the effectiveness of its knowledge and information management. Our support helps government keep business-critical information identifiable and useable. We also help ensure that digital information stays accessible, making sure it can be managed during times of technology, business or organisational change.
We set standards for, and promote the re-use of, public sector information – ensuring that this valuable and versatile resource can be accessed and re-used. We manage Crown copyright, and we publish vital information that underpins government’s core day-to-day business, including all UK legislation.
As the official archive of the UK government, we preserve and protect one of the most significant historical collections in the world, holding records dating back over 1,000 years. From medieval parchments to modern digital files and databases, we care for 11 million public records, making them accessible to all.
We also provide leadership, support and guidance to the wider archive sector. We develop and promote standards and best practice in all aspects of archive management. Our support and advice helps public and private archives nationwide to develop and enhance their services, facilities and collections.
Government increasingly depends on good information management and its ability to harness knowledge to good effect. And information essential to government today will be critical for the researchers, historians and policy makers of tomorrow. Our work means that this vital information is kept safe and can be used by citizens and researchers all over the world – today, tomorrow and by future generations.
1. Natalie Ceeney CBE resigned as Chief Executive from 21 March 2010. Oliver Morley was appointed as Accounting Officer and Acting Chief Executive with effect from 15 March 2010
2. Appointed with effect from 1 February 2010. Caroline Emerton was Director, Corporate Services and Finance until 12 June 2009. Terry Noys was appointed as Interim Director, Finance and Performance from 19 June 2009 to 21 March 2010
3. With added responsibility for Operations from June 2009
4. Appointed with effect from 15 March 2010 How we work
Our organisational values are at the heart of everything we do. They are relevant to every member of staff, affecting not just what we achieve but also how we work. Translating these values into action is at the core of all our plans and initiatives. They express how we view our responsibilities, and they also help form the standard against which the performance of each individual member of staff is measured. They show us what is expected of us, and demonstrate the principles to which we must aspire.
Here are just a few examples of how teams across the organisation put our values into practice.
Putting customers first
We provide first-class, accessible and user-friendly services to all our customers, which are designed to meet their requirements. We seek feedback to confirm how effective our services are, and continually refine them, involving our customers in their design and development.
Expert support for users of our collection
Several of our teams work together to help visitors use our collection to find relevant information. Historians, scholarly researchers and members of the public and the media visit us to carry out all kinds of research using the records we hold. Staff from Document Services retrieve original records from repositories and, for the majority of orders, deliver them within 60 minutes. They also help our visitors handle fragile historical documents safely. Our Advice and Records Knowledge and Public Services Development staff provide expert advice in searching for records and using our Catalogue. At the same time, colleagues in our Contact Centre answer remote enquiries by telephone and email.
Sharing best practice in information management
Our Information Management and Practice team run training events in information and records management for colleagues across government – these are backed up by continuing support and guidance. We also hold quarterly conferences in London and Manchester for the government information management community, so they can share ideas and best practice, developing their professional knowledge.
‘I find it incredible that the public has such straightforward and efficient access to information.’
written customer feedback, 5 March 2010
‘The National Archives is my favourite place to carry out research: it is the most organised archive I have visited and its staff the most helpful.’
written customer feedback, 12 December 2009 Responsible guardians We work to ensure the survival of government’s current information, and to promote the re-use of public sector information. We protect our historical collection, making it as accessible as possible to researchers. We continually work to reduce our environmental impact and make our services as sustainable and efficient as we can.
Environmental control Preserving our historical collection requires specific environmental conditions. Small changes can have significant consequences in a site with 16 repositories, containing millions of records. Our Collection Care team has worked with the Centre for Sustainable Heritage at University College London to build a sophisticated computer simulation of the site. This is allowing us to experiment with strategies for reducing energy use, increasing our efficiency while keeping our collection safe.
Information Management Assessments Our Information Management Assessment team conducts in-depth reviews of government departments’ information and records management, making recommendations and publishing their findings. In 2009-10 the team completed reviews at the Environment Agency, the Department for Transport, the Department for Education, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Information set free We share knowledge and expertise with our different audiences while making our collection accessible and supporting government in keeping its information useable. We drive the public sector information re-use agenda, working to ensure that people can access the information they need in formats they can use.
Making it easier to re-use public sector information Government’s data.gov.uk website provides access to over 3,000 central government datasets available for free re-use. Our Information Policy team has been working closely with Creative Commons, a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to promoting legal sharing of information. The team negotiated a straightforward set of licensing terms and conditions for the website, so that the data can be more easily licensed and re-used, both commercially and non-commercially. Ordnance Survey OpenData terms also follow this enabling approach.
Seminar for future policymakers In February 2010, our Research team joined with the History and Policy group (an independent initiative working to support better public policy through a wider understanding of history) to run a two-day seminar for PhD students on ‘Using archive sources to inform contemporary policy debates’. Funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, it included sessions on getting the most out of resources at The National Archives and case studies from historians whose research influences current policy decisions.
'I am a disabled visitor and the facilities are very good.' written customer feedback, 15 February 2010
'I am extraordinarily impressed by the service I received. Your staff... were friendly, helpful, expert and efficient.' written customer feedback, 19 November 2009 Delivering what we promise We continually seek more effective ways to accomplish our goals, and we take pride in achieving what we set out to do. We aim for the highest standards of reliability, efficiency and consistency in our services, and we research new ideas and best practice to make sure our knowledge and skills meet our customers’ requirements.
Making archived websites more accessible We take regular snapshots of central government websites, making these accessible in our online UK Government Web Archive. Our Web Continuity and Technology teams have been making these archived websites easier for researchers to search and use: descriptions of the websites are being incorporated into our online Catalogue. The new Catalogue entries include hyperlinks through to the Web Archive. Over 1,000 websites are now accessible through our Catalogue, and more links are continually being added.
Greener data storage Our IT department has installed a digital tape library to accommodate the steadily increasing amounts of digital information being transferred from government departments. It only uses energy when data is being accessed or maintenance is carried out, so it is greener than hard disks, as well as more cost-effective. The system has recently been expanded – it can now accommodate up to two petabytes of digital information (enough to fill four million filing cabinets of paper documents).
Everyone working together We share knowledge with colleagues, and make sure that everyone in our organisation understands its goals and how they can help them to be realised. Everyone has a contribution to make: we believe that diverse backgrounds and views coming together build a stronger organisation.
Raising awareness about our records We hold regular press events highlighting the release of historical government records. The largest of these takes place at the end of each calendar year. It requires close collaboration between several teams, including the Media Relations team, Advice and Records Knowledge, Document Services, and Information Management and Practice. This year’s event – showcasing files from 1979 – was very successful, inspiring over 400 news stories and media items. This coverage helps us raise awareness about the records we hold.
'I would just like to say that your website is excellent. It is well written, visually attractive, and packed with interesting information.' written customer feedback, 20 January 2010 Commemorating the 500th anniversary of Henry VIII’s accession Staff from The National Archives worked closely with the British Library on an exhibition running from April to September 2009 showcasing documents from the life and times of Henry VIII. We loaned a selection of unique records for the exhibition, including one volume of the *Valor Ecclesiasticus* (the survey of monastic wealth that preceded the dissolution of the monasteries). Our Advice and Records Knowledge team and our Collection Care team worked together to select appropriate documents, contribute information to the exhibition catalogue, and ensure the records’ safe delivery and return.
‘I’ve just listened to your talk about the census, issued as a podcast.... It was the best, most interesting and certainly most informative podcast I’ve ever heard.’ written customer feedback, 30 March 2010
‘I wanted to thank you for creating this website and making it available for free.’ written customer feedback, 3 November 2009
‘I really enjoyed... the ease of access to everything, the computer system in place was very good and everything was easy to find and browse.’ written customer feedback, 23 February 2010 Our performance in 2009-10
Staff across The National Archives worked hard throughout the year to meet – or exceed – the expectations of our many different stakeholders. Here is a snapshot of some of our achievements during the course of the year:
Stakeholders: Historical, academic and genealogical researchers and all members of the public
- As part of our Expertise Online project, we developed a series of online self-help tools: ‘research signpost’ guides to assist researchers in locating historical sources, and a series of animated tutorials to help people get the most out of a visit to Kew or our website.
- Licensing partnerships contributed strongly to an increase in commercial income in 2009-10. Our commercial revenue for the year was £8.1 million, which was a 30% increase on the previous year.
- In January we won the e-government award for our partnership with findmypast.com and the digitisation and online publication of the 1911 Census. In 2009-10, there were 4.9 million downloads from this service.
- Our online releases of Ministry of Defence files relating to UFOs in September and March were hugely popular. There were over 700,000 downloads of these records from our website.
- We supported the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), the University of Sunderland, the Met Office Hadley Centre and the British Atmospheric Data Centre in a project to digitise Royal Navy ships’ logbooks dating back to the 1760s. The information they contain is being used to reconstruct past climate conditions and study climate change.
- We made the service records of more than two million British Army soldiers from 1914 to 1920 available online, working in partnership with ancestry.co.uk. The final tranche of content was launched in November, and there were 3.3 million downloads from the service in that month alone.
- In partnership with findmypast.com, we made 285,000 British Army service records from 1883–1900 available online in March 2010. These ‘Chelsea Pensioners’ records give details on soldiers who ultimately received a pension administered by The Royal Hospital Chelsea.
- We received 2,516 Freedom of Information (FoI) requests in 2009-10, and responded to 96% of these within the regulatory timescales. The National Archives receives around 10% of all FoI requests made to over 40 monitored government bodies – the second highest number received by any monitored government organisation.
- We made over 70 early Irish maps (c.1558 to c.1610) from our collection available online in October 2009. These are among the earliest cartographic representations of Ireland, depicting fortifications and townships during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I.
- We were closely involved in celebrations commemorating the 500th anniversary of Henry VIII’s accession to the throne. Our records featured in David Starkey’s Channel 4 series Henry VIII: Mind of a Tyrant in April 2009. What we’ve done
- To mark the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War, we launched a series of videocasts entitled War on Film. These tell the true stories behind six popular war films, featuring extracts from government records and archive footage. There have been more than 3,000 downloads from this series.
- In September, we joined with the Kew Society and the Richmond Local History Society to commemorate the role of the site in Kew now owned by The National Archives during the Second World War, unveiling a plaque at a ceremony. Guests at the event included descendants of American GIs who were stationed at the site during the War.
Stakeholders: Government
- We were closely involved in the planning and creation of government’s data.gov.uk website, which was publicly launched in January and provides access to over 3,000 government datasets available to the public for free re-use. Our work included collaboration with Creative Commons to create user-friendly licensing terms and conditions for the website.
- We worked with the Knowledge Council to organise a Knowledge and Information Management conference in November 2009 for senior civil servants and leaders in central government: ‘The Information Opportunity – delivering in challenging times’.
- In November we published Information matters: delivery plan for 2009-10 – an action plan outlining what needs to be done to fulfil the civil service wide Information Matters strategy.
- In December we launched our Web Continuity project at an event at the House of Lords. This service now enables millions of people using government websites to find information which would previously have been lost through broken web links. In March 2010 the service redirected over 14 million hits.
- We launched a guide to business archives, Corporate Memory, in July at a reception at the House of Lords, hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Archives and the National Council on Archives. Pictured below (left to right) are Natalie Ceeney, our former Chief Executive, and guest speakers at the event Sir Stuart Rose of Marks & Spencers plc, Dame Stella Rimington, former head of MI5 and a professional archivist, and Professor Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England. What we’ve done
- In July we published the United Kingdom Report on the Re-Use of Public Sector Information (PSI) for 2009, Unlocking PSI potential. It describes the key initiatives and landmarks that shaped the information policy landscape during 2009, showing how access to public sector information, and the ways it is re-used, have evolved and expanded. It also shows how The National Archives is driving the re-use agenda.
- We hosted the Seventh European Forum of Official Gazettes in London in September 2009. This forum brings together the organisations responsible for the publication of the Official Gazettes of the Member States of the European Union, and is hosted by a different member state each year. Guest speakers included Michael Pownall, the Clerk of the Parliaments and Stephen Laws, First Parliamentary Counsel.
- In March we launched the tendering process for our Digital Continuity Framework, which will support government bodies in identifying and procuring appropriate providers, solutions and services that will facilitate good digital continuity management.
- We successfully completed the pilot phase for Civil Pages, the secure online people directory and workspace for the civil service, and made this service available to colleagues throughout government. We developed and continue to run this system on behalf of central government.
Stakeholders: Education
- We ran teaching sessions for 14,371 school pupils on site at Kew and online through videoconferencing and our ‘virtual classroom’.
- We worked with Gale, part of Cengage Learning, to digitise and publish key historical resources online for academics studying Tudor and Stuart government and society, launching the second phase of our ‘State Papers Online, 1509–1714’ project in June 2009. The digitised records include correspondence to and from the ruling monarchs – and their courtiers, administrators, judges and clergy – along with the Registers (or ‘minutes’) of the Privy Council, the monarch’s closest advisers.
- We were a finalist in the BETT Awards with our ‘Cabinet Papers 1915-1978’ online resource. Launched in December 2008 and part-funded by JISC, this web collection provides free access to a vast selection of digitised Cabinet minutes and memoranda.
- Our education service received a Sandford Award in July 2009 from the Heritage Education Trust, which recognises good practice by learning services at historical or heritage sites.
- We were one of the first organisations in the country to be awarded the Learning Outside the Classroom Quality Badge in December, recognising our education service as a provider of safely-managed, quality educational experiences for young people. What we’ve done
Stakeholders: Archive sector
- We worked with the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) and CyMAL (Museums, Libraries and Archives Wales) to develop and publish a new policy on archives, *Archives for the 21st Century* – the first such policy for ten years. We also worked with MLA on a joint plan for the actions our two organisations are taking to implement the policy.
- In partnership with the Society of Archivists, in November 2009 we began the first ever comprehensive survey of religious archives in the UK, with questionnaires being sent to religious organisations across the country.
- We secured an award of £50,000 from the Clothworkers’ Foundation to fund a one-year research fellowship in preservation in our Collection Care department. Agreed in January 2010, the fellowship will begin in September.
- We made two successful bids for funding to the Science and Heritage Programme (jointly funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Science and Heritage Programme), securing funding for:
- a three-year post-doctoral fellowship, in partnership with Cardiff University, studying what causes critical damage to parchment records and determining the most appropriate environmental conditions for storing them.
- a project in partnership with University College London and the University of East Anglia to examine how the age, use and storage conditions of historical documents affect the changes that occur in an archive, making it possible to explore more effective ways of caring for our collections.
These awards were both announced in February 2010.
- We announced our initiative to develop national collections strategies: to lead and support the development of collection strategies across different sectors, around different themes and specific information formats. The strategies will identify important areas for development to address gaps in archival collecting, gaps in access provision, or issues of sustainability. What we’ve done
Our cost savings programme
In 2009-10, The National Archives carried out a cost savings programme designed to save around 10% of our total budget. We know that the way we worked with academics and researchers when consulting on these changes could have been improved and have since taken action to significantly improve how we engage with these key groups. These changes were vital to ensure the sustainability of our organisation.
We were successful in making many of the necessary savings through internal efficiencies and changes while maintaining our high standard of public service delivery. Our cost savings programme included the reorganisation of staff teams to reduce management overheads and back-office administrative costs. However, from January 2010 we have also altered our opening hours for on site public services, moving to a five-day week.
The savings we have made will allow us to make critical investments in 2010-11 in replacing obsolete plant and equipment and enhancing our Catalogue, improving access to the records we hold. In this way, we will be able to ensure that our buildings, equipment and facilities remain fit for purpose, and that we are well-equipped to continue providing the high-quality services our different customers require.
- We have **reduced our carbon footprint** by 10% compared with 2008-09 by cutting our overall energy consumption.
- We have **rationalised our IT infrastructure**, making it sustainable and more cost effective, by reducing the number of available software titles and the physical hardware used on site, and moving to a virtual server infrastructure. This allowed us to reduce our power use in the server room by over 11%.
- We **invested in technology for the future**, setting up a tape data storage system (commissioned in December 2009) which can hold 2,400 tapes (the entire digitised 1911 Census fills just eight of these) and uses a fraction of the energy of traditional servers.
- We worked in partnership with Transport for London and Richmond Borough Council to create a **green travel plan**. This plan will be implemented in the coming year and will help us to reduce our environmental impact and promote greener methods of travel for our staff and visitors.
- We launched a new **management development programme** to support everyone who manages staff at The National Archives. This will mean more effective management for staff throughout our organisation, and will support professional development at all levels. Successful completion of the programme leads to a professional qualification.
- Our former Chief Executive **Natalie Ceeney** was awarded a **CBE** in the New Year’s Honours List. Performance against strategic objectives and key performance indicators
The National Archives had 28 strategic objectives for 2009-10, contributing towards our vision, as set out in the Strategic Plan 2009-10 (nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/strategic-plan0910.pdf). We achieved all of these objectives during the reporting year. This strong performance is also reflected in the fact that we met six of our eight key performance indicators in a year in which a significant cost savings programme was delivered.
Table showing performance against our 2009-10 key performance indicators
| Key performance indicator | 2009-10 Target | 2009-10 Outcome | Successfully achieved? | 2008-09 Outcome | |---------------------------|----------------|----------------|------------------------|----------------| | Documents supplied – on site and online | Ratio of documents downloaded to documents produced on site at Kew to increase to 200:1 by year end (from a baseline of 170:1) | 221:1 | Achieved | New KPI for 2009-10 | | Maintain on site customer satisfaction | 90% or higher | 93% | Achieved | 90% | | Maintain online customer satisfaction | 80% or higher | 81% | Achieved | 78% | | Delivery of vision programme for 2009-10 within budget and in accordance with HM Treasury rules on End Year Flexibility | - | - | Achieved | Achieved |
5. Strategic objectives set out the priority projects and deliverables that we need to focus on each year to achieve our vision
6. Key performance indicators (KPIs) are the measures that we check against to be sure that we are working effectively day-to-day to achieve our strategic objectives
7. In 2008-09 the target for this KPI was the total number of documents to be supplied on site and online rather than the ratio of documents downloaded to documents supplied on site at Kew. The target was to supply 70,000,000 documents and the outcome for 2008-09 was 113,726,135 documents supplied
8. Includes the results of our online survey of education users | Key performance indicator | 2009-10 Target | 2009-10 Outcome | Successfully achieved? | 2008-09 Outcome | |---------------------------|----------------|----------------|------------------------|----------------| | Achieve 90% of our strategic objectives | Achieve 90% or more of the objectives supporting delivery of our strategic priorities | 100% | Achieved | 92% | | Maximum days’ sickness per member of staff (average) | 7.5 days or less | 9.5 days | Not achieved | 7.7 days | | Achieve diversity for The National Archives’ staff population as a whole | Women: at a minimum 45% | Women: 45.9% | Achieved | Women: 46.4% | | | Top management women: at a minimum 45% | Top management women: 46.3% | Achieved | Top management women: 52.4% | | | Black and minority ethnic: at a minimum 18% (as a percentage of those self-declaring) | Black and minority ethnic: 19.8% | Achieved | Black and minority ethnic: 16.3% | | | Disabled: at a minimum 4.5% (as a percentage of those self-declaring) | Disabled: 6.2% | Achieved | Disabled: 5.2% | | Growth and development | Web Continuity: reduction in percentage of broken links detected on central government websites (target of 10% reduction set in-year) | 8.7% | Not achieved | New KPI for 2009-10 | | Growth and development | Digital Continuity Project: to achieve six key project delivery milestones | - | Achieved | New KPI for 2009-10 | Annex A
Resource Accounts 2009-10
1 Management commentary
About The National Archives The National Archives’ remit is summarised on page 7 of this report.
Vision During 2009-10, The National Archives continued to work in line with its vision for 2007-12, which is detailed in Annex C. The vision has three main elements – to:
- lead and transform information management
- guarantee the survival of today’s information for tomorrow
- bring history to life for everyone.
Through this vision we aim to safeguard our collection of government records and our information assets by ensuring that digital information is managed as soon as it is created; that it survives for future generations to use; and that information can be delivered to our users and researchers in the best possible way to meet their needs.
Management and structure During the year under review, the functions and duties of The National Archives were carried out by six directorates, which represent the core services we provide to the public, to government, and the commercial services we provide. We support these services with cutting-edge information technology and essential finance and Human Resources functions.
| Directorate | Purpose | Brief overview of activities | |------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Operations and Services | • Deliver and develop services for all our visitors | • Provide expert advice, production and other services to all our customers through a variety of channels – online; through letters, emails and by telephone; and face-to-face on site at Kew | | | • Manage customer relations and maintain service excellence | • Provide a range of online and on site educational services to school teachers and students and develop new audiences, particularly with those at risk of exclusion | | | • Ensure that our on site, online and remote services work together effectively and fully meet the needs of our customers | • Ensure that the public reading rooms and collection storage facilities and practices follow best practice and are compliant with all relevant standards | | | • Manage and maintain the physical infrastructure of the Kew site, providing a safe, secure and suitable environment for staff and visitors | | | | • Preserve, conserve and research the collection to ensure continued access and future use | | | Customer and Business | • Develop our customer, product, and online strategies | • Work with licensing partners to implement large-scale digitisation projects that bring history to life for millions of people | | Development | • Develop business partnerships and trading services to support the services that we offer | • Build the reputation of The National Archives with all our customers through targeted communications | | | • Raise awareness about the collection we hold and the services that we provide, and the importance of effective information management | • Continuously improve our online provision, with the aim of better customer satisfaction | | | • Improve our website content and access to the information that we hold | | | Directorate | Purpose | Brief overview of activities | |-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Information Policy and Services | • Provide professional leadership in information management and policy, working with government and the public sector to improve the way information is managed and used | • Assess and build information management capability across government\
• Guide government and public record bodies on selection and transfer of records; advise local archives across England and Wales\
• Advise government, public record bodies and local archives on information and archive policy\
• Widen access to public sector information (including legislation and other key official publications) and encourage its re-use\
• Official registration and publication of UK legislation, as an integrated online service and in print | | Technology | • Provide expert knowledge on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Information Assurance matters\
• Run key projects to enhance the technological capability of The National Archives and government, to manage and deliver government information effectively | • Enhance the ability of users to find relevant resources by applying cutting-edge technology\
• Develop tools and techniques to ensure the long-term survival of digital records\
• Ensure the capture and preservation of government’s websites, data and digital documents\
• Continuously maintain and develop The National Archives’ own ICT infrastructure for safe storage and delivery of information | | Human Resources and Organisational Development | • Ensure that staff are recruited, retained and developed in a way that facilitates the needs of the business and lives up to our organisational values | • Handle all aspects of recruitment and selection; pay; learning and development; employee relations and wellbeing\
• Develop Human Resources (HR) policy; HR administration and HR advice for all those working at The National Archives | | Finance and Performance | • Ensure that The National Archives’ resources are allocated and utilised efficiently and effectively\
• Ensure that The National Archives’ corporate systems are fully compliant with best practice and meet the needs of the business\
• Ensure that The National Archives’ statutory and legal responsibilities are discharged | • Run essential support services in finance, procurement and internal audit\
• Monitor internal controls on project progress, areas of key performance and risk management across The National Archives\
• Publish an annual report and accounts which complies with legislation and accounting frameworks | How we work
Values The National Archives has a set of common values, setting out the principles of how we treat our customers and work with each other.
These values are:
- putting customers first
- responsible guardians
- information set free
- delivering what we promise
- everyone working together.
Our customers The National Archives is committed to ensuring our customers are at the heart of our service provision. We invite feedback through our ‘your views matter’ programme and regular surveys. Additionally, we run several forums and panels where participants share news, ideas and concerns and help shape future activities. A full list of these groups can be found on our website at nationalarchives.gov.uk/how-we-are-run/boards-groups.htm.
In 2009-10 it was necessary for us to engage even more closely with our different groups of stakeholders, as we consulted over the summer on proposals to reduce our running costs, to allow us both to manage within our budget and keep investing in the future. This process generated valuable feedback and constructive criticism of our means of communication with our customers, which we have incorporated into future strategy. In reviewing our methods of consultation, we have increased the contact we have with specific stakeholder groups, finding new ways of engaging with them. This will help give us closer insights into the ways in which our academic customers use our services, and their requirements.
In developing our online services, we follow a user-centred design approach to service delivery where all our online services are prototyped and tested with real customers. Examples from this year include:
- We redesigned the computer welcome screens used by visitors to our reading rooms, to make these more intuitive and straightforward for our customers. This redesign was based on research into how our customers use our reading room computer facilities. We also asked customers to test mock-ups of the new layout.
- We developed a series of animated online guides, based on research to find out how our customers behave online and what they need from us. These guides provide more information on how our collection is organised and catalogued, and demonstrate key concepts.
Social, community, environmental and sustainability issues The National Archives remains committed to improving its environmental performance, and we have produced a Sustainable Development Action Plan to provide a focus for our efforts in meeting challenging government targets for the reduction of carbon emissions and energy consumption. In 2009-10 a combination of effective energy conservation measures such as the use of LED lighting and the installation of voltage optimisation equipment delivered energy savings of 9.4% and a corresponding 10% reduction in carbon emissions compared with 2008-09.
The operational efficiency of our air-conditioning plant has been improved by the replacement of components with energy efficient alternatives and control system upgrades. Monitoring and targeting of energy use has also been radically improved with the installation of an Energy Management System, providing over 100 additional metering points which allow real time monitoring of consumption and comparison with historic data to identify exceptions and target remedial actions.
We have reduced our waste to landfill ratio significantly throughout 2009-10 by introducing an integrated waste management system: we send office mixed recyclables for sorting and general waste to incineration for power generation. We also began work with the Carbon Trust and applied for the Carbon Trust Standard which is awarded to organisations that consistently reduce their carbon footprint. We worked in partnership with Transport for London and the London Borough of Richmond council to produce a Green Travel Plan with the aim of reducing the impact of our business-related travel and commuting on the environment. Our Biodiversity group has worked closely with biodiversity experts and has implemented many initiatives at the Kew site including the erection of bird and bat boxes, and the introduction of a loggery and hedgehog boxes. In the coming year two bee hives will be introduced and managed by a local beekeeper. Our grounds, including a small park and ponds, are open to the public from dawn until dusk 364 days a year and are valued by local residents. Throughout the year we remained in contact with local residents’ associations, informing them of our plans and seeking consultation where appropriate. We also supported the introduction of a local Neighbourhood Watch scheme.
**Education, outreach and inclusion**
We continue to work with community organisations to develop a diverse programme of outreach activity to promote greater access to our records by new audiences. Last year this included the following events:
- Researching Sikh records at The National Archives to support volunteers at the Asian Sikh Heritage Trail in learning how to access colonial, military and family history records and how to use the Catalogue. We displayed relevant records, such as war diaries that belonged to Sikh soldiers and original passenger lists of Sikh migrants.
- We delivered a series of talks on Jewish History for JTrails – an organisation promoting Anglo-Jewish heritage with the local Jewish community.
- We hosted a series of workshops on 19th century Caribbean history exploring the history and experiences of Grenadians. These focused on subjects including slavery and emancipation; the life histories of enslaved and free people; experiences of life on Carriacou; migrations of Indian indentured labourers and ‘liberated Africans’; and fights for political and equal rights. These workshops were the result of collaboration between The National Archives, Newcastle University and the Petrie Museum.
- We organised a tour for a group from ‘Hackney Roots’ to promote our holdings to individuals researching African, South American and Caribbean family histories.
Our Education and Outreach services provide award-winning services to schools and communities, locally and nationally, through taught sessions and online resources. We were one of the first organisations to receive a Sandford Award from the Heritage Education Trust. Innovative use of new technologies allows us to significantly extend our reach, with around 2.3 million visitors to our Education website in 2009-10. We taught over 14,000 students on site and online through videoconferencing and our ‘virtual classroom’, ensuring that we meet the needs of a socially inclusive and ethnically diverse audience. A quarter of these students were from schools with above-average intakes of pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds, and nearly a fifth were from schools with above-average proportions of students eligible to receive free school meals.
**Employment policy**
The National Archives is committed to equal opportunities for all. Policies are in place to guard against discrimination and to ensure that there are no unfair or illegal barriers to employment or advancement within our organisation. Suitability for employment is based on qualifications and eligibility of individuals irrespective of race, age, gender, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs or opinions. The National Archives follows the civil service Code of Practice on the Employment of Disabled People, which aims to ensure that there is no discrimination on the grounds of disability. On 31 March 2010, there were 623 employees (589 full-time equivalents) on our payroll. These were made up of 604 permanent staff and 19 staff on limited period appointments. 286 were female and 39 staff (6.2%) declared themselves as disabled and were recognised as having a disability in the context of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Also, 102 staff declared themselves to be from ethnic minorities. We proactively manage sickness absence; however, the average absence rate increased to 9.5 days (7.7 days in 2008-09). We also have other people and skill resource requirements on a short-term and specific project basis. These are usually fulfilled by temporary staff and contractors (see note 7 to the accounts), and during the year this number was equivalent to an additional 62 people (85 people in 2008-09) providing services on an average equivalent cost basis.
The National Archives, through its senior managers, meets regularly with staff and Trade Union representatives in a number of ways, including Whitley Council, Health and Safety Committee and the Staff Forum.
______________________________________________________________________
9. The average number of full time equivalent staff over the reporting year was 614 (2008-09: 608) Equality and Diversity – our single equality scheme We devised a new three-year single equality scheme and action plan. The aim is to bring together all the different diversity strands and promote equality and diversity across The National Archives by mainstreaming activities that have a positive impact across the whole of the organisation. A number of new initiatives are now in place as a result of the development of the action plan, which involved collaboration from staff from different departments who have enthusiastically made a commitment to improving equality and diversity for everyone.
In addition to regularly reviewing and improving the accessibility of our services both online and on site, last year 13 staff members completed their British Sign Language (BSL) level one professional training through The National Archives. This has resulted in a greater understanding of ways to reduce barriers for customers and staff with hearing impairments, and a number of public facing staff are now able to converse in BSL at a basic level.
Health and Safety The National Archives is committed to ensuring the health, safety and welfare of its employees, visitors, contractors and all others who may be affected by its activities. We take our responsibilities seriously, meeting all our legal obligations, and we acknowledge that positive, proportionate health and safety risk management prevents harm and enables efficient delivery of services across the organisation. We also recognise that good health and safety management has a significant positive impact on the wellbeing of staff, service delivery and achieving financial targets.
The National Archives has a full-time Health and Safety Adviser, to ensure that we provide a safe environment for visiting members of the public and for staff. Our Health and Safety Committee includes staff representatives from operational areas, technical areas, Human Resources (HR), Estates, Security, and the Trade Unions, as well as senior management. The Committee meets regularly to review health and safety matters, accident statistics and to identify any corrective action which may be required to resolve any safety issues arising. These management systems provide a basis for the leadership and co-ordination that are essential for achieving a positive health and safety culture.
Our financial and performance management, and risk management approach Going concern basis The National Archives is financed by amounts drawn from the UK Consolidated Fund, approved annually by Parliament to meet the Department’s Net Cash Requirement for the year. As with other government departments, the ongoing financing of The National Archives’ activities and related liabilities is met by future grants from the UK Consolidated Fund and the application of future income, both to be approved annually by Parliament. Such approval for amounts required for 2010-11 has already been given. It has accordingly been considered appropriate to adopt a going concern basis for the preparation of these financial statements.
Financial control The National Archives is funded through Supply Estimates. These are the formal means by which government seeks authority from Parliament for its own spending each year. The National Archives’ net total resources provision, for which authority was sought and approved during the year, was £48.7 million. There was subsequently a £2.1 million virement from resource to capital expenditure to reflect the additional spend on improvements to facilities at our Kew building.
Cash requirements are forecast on a monthly basis and we liaise with HM Treasury to enable these funds to be made available through the Office of HM Paymaster General (OPG), which was The National Archives’ main banking facility during the reporting period.
Management information is reported to the Executive Team monthly and all budget holders go through at least quarterly reviews of all of their costs and revenue. These reviews enable us to respond quickly to variances, identify where action is required and ensure that the best use is made of public money.
Financial position In 2009-10, The National Archives’ net resource outturn was £43.9 million compared to a budget allocation of £46.6 million. The near-cash element, which is the controllable element of our expenditure, was managed to within 1% of our allocation. This is a reflection of the effective financial controls exercised.
The non-cash outturn was £9.1 million compared to the budget of £11.6 million. Non-cash expenditure includes depreciation and cost of capital and the £2.5 million variance is predominantly due to movement in property valuation indices over the past two years, resulting from the volatile economic conditions experienced. We had no scope or authority to utilise the remainder, given that it was non-cash resource. Following on from the introduction of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the 2008-09 resource accounts were restated and values for licensed internet associateships and revenue generating databases controlled by The National Archives were recognised on the statement of financial position at 31 March 2009. These assets were subsequently impaired at 31 March 2010 resulting in a £652,000 write off to the operating cost statement. (See notes 1.4 and 11 to the accounts for further details).
Total capital expenditure was £4.2 million which was on target compared to our budget allocation.
The approved net cash requirement was £39.2 million and actual outturn was £39.1 million, a surplus of £0.1 million, reflecting the careful management of cash resources.
We face increasing financial pressures, along with the wider public sector, not least those arising because of the difficult economic climate. As part of the exercise to reduce our running costs that was undertaken during the reporting period, all expenditure has been reviewed critically to ensure resources are effectively managed and utilised.
Statement of payment practice In October 2008, the government made a commitment to speed up the payments process to pay Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) wherever possible within ten days. Following this, The National Archives now operates a policy of paying all suppliers within ten days of receipt of goods or services, or receipt of the invoice (whichever is later). During 2009-10, 92% were paid within agreed credit periods.
The proportion of the amount owed to suppliers at the end of the reporting period to the total amount invoiced by suppliers during the year, expressed in number of days, represents 21 days.
Preparation of the accounts The accounts are prepared in accordance with the direction given by HM Treasury in pursuance of section 5(2) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.
Reconciliation of resource expenditure between Estimates, Accounts and Budgets
| | £000 2009-10 Estimate | £000 2009-10 Outturn | £000 2008-09 Estimate | £000 2008-09 Outturn | |--------------------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------| | **Net Resource Outturn (Estimates)** | 48,731 | 43,871 | 47,704 | 45,526 | | Reductions in planned spend unable to be included in Estimate | (2,136) | - | - | - | | **Net Operating Cost (Accounts)** | 46,595 | 43,871 | 47,704 | 45,526 | | Adjustments to additionally include: | | | | | | Loss on disposal of non-current assets | - | (182) | - | (104) | | **Resource Budget Outturn (Budget)** | 46,595 | 43,689 | 47,704 | 45,422 | | of which: | | | | | | Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) | 46,595 | 43,689 | 47,704 | 45,422 | | Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) | - | - | - | - | Audit The financial statements have been audited by the National Audit Office on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The audit fee was £65,000 (see note 8 to the accounts) and includes £8,000 for work carried out in the year relating to the audit of the restated 2008-09 accounts under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The National Audit Office did not provide any non-audit services during the year.
As far as the Accounting Officer is aware, there is no relevant audit information of which the National Audit Office is unaware. The Accounting Officer has taken all steps necessary to keep himself informed of any relevant audit information and to establish that the entity’s auditors are notified of that information.
Key performance targets The National Archives had 28 strategic objectives10 for 2009-10, contributing towards our vision, as set out in the Strategic Plan 2009-10 (nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/strategic-plan0910.pdf). We achieved all of these objectives during the reporting year by meeting all or some of the business targets set out at the start of the year for each objective, or through delivery of other initiatives, projects and targets developed in-year in response to changing stakeholder needs.
This strong performance is also reflected in the fact that we met six of our eight key performance indicators11 in a year in which a significant cost savings programme was delivered. Our performance against our key performance indicators is shown in detail on pages 17 and 18.
Risks and uncertainties The National Archives’ major strategic risks are set out in a Strategic Risk Register. These risks were well controlled during the year and their controls were subject to regular, formal scrutiny and challenge.
During the year, The National Archives completed a major cost savings programme and conducted a formal review of medium to long-term service provision and business modelling. Many strategic risks this year were directly related to one or both of those initiatives, either as newly-identified risks or existing risks whose impact or likelihood was affected. Additional controls were put in place as a result where necessary. Strategic risk management was actively tested during the year with the resignation of our former Chief Executive: controls in place to manage risks associated with a change of senior leadership at The National Archives proved to be robust, allowing for a smooth transition under interim management arrangements.
The current economic situation and rapidly changing external factors mean that the major risks faced by The National Archives in the short to medium term will inevitably be different. To help us be in the best position to respond to those new challenges, The National Archives carried out a review of its approach to strategic risk towards the end of the reporting year and continues to identify controls to mitigate a new set of strategic risks for the future.
Information risk We have continued to implement new procedures and technical measures to protect our data and increase staff awareness of information risk. By improving the auditing capabilities of our systems we have provided greater visibility and assurance over the information that we hold. We continue to monitor progress against the government’s Information Assurance Maturity Model.
Public sector information The National Archives has complied with the cost allocation and charging requirements set out in HM Treasury and Information Fair Trader Scheme guidance. See note 9 to the accounts.
Reporting of personal data-related incidents The National Archives was not required to report any personal data-related incidents in 2009-10, or in the required reporting period from 2004 onwards. We will continue to monitor and assess our information risks in order to identify and address any weaknesses and ensure continuous improvements of our systems.
Pension liabilities Present and past employees are covered by the provisions of the civil service pension arrangements. These are explained in more detail in the Remuneration Report and notes 1.13 and 1.14 to the accounts. Benefit expenditure for civil service pensions is borne on the Civil Superannuation Vote. Where The National Archives bears the cost of pension provision for staff, it is by the payment of an annual accruing superannuation charge. The charge is shown under ‘other pension costs’ in note 7 to the accounts.
Review of activities A review of our activities during 2009-10, in relation to our stakeholders, can be found on pages 12-16 of this report.
10. Strategic objectives set out the priority projects and deliverables that we need to focus on each year to achieve our vision
11. Key performance indicators (KPIs) are the measures that we check against to be sure that we are working effectively day-to-day to achieve our strategic objectives Departmental report The National Archives obtained permission from HM Treasury to present a combined departmental and annual report and resource accounts to Parliament in July 2010. This combined annual report includes the required elements of a departmental report. The required elements that are not within the body of the annual report or resource accounts are inserted at Annex B.
The National Archives’ governance The National Archives’ Management Board consists of six Executive Directors and four Non-executive Directors. At the end of 2009-10, the members of the Management Board were:
Oliver Morley (appointed with effect from 15 March 2010)(^{12}) Acting Chief Executive (Keeper of the Public Records; Historical Manuscripts Commissioner; and Government Head of Profession – Knowledge and Information Management)
Clem Brohier (appointed with effect from 1 February 2010)(^{13}) Director, Finance and Performance
Caroline Ottaway-Searle Director, Human Resources and Organisational Development
Jeff James Director, Operations and Services
David Thomas Director, Technology and Chief Information Officer
Carol Tullo Director, Information Policy and Services
Mark Addison Non-executive Director
Bronwen Curtis CBE Non-executive Director
Trevor Spires CBE Non-executive Director
Professor the Baroness Young of Hornsey OBE Non-executive Director
Details of the remuneration for the Chief Executive, other Senior Civil Servants and Non-executive Directors are shown in the Remuneration Report. Non-executive Director Mark Addison is also a Non-executive Director of Salix Finance Ltd. A grant awarded to The National Archives by Salix has been fully declared in keeping with all statutory and best practice requirements for a government department. There were no company directorships or other significant interests held by Management Board members that conflicted with their management responsibilities.
Oliver Morley Accounting Officer 30 June 2010
______________________________________________________________________
12. Natalie Ceeney CBE resigned as Chief Executive with effect from 21 March 2010. Oliver Morley was Director, Customer and Business Development until 15 March 2010. Chris Mumby was appointed as Acting Director, Customer and Business Development, with effect from 15 March 2010: as an Acting Director he is not a member of Management Board
13. Caroline Emerton was our previous Director, Corporate Services and Finance, resigning with effect from 12 June 2009. Terry Noys was appointed Interim Director, Finance and Performance with effect from 19 June 2009 until 21 March 2010 2 Remuneration report
Senior civil service grades The remuneration of senior civil servants is set by the Prime Minister following independent advice from the Review Body on Senior Salaries.
In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body has regard to the following considerations:
- the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people to exercise their different responsibilities
- regional/local variations in labour markets and their effects on the recruitment and retention of staff
- government policies for improving public services, including the requirement on departments to meet the output targets for the delivery of departmental services
- the funds available to departments as set out in the government’s departmental expenditure limits
- government’s inflation target.
The Review Body takes account of the evidence it receives about wider economic considerations and the affordability of its recommendations. Further information about the work of the Review Body can be found at www.ome.uk.com.
Service contracts Civil service appointments are made in accordance with the civil service Commissioners’ Recruitment Code. The Code requires appointments to be made on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition, but also includes the circumstances when appointments may otherwise be made.
Unless otherwise stated below, the officials covered by this report hold appointments which are open ended. Early termination, other than for misconduct, would result in the individual receiving compensation as set out in the civil service Compensation Scheme. No such compensation payments were made during the year.
Natalie Ceeney was appointed on a five-year contract commencing on 17 October 2005. Her contract was due to expire on 16 October 2010, with the possibility of extension. Natalie has since accepted a role with the Financial Ombudsman and left The National Archives on 21 March 2010.
Oliver Morley was appointed Acting Chief Executive with effect from 15 March 2010.
Service contracts can also be terminated under the standard procedures of the civil service Management Code.
Further information about the work of the civil service Commissioners can be found at www.civilservicecommissioners.gov.uk.
Salary and pension entitlements The following sections provide details of the remuneration and pension interests of the most senior officials of the Department.
The Remuneration Committee consists of four Non-executive Directors: Mark Addison, Bronwen Curtis CBE, Trevor Spires CBE, and Professor the Baroness Young of Hornsey OBE. The policy on remuneration of senior civil servants, and the deliberations of the Remuneration Committee, follow the guidance and recommendations of the Review Body on Senior Salaries. Senior staff have written objectives agreed with the Chief Executive. Performance against these objectives, and against The National Archives’ values, forms the basis of their formal appraisal and subsequent pay and bonus recommendations. This information is used by the Remuneration Committee to determine pay awards according to the Review Body on Senior Salaries’ annual recommendations.
Salary includes gross salary; performance pay or bonuses; overtime; reserved rights to London weighting or London allowances; recruitment and retention allowances; and any other allowance to the extent that it is subject to UK taxation. Percentage salary increases, and performance bonuses, are agreed by the Remuneration Committee in accordance with strict guidance and parameters set each year by the Cabinet Office.
The salary, and pension entitlements and the value of any taxable benefits in kind of the Chief Executive, Directors and Non-executive Directors of The National Archives who are members of the Management Board, were as follows (audited) - see next page: | Name | Salary 2009-10 | Salary 2008-09 | Accrued pension at pension age at 31/03/10 and related lump sum | Real increase in pension and related lump sum at pension age | CETV at 31/03/10 | CETV at 31/03/09 | Employee contributions and transfer in | Real increase in CETV | |-------------------------------|----------------|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------| | Natalie Ceeney CBE Chief Executive (to 21/03/10) | 125 - 130 (full year equivalent 130 – 135) | 135 - 140 | 15 - 20 (at 21/03/10) | 0 - 2.5 | 197 (at 21/03/10) | 165 | 4 | 17 | | Jeff James Director | 95 - 100 | 80 - 85 (includes salary from 1 April 08 as an Acting Director) | 5 - 10 | 0 - 2.5 | 99 | 71 | 3 | 20 | | Oliver Morley Director | 95 - 100 (full year equivalent 95 - 100) | 60 - 65 (full year equivalent 85 - 90) | 0 - 5 | 0 - 2.5 | 27 | 10 | 3 | 13 | | Acting Chief Executive (from 15/03/10) | 85 - 90 (full year equivalent 80 - 85) | 50 - 55 | 0 - 5 | 0 - 2.5 | 36 | 13 | 3 | 19 | | Caroline Ottaway-Searle Director | 95 - 100 | 95 - 100 | 40 - 45 plus 90 - 95 lump sum | 2.5 - 5 plus 2.5 - 5 lump sum | 972 | 869 | 3 | 55 | | David Thomas Director | 95 - 100 | 95 - 100 | 10 - 15 plus 40 - 45 lump sum | 0 - 2.5 plus 2.5 - 5 lump sum | 296 | 251 | 1 | 28 |
14. **Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV)** is the actuarially assessed capitalised value of the pension scheme benefits accrued by a member at a particular point in time.
15. The figure may be different from the closing figure in last year’s accounts. This is due to the CETV factors being updated to comply with The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2008.
16. Natalie Ceeney CBE resigned as Accounting Officer with effect from 15 March, but remained at The National Archives until 21 March 2010. Oliver Morley became Accounting Officer with effect from 15 March 2010.
17. Chris Mumby was appointed Acting Director, Customer and Business Development with effect from 15 March 2010. As he is not a member of Management Board, his details are excluded from the table above. Natalie Ceeney CBE, Caroline Emerton, Jeff James, Caroline Ottaway-Searle, Oliver Morley, David Thomas, Carol Tullo, Clem Brohier, Mark Addison, Bronwen Curtis CBE, Trevor Spires CBE and Professor the Baroness Young of Hornsey OBE did not receive any benefits in kind. There were no employer contributions to partnership pension accounts in respect of any of the above.
Civil service pensions Pension benefits are provided through the Civil Service pension arrangements. From 30 July 2007 civil servants may be in one of four defined benefit schemes; either a ‘final salary’ scheme (classic, premium or classic plus); or a ‘whole career’ scheme (nuvos). These statutory arrangements are unfunded with the cost of benefits met by monies voted by Parliament each year. Pensions payable under classic, premium, classic plus and nuvos are increased annually in line with changes in the Retail Prices Index (RPI). Members who joined from October 2002 could opt for either the appropriate defined benefit arrangement or a good quality ‘money purchase’ stakeholder pension with a significant employer contribution (partnership pension account).
18. Terry Noys was Interim Director, Finance and Performance with effect from 19 June 2009 until 21 March 2010: as a contractor, his salary, pension entitlements and taxable benefits are not included in the table above. The total cost of his employment to The National Archives (including recruitment agency fees) was within the band £90,000 to £95,000
19. Caroline Emerton was Director, Corporate Services and Finance until 12 June 2009 Employee contributions are set at the rate of 1.5% of pensionable earnings for classic and 3.5% for premium, classic plus and nuvos. Benefits in classic accrue at the rate of 1/80th of final pensionable earnings for each year of service. In addition, a lump sum equivalent to three years’ pension is payable on retirement. For premium, benefits accrue at the rate of 1/60th of final pensionable earnings for each year of service. Unlike classic, there is no automatic lump sum. Classic plus is essentially a hybrid with benefits in respect of service before 1 October 2002 calculated broadly as per classic, and benefits for service from October 2002 calculated as in premium. In nuvos a member builds up a pension based on their pensionable earnings during their period of scheme membership. At the end of the scheme year (31 March) the member’s earned pension account is credited with 2.3% of their pensionable earnings in that scheme year and, immediately after the scheme year end, the accrued pension is uprated in line with RPI. In all cases members may opt to give up (commute) their pension for a lump sum up to the limits set by the Finance Act 2004.
The partnership pension account is a stakeholder pension arrangement. The employer makes a basic contribution of between 3% and 12.5% (depending on the age of the member) into a stakeholder pension product chosen by the employee from a panel of three providers. The employee does not have to contribute but, where they do make contributions, the employer will match these up to a limit of 3% of pensionable salary (in addition to the employer’s basic contribution). Employers also contribute a further 0.8% of pensionable salary to cover the cost of centrally-provided risk benefit cover (death in service and ill health retirement).
The accrued pension quoted is the pension the member is entitled to receive when they reach pensionable age, or immediately on ceasing to be an active member of the scheme if they are already at, or over pension age. Pension age is 60 for members of classic, premium and classic plus and 65 for members of nuvos.
Following the removal of a mandatory retirement age for civil servants, with effect from 1 April 2010, The National Archives has removed the compulsory retirement age for all of its employees.
Further details about the civil service pension arrangements can be found at the website www.civilservice-pensions.gov.uk.
The Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) This is the actuarially-assessed capitalised value of the pension scheme benefits accrued by a member at a particular point in time. The benefits valued are the member’s accrued benefits and any contingent spouse’s pension payable from the scheme. A CETV is a payment made by a pension scheme, or arrangement to secure pension benefits in another pension scheme, or arrangement when the member leaves a scheme and chooses to transfer the benefits accrued in their former scheme. The pension figures shown relate to the benefits that the individual has accrued as a consequence of their total membership of the pension scheme, not just their service in a senior capacity to which disclosure applies. The figures include the value of any pension benefit in another scheme or arrangement that the individual has transferred to the civil service pension arrangements. They also include any additional pension benefit accrued to the member as a result of their buying additional pension benefits at their own cost. CETVs are calculated in accordance with The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer values) (Amendment) Regulations and do not take account of any actual or potential reduction to benefits resulting from Lifetime Allowance Tax which may be due when pension benefits are taken.
Real increase in CETV This reflects the increase in CETV funded by the employer. It does not include the increase in accrued pension due to inflation or contributions paid by the employee (including the value of any benefits transferred from another pension scheme or arrangement) and uses common market-valuation factors for the start and end of the period.
Benefits in kind The monetary value of benefits in kind covers any benefits provided by the employer and treated by HM Revenue & Customs as a taxable emolument.
Oliver Morley Accounting Officer 30 June 2010 3 Statement of Accounting Officer’s responsibilities
Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, HM Treasury has directed The National Archives to prepare, for each financial year, resource accounts detailing the resources acquired, held, or disposed of during the year and the use of resources by the Department during the year.
The resource accounts are prepared on an accruals basis and must give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of The National Archives and of its net resource outturn, resources applied to objectives, recognised gains and losses and cash flows for the financial year.
In preparing the accounts, the Accounting Officer is required to comply with the requirements of the Government Financial Reporting Manual and in particular to:
- observe the Accounts Direction issued by HM Treasury including the relevant accounting and disclosure requirements, and apply suitable accounting policies on a consistent basis
- make judgments and estimates on a reasonable basis
- state whether applicable accounting standards, as set out in the Government Financial Reporting Manual, have been followed, and disclose and explain any material departures in the accounts
- prepare the accounts on the going-concern basis.
HM Treasury has appointed Oliver Morley, Acting Chief Executive, as Accounting Officer of The National Archives with responsibility for preparing The National Archives’ accounts and for transmitting them to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The responsibilities of an Accounting Officer, including responsibility for the propriety and regularity of the public finances for which an Accounting Officer is answerable, for keeping proper records and for safeguarding the Department’s assets, are set out in the Accounting Officers’ Memorandum, issued by HM Treasury and published in Managing Public Money. 4 Statement on internal control
1. Scope of responsibility As Acting Chief Executive and Accounting Officer of The National Archives, I am responsible for maintaining a sound system of internal control that supports the achievement of The National Archives’ policies, aims and objectives, while safeguarding the public funds and assets for which I am personally responsible, in accordance with the responsibilities assigned to me in Managing Public Money.
As my tenure as Acting Chief Executive began shortly before the end of 2009-10, much of my assurance has been obtained from controls handed over to me by the outgoing Chief Executive, and these are detailed below. The size and structure of The National Archives allows its Chief Executive a closeness to the day-to-day business of the organisation that gives them a unique overview of the risks to the organisation, the management of those risks and the delivery mechanisms that have allowed us to continue to deliver a world-class service to our users despite external economic uncertainties and major internal business changes.
2. The purpose of the system of internal control The system of internal control is designed to manage risk to a reasonable level rather than to eliminate all risk of failure to achieve policies, aims and objectives; it can therefore only provide reasonable and not absolute assurance of effectiveness. It is based on an ongoing process designed to identify and prioritise the risks to the achievement of The National Archives’ policies, aims and objectives, to evaluate the likelihood of those risks being realised and the impacts should they be realised, and to manage them efficiently, effectively and economically. The system of internal control has been in place at The National Archives for the year ended 31 March 2010 and up to the date of approval of the Annual Report and Accounts, and accords with HM Treasury guidance.
3. Capacity to handle risk I have personal statutory authority for investigations carried out by The National Archives, and as its Accounting Officer, have ultimate responsibility for managing risk, and responsibility for approving major decisions, taking into account our risk profile or exposure.
The management of risk remains an active process within The National Archives and takes account of:
- changes within The National Archives and within government
- regular monitoring at Executive Team, Audit Committee and Management Board level
- strengthening of governance structures that mean Directors are held accountable for their areas of responsibility.
Directors own all key strategic risks and standardised risk registers are used to monitor the organisation. This year the main focus of our internal audit work has moved from assessing the effectiveness of control of key strategic risks to assessing the effectiveness of key governance processes. This approach was endorsed by the Audit Committee.
The risk management process has supported us this year, and I believe that it has been applied successfully in major business change projects such as the 2009-10 cost savings programme.
Innovation is core to The National Archives’ remit, and this, coupled with our sound operating model, means that the organisation will accept higher levels of risk in areas where innovation is required. However, The National Archives has continually reviewed and monitored the status of its risks and its appetite for risk in key areas, and has proactively managed them this year.
4. The risk and control framework To support me in ensuring the effective governance of The National Archives, all Non-executive Directors sit on the Audit Committee. This is the main governance oversight committee for The National Archives.
The Management Board provides specific advice and support to me on:
- purpose, vision and values
- strategic direction, planning and risk management
- accountability to stakeholders, including stewardship of public funds
- internal control arrangements.
All Board members also meet formally and informally with other senior managers and are members of specific high-profile programme boards. We have a very active group of Non-executive Directors who provide governance and, by engaging closely with the business, give me stronger assurance.
We encourage and empower staff, and particularly Heads of Department and those who report to Directors, to support effective delivery, innovation and improvement within a framework of evaluation and review. I believe that this has been successful. Risk registers are used to manage risk to within agreed appetite levels, and we use this approach at corporate, Directorate and project level. We formally reviewed our appetite for types of risk during the year.
The strategic risk register has been closely tied to our vision and within that to the strategic priorities and Business Plan targets.
Strategic risks during the year covered the following areas:
- Economy/money
- External changes: we needed to ensure that we could deliver our strategic agenda within a changing government context
- Business continuity: we needed to ensure that we could respond appropriately to disruption caused by internal or external events
- Change of senior leadership at The National Archives: we needed to ensure that any interim arrangements did not disrupt our corporate leadership, management structure or overall strategy
- Staff culture: we needed to ensure that strategic change was supported by staff engagement and good organisational capability
- Capability in government information management: we needed to ensure that we maintained our effectiveness, leadership and influence in information management while achieving a cost savings programme and reorganising internal teams
- Improving our customer services: we needed to ensure that we could improve our services while still delivering efficiency gains.
The Executive Team and Management Board review our financial position and achievement against our Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) monthly. The Executive Team, Management Board and Audit Committee review the Strategic Risk Register and achievement against Business Plan targets quarterly.
5. Review of effectiveness
As Accounting Officer, I have responsibility for reviewing the effectiveness of the system of internal control. My review of the effectiveness of the system of internal control is informed by the work of the internal auditors, the Executive Team and senior managers within The National Archives who have responsibility for the development and maintenance of the internal control framework, and comments made by the external auditors in their Management Letter and other reports. I have been advised on the implications of the result of my review of the effectiveness of the system of internal control by the Board and the Audit Committee, and a plan is in place to address any weaknesses and ensure continuous improvement of the system. No significant non-compliance issues were identified during the year. This year the Audit Committee continued to challenge the management of risk. Key risks to the organisation were brought to Audit Committee for detailed discussion and the Committee took a particular interest in the management, outcomes and achievement of objectives of the 2009-10 cost savings programme.
Internal audit services for this year were provided by the Department for Transport (DfT). The DfT Team is nearing completion of a full programme of internal audit work around key governance processes and the Director, Finance and Performance and Audit Committee chair have selected an internal audit service provider from 2010-11 onwards. All reports were being acted upon and improvements have been made during the year. I am pleased that this year the number of outstanding internal audit recommendations has been reduced to a minimum and that the process for reporting implementation progress to Audit Committee has been refreshed and applied.
The overall assessment of the internal audit of our corporate governance was 'Acceptable'. This is defined as 'sound systems of corporate governance, risk management and internal control established and found to be operating effectively with some minor exceptions'.
A key element of my overview of governance of The National Archives and, in particular, its overall effectiveness, is the half-year and year-end stewardship reporting that we require of our Directors. This year, in response to an internal audit recommendation, we introduced a requirement for those statements to be supported by statements from Executive Reports.
Year-end stewardship reporting showed that controls had been improved in a number of areas across the organisation, particularly in response to the needs of our cost savings programme and in more efficient use of our resources and systems. I am satisfied that necessary additional controls will be put in place during the reporting year 2010-11 in areas such as business continuity planning, customer service excellence, management of risks associated with records in places of deposit and in meeting carbon emissions reduction targets. 6. Information Risk The National Archives’ business is information management, and we lead in this area across government. It is therefore essential that our own practice in information risk management is exemplary. Traditionally we have managed the risk of information loss through physical controls and we continue to use those controls for our historic record collection. In the digital age, as the number of ways that electronic information can be stored and transferred increases, so does the risk of information loss. We continue to take our information risk management responsibilities seriously. I am confident that information risk management is both well-understood, and well-managed within the organisation.
7. Reporting of Personal Data-Related Incidents We were not required to report any personal data-related incidents at The National Archives this year or in the required reporting period from 2004 onwards. We continued to monitor and assess our information risks in order to identify and address any weaknesses and ensure continuous improvements of our systems.
8. Overall I gain assurance from my Directors, various committees, feedback from stakeholders, Internal Audit reports, stewardship reports, KPIs and external validation. I am content that we have understood any control issues that faced The National Archives this year and, where weaknesses were identified, that we have put in place action plans to mitigate the risks. This was evident in our response to the changing financial position during the year: our 2009-10 cost savings programme was in itself a control that necessitated significant business change. Our response to the realisation of the strategic risk related to the change of senior leadership towards the end of the year demonstrated that our planned response had been well developed and operated effectively, resulting in a smooth transition with minimal disruption.
Oliver Morley Accounting Officer 30 June 2010 5 Audit Certificate and Report
THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
THE CERTIFICATE AND REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
I certify that I have audited the financial statements of The National Archives for the year ended 31 March 2010 under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. These comprise the Statement of Parliamentary Supply, the Operating Cost Statement and the Statement of Financial Position, the Statement of Cashflows, the Statement of Changes in Taxpayer’s Equity, the Statement of Operating Costs by Departmental Strategic Objectives and the related notes. These financial statements have been prepared under the accounting policies set out within them. I have also audited the information in the Remuneration Report that is described in that report as having been audited.
Respective responsibilities of the Accounting Officer and auditor
As explained more fully in the Statement of Accounting Officer’s Responsibilities, the Accounting Officer is responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a true and fair view. My responsibility is to audit the financial statements in accordance with applicable law and International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland). Those standards require me and my staff to comply with the Auditing Practices Board’s Ethical Standards for Auditors.
Scope of the audit of the financial statements
An audit involves obtaining evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. This includes an assessment of: whether the accounting policies are appropriate to the Department’s circumstances and have been consistently applied and adequately disclosed; the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by the Department; and the overall presentation of the financial statements.
In addition, I am required to obtain evidence sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the expenditure and income reported in the financial statements have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions conform to the authorities which govern them.
Opinion on Regularity
In my opinion, in all material respects the expenditure and income have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions conform to the authorities which govern them.
Opinion on Financial Statements
In my opinion:
- the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of the Department’s affairs as at 31 March 2010 and of its net cash requirement, net resource outturn, net operating cost, operating costs applied to departmental strategic objectives, changes in taxpayers’ equity and cash flows for the year then ended and;
- the financial statements have been properly prepared in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and HM Treasury directions issued thereunder.
Opinion on other matters
In my opinion:
- the part of the Remuneration Report to be audited has been properly prepared in accordance with HM Treasury directions made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and;
- the information given in Who We Are, Performance Against Strategic Objectives and Key Performance Indicators, and the Management Commentary, included within the Annual Report for the financial year for which the financial statements are prepared, is consistent with the financial statements.
Matters on which I report by exception
I have nothing to report in respect of the following matters which I report to you if, in my opinion:
- adequate accounting records have not been kept or
- the financial statements are not in agreement with the accounting records or returns or;
- I have not received all of the information and explanations I require for my audit or;
- the Statement on Internal Control does not reflect compliance with HM Treasury’s guidance.
Report
I have no observations to make on these financial statements.
Amyas C E Morse Comptroller and Auditor General
National Audit Office 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road, Victoria, London SW1W 9SP 1 July 2010
## 6 Accounts Summary
### Statement of Parliamentary Supply
Summary of resource outturn 2009-10
| Note | 2009-10 Estimate | 2009-10 Outturn | 2008-09 Outturn | |------|------------------|-----------------|-----------------| | | Gross expenditure | A in A<sup>20</sup> | Net Total Gross expenditure | A in A | Net Total | saving/ (excess) | Outturn | | Request for Resources 1 | 3 | 58,630 | (9,899) | 48,731 | 53,752 | (9,881) | 43,871 | 4,860 | 45,526 | | Total Resources | | 58,630 | (9,899) | 48,731 | 53,752 | (9,881) | 43,871 | 4,860 | 45,526 | | Non-Operating-Cost A in A | | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
### Net Cash Requirement
| Note | 2009-10 | 2008-09 | |------|---------|---------| | Net Cash Requirement | 5 | 39,230 | 39,151 | 79 | 40,886 |
### Summary of income payable to the Consolidated Fund
(In addition to the appropriations in aid, the following income relates to the department and is payable to the Consolidated fund)
| Income | Receipts | Income | Receipts | |--------|----------|--------|----------| | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Total | - | - | - |
Explanations of variances between Estimate and Outturn are given in note 3 and in the Management Commentary. The notes on pages 42 to 60 form part of these accounts.
______________________________________________________________________
20. A in A is Appropriations in Aid and represents the income received by departments which they are authorised to retain in order to finance related expenditure. Operating Cost Statement for the year ended 31 March 2010
| Note | 2009-10 | 2008-09 (Restated) | |------|---------|-------------------| | | Staff costs | Other costs | Income | Staff costs | Other costs | Income | | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Programme Costs: | | | | | | | | Request for Resources 1 | | | | | | | | Staff costs | 7 | 27,621 | | 26,537 | | | | Other programme costs | 8 | 26,131 | | 27,352 | | | | Income | 9 | (9,881) | | (7,751) | | | | Totals | | 27,621 | 26,131 | (9,881) | 26,537 | 27,352 | (7,751) | | Net Operating Cost | 4 | | | | 43,871 | | 46,138 |
All income and expenditure is derived from continuing operations. The notes on pages 42 to 60 form part of these accounts.
21. The introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) means that figures for 2009-10 are prepared on a different basis from those published in our 2008-09 report. Accordingly, we have restated figures for 2008-09 to make it possible to compare results on the same basis. Statement of Financial Position as at 31 March 2010
| Note | 31 March 2010 | 31 March 2009 (Restated) | 31 March 2008 (Restated) | |------|---------------|--------------------------|--------------------------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Non-current assets: | | | | | Property, plant and equipment | 10 | 100,298 | 94,335 | 112,437 | | Intangible assets | 11 | 8,744 | 9,579 | 9,960 | | Trade receivables falling due after more than one year | 14 | 111 | 13 | 19 | | Total non-current assets | | 109,153 | 103,927 | 122,416 | | Current assets: | | | | | Inventories | 13 | 152 | 200 | 408 | | Trade and other receivables | 14 | 307 | 430 | 848 | | Other current assets | 14 | 2,281 | 3,569 | 1,783 | | Cash and cash equivalents | 15 | 79 | 167 | 1,114 | | Financial assets | | | | | Total current assets | | 2,819 | 4,366 | 4,153 | | Total assets | | 111,972 | 108,293 | 126,569 | | Current liabilities | | | | | Trade and other payables | 16 | (1,409) | (2,953) | (1,960) | | Other liabilities | 16 | (7,755) | (7,691) | (8,406) | | Total current liabilities | | (9,164) | (10,644) | (10,366) | | Non-current assets less net current liabilities | | 102,808 | 97,649 | 116,203 | | Non-current liabilities: | | | | | Provisions | 17 | (691) | (762) | (562) | | Total non-current liabilities | | (691) | (762) | (562) | | Assets less liabilities | | 102,117 | 96,887 | 115,641 | | Taxpayers’ equity: | | | | | General fund | | 75,013 | 75,442 | 76,537 | | Revaluation reserve | | 27,104 | 21,445 | 39,104 | | Total taxpayers’ equity | | 102,117 | 96,887 | 115,641 |
The notes on pages 42 to 60 form part of these accounts.
Oliver Morley Accounting Officer 30 June 2010 Statement of Cash Flows for the year ended 31 March 2010
| Cash flows from operating activities | Note | 2009-10 £000 | 2008-09 £000 | |-------------------------------------|------|--------------|--------------| | Net operating cost | 4 | (43,871) | (46,138) | | Adjustments for non-cash transactions | 8 | 9,123 | 8,514 | | (Increase)/decrease in trade and other receivables | 14 | 1,313 | (1,362) | | (Increase)/decrease in inventories | 13 | 48 | 208 | | Increase/(decrease) in payables | 16 | (1,392) | 1,225 | | Use of provisions | 17 | (163) | (72) | | **Net cash outflow from operating activities** | | **(34,942)** | **(37,625)** |
| Cash flows from investing activities | | | |-------------------------------------|------|--------------|--------------| | Purchase of property, plant and equipment | 10 | (4,141) | (3,256) | | Purchase of intangibles | 11 | (68) | (5) | | Proceeds of disposal of property, plant and equipment | | - | - | | **Net cash outflow from investing activities** | | **(4,209)** | **(3,261)** |
| Cash flows from financing activities | | | |-------------------------------------|------|--------------|--------------| | From the Consolidated Fund (Supply) - current year | | 39,063 | 40,136 | | **Net cash flow from financing activities** | | **39,063** | **40,136** |
| Net (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents in the period before adjustment for receipts and payments to the Consolidated Fund | | (88) | (750) | | Payments of amounts due to the Consolidated Fund | | - | (197) | | **Net (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents in the period after adjustment for receipts and payments to the Consolidated Fund** | | **(88)** | **(947)** |
| Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the period | 15 | 167 | 1,114 | | Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period | 15 | 79 | 167 |
The notes on pages 42 to 60 form part of these accounts. Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity as at 31 March 2010
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|------------------|--------------------------|---------------------| | | | | | | **Balance at 31 March 2008** | 68,056 | 39,104 | 107,160 | | Changes in accounting policy: | | | | | Licensed internet associateships - IFRIC 12 / IAS 38 | 6,761 | - | 6,761 | | Databases - IAS 38 | 2,050 | - | 2,050 | | Short-term staff benefits (earned leave liability) - IAS 19 | (330) | - | (330) | | Restated balance at 1 April 2008 | 76,537 | 39,104 | 115,641 | | **Changes in taxpayers’ equity for 2008-09** | | | | | Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of property, plant and equipment | 10 | - | (23,001) | | Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of intangible assets | 11 | - | (91) | | Release of reserves to the operating cost statement | - | 5,802 | 5,802 | | Non-cash charges - cost of capital | 8 | 3,719 | - | | Non-cash charges - auditor’s remuneration | 8 | 69 | - | | Transfers between reserves | 369 | (369) | - | | Net operating costs for the year | (46,138) | - | (46,138) | | **Total recognised income and expense for 2008-09** | (41,981) | (17,659) | (59,640) | | Net Parliamentary funding - drawn down | 40,136 | - | 40,136 | | Net Parliamentary funding - deemed | 917 | - | 917 | | Supply (payable)/receivable adjustment | (167) | - | (167) | | CFERS payable to the Consolidated Fund | - | - | - | | **Balance at 31 March 2009** | 75,442 | 21,445 | 96,887 | | **Changes in taxpayers’ equity for 2009-10** | | | | | Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of property, plant and equipment | 10 | - | 9,231 | | Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of intangible assets | 11 | - | 130 | | Release of reserves to the operating cost statement | - | (2,958) | (2,958) | | Non-cash charges - cost of capital | 8 | 3,482 | - | | Non-cash charges - auditor’s remuneration | 8 | 65 | - | | Transfers between reserves | 744 | (744) | - | | Net operating costs for the year | (43,871) | - | (43,871) | | **Total recognised income and expense for 2009-10** | (39,580) | 5,659 | (33,921) | | Net Parliamentary funding - drawn down | 39,063 | - | 39,063 | | Net Parliamentary funding - deemed | 167 | - | 167 | | Supply (payable)/receivable adjustment | (79) | - | (79) | | CFERS payable to the Consolidated Fund | - | - | - | | **Balance at 31 March 2010** | 75,013 | 27,104 | 102,117 |
The notes on pages 42 to 60 form part of these accounts.
## Statement of Operating Costs by Departmental Strategic Objectives
for the year ended 31 March 2010
| Objectives: | Strategic objective 1 £000 | Strategic objective 2 £000 | Strategic objective 3 £000 | Total £000 | Strategic objective 1 £000 | Strategic objective 2 £000 | Strategic objective 3 £000 | Total £000 | |-------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|------------| | Gross expenditure | 7,288 | 11,260 | 35,204 | 53,752 | 6,689 | 13,093 | 34,107 | 53,889 | | Income | (2,549) | (328) | (7,004) | (9,881) | (1,597) | (359) | (5,795) | (7,751) | | Net expenditure | 4,739 | 10,932 | 28,200 | 43,871 | 5,092 | 12,734 | 28,312 | 46,138 | | Total assets | 12,095 | 27,902 | 71,975 | 111,972 | 11,952 | 29,889 | 66,452 | 108,293 |
### Strategic objective 1
**Lead and transform information management** Shaping policy on information from its creation to re-use showing leadership across the public sector and helping to develop a common infrastructure of services and guidance.
### Strategic objective 2
**Guarantee the survival of today’s information for tomorrow** Preserving the nation’s existing paper records and working across government and the wider public sector so that digital information can continue to be accessed for both today’s business and tomorrow’s history.
### Strategic objective 3
**Bring history to life for everyone** Providing people worldwide with access to our records and helping everyone use them to excite and enrich their lives.
See note 18. The notes on pages 42 to 60 form part of these accounts. Notes to the Departmental Resource Accounts
1. Statement of accounting policies These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the 2009-10 Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) issued by HM Treasury. The accounting policies contained in the FReM apply International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as adopted or interpreted for the public sector context. Where the FReM permits a choice of accounting policy, the accounting policy which is judged to be most appropriate to the particular circumstances of The National Archives for the purpose of giving a true and fair view has been selected. The particular policies adopted by The National Archives are described below. They have been applied consistently in dealing with items considered material in relation to the accounts.
In addition to the primary statements prepared under IFRS, the FReM also requires the department to prepare two additional primary statements. The Statement of Parliamentary Supply and supporting notes show outturn against Estimates in terms of the net resource requirement and the net cash requirement. The Statement of Operating Costs by Departmental Strategic Objectives and supporting notes analyse the department’s income and expenditure by the objectives agreed with Ministers.
1.1 Accounting convention These accounts have been prepared under the historical cost convention modified to account for any material revaluation of property, plant and equipment, intangible assets and inventories.
1.2 Property, plant and equipment Property, plant and equipment other than land and buildings consist of plant and machinery, furniture and fittings, transport equipment and information technology. Expenditure on restoration and conservation work is part of the normal operating costs of The National Archives and is not capitalised. It is recorded as part of programme costs.
The National Archives is the beneficial owner of the freehold land and buildings at Kew. All non-current assets are implicitly owned by The National Archives. There are no leased assets.
Land and buildings are stated at fair value using professional valuations every five years and appropriate indices in intervening years. Professional valuation was last carried out in the financial year 2006-07. Other non-current assets have been stated at fair value using appropriate indices where material.
The minimum level for capitalisation of an individual tangible non-current asset is £1,000.
1.3 Heritage assets Public Records and other heritage assets held by The National Archives are not valued and capitalised. The records held by The National Archives span 1,000 years and fill 180 kilometres of shelving on site at Kew and at the Deepstore facility in Cheshire. They are held in many formats from medieval vellum and parchment to modern computer disks. They are made up of a variety of items ranging from traditional paper records to seals, maps, costumes, paintings, films, items of court evidence, etc. Most of the records are unique and irreplaceable and have been preserved for their historical, legal and administrative value. Reliable information on cost and valuation is not available owing to the lack of information on purchase cost, the lack of comparable market values, the diverse nature of the objects and the volume of items held. They are not therefore reported as assets in the Statement of Financial Position.
The National Archives is the guardian of the nation’s public record. Its core role includes preserving and protecting, making available, and bringing alive the vast collection of over 1,000 years of historical records held. Increasingly, access to these is provided to researchers in digital format, and The National Archives also takes the lead role dealing with the issues associated with the survival and preservation of today’s electronic public records - tomorrow’s permanent preserved record.
The conservation, preservation and care of this unique and irreplaceable collection is a daunting responsibility, given the age and original condition of some of the artefacts. Matched to the responsibilities of providing access, it means The National Archives has a constant challenge to improve catalogues and maintain environmental standards in our repositories, and to respond to stakeholder interests. Certain items within the overall collection are of particular significance, including Domesday Book, one of our most prized national treasures, which has been safeguarded for over nine centuries and is now cared for and displayed at Kew; an official version of the Magna Carta; unique records of official treaties; and a host of irreplaceable social records.
1.4 Intangible assets Intangible assets comprise information technology, development expenditure and software licences purchased from third parties, amortised over the life of the licence, and costs associated with systems in the course of construction as they are developed and implemented, amortised over their estimated useful life for up to five years. The National Archives recognises licensed internet associateships with third parties as intangible assets with indefinite lives, reflecting the underlying nature of the supporting public records. The valuation adopted is based on current forecasts of foreseeable future revenues, which are estimated from historical growth rates and then discounted as appropriate. A significant element of this revenue is received in dollars and the exchange rate used is an average of historic rates. See note 12 for further details on foreign currency risk.
In addition, we also recognise internal revenue generating databases (such as our DocumentsOnline service) as intangible assets with indefinite lives with valuation similarly based on forecasts of foreseeable future revenues discounted appropriately. Both the licensed internet associateships and internal revenue generating databases are subject to annual review to assess at each reporting date whether there is any indication that the asset is impaired, as required by International Accounting Standard 36: Impairment of Assets.
1.5 Depreciation Freehold land is not depreciated.
Depreciation is provided at rates calculated to write off the valuation of freehold buildings and other non-current assets by equal instalments over their estimated useful lives. Assets in the course of construction are not depreciated. Lives are normally in the following ranges:
- Buildings: up to 50 years
- Information technology: up to 5 years
- Plant and machinery: up to 10 years
- Furniture and fittings: up to 10 years
- Conservation equipment: up to 25 years
- Transport equipment: up to 10 years
- Licensed internet associateships: indefinite
- Revenue generating databases: indefinite
- Software licences: over the life of the licence
1.6 Inventories and work in progress Current asset stocks and work in progress, as held for sale, are valued at the lower of cost and net realisable value.
1.7 Operating income Operating income is income which relates directly to the operating activities of The National Archives. It principally comprises charges for services provided – such as for the sale of copies of documents, sale of publications and other items and services, reproduction fees and royalties for the publication of images, as well as income generated by the licensing of historical records. Operating income also includes grants and contributions from other government departments to carry out specific projects.
All operating income is recorded when the service is provided. Elements that relate to work not yet completed are held at the end of the reporting period as deferred income and subsequently recognised as income upon completion of the service.
1.8 EU funding The National Archives receives funding from the EU to carry out a specific project on preservation and long-term access through networked services. Income and corresponding expenditure is recognised in accordance with the grantor’s terms and are subject to an independent annual audit. At the end of the reporting period, £128,000 (2008-09: £41,000) was due to be received and has been recorded as accrued income.
1.9 Short-term staff benefits The National Archives recognises the liability associated with the short-term staff benefit for untaken but earned annual leave entitlement at the end of the reporting period. It reviews this liability annually.
1.10 Administration expenditure All administration budget spending is classified as programme spending by HM Treasury. The majority of the resources are consumed in providing direct services of, for example, public access to national records, family records and archives at Kew; the publishing, conservation and preservation of records; and UK information management advice and policy including standards, compliance, and copyright. All costs are recorded against ‘Other Current’ within Estimates.
1.11 Programme expenditure Programme expenditure reflects the total costs of service delivery, including all administrative costs, of The National Archives, as per note 1.10. 1.12 Capital charge A charge, reflecting the cost of capital utilised by the department, is included in operating costs. The charge is calculated at the real rate set by HM Treasury (3.5%) on the average carrying amount of all assets less liabilities, except for:
a. property, plant and equipment and intangible assets where the cost of capital charge is based on opening values, adjusted pro-rata for in year:
- additions at cost
- disposals as valued in the opening Statement of Financial Position (plus any subsequent capital expenditure prior to disposal)
- impairments at the amount of the reduction of the opening Statement of Financial Position value (plus any subsequent capital expenditure)
- depreciation of property plant and equipment and amortisation of intangible assets.
b. Amounts to be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund and cash holdings with the Office of the Paymaster General, where the charge is nil.
1.13 Pensions Past and present employees are covered by the provisions of the Principal Civil Service Pension Schemes (PCSPS) which are described in the Remuneration Report. The defined benefit elements of the scheme are unfunded and are non contributory except in respect on dependents’ benefits. The department recognises the expected cost of these elements on a systematic and rational basis over the period during which it benefits from the employees’ service by payments to the PCSPS of amounts calculated on an accruing basis. Liability for payment of future benefits is a charge on the PCSPS. In respect of the defined contribution elements of the schemes, the department recognises the contributions payable for the year.
1.14 Early departure costs The National Archives is required to meet the additional cost of benefits beyond the normal PCSPS benefits in respect of employees who retire early. The National Archives provides in full for this cost when the early retirement programme has been announced and is binding on the department by establishing a provision for the estimated payments discounted by the HM Treasury discount rate (currently 1.8% in real terms).
1.15 Operating leases Operating lease rentals are charged to the operating cost statement in equal amounts over the lease term. There are no financial leases.
1.16 Value Added Tax (VAT) Most of the activities of the department are outside the scope of VAT and, in general, output tax does not apply and input tax on purchases is not recoverable. Irrecoverable VAT is charged to the relevant expenditure category or included in the capitalised purchase price of non-current assets. Where output tax is charged or input tax is recoverable, the amounts are stated net of VAT.
1.17 Contingent liabilities In addition to any contingent liabilities disclosed in accordance with International Accounting Standard 37: Provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets (IAS 37), the department discloses for parliamentary reporting and accountability purposes certain statutory and non-statutory contingent liabilities where the likelihood of a transfer of economic benefit is remote, but which have been reported to Parliament in accordance with the requirements of Managing Public Money.
Where the time value of money is material, any contingent liabilities which are required to be disclosed under IAS 37, are stated at discounted amounts and the amounts reported to Parliament are separately noted. Any contingent liabilities that are not required to be disclosed by IAS 37, but are reported to Parliament under the requirements of Managing Public Money are stated at the amounts reported to Parliament.
1.18 Third party assets The National Archives holds monetary assets on a temporary basis on behalf of other government departments for disbursement to them. These balances are related to arrangements for the collection and allocation of income that is generated by the licensing of Crown copyright material originated by departments and agencies that do not have delegated authority to license this material themselves. The Director, Information Policy and Services at The National Archives is the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) who has responsibility for the management and licensing of copyrights owned by the Crown in her capacity as Queen’s Printer and Queen’s Printer for Scotland. At the 31 March 2010 the value of those cash assets was £72,334.
1.19 Events after the reporting period In accordance with the requirements of IAS 10, events after the reporting period are considered up to the date on which the accounts are authorised for issue. This is interpreted as the date of the Certificate and Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. 2. First-time adoption of IFRS
In line with HM Treasury advice, Prior Period Adjustments (PPAs) arising from the adoption of IFRS were not included in spring Supplementary Estimates for 2009-10 on the basis that the PPA numbers could have been misleading, particularly where transactions may well have pre-dated the 2001-02 cut off point for reporting PPAs, as only part of an obligation would have been included. PPAs arising from a change in accounting policy related to other than IFRS were included in the Estimates in line with conventional arrangements.
3. Analysis of net resource outturn by section
The variance between resource estimates and outturn relates mainly to significantly lower than planned non-cash resource consumption.
Detailed explanations of the variances are given in the Management Commentary. 4. Reconciliation of net resource outturn to net operating cost
| Note | 2009-10 Outturn | 2008-09 Outturn (Restated) | |------|-----------------|---------------------------| | | £000 | £000 | | Net resource outturn (see note below) | 43,871 | 45,526 | | Adjustments for: | | | | Short term staff benefits (earned leave liability) – IAS 19 | - | 330 | | Cost of capital | - | 282 | | Consolidated Fund extra receipts (CFERS) | - | - | | Net Operating Cost (see note below) | 43,871 | 46,138 |
Note Net operating cost is the total of expenditure and income appearing in the Operating Cost Statement (Schedule 2). Net resource outturn is the total of those elements of expenditure and income which are subject to Parliamentary approval and included in the department’s Supply Estimate. The outturn against the Estimate is shown in the Summary of Resource Outturn (Schedule 1).
5. Reconciliation of net resource outturn to net cash requirement
| Note | Estimate | Outturn | Net total outturn compared with Estimate saving/(excess) | |------|----------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Resource outturn | 3 | 48,731 | 43,871 | 4,860 | | Reductions in planned spend unable to be included in the Estimate | (2,136) | - | (2,136) | | Capital: | | | | | Acquisition of property, plant and machinery and intangible assets | 10 and 11 | 4,236 | 4,209 | 27 | | Loss on asset disposals | - | (182) | 182 | | Accruals adjustments | | | | | Non-cash items | 8 | (11,601) | (8,941) | (2,660) | | Changes in working capital other than cash | - | - | 31 | (31) | | Use of provision | 17 | - | 163 | (163) | | Net cash requirement | | | 39,230 | 39,151 | 79 | 6. Reconciliation of income recorded within the Operating Cost Statement to operating income payable to the Consolidated Fund
| Note | 2009-10 £000 | 2008-09 £000 | |------|--------------|--------------| | Operating income | 9 | 9,881 | 7,751 | | Gross income | | 9,881 | 7,751 | | Income authorised to be Appropriated in Aid | 9 | 9,881 | 7,751 | | Total income payable to the Consolidated Fund | - | - | 7. Staff numbers and related costs
A. Staff costs consist of:
| | 2009-10 | 2008-09 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | | Total | Permanently employed staff | Others | Total | | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Wages and salaries | 23,085 | 20,560 | 2,525 | 22,020| | Social Security costs| 1,493 | 1,493 | - | 1,426 | | Other pension costs | 3,437 | 3,437 | - | 3,447 | | **Sub total** | 28,015 | 25,490 | 2,525 | 26,893| | Less recoveries in respect of outward secondments | (394) | (394) | - | (356) | | **Total net costs** | 27,621 | 25,096 | 2,525 | 26,537|
No staff costs were capitalised during the year
B. The Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) is an unfunded multi-employer defined benefit scheme. In common with other government departments, The National Archives cannot identify its share of the underlying assets and liabilities. A full actuarial valuation of the scheme was carried out as at 31 March 2007 by the scheme’s actuary, Hewitt Associates Financial Services Ltd. Details can be found in the resource accounts of the Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation (www.civilservice-pensions.gov.uk).
C. For 2009-10, employers’ contributions of £3,371,651 were payable to the PCSPS (2008-09: £3,339,479) at one of four rates in the range 16.7 to 24.3% of pensionable pay, based on salary bands. Employer contributions are usually reviewed every four years following a full scheme valuation by the Government Actuary. The contribution rates are set to meet the cost of the benefits accruing during 2009-10 to be paid when the member retires and not the benefits paid during this period to existing pensioners.
D. Employees can opt to open a partnership account – a stakeholder pension with an employer contribution. During 2009-10, employers’ contributions of £61,868 were paid to one or more of a panel of three appointed stakeholder pension providers (2008-09: £42,588). Employer contributions are age-related and range from 3 to 12.5% of pensionable pay. Employers also match employee contributions up to 3% of pensionable pay. In addition, employer contributions of £4,117 (2008-09: £3,104), 0.8% (2008-09: 0.8%) of pensionable pay, were payable to the PCSPS to cover the cost of the future provision of lump sum benefits on death in service and ill health retirement of these employees.
Contributions due to the partnership pension providers at the end of the reporting date were actually £6,712 (2008-09: £6,954). Contributions pre-paid at that date were nil.
22. Costs for permanently employed staff represent costs for the average number of full-time equivalent staff (614 in 2009-10) that are paid and employed directly by The National Archives
23. Costs for other staff represent costs for contractors and temporary staff who are paid through recruitment agencies or directly as self-employed workers. The number of contractors and temporary staff used was equivalent to 62 people (calculated on an equivalent cost basis) E. The average number of full-time equivalent persons employed, including senior management, during the year was as follows:
| Strategic objective | 2009-10 | 2008-09 | |---------------------|---------|---------| | Strategic objective 1 | 109 | 108 | | Strategic objective 2 | 154 | 153 | | Strategic objective 3 | 351 | 347 | | **Total** | **614** | **608** |
**Strategic objective 1**\
Lead and transform information management\
Shaping policy on information from its creation to re-use showing leadership across the public sector and helping to develop a common infrastructure of services and guidance.
**Strategic objective 2**\
Guarantee the survival of today’s information for tomorrow\
Preserving the nation’s existing paper records and working across government and the wider public sector so that digital information can continue to be accessed for both today’s business and tomorrow’s history.
**Strategic objective 3**\
Bring history to life for everyone\
Providing people worldwide with access to our records and helping everyone use them to excite and enrich their lives.
F. Contractors and temporary staff costs decreased from £3.3 million in 2008-09 to £2.5 million in 2009-10, reflecting the lower use of temporary staff to fill resource requirements on a short-term basis to fulfil the needs of specific projects during the year. The number of contractors and temporary staff used was equivalent to an additional 62 people (85 in 2008-09) providing services on an average equivalent-cost basis.
G. Costs for consultants, acting in an advisory capacity, also decreased from £214,000 in 2008-09 to £179,000 in 2009-10. These costs are reflected in note 8 to the accounts. The number of consultants used was equivalent to an additional 4 people (5 in 2008-09) providing services on an average equivalent-cost basis.
H. Staff travel, subsistence and hospitality costs fell by £102,000 to £327,000 in 2009-10. This was a reduction of 24% and reflects the results of initiatives made to reduce this area of spend. 8. Programme costs
| | 2009-10 | 2008-09 (Restated) | |--------------------------------|---------|--------------------| | **Rentals under operating leases:** | | | | Hire of plant and machinery | 542 | 392 | | Other operating leases | - | 33 | | **Total** | 542 | 425 | | **Non-cash items:** | | | | Depreciation and amortisation | | | | Civil estate | 2,602 | 2,245 | | Other non-current assets | 2,384 | 1,757 | | Downward revaluation of non-current assets | - | 348 | | Reversal of downward revaluation previously recognised | (336) | - | | Impairments | 652 | 91 | | Loss on disposal of non-current assets | 182 | 13 | | Cost of capital charge | | | | Civil estate | 3,482 | 3,719 | | Auditor’s remuneration - audit work(^{24}) | 65 | 69 | | **Provisions:** | | | | Provided for in year | 92 | 272 | | **Total** | 9,123 | 8,514 | | **Other expenditure** | | | | Accommodation | 6,638 | 6,924 | | Consultancy | 179 | 214 | | University of London(^{25}) | 647 | 642 | | Travel, subsistence and hospitality | 327 | 429 | | Recruitment and training | 736 | 966 | | Digitisation | 80 | 23 | | IT maintenance | 1,091 | 1,030 | | Shop stores | 188 | 173 | | Conferences | 108 | 138 | | Minor software and hardware | 457 | 1,014 | | Advertising | 7 | 18 | | Record copying materials | 17 | 26 | | Legal expenses | 148 | 241 | | Telecommunications | 77 | 60 | | Other expenditure | 4,042 | 5,142 | | Public access | 1,654 | 1,348 | | Internal audit | 70 | 25 | | **Total** | 16,466 | 18,413 | | **Total expenditure** | 26,131 | 27,352 |
(^{24}) Auditor’s remuneration included £8,000 (2008-09: £7,000) for work required for the implementation of IFRS
(^{25}) University of London costs are costs incurred for the UK National Data Archive for Datasets Note The total of non-cash items included in the reconciliation of resources to net cash requirement comprises:
| | 2009-10 £000 | 2008-09 (Restated) £000 | |--------------------------------------|--------------|-------------------------| | Total non-cash transactions as above | 9,123 | 8,514 | | Adjustment for loss on disposal of property, plant and equipment | (182) | (13) | | Non-cash items per reconciliation of resources to net cash requirement | 8,941 | 8,501 | 9. Income
### 2009-10
| Resource outturn | Operating cost statement | Appropriated in aid | Payable to Consolidated Fund | Income £000 | |------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|-----------------------------|-------------| | | | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Operating income analysed by classification and activity, is as follows: | | | | | | Income: | | | | | | - Fees and charges to external customers | 8,596 | - | 8,596 | | - Fees and charges to other government departments | 1,198 | - | 1,198 | | - EU Funding income | 87 | - | 87 | | **9,881** | **-** | **9,881** |
### 2008-09 (Restated)
| Resource outturn | Operating cost statement | Appropriated in aid | Payable to Consolidated Fund | Income £000 | |------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|-----------------------------|-------------| | | | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Operating income analysed by classification and activity, is as follows: | | | | | | Income: | | | | | | - Fees and charges to external customers | 6,881 | - | 6,881 | | - Fees and charges to other government departments | 727 | - | 727 | | - EU funding income | 143 | - | 143 | | **7,751** | **-** | **7,751** |
a) An analysis of operating income from services provided is as follows:
| 2009-10 | 2009-10 | 2009-10 | 2008-09 | 2008-09 | 2008-09 | |---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | | Income | Full cost | (Deficit)/surplus | Income | Full cost | (Deficit)/surplus | | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Reprographic services | 962 | 876 | 86 | 920 | 1,270 | (350) | | Information and publishing | 6,265 | 5,248 | 1,017 | 4,554 | 4,503 | 51 | | Other | 1,867 | 1,867 | - | 1,642 | 1,642 | - | | Digital continuity | 787 | 787 | - | 635 | 635 | - | | **9,881** | **8,778** | **1,103** | **7,751** | **8,050** | **(299)** |
b) The National Archives is required, in accordance with HM Treasury’s Fees and Charges Guide and recommendations relating to Public Sector Information Holders, to disclose performance results for its areas of activity. The segmental analysis is not intended to meet the requirements of *International Financial Reporting Standard 8: Operating segments*.
## 10. Property, plant and equipment
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Plant and machinery £000 | Furniture and fittings £000 | Transport equipment £000 | Information technology £000 | Assets under construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------------|------------| | **Cost or valuation**| | | | | | | | | | At 1 April 2009 | 18,200 | 90,035 | 2,239 | 7,540 | 234 | 9,941 | 760 | 128,949 | | Additions | - | 347 | 786 | - | - | 1,181 | 1,827 | 4,141 | | Reclassification | - | 103 | - | - | - | 657 | (760) | - | | Disposals | - | - | (65) | (9) | (48) | (777) | - | (899) | | Revaluation | - | 8,322 | 68 | 219 | (2) | 624 | - | 9,231 | | At 31 March 2010 | 18,200 | 98,807 | 3,028 | 7,750 | 184 | 11,626 | 1,827 | 141,422 | | **Depreciation** | | | | | | | | | | At 1 April 2009 | - | 24,812 | 737 | 2,208 | 101 | 6,756 | - | 34,614 | | Charged in year | - | 2,602 | 309 | 181 | 16 | 1,554 | - | 4,662 | | Disposals | - | - | (50) | (7) | (47) | (614) | - | (718) | | Revaluation | - | 2,283 | 23 | 64 | - | 196 | - | 2,566 | | At 31 March 2010 | - | 29,697 | 1,019 | 2,446 | 70 | 7,892 | - | 41,124 | | **Net Book Value** | | | | | | | | | | at 31 March 2010 | 18,200 | 69,110 | 2,009 | 5,304 | 114 | 3,734 | 1,827 | 100,298 | | **Net Book Value** | | | | | | | | | | at 31 March 2009 | 18,200 | 65,223 | 1,502 | 5,332 | 133 | 3,185 | 760 | 94,335 |
### Plant and Furniture and Transport Information Assets under Land Buildings machinery fittings Total
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Plant and Furniture and Transport £000 | Information Assets under technology £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------| | **Asset financing:** | | | | | | | 2010 Owned | 18,200 | 69,110 | 2,009 | 5,304 | 1,827 | 100,298 | | Net Book Value at 31 March 2010 | 18,200 | 69,110 | 2,009 | 5,304 | 114 | 3,734 | 1,827 | 100,298 | | 2009 Owned | 18,200 | 65,223 | 1,502 | 5,332 | 133 | 3,185 | 760 | 94,335 | | Net Book Value at 31 March 2009 | 18,200 | 65,223 | 1,502 | 5,332 | 133 | 3,185 | 760 | 94,335 |
### Notes
a) Freehold land and buildings were valued on 31 March 2007 at £103.3 million on the basis of depreciated replacement cost by an external firm of Chartered Surveyors, Atis Real Weatheralls Limited. Their valuation was carried out in accordance with the Appraisal and Valuation Manual issued by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. In years where there is no professional valuation exercise, revaluation is derived from the relevant indices as appropriate.
b) All non-current assets are owned by The National Archives. There are no leased assets.
### 11. Intangible assets
| | Software licences £000 | Databases £000 | Licensed internet associateships £000 | Assets under construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|------------------------|----------------|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------| | **Cost or valuation**| | | | | | | At 1 April 2009 | 1,814 | 2,050 | 6,761 | - | 10,625 | | Additions | 68 | - | - | - | 68 | | Reclassifications | - | - | - | - | - | | Impairments | - | (120) | (532) | - | (652) | | Revaluation | 130 | - | - | - | 130 | | At 31 March 2010 | 2,012 | 1,930 | 6,229 | - | 10,171 | | **Amortisation** | | | | | | | At 1 April 2009 | 1,046 | - | - | - | 1,046 | | Charged in year | 324 | - | - | - | 324 | | Revaluation | 57 | - | - | - | 57 | | At 31 March 2010 | 1,427 | - | - | - | 1,427 | | **Net Book Value at 31 March 2010** | 585 | 1,930 | 6,229 | - | 8,744 | | **Net Book Value at 31 March 2009** | 768 | 2,050 | 6,761 | - | 9,579 | Note The impairment of intangible assets of £652,000 (2008-09: £Nil) has been charged in full to the Operating Cost Statement.
12. Financial instruments As the cash requirements of The National Archives are met through the Estimates process, financial instruments play a more limited role in managing risk than would apply to a non-public sector body of a similar size. The majority of financial instruments relate to contracts to buy non-financial items in line with The National Archives’ expected purchase and usage requirements and The National Archives is therefore exposed to little credit, liquidity or market risk.
Liquidity risk The National Archives is primarily financed by resources and capital voted annually by Parliament. It is therefore not exposed to significant liquidity risk.
Interest rate risk The National Archives is not exposed to any interest rate risk.
Foreign currency risk The National Archives is exposed to currency risk on overseas income received from its licensed internet associateships. The identifiable risk is both to the valuation of the associateships on the Statement of Financial Position and to the income recorded in the Operating Cost Statement.
There is a risk to the amount of income recognised due to currency fluctuations during the year however this risk is minimal. If the pound was to fall against the dollar significantly, a large impairment on the valuation would be taken through the Operating Cost Statement.
These risks are managed by using a historical trend analysis on exchange rates to estimate appropriate amounts to use in valuations undertaken.
### 13. Inventories
| | 2009-10 £000 | 2008-09 £000 | 2007-08 £000 | |----------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------| | Publishing and shop stocks | 130 | 172 | 370 | | Work in progress | - | - | 5 | | Reprographic materials | 22 | 28 | 33 | | **Total** | **152** | **200** | **408** |
### 14. Trade receivables and other current assets
| | 2009-10 (Restated) £000 | 2008-09 (Restated) £000 | 2007-08 £000 | |----------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------------| | **Amounts falling due within one year:** | | | | | VAT | 518 | 484 | 432 | | Trade receivables | 307 | 430 | 848 | | Other receivables | 128 | 332 | - | | Deposits and advances| 54 | 51 | 42 | | Prepayments and accrued income | 1,581 | 2,702 | 1,309 | | **Total** | **2,588** | **3,999** | **2,631** | | **Amounts falling due after one year:** | | | | | Prepayments and accrued income | 111 | 13 | 19 | | **Total receivables** | **2,699** | **4,012** | **2,650** |
**Intra-government balances falling within one year**
| | 2009-10 £000 | 2008-09 £000 | 2007-08 £000 | |----------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------| | Balances with other central government bodies | 1,276 | 1,153 | 1,067 | | Balances with local authorities | - | 180 | 8 | | Balances with NHS Trusts | - | 27 | - | | Balances with public corporations and trading funds | 4 | 2 | - | | **Intra-government balances** | **1,280** | **1,362** | **1,075** | | Balances with bodies external to government | 1,308 | 2,637 | 1,556 | | **Total receivables and current assets at 31 March** | **2,588** | **3,999** | **2,631** |
**Intra-government balances falling due after one year**
| | 2009-10 £000 | 2008-09 £000 | 2007-08 £000 | |----------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------| | Balances with other central government bodies | - | - | - | | Balances with local authorities | - | - | - | | Balances with NHS Trusts | - | - | - | | Balances with public corporations and trading funds | - | - | - | | **Intra-government balances** | **-** | **-** | **-** | | Balances with bodies external to government | 111 | 13 | 19 | | **Total non-current receivables at 31 March** | **111** | **13** | **19** | | **Total receivables** | **2,699** | **4,012** | **2,650** |
### 15. Cash and cash equivalents
| | 2009-10 £000 | 2008-09 £000 | 2007-08 £000 | |----------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------| | Balance at 1 April | 167 | 1,114 | 1,661 | | Net change in and cash equivalents balances inflow/(outflow) | (88) | (947) | (547) | | Balance at 31 March | 79 | 167 | 1,114 |
The following balances at 31 March are held at:
- Office of HM Paymaster General: 65, 159, 1,111
- Cash in hand: 14, 8, 3
- Balance at 31 March: 79, 167, 1,114
The balance at 31 March comprises:
- Cash due to be paid to the Consolidated Fund: -
- Amounts issued from the Consolidated Fund for Supply but not spent at year end: 79, 167, 917
- Balance at 31 March: 79, 167, 1,114
### 16. Trade payables and other current liabilities
| | 2009-10 £000 | 2008-09 (Restated) £000 | 2007-08 (Restated) £000 | |----------------------|--------------|-------------------------|-------------------------| | Amounts falling due within one year | | | | | Other taxation, Social Security and Pension | 795 | 1,207 | 746 | | Trade payables | 1,409 | 2,953 | 1,960 | | Accruals and deferred income | 6,109 | 5,657 | 6,216 | | Short-term staff benefits (earned leave liability) | 772 | 660 | 330 | | Amounts issued from the Consolidated Fund for supply but not spent at year end | 79 | 167 | 917 | | Consolidated Fund extra receipts and other amounts due to be paid to the Consolidated Fund | - | - | - | | - received | - | - | - | | - receivable | - | - | 197 | | Total Payables | 9,164 | 10,644 | 10,366 |
Intra-government balances falling within one year
- Balances with other central government bodies: 3,186, 4,446, 4,525
- Balances with local authorities: 1, - , 7
- Balances with NHS Trusts: - , 1, -
- Balances with public corporations and trading funds: 2, - , -
**Intra-government balances**: 3,189, 4,447, 4,532
Balances with bodies external to government
- Balances with bodies external to government: 5,975, 6,197, 5,834
**Total Payables and other current liabilities**: 9,164, 10,644, 10,366 17. Provisions for liabilities and charges
| | Early departure costs | Other | Total | |--------------------------------|-----------------------|-------|-------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Balance at 1 April 2009 | 480 | 282 | 762 | | Provided in the year | 74 | - | 74 | | Provisions utilised during the year | (145) | - | (145) | | **Balance at 31 March 2010** | **409** | **282** | **691** |
**Analysis of expected timing of discounted flows**
**Non-current liabilities**
- In the remainder of the Spending Review period to 2011: 147
- Between 2012 and 2016: 253, 282, 535
- Between 2017 and 2021: 9
- Thereafter: -
**Balance at 31 March 2010**: 409, 282, 691
**Early departure costs**
The National Archives meets the additional costs of benefits beyond the normal PCSPS benefits in respect of employees who retire early by paying the required amounts annually to the PCSPS over the period between early departure and normal retirement date. The National Archives provides for this in full when the early retirement programme becomes binding on the Department by establishing a provision for the estimated payments discounted by the HM Treasury discount rate for pension liabilities of 1.8% in real terms.
**Other**
The National Archives made specific provisions for dilapidations for the building formerly occupied by the Family Record Centre, vacated at the end of 2007-08.
18. Notes to the statement of operating costs by departmental strategic objectives
The National Archives’ capital is employed exclusively for programme service delivery purposes. Its distribution amongst objectives is therefore not markedly different from the proportion of the related gross programme costs.
All programme costs and income have been attributed to objectives in accordance with the department’s normal management accounting practices. 19. Capital commitments Contracted capital commitments at 31 March not otherwise included in these financial statements
| | 2009-10 £000 | 2008-09 £000 | |----------------------|--------------|--------------| | Property, plant and equipment | 1,086 | 508 |
20. Commitments under leases Operating leases Total future minimum lease payments under operating leases are given in the table below.
| | 2009-10 £000 | 2008-09 £000 | |----------------------|--------------|--------------| | Obligations under operating leases comprise: | | | | Land and buildings | | | | Not later than one year | - | - | | Later than one year and not later than five years | - | - | | Other | | | | Not later than one year | 2 | 265 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 359 | 124 | | | 361 | 389 |
21. Other financial commitments The National Archives entered into non-cancellable contracts (which are not lease or PFI contracts) for the preservation of government datasets (UK National Data Archive for Datasets) and a Facilities Management service. The payments to which The National Archives is committed, analysed by the period during which the commitment expires, are as follows:
| | 2009-10 £000 | 2008-09 £000 | |----------------------|--------------|--------------| | Not later than one year | 378 | - | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 4,452 | 6,592 | | | 4,830 | 6,592 | 22. Contingencies There were no contingent assets or liabilities at 31 March 2010.
23. Related party transactions The National Archives is a non-ministerial government department and an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. The Chief Executive reports to the Lord Chancellor. None of the Management Board members, key managerial staff or other related parties has undertaken any material transactions with The National Archives during the year. The National Archives has had a number of transactions with other government departments and other central government bodies.
24. Third-party assets The National Archives held short-term monetary assets valued at £72,334 on behalf of other government departments at the end of the reporting period (£98,376 at 31 March 2009).
25. Accountability No exceptional kinds of expenditure, such as losses and special payments that required separate disclosure because of their nature or amount, were incurred. Annex B
Additional financial information – for departmental reporting requirements
The National Archives was given permission by HM Treasury to present a combined departmental and annual report and resource accounts 2009-10 to Parliament in July 2010. The majority of the required elements of a departmental report are in the main body of the annual report or in the resource accounts at Annex A. The remaining elements are shown here. In the following tables, ‘DEL’ means Departmental Expenditure Limit, and ‘AME’ means Annually Managed Expenditure. The following tables are not subject to NAO audit.
Table 1: The National Archives: Total departmental spending
| | 2004-05 Outturn | 2005-06 Outturn | 2006-07 Outturn | 2007-08 Outturn | 2008-09 Outturn | 2009-10 Provisional Outturn | 2010-11 Plans | 2011-12 Plans | 2012-13 Plans | £000 | |----------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|-----------------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|------| | **Resource budget** | | | | | | | | | | | | **Resource DEL** | | | | | | | | | | | | The National Archives: | 35,475 | 39,244 | 35,676 | 39,474 | 41,889 | 41,602 | 40,060 | - | - | | | **Total resource budget DEL** | 35,475 | 39,244 | 35,676 | 39,474 | 41,899 | 41,602 | 40,060 | - | - | | | **Resource AME** | | | | | | | | | | | | The National Archives: | 36 | 375 | 374 | (8) | 200 | 505 | (140) | - | - | | | **Total resource budget AME** | 36 | 375 | 374 | (8) | 200 | 505 | (140) | - | - | | | **Total resource budget** | 35,511 | 39,619 | 36,050 | 39,466 | 42,089 | 42,107 | 39,920 | - | - | | | of which: depreciation | 4,678 | 4,561 | 4,855 | 4,644 | 4,441 | 6,684 | 6,985 | - | - | | | **Capital budget** | | | | | | | | | | | | **Capital DEL** | | | | | | | | | | | | The National Archives: | 1,908 | 999 | 2,726 | 5,764 | 3,261 | 4,197 | 6,197 | - | - | | | **Total capital budget DEL** | 1,908 | 999 | 2,726 | 5,764 | 3,261 | 4,197 | 6,197 | - | - | | | **Capital AME** | | | | | | | | | | | | The National Archives: | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | **Total capital budget AME** | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | **Total capital budget** | 1,908 | 999 | 2,726 | 5,764 | 3,261 | 4,197 | 6,197 | - | - | | | **Total departmental spending** | 32,741 | 36,057 | 33,921 | 40,586 | 40,909 | 39,620 | 39,132 | - | - | | | of which: | | | | | | | | | | | | **Total departmental spending** | 32,741 | 36,057 | 33,921 | 40,586 | 40,909 | 39,620 | 39,132 | - | - | | | of which: | | | | | | | | | | | | **Total DEL** | 32,705 | 35,682 | 33,547 | 40,594 | 40,709 | 39,115 | 39,272 | - | - | | | **Total AME** | 36 | 375 | 374 | (8) | 200 | 505 | (140) | - | - | |
† Total departmental spending is the sum of the resource budget and the capital budget less depreciation. Similarly, total DEL is the sum of the resource budget DEL and capital budget DEL less depreciation in DEL, and total AME is the sum of resource budget AME and capital budget AME less depreciation in AME. Table 2: The National Archives: Resource budget DEL and AME
| | 2004-05 Outturn | 2005-06 Outturn | 2006-07 Outturn | 2007-08 Outturn | 2008-09 Outturn | 2009-10 Provisional Outturn | 2010-11 Plans | 2011-12 Plans | 2012-13 Plans | |----------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | **Resource DEL** | | | | | | | | | | | The National Archives| 35,475 | 39,244 | 35,676 | 39,474 | 41,889 | 41,602 | 40,060 | - | - | | of which: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | **Total resource** | | | | | | | | | | | budget DEL | 35,475 | 39,244 | 35,676 | 39,474 | 41,889 | 41,602 | 40,060 | - | - | | of which:† | | | | | | | | | | | - Pay | 20,677 | 18,615 | 20,038 | 23,432 | 26,609 | 25,815 | 23,608 | - | - | | - Procurement | 10,007 | 17,230 | 14,305 | 12,305 | 10,757 | 9,038 | 14,942 | - | - | | - Current grants and subsidies to the private sector and abroad | - | - | - | (146) | - | - | - | - | - | | - Current grants to local authorities | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Depreciation | 4,678 | 4,561 | 4,855 | 4,644 | 4,441 | 6,684 | 6,985 | - | - | | **Resource AME** | | | | | | | | | | | The National Archives| 36 | 375 | 374 | (8) | 200 | 505 | (140) | - | - | | of which: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | **Total resource** | | | | | | | | | | | budget AME | 36 | 375 | 374 | (8) | 200 | 505 | (140) | - | - | | **Total resource budget** | 35,511 | 39,619 | 36,050 | 39,466 | 42,089 | 42,107 | 39,920 | - | - |
† The economic category breakdown of resource budgets only shows the main categories, so may not sum to the total. The breakdown may even exceed the total where further income scores in resource budgets. Table 3: The National Archives: Capital budget DEL and AME
| | 2004-05 Outturn | 2005-06 Outturn | 2006-07 Outturn | 2007-08 Outturn | 2008-09 Outturn | 2009-10 Provisional Outturn | 2010-11 Plans | 2011-12 Plans | 2012-13 Plans | |----------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | **Capital DEL** | | | | | | | | | | | The National Archives| 1,908 | 999 | 2,726 | 5,764 | 3,261 | 4,197 | 6,197 | - | - | | of which: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | **Total capital budget DEL** | 1,908 | 999 | 2,726 | 5,764 | 3,261 | 4,197 | 6,197 | - | - | | of which: | | | | | | | | | | | Capital expenditure on non-current assets net of sales† | 1,908 | 999 | 2,726 | 5,764 | 3,261 | 4,197 | 6,197 | - | - | | **Capital AME** | | | | | | | | | | | The National Archives| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | of which: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | **Total capital budget AME** | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | **Total capital budget** | 1,908 | 999 | 2,726 | 5,764 | 3,261 | 4,197 | 6,197 | - | - | | of which: | | | | | | | | | | | Capital expenditure on non-current assets net of sales† | 1,908 | 999 | 2,726 | 5,764 | 3,261 | 4,197 | 6,197 | - | - | | Less depreciation†† | 4,678 | 4,561 | 4,855 | 4,644 | 4,441 | 6,684 | 6,985 | - | - | | Net capital expenditure on tangible non-current assets | (2,770) | (3,562) | (2,129) | 1,120 | (1,180) | (2,487) | (788) | - | - |
† Expenditure by the department and NDPBs on land, buildings and equipment, net of sales. Excludes spending on financial assets and grants, and public corporations’ capital expenditure
†† Included in Resource budget Table 4: The National Archives: Capital employed
The National Archives: The UK’s official government archive, with a key role in raising information management capability across government. Makes historical records available to the public, leads the wider UK archive sector, leads on UK information management and re-use policy, and manages Crown and Parliamentary copyright.
| | 2004-05 Outturn | 2005-06 Outturn | 2006-07 Outturn | 2007-08 Outturn | 2008-09 Outturn | 2009-10 Provisional Outturn | 2010-11 Plans | 2011-12 Plans | 2012-13 Plans | |----------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | **Assets and liabilities on the statement of financial position at the end of year:** | | | | | | | | | | | **Non-current assets** | | | | | | | | | | | Intangible | 254 | 355 | 533 | 9,960 | 9,579 | 8,744 | 9,500 | - | - | | Property, plant and equipment | 105,232 | 106,332 | 111,933 | 112,437 | 94,335 | 100,298 | 100,200 | - | - | | of which: | | | | | | | | | | | - Land | 14,855 | 15,598 | 17,457 | 18,200 | 18,200 | 18,200 | 18,200 | - | - | | - Buildings | 81,042 | 82,580 | 85,844 | 84,548 | 65,223 | 69,110 | 68,800 | - | - | | - Plant and machinery| 850 | 534 | 1,345 | 771 | 1,502 | 2,009 | 3,500 | - | - | | - Furniture and fittings | 5,206 | 5,022 | 4,528 | 4,997 | 5,332 | 5,304 | 5,000 | - | - | | - Transport equipment| 16 | 42 | - | 148 | 133 | 114 | 200 | - | - | | - Information technology | 3,263 | 2,556 | 2,759 | 3,347 | 3,185 | 3,734 | 4,500 | - | - | | - Assets under construction | - | - | - | 426 | 760 | 1,827 | - | - | - | | | 105,232 | 106,332 | 111,933 | 112,437 | 94,335 | 100,298 | 100,200 | - | - | | **Current assets** | | | | | | | | | | | Creditors (\<1 year) | 3,800 | 3,742 | 5,613 | 4,172 | 5,981 | 2,819 | 4,500 | - | - | | Creditors (>1 year) | 3,908 | 4,285 | 6,995 | 10,036 | 12,259 | 9,164 | 5,000 | - | - | | Provisions | 169 | 510 | 570 | 562 | 762 | 691 | 350 | - | - | | **Capital employed within main department** | 105,209 | 105,634 | 110,514 | 115,971 | 96,874 | 102,006 | 108,850 | - | - | | **Total capital employed** | 105,209 | 105,634 | 110,514 | 115,971 | 96,874 | 102,006 | 108,850 | - | - | Table 5: The National Archives: Administration costs All administration budget spending is classified as programme spending by HM Treasury. The majority of the resources are consumed in providing direct services of, for example, public access to national records, family records and archives at Kew; the publishing, conservation and preservation of records; and UK information management advice and policy including standards, compliance, and copyright. All costs are recorded against ‘Other Current’ within Estimates.
Table 6: The National Archives: Staff numbers The National Archives: The UK’s official government archive, with a key role in raising information management capability across government. Makes historical records available to the public, leads the wider UK archive sector, leads on UK information management and re-use policy, and manages Crown and Parliamentary copyright.
| Staff numbers (average) | Outturn 2004-05 | Outturn 2005-06 | Outturn 2006-07 | Outturn 2007-08† | Outturn 2008-09 | Outturn Provisional 2009-10 | Plans 2010-11 | Plans 2011-12 | Plans 2012-13 | |-------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | Civil service full-time equivalents | 531 | 563 | 558 | 608 | 608 | 614 | 606 | - | - | | Overtime | 14 | 14 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 | - | - | | Casual† | 67 | 63 | 41 | 47 | 85 | 62 | 31 | - | - | | Total | 612 | 640 | 607 | 659 | 698 | 679 | 638 | - | - |
† Figures from 2007-08 include 19 full-time equivalent staff who transferred to The National Archives from the Statutory Publications Office as part of a Machinery of Government change †† Casual staff numbers represent contractors and temporary staff Annex C
The National Archives’ vision
Rapid changes in the information world continue to present the most complex and challenging set of tasks we have ever faced. It is not too much to say that the future nature and existence of government archives depends on our being successful in our objectives. Of these challenges, there are three in particular that are of immense significance and determine our priorities for our future development. These remain at the heart of our vision, as established in 2006.
**Challenge 1:** Government and the wider information sector need better information management to strengthen accountability, treat information with appropriate security, and realise the potential of their assets.
**Our vision:** Lead and transform information management
**We aim to:**
- shape future government information policy, from information creation to re-use
- show leadership in helping the public sector understand the importance of good information management
- work with government departments to create common services and guidance to support these aims.
**Challenge 2:** In addition to preserving the nation’s existing paper records, we need to rise to the new challenge of ensuring the ongoing readability of digital information for future generations.
**Our vision:** Guarantee the survival of today’s information for tomorrow
**We aim to:**
- preserve records of all kinds – physically at The National Archives, and through our influence elsewhere
- work with others in the United Kingdom to ensure that, between us, the right information is preserved for today’s business and tomorrow’s history
- collaborate across the world to share expertise and innovation.
**Challenge 3:** Increasingly people expect to find, use and learn from information online. They expect it to be personalised and connected to their wider life. They expect to have it immediately.
**Our vision:** Bring history to life for everyone
**We aim to:**
- make a positive difference to people’s futures by connecting them to the past
- provide researchers and customers, wherever they are, with easy access to records and expertise, with innovative online services, connected to trusted partners
- increasingly focus our reading rooms on being a centre for expert help and specialist research.
In addition, we will support the realisation of this vision by developing and maintaining a capable, flexible organisation, able to deliver our new services drawing on staff equipped with the right skills for the future. Annex D Advisory Council on National Records and Archives: Seventh Annual Report 2009-2010
To the Right Honourable Kenneth Clarke, Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice: The Advisory Council on National Records and Archives (hereafter the Council) also encompasses the Advisory Council on Public Records and the Advisory Council on Historical Manuscripts. All three councils function as one body to advise you on issues relating to public records that are over 30 years old, including public access to them, to advise you on wider matters relating to the archive sector, and to advise the Chief Executive of The National Archives, as Historical Manuscripts Commissioner, on matters relating to historical archives outside the public records system.
Over the past year, the Council’s role has increased, owing to the volume of casework, and the wider responsibilities it has assumed in relation to archival matters. A number of issues stemming from government policy have been discussed by the Council, and the Council has had an opportunity to contribute at an early stage to those impinging on its remit. In the last year, some of the main areas of debate and advice within the Council have been:
30-Year Rule As a body that specifically advises you on all matters of access relating to historical records under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the review of the 30-Year Rule was critical to the work of the Council. In its evidence to the Review, the Council was unanimously supportive of a reduction of the 30-Year Rule to 20 years, subject to appropriate resources being provided for a managed transition. The Council is, therefore, pleased that the government’s response announced in February 2010 reflects its view; and that the necessary amendments to legislation have been set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. The Council also welcomes government’s recommendation that it should continue to advise you on issues concerning the retention of records and the transfer of closed records to The National Archives under the new rule. It is the Council’s intention to assume a key role in supporting the implementation of the review, and its members plan to be fully engaged in this process.
The National Archives’ cost savings programme for 2010 The economic downturn in the last year has led to funding restrictions for government departments and the wider public sector. In the summer of 2009, in response to increasing financial constraints and in order to prioritise its resources to deal with the challenges posed by digital content, The National Archives undertook a comprehensive review of how it could reduce its running costs by 10%. No savings programme of this kind can be implemented without controversy, and the Council, which was brought into the consultation process and kept informed on the developments throughout the savings programme, recognised the challenges of such an exercise, and hence none of the decisions were taken lightly. At the Council’s meetings, the proposals were considered and, both within the Council meetings and outside them, members advised and robustly reviewed The National Archives’ proposals and they were especially active in advising The National Archives on its relationships with the academic community. In considering the ‘lessons learned’ review, the Council concluded that, on balance, the cost savings programme was well managed.
Public records During the year, the Council has continued its statutory role of deciding whether public records over 30 years old, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, should be made available. At formal meetings the Council has considered the many and varied applications by government departments for the closure of historical records. In most cases the Council has accepted departments’ arguments after it has been provided with more detail but in some instances departments have concluded, in agreement with the Council, that the public interest lay in disclosure. Work has continued, throughout the year, to relay the Council’s decisions and reflections to the transferring government departments in order to improve the standard of review and record description. The Council notes the satisfactory resolution of the interface between the Public Records Act and Land Registration rules. The Council also notes work undertaken to streamline the closure applications in straightforward areas such as individuals’ case files. The Council has, over the year, convened 20 panels of members to consider the public interest in the release of closed information held in The National Archives and has considered 116 cases in total. Most of these have involved information in the following areas: information that would cause severe distress to people affected by or who were the victims of crime, information that would damage international relations and national security, and information relating to law enforcement. In the main, the panels concluded that public interest lay in non disclosure, but some departments modified their decisions as a result of the panels’ deliberations. The Council is grateful to The National Archives for handling the panels’ queries constructively.
In November 2009, the Advisory Council meeting was hosted by the Department of Work and Pensions, where the Permanent Secretary and senior officials provided an excellent insight into the procedures undertaken by the Department for the review of its records. Council members look forward to the Advisory Council meetings hosted by the Ministry of Justice in July and the Cabinet Office in November.
National records and archives The government policy Archives for the 21st Century was developed over the course of the year, with significant involvement from Council members. The wider archive sector has critical importance for the UK’s national heritage, and a joined-up government approach has been needed for some time. The Council fully supports this new policy which will set out the strategic direction for the future management of the challenges and obstacles faced by the archives sector, especially the issue of managing digital information; and the need for archives to serve their local communities better.
Private archives and manuscripts The public continues to benefit from the provision that enables the owners of manuscripts and collections of papers to offer them to the nation in lieu of tax. The Council has advised the Chief Executive of The National Archives, as Historical Manuscripts Commissioner, on the most appropriate home for several important collections during the year. These have included:
- papers, architectural drawings and instruments of W H Brakspear, a prominent Victorian architect, which have been allocated to the British Architectural Library of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), housed in the refurbished Henry Cole Wing of the Victoria and Albert Museum
- papers of Sir Thomas Henry Browne, relating mainly to Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington, now allocated to the British Library
- papers of the Marsham family, Earls of Romney, allocated to Kent Council for retention at the Centre for Kentish Studies.
Where the Historical Manuscripts Commissioner recommends that archives should be allocated to repositories which do not fully meet national standards, he/she sometimes recommends, with the support of the Council, that these allocations should be conditional on improvements within a specified period, and then monitors the achievement of these improvements being made. During the year the Council considered the progress of Liverpool Record Office, the Centre for Kentish Studies and East Sussex Record Office towards securing new premises, as required by the conditions attached to previous allocations. It noted the commitment of all these repositories to securing new accommodation, but noted their varying success in terms of progress.
During the course of the year the members of the Advisory Council also welcomed the publication of a National Strategy for Business Archives, to which the Council contributed during drafting in 2008-09. The strategy and an accompanying advocacy document entitled Corporate Memory were launched in July 2009 at an event at the Palace of Westminster. As part of the implementation plan for the strategy, The National Archives has created a new post to advise businesses on matters relating to their archives, and during 2009 The National Archives placed a strong emphasis on securing the future of the archives of businesses in administration. In particular, the Council heard reports on the Minton and Woolworths archives during the year. The Council received regular updates on these developments, and has welcomed the strong focus placed on securing the nation’s archival heritage.
The Council’s members and meetings Four members have left the Council this year: Sir Rodric Braithwaite GCMG, Rt Hon the Viscount De L’Isle MBE DL, Dr Jennifer Haynes, and Ms Catherine Maxwell Stuart. We are grateful for their contributions to the Council’s work. You appointed five new members with effect from 1 January 2010: Mr John Collins CBE, Dr Bendor Grosvenor, Ms Elizabeth Lomas, Mr Hamish Macarthur and Mr John Millen. The Council currently has a membership of 19. Members during the year were:
- Sir Rodric Braithwaite GCMG, retired, formerly British Ambassador to Moscow and chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee (retired in 2009)
- Ms Else Churchill, Genealogy Officer of the Society of Genealogists
- Mr John Collins CBE, formerly Deliverer of the Vote, House of Commons The Secretary of the Council was Ms Lale Ozdemir (until February 2010) who was succeeded by Dr Grazia Zaffuto.
The Council is grateful to the Department of Work and Pensions for hosting our meeting in November.
During the course of the year we have seen Sir Anthony Clarke leave as Master of the Rolls and Ms Natalie Ceeney CBE, Chief Executive of The National Archives, and Ms Lale Ozdemir move to new posts. Ms Ceeney left The National Archives to join the UK’s Financial Ombudsman Service as Chief Ombudsman and Chief Executive; and Ms Ozdemir has been seconded to the 7 July Inquest team. The Council wishes them well for the future and thanks them for their contributions. We are pleased to welcome Mr Oliver Morley, Acting Chief Executive of The National Archives, and Dr Grazia Zaffuto, to our future meetings.
Ms Natalie Ceeney CBE, Chief Executive of The National Archives, attended all our meetings accompanied variously by Mr Oliver Morley, Director, Customer and Business Development, Ms Carol Tullo, Director, Information Policy and Services, Dr David Thomas, Director, Technology, Mr Nick Kingsley, Head of Archives Sector Development, Ms Julia Stocken, Head of Information Management and Practice, Dr Norman James, Principal, Private Archives Team, and Mr Stuart Abraham, Freedom of Information Centre and Accessions Manager.
Meeting summaries and some papers are available at nationalarchives.gov.uk/advisorycouncil/meetings/summaries.htm.
On behalf of the members
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury Master of the Rolls Chairman
6 April 2010 Annex E
Independent Complaints Reviewer: Annual Report 2009-10
About the Independent Complaints Reviewer Jodi Berg is the Independent Complaints Reviewer (ICR) for The National Archives. Her service is free to complainants. Mrs Berg is a solicitor, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and a mediator. She is a member of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council.
Foreword I am pleased to present my annual report. The National Archives provides a necessary and valued service for all those interested in past public records and, in particular, for those seeking information from the vast collection of materials it holds. The National Archives deals with millions of customer contacts every year without incident or cause for complaint. This year over 90,000 people have visited The National Archives and well over 20 million have used its services. With this level of contact, inevitably, sometimes things can go wrong. If they do, it is important for The National Archives to have robust internal systems to address concerns and to give people who remain dissatisfied the opportunity to have their complaints reviewed by someone independent and impartial who can look into what happened and decide whether their complaint is justified.
Referrals to me have to be set in context of the 161 complaints made to The National Archives itself. The National Archives has resolved nearly all of these complaints internally and, in addition, it received 339 unsolicited compliments about its service. During this reporting year I have completed only three reviews, although there has been an increase in contact from people who need help to complain to The National Archives or to find out more about aspects of the service The National Archives provides. We always try to resolve concerns or help take matters forward with The National Archives itself. I have set out below two case studies that typify this kind of contact and three examples of complaints reviewed this year.
As ICR, my role is to investigate complaints that The National Archives cannot resolve. I do not offer an advocacy service for complainants, but I do bring a fresh and objective perspective to the issues. Sometimes this leads to an agreed settlement; however, where this does not happen, I will decide whether or not the complaint is justified. If it is, I can recommend redress for the complainant or improvements to The National Archives’ service. Complainants may not always get the outcome they hope for, but they will get a clear explanation of what happened in their case and whether required standards were met.
I am satisfied that The National Archives’ response to complaints is of a high calibre and I commend the Agency for this. Alongside settling all complaint referrals, I have tried to identify lessons that can help The National Archives learn from what has happened. I am pleased to report that The National Archives accepted all of my recommendations, including those asking it to consider revising procedures. I look forward to continuing to work with The National Archives, so that complaints are valued for the light they shed on its customer service.
Case studies Advice and assistance Mr A contacted the ICR office, concerned about the way his order for copies of certain files was handled and the amount debited from his account. He wanted to pick up the copies in person from The National Archives but had been told that they would be sent to his home address. We explained our role and referred him to the DocumentsOnline support team, giving details of their availability.
Mr B sought our help regarding his Freedom of Information (FoI) request for information from The National Archives, which he thought was overdue for response. We brought this to the attention of The National Archives and the complaints manager subsequently called Mr B to apologise for the delay in acknowledging his request. An automated response had not been sent to Mr B, causing him to believe that it was being ignored. However, the Agency had 20 working days for reply and the response was not out of time.
**Complaint referrals**
Mr C complained that The National Archives’ procedures were not sensitive or proportionate, because of the refusal to accept his expired reader’s ticket as sufficient proof of identity for issuing a new one. He was not satisfied with the response he received from customer service and asked for the matter to be escalated to the Chief Executive; there was confusion about the escalation process and internal review procedures. Following a review, I found The National Archives had not dealt sensitively with Mr C when he visited Kew and that his referral to the Chief Executive’s office was subject to delay. I recommended an apology be given to acknowledge what had gone wrong. I also recommended that The National Archives reconsider its practice in relation to ticket cancellation and provide staff training to ensure a consistent high standard of customer service. Finally I recommended a review of the internal complaints procedure to ensure a timely response for complainants.
Mr D referred his complaint to me that The National Archives acted unreasonably towards him, following a challenging telephone call concerning pre-ordered documents. The conversation had led to a counter-complaint against him and, while this was being investigated, Mr D’s reader ticket was withdrawn for a period. On receipt of further communication from Mr D, this period was substantially extended. I found that greater clarity was required in the rules on suspension of a reader ticket: in particular, identifying what contact or behaviour might lead to this action. I also recommended that The National Archives review appeal procedures to ensure that they provide an opportunity for a complainant to appeal to a senior person not previously involved in their case.
Mr E requested paid searches of records for information relating to his father’s registration for British Nationality. These searches proved unsuccessful. Mr E complained to The National Archives about the way it dealt with his request. He was dissatisfied with the response he received and referred his complaint to me. Following review, I found that information held on The National Archives’ website was misleading, as The National Archives did not hold the type of information Mr E was seeking. This was not made clear until after fees for searches had been charged. Had The National Archives clarified the type of information being sought, it could have avoided carrying out a fruitless search of the records and disappointing Mr E. I recommended that The National Archives refund the fees charged, and apologise for inadvertently misleading him about what records it held and failing to clarify with him what information was wanted.
**About the ICR office**
The ICR office reviews complaints about eight public bodies. Team members are skilled complaint handlers who will respond to all contact in an efficient and courteous way. Details of the ICR service are explained in our leaflet *Seeking a Fair Resolution* available from our website at www.icrev.org.uk. A copy of this report can also be found on our website.
**Contact the ICR team**
New Premier House, 150 Southampton Row, London WC1B 5AL
email: enquiries@icr.gsi.gov.uk telephone: +44 (0) 20 7278 6251 fax: +44 (0) 20 7278 9675
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1056-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 73,
"total-input-tokens": 163033,
"total-output-tokens": 48089,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
628,
2
],
[
628,
628,
3
],
[
628,
2035,
4
],
[
2035,
3791,
5
],
[
3791,
7101,
6
],
[
7101,
7741,
7
],
[
7741,
11313,
8
],
[
11313,
13754,
9
],
[
13754,
16792,
10
],
[
16792,
19253,
11
],
[
19253,
20437,
12
],
[
20437,
23357,
13
],
[
23357,
25619,
14
],
[
25619,
28320,
15
],
[
28320,
30372,
16
],
[
30372,
33070,
17
],
[
33070,
35062,
18
],
[
35062,
36447,
19
],
[
36447,
40353,
20
],
[
40353,
43849,
21
],
[
43849,
47799,
22
],
[
47799,
52563,
23
],
[
52563,
57429,
24
],
[
57429,
60920,
25
],
[
60920,
65822,
26
],
[
65822,
68380,
27
],
[
68380,
72222,
28
],
[
72222,
74506,
29
],
[
74506,
76085,
30
],
[
76085,
80410,
31
],
[
80410,
82270,
32
],
[
82270,
86807,
33
],
[
86807,
91417,
34
],
[
91417,
93379,
35
],
[
93379,
97624,
36
],
[
97624,
99085,
37
],
[
99085,
100108,
38
],
[
100108,
101831,
39
],
[
101831,
103899,
40
],
[
103899,
106426,
41
],
[
106426,
108119,
42
],
[
108119,
113166,
43
],
[
113166,
117225,
44
],
[
117225,
121930,
45
],
[
121930,
122754,
46
],
[
122754,
124561,
47
],
[
124561,
124968,
48
],
[
124968,
128055,
49
],
[
128055,
130127,
50
],
[
130127,
132975,
51
],
[
132975,
133560,
52
],
[
133560,
135975,
53
],
[
135975,
140083,
54
],
[
140083,
144073,
55
],
[
144073,
145687,
56
],
[
145687,
149051,
57
],
[
149051,
151721,
58
],
[
151721,
153743,
59
],
[
153743,
155505,
60
],
[
155505,
156462,
61
],
[
156462,
162467,
62
],
[
162467,
166593,
63
],
[
166593,
170662,
64
],
[
170662,
175032,
65
],
[
175032,
176827,
66
],
[
176827,
179350,
67
],
[
179350,
183809,
68
],
[
183809,
188952,
69
],
[
188952,
190511,
70
],
[
190511,
194464,
71
],
[
194464,
197907,
72
],
[
197907,
197907,
73
]
]
} |
a47f19333b55dbd35b33f3ec5e067c4212689012 | ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT 10
COPYRIGHT
GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY March 2014
Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458
Crown Copyright All rights reserved. GLA 10032216 (2014)
Front cover photo: Eleanor Ward/GLA
Copies of this document are available from http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/research-reports/monitoring-london-plan
Updated July 2014 to reflect revised long term empty homes returning to use figures. Amendments have been made to the following pages: 2, 4, 21-22, 60-63 and 88-89. CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 7 Scope and purpose of the AMR 8 The London Development Database 9 The London Plan and its Implementation 10 Further Alterations to the London Plan 10
CHAPTER TWO PERFORMANCE AGAINST KPI TARGETS 13 KPI 1 Maximise the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land 14 KPI 2 Optimise the density of residential development 17 KPI 3 Minimise the loss of open space 19 KPI 4 Increase the supply of new homes 21 KPI 5 An increased supply of affordable homes 23 KPI 6 Reducing health inequalities 27 KPI 7 Sustaining economic activity 28 KPI 8 Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market 29 KPI 9 Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available 32 KPI 10 Employment in outer London 33 KPI 11 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market 35 KPI 12 Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services 37 KPI 13 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys (public/private transport modal split) 39 KPI 14 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys (zero traffic growth) 40 KPI 15 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys (increased bicycle modal share) 42 KPI 16 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys (increased passenger and freight transport on the Blue Ribbon Network) 43 KPI 17 Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values 45 KPI 18 Protection of biodiversity habitat 46 KPI 19 Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination of waste to landfill by 2031 48 KPI 20 Reduce carbon dioxide emissions through new development 50 KPI 21 Increase in energy generated from renewable sources 52 KPI 22 Increase in urban greening 53 KPI 23 Improve London’s Blue Ribbon Network 54 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) provides information about progress being made in implementing the policies and addressing the objectives and policies of the London Plan (published in July 2011), by showing how London is performing against 24 indicators identified in Chapter 8 of the Plan. Although this is the tenth AMR published by the Mayor, it is the third using the KPIs in the 2011 London Plan.
Chapter 2 provides greater detail on each of the 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and the table below summarises progress against each of these KPIs. The KPIs are not policies; they have been chosen as yardsticks to show the direction of travel in implementing the London Plan, and the extent of change, to help monitor progress and identify areas where policy changes may need to be considered.
The London Plan sets six strategic objectives to be delivered by its detailed policies. These are that London should be:
Objective 1- A city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth,
Objective 2- An internationally competitive and successful city,
Objective 3- A city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods,
Objective 4- A city that delights the senses,
Objective 5- A city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment,
Objective 6- A city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, opportunities and facilities.
Different KPIs contribute to measuring the performance of the London Plan against these six objectives;
Objective 1 – KPIs 1,2,4,5,6,12,14 Objective 2 – KPIs 2,7,8,9,10,12,17,24 Objective 3 – KPIs 2,5,10,11,12,15 Objective 4 – KPIs 1,3,15,19,22,23,24 Objective 5 – KPIs 1,3,18,19,20,21,22,23 Objective 6 – KPIs 1,13,14,15,16,17
Overall, the performance is positive: 14 KPI targets are met or heading in the right direction, while 5 have not been met or are heading the wrong way. For 5 KPI targets the performance is mixed. The performance against the individual Objectives is summarised as follows:
Objective 1- A city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth
A very high proportion of new residential developments in London continues to be built on previously developed land and increasingly at appropriate densities within the density matrix range. 26,600 dwellings were completed in 2012/13 against the 32,210 ten year average annual target. The gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived Londoners continues to decrease.
Objective 2 - An internationally competitive and successful city
Employment across London showed strong growth over the period 2011-2012, with an increase of 196,000 and the overall employment rate increasing as well. The office pipeline remains healthy and B1 office development continues largely in locations with high public transport accessibility. Whilst the rate of loss of industrial land decreased relative to the previous year, the rate remains above the monitoring benchmark in the London Plan and the Mayor’s Land for Industry SPG. This trend will need to be monitored closely.
Objective 3- A city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods
Employment specifically in Outer London has increased by 79,000 between 2011 and 2012 and the gap in the employment rate between Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups and the white population has narrowed. Lone parent income support has decreased, although slightly less than outside London. The increase in pupil/teacher ratios is marginal and reflects a wider national trend. Net affordable housing completions remain below target with the three-year average affordable homes share down by 1% on the previous year.
Objective 4- A city that delights the senses
There has been a reduction in the percentage of designated heritage assets at risk across all categories. Progress with river restoration activities is on target, and there has been little loss of designated open space, under 0.6 ha. In terms of cycling, 10,000 more trips were recorded than in the previous year.
Objective 5- A city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment
Waste recycling rates continue to go up and landfilling continues to go down significantly. Carbon dioxide emissions savings are above target and there has been an increase in renewable energy output. The area of green roofs in the CAZ has increased significantly over the past few years. There has been little loss of approved sites for nature conservation (0.87 ha) and this is slightly below the figure from the previous year.
Objective 6- A city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, opportunities and facilities
Public transport use continues to grow annually, while private car use and road traffic across London continue to decline. Office development largely continues in locations with high public transport accessibility. In terms of the use of London’s waterways for transport passengers numbers are up. | TABLE 1.1 KPI PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW | |------------------------------------| | **KPI TARGET** | **COMMENT** | | 1. Maintain at least 96 per cent of new residential development to be on previously developed land | +/- Approved units 2.2% above target, but completions fallen to 0.3% below target | | 2. Over 95 per cent of development to comply with the housing density location and the density matrix | +/- Still below target, but significant increase within the density matrix range from 40% in previous year to 58% | | 3. No net loss of open space designated for protection in LDFs due to new development | - Loss recorded, but with under 0.6 ha insignificant and new open space not recorded | | 4. Average completions of a minimum of 32,210 net additional homes per year | - 18% below target | | 5. Completion of 13,200 net additional affordable homes per year | - Below target. Three-year average affordable homes share of overall conventional housing provision down by 1% on previous year | | 6. Reduction in the difference in life expectancy between those living in the most and least deprived areas of London (split by gender) | + Differences reduced very slightly on previous year | | 7. Increase in the proportion of working age London residents in employment 2011-2031 | + Increase of almost 1% on previous year and reduction in gap between London and the rest of UK | | 8. Stock of office permissions to be at least three times the average rate of starts over the previous three years | + Stock of permissions seven times average rate of starts | | 9. Release of industrial land to be in line with benchmarks in the Industry SPG | - Reduced rate of loss of industrial land, but still 100% above the benchmark | | 10. Growth in total employment in Outer London | + Total employment in Outer London increased by 4.1% on previous year | | 11. Reduce employment rate gap between BAME groups and the white population; and reduce the gap between lone parents on income support in London vs England & Wales average | +/- BAME gap down; lone parent income support down, but slightly less than outside London | | 12. Reduce the average class size in primary schools | - Continued slight increase in class size | | 13. Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of private car per head | + Public transport use continues to grow annually, and private car use continues to decline | | 14. Zero car traffic growth for London as a whole | + Annual decrease in road traffic for London as a whole continues | | 15. Increase in share of all trips by bicycle from 2 per cent in 2009 to 5 per cent by 2026 | + 10,000 more trips per day than in previous year | | TABLE 1.1 KPI PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW | |------------------------------------| | **KPI TARGET** | **COMMENT** | | 16 A 50% increase in passengers and freight traffic transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2011-2021 | +/- Slight increase in passenger numbers, slight fall in freight numbers | | 17 Maintain at least 50 per cent of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6 | +/- 1 % below target, but specifically for B1 Office 12 % above the 50% target | | 18 No net loss of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation. | + 0.87 ha loss to approved development, slightly less than previous year. New designations not recorded. | | 19 At least 45 per cent of waste recycled/composted by 2015 and 0 per cent of biodegradable or recyclable waste to landfill by 2031 | + Recycling over 30 % and continues to increase, landfilling continues to decrease significantly | | 20 Annual average percentage carbon dioxide emissions savings for strategic development proposals progressing towards zero carbon in residential developments by 2016 and in all developments by 2019 | + 11% above the 25% carbon dioxide emissions savings target (2010-2013) | | 21 Production of 8550 GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2026 | + 25%# increase in output from renewable resources between 2011 and 2012 | | 22 Increase in total area of green roofs in the CAZ. | + Increase by 150 % between 2007 and 2012 | | 23 Restore 15km of rivers and streams 2009-2015 with an additional 10km by 2020 | + Over 12 km of the 15km restoration target for 2015 achieved | | 24 Reduction in proportion of designated heritage assets at risk as a percentage of the total number of designated heritage assets in London. | + Decrease in the percentage of assets at risk |
# excludes heat energy generated from renewable sources
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE AMR
1.1 This is the tenth London Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR 10). Section 346 of the Greater London Authority (GLA) Act 1999 places a duty on the Mayor to monitor implementation of the Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy (the London Plan) and collect data about issues relevant to its preparation, review, alteration, replacement or implementation. The AMR is the central document in the monitoring process and in assessing the effectiveness of the London Plan. It is important for keeping the London Plan under review and as evidence for plan preparation.
1.2 While this is the tenth AMR published by the Mayor, it is the third that uses the six strategic objectives and the suite of 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) introduced in the London Plan published in July 2011. These indicators are intended to be a mixture of those carried forward from the previous London Plan (to help ensure some comparability over time) and new/amended ones (reflecting new or changed policies, or changes in the availability of data). What has not changed is the importance the Mayor places’ in effective monitoring. The London Plan is founded on a “plan-monitor-manage” approach to policy-making, ensuring that strategic planning policies are evidence-based, effective, and changed when necessary.
1.3 The AMR does not attempt to measure and monitor each Plan policy, as this would not recognize the complexity of planning decisions based on a range of different policies. It could also be unduly resource intensive and would raise considerable challenges in setting meaningful indicators for which reliable data would be available. However, these documents together do give a detailed picture of how London is changing, and of the significant contribution the planning system is making to meeting these changes.
1.4 At the core of this AMR are the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) set out in Policy 8.4 (A) and Table 8.1 of the London Plan (see chapter 2 of this document for detailed analysis of the performance of each KPI). However, it should be recognised that a wide range of factors outside the sphere of influence of the London Plan influence the KPIs. The inclusion of additional relevant performance measures and statistics helps to paint a broader picture of London’s performance (see chapter 3). Whilst recognising longer-term trends where available, the focus of the monitoring in this AMR is on the year 2012/13.
1.5 Paragraph 8.18 of the London Plan clarifies that the target for each indicator should be regarded as a benchmark, showing the direction and scale of change. These targets contribute to measuring the performance of the objectives set out in Policy 1.1 and paragraph 1.53 of the London Plan but do not represent additional policy in themselves.
1.6 This report draws on a range of data sources, but the GLA’s London Development Database (LDD) is of central importance (see further details about LDD in the following section). The LDD is a “live” system monitoring planning permissions and completions. It provides good quality, comprehensive data for the GLA, London boroughs and others involved in planning for London. In addition to the LDD, this report draws on details provided by the GLA’s Intelligence Unit, the GLA’s Transport and Environment Team, Transport for London (TfL), English Heritage, the Environment Agency and the Port of London Authority.
THE LONDON DEVELOPMENT DATABASE
1.7 The London Development Database (LDD) is the key data source for monitoring planning approvals and completions in London. Data is entered by each of the 33 local planning authorities and the GLA provides a co-ordinating, consistency and quality management role. The Database monitors each planning permission from approval through to completion or expiry. Its strength lies in the ability to manipulate data in order to produce various specific reports. The data can also be exported to GIS systems to give a further level of spatial analysis. The value of the LDD is dependent on work by the boroughs to provide the required data, and the Mayor would take this opportunity to thank all of those concerned in supporting this invaluable resource.
1.8 It should be noted that some boroughs use the London Development Database as a data source for their own AMRs, and all are expected to compare the data they publish with the data they have entered into LDD. This should ensure a level of consistency between data on housing, open space etc which is published in both the borough and GLA AMRs. However, some differences in the figures do occur. This can in part be attributed to LDD being a live system, which is continually updated and adjusted to reflect the best information available. There are also occasional differences in the way completions are allocated to particular years, which may cause discrepancies between borough and GLA AMR data.
1.9 2013 saw the first full review of the Information Scheme since it was originally agreed in 2003. The primary objective of the review was to clarify the rules regarding the sharing of data, but it coincided with the introduction of Class J Prior Approvals which permit changes of use from office to residential use without the need for a formal planning permission. In order that these could be captured by the system, it was necessary to extend the scope of the scheme to include types of planning consent not previously covered by the scheme. Signed copies of the revised Information Scheme were received from 26 boroughs, four more than the number required to make it binding on all 33 meaning that these prior approvals are now formally part of the scheme.
1.10 The LDD system itself has remained fundamentally unchanged since it was first developed in 2004, with changes being made incrementally as required. A substantial project to modernise and future-proof the system is ongoing, the first phase of which was reported in the last AMR. Following borough acceptance of the new Information Scheme, work is underway to allow the system to monitor a range of new permission types. Once this latest update goes live, the focus will return to completing the migration of the database to a more modern server. The LDD Management Team, which comprises representatives from the GLA and a number of London boroughs, will look closely at the system and decide if any further changes are required which can be implemented in tandem with the migration process.
1.11 Phase two of the development of the LDD public page, which can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/webmaps/ldd/, is now underway with considerable changes planned. The new version is due to launch in the summer of 2014 and the changes will be reported on in the next AMR.
THE LONDON PLAN AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION
1.12 The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital to 2031. It forms part of the statutory development plan for Greater London. London boroughs’ local plans need to be in general conformity with the London Plan, and its policies guide decisions on planning applications by councils and the Mayor.
1.13 At the centre of the Mayor’s new approach to implementation of the London Plan is a suite of documents that together make up a London Planning Implementation Framework. The keystone of this approach is an Implementation Plan, which sets out the overall approach to London Plan policy implementation. It provides details of how each of the 121 policies in the London Plan will be delivered and contains detailed information about London’s infrastructure needs to help inform policy development and implementation by the Mayor, boroughs and others. The published first edition was published in January 2013 and is available at http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/implementation-plan. It will be updated regularly.
1.14 The Implementation Framework also includes:
- Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG),
- Opportunity Area/Intensification Area Frameworks, Implementation guides
- This Annual Monitoring Report.
1.15 The key distinction between the Implementation Plan and the AMR is that the latter is looking predominately at past performance to identify trends, whilst the Implementation Plan is focusing on current and future actions to facilitate policy implementation and performance improvements. Linking KPIs and implementation actions directly may not be helpful as they serve different purposes and operate at different levels of detail. Together, however, they provide an important overview of the way London is changing, and of the way planning policies are used, and can be in the future, to influence and respond to these changes.
FURTHER ALTERATIONS TO THE LONDON PLAN
1.16 In January 2014 the Mayor published his Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) rolling the London Plan forward to 2036, particularly to address key housing and employment issues emerging from an analysis of the most recent census data. The Further Alterations propose minor changes to three KPI targets that reflect changes elsewhere in the Plan. These are KPIs 4, 5 and 19. CHAPTER TWO
PERFORMANCE AGAINST KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 1
Maximise the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land
**Target:** Maintain at least 96 per cent of new residential development to be on previously developed land
2.1 This KPI looks at the proportion of residential planning permissions on previously developed land. The figures are shown both by number of units and by site area, although the number of units is considered to be the key measure. The percentages are arrived at by looking for a net loss of greenfield open space on the permission. The area of greenfield land that will be lost is then compared to the proposed residential site area to produce a percentage that is applied to the proposed units. Where both residential and non-residential uses are proposed, the greenfield area is divided proportionately between the two uses.
2.2 98.2% of units approved during 2012/13 are on brownfield land, slightly down on last year (99%) but above the Mayor’s 96% target. Only 4 boroughs; Bexley, Lambeth, Barking and Dagenham and Havering; were below the 96% target. The low percentage in Lambeth is due to a high density scheme in Vauxhall on a traffic island which while not technically ‘brownfield’ offers little in the way of amenity value. Its total site area is less than a quarter of a hectare, and therefore Lambeth’s site area figure is above the 96% target. The only permission on a greenfield site in Barking and Dagenham is a renewal of phase 2 of the Lymington Fields development originally granted permission in 2009. The other major schemes approved are at the Howbury Centre site in Bexley and 28 dwellings on the Lamb’s Lane Rough in Havering.
2.3 The proportion of units completed on brownfield land stands at 95.7%, also down on last year’s 97.6% and largely due to several large schemes reaching completion. The largest of these is phase 1a of the New Hendon Village redevelopment which will include some re-provision of open space in later phases. Other major completions include 161 flats at Perry Street in Bexley, Glenister Garden and Regency Gardens in Hillingdon and the former bowling green site at Williams Lane in Richmond upon Thames. | YEAR | % OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND | % OF DEVELOPMENT COMPLETED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND | |--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | | BY UNITS | BY SITE AREA | BY UNITS | BY SITE AREA | | 2006/07 | 98.6 | 98 | 97.2 | 96.5 | | 2007/08 | 97.3 | 96.7 | 96.6 | 94.8 | | 2008/09 | 98.1 | 96.6 | 98.9 | 98.1 | | 2009/10 | 97.3 | 96.8 | 98.8 | 97.9 | | 2010/11 | 96.8 | 95.3 | 97.1 | 95.7 | | 2011/12 | 99.0 | 97.4 | 97.6 | 95.0 | | 2012/13 | 98.2 | 97.8 | 95.7 | 95.3 |
*Source: London Development Database* | BOROUGH | % OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND | % OF DEVELOPMENT COMPLETED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND | |-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | | BY UNITS | BY SITE AREA | BY UNITS | BY SITE AREA | | Barking and Dagenham | 81.0 | 89.3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Barnet | 99.9 | 99.6 | 70.1 | 88.9 | | Bexley | 75.3 | 72.3 | 66.0 | 75.1 | | Brent | 97.9 | 96.3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Bromley | 100.0 | 99.8 | 85.4 | 90.6 | | Camden | 99.1 | 96.4 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | City of London | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Croydon | 99.2 | 96.4 | 99.6 | 99.7 | | Ealing | 98.8 | 98.1 | 99.2 | 99.1 | | Enfield | 100.0 | 100.0 | 95.9 | 96.3 | | Greenwich | 99.8 | 99.0 | 93.7 | 75.4 | | Hackney | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 99.6 | 99.3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Haringey | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Harrow | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Havering | 91.9 | 92.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Hillingdon | 98.4 | 95.7 | 89.3 | 76.9 | | Hounslow | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Islington | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 97.4 | 96.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Lambeth | 78.9 | 96.6 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Lewisham | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Merton | 100.0 | 100.0 | 93.1 | 88.9 | | Newham | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Redbridge | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Richmond upon Thames | 100.0 | 100.0 | 82.8 | 88.2 | | Southwark | 99.9 | 99.9 | 99.6 | 99.3 | | Sutton | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Tower Hamlets | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.8 | 99.5 | | Waltham Forest | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Wandsworth | 100.0 | 100.0 | 97.4 | 96.0 | | Westminster | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | London | 98.2 | 97.8 | 95.7 | 95.3 |
Source: London Development Database KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2
Optimise the density of residential development
**Target:** Over 95 per cent of development to comply with the housing density location and the density matrix (London Plan Table 3.2)
2.4 The tables below compare the residential density achieved for each scheme against the optimal density range set out in the Sustainable Residential Quality (SRQ) matrix in the London Plan, taking into account both the site’s Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) and its setting as defined in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. All units in residential approvals for which a site area could be calculated are included. Density is the result of dividing the total number of units (gross) by the residential site area. In mixed use schemes, the area allocated to non-residential uses and to open space is subtracted from the total site area to give the residential site area. The percentages refer to units not schemes.
### TABLE 2.3 RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS COMPARED TO THE DENSITY MATRIX – ALL SCHEMES
| FINANCIAL YEAR | % OF UNITS APPROVALS | WITHIN RANGE | ABOVE RANGE | BELOW RANGE | |----------------|----------------------|--------------|-------------|-------------| | 2006/07 | 36% | 60% | 4% | | 2007/08 | 40% | 55% | 5% | | 2008/09 | 41% | 53% | 7% | | 2009/10 | 39% | 56% | 6% | | 2010/11 | 37% | 58% | 5% | | 2011/12 | 40% | 55% | 5% | | 2012/13 | 58% | 37% | 5% |
*Source: London Development Database*
### TABLE 2.4 RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS COMPARED TO THE DENSITY MATRIX – SCHEMES OF 15 UNITS OR MORE
| FINANCIAL YEAR | % OF UNITS APPROVALS SCHEMES 15+ | WITHIN RANGE | ABOVE RANGE | BELOW RANGE | |----------------|----------------------------------|--------------|-------------|-------------| | 2006/07 | 30% | 69% | 1% | | 2007/08 | 36% | 63% | 2% | | 2008/09 | 36% | 62% | 2% | | 2009/10 | 35% | 63% | 2% | | 2010/11 | 31% | 68% | 1% | | 2011/12 | 37% | 60% | 3% | | 2012/13 | 59% | 39% | 2% |
*Source: London Development Database* 2.5 There has been a significant improvement in the performance against this indicator target, for both all schemes and large schemes (defined as those with 15 proposed units or more). The percentage of units approved during 2012/13 within the range set out in the density matrix is 58%, up from 40% in the previous AMR. For large sites the percentage within the range has risen to 59% compared to 37% the previous year. For all and large schemes the percentages are also well above any year since monitoring began in 2006.
2.6 Land in London is a scarce resource, so the low figures for developments below range are a welcome indicator that land is not being used inefficiently. However the increase in the percentage of units within the range is a welcome development. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 3
Minimise the loss of Open space
**Target:** No net loss of open space designated for protection in LDFs due to new development
2.7 From this year the performance monitoring for this KPI target is focusing more specifically on designated open space rather than open space overall – as previously reported.
2.8 Tables 2.5 and 2.6 are based on the changes in open space as a result of planning permissions. It is important to note that designation of new open space for protection is not done through the planning permission process, and is therefore not recorded by LDD. Re-provision within the planning permission is taken into account but no positive numbers are recorded meaning a loss is inevitable. We are working with partners Greenspace Information for Greater London to see if gains can be identified and included in future editions of the AMR. The types of protection are Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Local Open Spaces. These are different from the designations for nature conservation recorded in KPI 18. The definition of open space used is based on that found in the now withdrawn PPG 17 and does not include private residential gardens.
2.9 The table below shows the overall loss of protected open space approved during 2012/13 was less than 0.6 hectares. The only significant loss being in Camden where a residential development within a redundant covered reservoir was allowed on appeal on the basis that the site was previously developed.
2.10 In terms of completions there have been a number of schemes which have been completed on protected open space amounting to 6.5 hectares in total. The biggest loss of green belt is in Enfield where improvements to Tottenham Hotspurs’ training base included new indoor facilities. A permission to make existing pitches for travelers in Kingston legal is also recorded as a loss of open space although the open character of the site has not changed. The largest completion on MOL is for a new sports centre in Maysbrooke Park in Barking and Dagenham. The largest loss of a local open space is part of the wider regeneration of the former Grahame Park estate in Barnet where the loss of 1.22 hectares does not take into account re-provision in other phases of the scheme. The total net loss of this schemes open space is anticipated to be less than 0.3 hectares.
### TABLE 2.5 LOSS OF DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE (APPROVALS)
| BOROUGH NAME | BOROUGH REFERENCE | PROTECTION DESIGNATION | AREA OF OPEN SPACE (HA) | |--------------|-------------------|------------------------|-------------------------| | Bexley | 12/00873/FUL | Local Open Spaces | 0.003 | | Bromley | 12/00687/FULL1 | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.030 | | Camden | 2011/0395/P | Local Open Spaces | 0.510 | | Hounslow | 00132/A/P12 | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.047 | | **Total Loss (Gross hectares):** | | | **0.590** |
*Source: London Development Database*
### TABLE 2.6 LOSS OF DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE (COMPLETIONS)
| BOROUGH NAME | BOROUGH REFERENCE | PROTECTION DESIGNATION | AREA OF OPEN SPACE (HA) | |-----------------------|-------------------|------------------------|-------------------------| | Enfield | TP/07/1623 | Green Belt | 1.300 | | Barnet | W01731LA/07 | Local Open Spaces | 1.220 | | Kingston upon Thames | 12/10099/FUL | Green Belt | 0.850 | | Merton | 07/P3679 | Local Open Spaces | 0.630 | | Bromley | 10/00740/DET | Green Belt | 0.501 | | Barking and Dagenham | 10/00804/FUL | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.410 | | Havering | P1487/09 | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.350 | | Merton | 06/P0320 | Local Open Spaces | 0.253 | | Enfield | TP/09/0667 | Local Open Spaces | 0.250 | | Redbridge | 0004/09 | Local Open Spaces | 0.176 | | Brent | 100438 | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.102 | | Croydon | 09/01622/P | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.099 | | Croydon | 09/02227/P | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.070 | | Croydon | 12/00380/P | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.047 | | Hounslow | 00600/K/S32 | Local Open Spaces | 0.047 | | Kingston upon Thames | 10/10154/FUL | Local Open Spaces | 0.035 | | Southwark | 09-AP-1031 | Local Open Spaces | 0.043 | | Ealing | P/2009/1641 | Local Open Spaces | 0.031 | | Ealing | P/2010/3744 | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.030 | | Merton | 08/P0937 | Local Open Spaces | 0.029 | | Merton | 06/P0320 | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.019 | | Kingston upon Thames | 10/16277/FUL | Local Open Spaces | 0.015 | | Bexley | 12/00873/FUL | Local Open Spaces | 0.003 | | **Total Loss (Gross Hectares):** | | | **6.510** |
*Source: London Development Database* KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 4
Increase supply of new homes
**Target:** Average completion of a minimum of 32,210 net additional homes per year.
2.11 This target comprises three elements:
- conventional completions of self-contained houses and flats,
- the non-conventional supply of student bedrooms and non self-contained accommodation in hostels and Houses in multiple occupation
- long-term empty properties returning to use. The first two are taken from the London Development Database, the third uses Council Tax data published by CLG.
2.12 Net conventional completions stand at 21,923, representing 73% of the 29,830 target in the 2011 London Plan. By contrast the total net completions of non-self-contained accommodation are 2,659 units, or 163% of the 1,634 target. The benchmark target in the 2011 London Plan includes 749 empty homes returning to use each year. According to Council Tax records the number of long term empty properties (longer than 6 months) has decreased by 2,018, which represents a net gain of units. The impact on individual boroughs varies widely though. Croydon have recorded a significant drop in empty homes which has boosted their total supply to 149% of their target. By contrast a large increase in the number of empty homes has seriously affected the performance against the benchmark in several boroughs. Most notably Kensington and Chelsea and also Hounslow both record net losses once vacant homes are taken into account.
2.13 Despite the high delivery of student accommodation, which has boosted the non-conventional supply, total output is 76% of the benchmark figure. These are long-term benchmarks and individual years will vary over the development cycle. As the impacts of the economic downturn continue to affect the development industry, a below benchmark result was to be expected. With capacity for over 215,000 homes in the pipeline there is considerable scope for increased development as the economy continues to recover. However as set out in the Further Alterations to the London Plan, revised population projections suggest London’s population will rise quicker than anticipated by the 2011 London Plan, the need for additional housing is therefore more pressing than ever. | BOROUGH | NET CONV | NET NON-CONV | LONG-TERM EMPTY HOMES RETURNING TO USE | TOTAL | LONDON PLAN TARGET | % OF TARGET | |-------------------------|----------|--------------|----------------------------------------|-------|--------------------|-------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 506 | 0 | 53 | 559 | 1,065 | 52 | | Barnet | 1,379 | 0 | -41 | 1338 | 2,255 | 59 | | Bexley | 418 | -2 | -54 | 362 | 335 | 108 | | Brent | 662 | 422 | 43 | 1127 | 1,065 | 106 | | Bromley | 698 | 0 | 19 | 717 | 500 | 143 | | Camden | 564 | -21 | -322 | 221 | 665 | 33 | | City of London | 35 | 178 | -14 | 199 | 110 | 181 | | Croydon | 899 | 14 | 1068 | 1981 | 1,330 | 149 | | Ealing | 990 | 692 | 33 | 1715 | 890 | 193 | | Enfield | 550 | 0 | -83 | 467 | 560 | 83 | | Greenwich | 110 | -26 | 247 | 331 | 2,595 | 13 | | Hackney | 1,160 | -358 | 117 | 919 | 1,160 | 79 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 421 | 11 | 479 | 911 | 615 | 148 | | Haringey | 583 | 492 | 286 | 1361 | 820 | 166 | | Harrow | 714 | -12 | -190 | 512 | 350 | 146 | | Havering | 237 | 0 | 132 | 369 | 970 | 38 | | Hillingdon | 1,467 | 0 | -91 | 1376 | 425 | 324 | | Hounslow | 232 | 16 | -283 | -35 | 470 | -7 | | Islington | 870 | 407 | 236 | 1513 | 1,170 | 129 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 57 | -49 | -306 | -298 | 585 | -51 | | Kingston upon Thames | 203 | 57 | 94 | 354 | 375 | 94 | | Lambeth | 627 | -14 | 68 | 681 | 1,195 | 57 | | Lewisham | 1,810 | 7 | 5 | 1822 | 1,105 | 165 | | Merton | 477 | -8 | -65 | 404 | 320 | 126 | | Newham | 1013 | 6 | 43 | 1062 | 2,500 | 42 | | Redbridge | 264 | 0 | 62 | 326 | 760 | 43 | | Richmond upon Thames | 485 | -6 | -70 | 409 | 245 | 167 | | Southwark | 1,250 | 941 | -4 | 2187 | 2,005 | 109 | | Sutton | 227 | 0 | 73 | 300 | 210 | 143 | | Tower Hamlets | 997 | 54 | 208 | 1259 | 2,885 | 44 | | Waltham Forest | 468 | -11 | 68 | 525 | 760 | 69 | | Wandsworth | 957 | -31 | 39 | 965 | 1,145 | 84 | | Westminster | 593 | -100 | 168 | 661 | 770 | 86 | | Grand Total | 21,923 | 2,659 | 2,018 | 26,600| 32,210 | 82 |
Sources: London Development Database, Long term vacant from CLG Housing Live Tables 615 which summarise Council Tax records supplied by Local Authorities. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 5
An increased supply of affordable homes
**Target:** Completion of 13,200 net additional affordable homes per year
2.14 During 2012/13 a total of 7,539 affordable units were completed. These are net conventional completions of new homes with unit losses deducted from the total. This represents a decrease from over 8,600 the previous year (revised upwards from the figure of 8,087 published in last year’s AMR).
2.15 While the supply of affordable housing decreased in the last year, the total level of conventional completions remained relatively stable. Therefore, the share of affordable housing has fallen from 39% to 34%.
2.16 Net affordable housing output can vary considerably from year to year, particularly at a local level. Therefore it is more meaningful to test individual borough performance against a longer term average. Table 2.8 shows average affordable housing output as a proportion of overall conventional housing provision over the three years to 2012/13. During this period affordable housing output averaged 37% of total provision, compared to 38% reported in the last AMR.
2.17 Figure 2.1 shows the three-year average performance of individual boroughs relative to this London-wide average of 37%. Over the three years, affordable housing exceeded 50% of total provision in two boroughs. In Brent affordable housing comprised 51% of the total provision over this period, largely due to a very high figure of 74% in 2011/12 when a number of 100% affordable schemes reached completion. Meanwhile the three year average in Waltham Forest has risen to 63% now that net losses due to the phasing of the completion of the Beaumont Road Estate redevelopment recorded in 2010/11 are no longer considered in the rolling average. The changes illustrate the impact individual schemes and their phasing can have on this figure.
2.18 The lowest proportion, as in the previous year, was recorded in the City of London (1%), followed by Westminster (16%) and Redbridge (19%).
2.19 During the economic downturn it was necessary to renegotiate affordable housing on a number of sites to ensure viability. It is now increasingly common for legal agreements to link affordable provision to final sales revenues and for units earmarked for private sale to be transferred to housing associations at or after completion, thus making it increasingly difficult to monitor final provision. This caused the significant rise in affordable completions for 2011/12, now 8,611 units compared to the figure of 8,087 reported in the previous AMR. It is not known if this year’s total will similarly be revised upwards as additional information comes forward.
2.20 As noted in previous AMRs, the London Housing Strategy (LHS) investment target for affordable housing should not be confused with the affordable housing target set out in the London Plan. The LHS investment target is measured in gross terms and includes both new build and acquisitions, but the London Plan target is measured in terms of net conventional supply: that is, supply from new developments or conversions, adjusted to take account of demolitions and other losses. The LHS investment figure is therefore generally higher than the planning target. Monitoring achievement of the London Plan target is based on output from the London Development Database, and this definition should be used for calculating affordable housing targets for development planning purposes. Monitoring achievement of the LHS investment targets uses the more broadly based figures provided by DCLG. | BOROUGH | TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL AFFORDABLE COMPLETIONS | AFFORDABLE AS % OF TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY | |-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | TOTAL | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | TOTAL | | Barking and Dagenham | 143 | 148 | 243 | 534 | 42 | 30 | 48 | 40% | | Barnet | 228 | 441 | 403 | 1,072 | 28 | 35 | 29 | 31% | | Bexley | 154 | 165 | 29 | 348 | 52 | 55 | 7 | 34% | | Brent | 184 | 412 | 224 | 820 | 47 | 74 | 34 | 51% | | Bromley | 248 | 214 | 142 | 604 | 33 | 36 | 20 | 29% | | Camden | 142 | 62 | 299 | 503 | 26 | 17 | 53 | 34% | | City of London | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1% | | Croydon | 396 | 362 | 409 | 1,167 | 35 | 52 | 45 | 43% | | Ealing | 73 | 333 | 300 | 706 | 27 | 48 | 30 | 36% | | Enfield | 220 | 79 | 243 | 542 | 48 | 26 | 44 | 41% | | Greenwich | 787 | 370 | 48 | 1,205 | 69 | 28 | 44 | 47% | | Hackney | 350 | 403 | 496 | 1,249 | 40 | 40 | 43 | 41% | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 196 | 80 | 107 | 383 | 37 | 17 | 25 | 27% | | Haringey | 89 | 344 | 364 | 797 | 21 | 46 | 62 | 46% | | Harrow | 167 | 192 | 292 | 651 | 37 | 41 | 41 | 40% | | Havering | 91 | 129 | 118 | 338 | 39 | 43 | 50 | 44% | | Hillingdon | 175 | 343 | 381 | 899 | 58 | 34 | 26 | 33% | | Hounslow | 349 | 319 | 49 | 717 | 52 | 54 | 21 | 48% | | Islington | -66 | 459 | 223 | 616 | -14 | 37 | 26 | 24% | | Kensington & Chelsea | 61 | 19 | 4 | 84 | 36 | 16 | 7 | 24% | | Kingston upon Thames | 65 | 81 | 38 | 184 | 44 | 31 | 19 | 30% | | Lambeth | 744 | 348 | 269 | 1,361 | 56 | 41 | 43 | 48% | | Lewisham | 339 | 469 | 592 | 1,400 | 47 | 39 | 33 | 38% | | Merton | 48 | 69 | 196 | 313 | 13 | 15 | 41 | 24% | | Newham | 436 | 407 | 305 | 1,148 | 49 | 53 | 30 | 43% | | Redbridge | 111 | 54 | 52 | 217 | 32 | 10 | 20 | 19% | | Richmond upon Thames | 45 | 79 | 167 | 291 | 14 | 36 | 34 | 28% | | Southwark | 562 | 593 | 458 | 1,613 | 40 | 55 | 37 | 43% | | Sutton | 222 | 235 | 103 | 560 | 67 | 40 | 45 | 49% | | Tower Hamlets | 315 | 705 | 262 | 1,282 | 24 | 63 | 26 | 37% | | Waltham Forest | 248 | 358 | 270 | 876 | 58 | 72 | 58 | 63% | | Wandsworth | 109 | 268 | 327 | 704 | 23 | 27 | 34 | 29% | | Westminster | 152 | 71 | 126 | 349 | 20 | 8 | 21 | 16% | | London | 7,385 | 8,611 | 7,539 | 23,535| 38 | 39 | 34 | 37% |
Source: London Development Database FIGURE 2.1 THREE YEAR AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL BOROUGHS
Source: London Development Database KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 6
Reducing health inequalities
**Target:** Reduction in the difference in life expectancy between those living in the most and least deprived areas of London (shown separately for men and women)
2.21 Figures on life expectancy at birth are produced at ward level based on mortalities over a ten year period. The London Plan’s regeneration areas (policy 2.14) are identified as the 20% most deprived Lower Super Output Areas, which are not directly comparable with ward boundaries. As a proxy measure the 20% most deprived wards in London were identified using calculations from the LSOA based Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010. The figures for each deprivation quintile summarised in the table are simple averages of the published figures.
2.22 When comparing the figures for 2002-06 and 2007-11, the difference in the life expectancy at birth in the most deprived wards has improved at a slightly faster rate compared to both the London average and the least deprived wards. The gap between top and bottom quintile for males has reduced from 5.2 years to 5.1 years. While the gap for women has reduced from 3.4 years to 3.3 years. Due to the methods used to calculate this, a degree of variability would be expected, so a comparison of the figures for the two dates needs to be treated with some caution.
| TABLE 2.9 LIFE EXPECTANCY (YEARS) AT BIRTH OF MOST AND LEAST DEPRIVED 20% OF WARDS, BY SEX | |-----------------------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------| | YEAR | MALE | FEMALE | MALE | FEMALE | | | 2002-2006 | 2007-2011 | 2002-2006 | 2007-2011 | | Most deprived 20% wards | 74.4 | 76.6 | 80.1 | 81.9 | | Least deprived 20% wards | 79.5 | 81.7 | 83.4 | 85.3 | | London average | 76.8 | 78.9 | 81.5 | 83.3 | | Difference - most deprived to least deprived | 5.2 | 5.1 | 3.4 | 3.3 | | Difference - most deprived to London average | 2.5 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 1.3 |
*Figures may not sum due to rounding*
*Source: GLA using ONS mortality data (vital stats) and ONS mid-year population estimates* KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 7
Sustaining economic activity
**Target:** Increase in the proportion of working age London residents in employment 2011–2031
2.23 Table 2.10 shows that London saw a rise in its employment rate\* in 2012 as the economy began to recover. This took the employment rate back to 2007 levels, though it was still below the 69.5 per cent peak in 2008. Nevertheless the recovery in the rate from the lows of 2010 and 2011 was strong and took it to above its 2004-2006 level.
2.24 Historically the rate of engagement in economic activity for London residents has been below that for the country overall. However as Table 2.10 shows, the gap has fallen steadily between 2005 and 2012, falling from 4.3 percentage points to just 1.7 percentage points – a reduction in the gap of just over 60 per cent.
### TABLE 2.10 WORKING AGE LONDON RESIDENTS IN EMPLOYMENT BY CALENDAR YEAR
| YEAR | LONDON WORKING-AGE RESIDENTS IN EMPLOYMENT | LONDON RESIDENTS OF WORKING AGE | LONDON | UK | DIFFERENCE | |------|-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------|----|------------| | 2004 | 3,448,300 | 5,050,000 | 68.3 | 72.4| -4.1 | | 2005 | 3,490,100 | 5,118,900 | 68.2 | 72.5| -4.3 | | 2006 | 3,538,000 | 5,178,900 | 68.3 | 72.4| -4.1 | | 2007 | 3,600,000 | 5,224,100 | 68.9 | 72.4| -3.5 | | 2008 | 3,662,400 | 5,269,000 | 69.5 | 72.1| -2.6 | | 2009 | 3,639,300 | 5,318,900 | 68.4 | 70.5| -2.1 | | 2010 | 3,639,200 | 5,349,900 | 68.0 | 70.1| -2.1 | | 2011 | 3,669,400 | 5,395,000 | 68.0 | 70.0| -2.0 | | 2012 | 3,737,300 | 5,424,600 | 68.9 | 70.6| -1.7 |
- This includes self-employment
Source: Annual Population Survey KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 8
Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market
**Target:** Stock of office permissions to be at least three times the average rate of starts over the previous three years
2.25 In this edition of AMR we continue to use data from both EGi London Offices and the London Development Database (LDD). According to the EGi data, the ratio of permissions to average three years starts at end-2013 was 7.1:1 (Figure 1). In the most recent set of comparable figures for the two databases, for 2012, the ratio of permissions to starts was 8.3:1 according to EGi and 3.9:1 according to LDD, both measures ahead of the target of 3:1.
2.26 Final permissions and starts data from LDD for 2013 are not yet available, hence the absence of a ratio for 2013. The variation in the ratios can be accounted for by the different definitions used in the datasets.¹
2.27 It is known that the EGi database provides a more comprehensive coverage than LDD and, in particular, contains a much greater amount of data on the refurbishment market. This is a sector that is thought to have grown proportionately in recent years. It is recommended that some limited work should be undertaken to understand more fully the different results from the two data sets.
2.28 Starts and permissions - based on EGi data, Figure 2.12 demonstrates that 2013 saw starts of just over 500,000 sq m NIA (net internal area), down 23% on 2012 but still higher than the average of the past 10 years (466,847 sq m). When compared to the very long run, it is somewhat below the 1985-2013 average of 579,000 sq m. The three year average for starts over the
______________________________________________________________________
**TABLE 2.11 RATIO OF PLANNING PERMISSIONS TO THREE YEAR AVERAGE STARTS IN CENTRAL LONDON**
| YEAR | EGI | LDD | |------|-------|-------| | 2004 | 11.9:1| 6.4:1 | | 2005 | 8.1:1 | 7.4:1 | | 2006 | 8.3:1 | 8.7:1 | | 2007 | 6.3:1 | 4.7:1 | | 2008 | 7.5:1 | 4.1:1 | | 2009 | 10.0:1| 7.0:1 | | 2010 | 13.0:1| 11.6:1| | 2011 | 13.5:1| 8.0:1 | | 2012 | 8.3:1 | 3.9:1 | | 2013 | 7.1:1 | N/A |
\*Central London is defined here as Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth.
Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices, London Development Database period 2011-2013 is 526,318 sq m.
2.29 The largest new starts are the 44,953 sq m first phase of Nova scheme in Victoria (formerly Victoria Circle), with the next largest starts being 60 Victoria Embankment, EC4 (43,402 sq m) and the new US Embassy at Nine Elms (41,480 sq m). The City of London accounted for most starts, at 168,773 sq m, (33.6% of the total), of which 35,382 sq m was pre-let. The City also had the highest average start size, at 11,252 sq m. Tower Hamlets was second highest in terms of average size, at 9,447 sq m, followed by Wandsworth being swollen by the Nine Elms scheme to 8,634 sq m. Despite a very low average scheme size of 4,801 sq m, Westminster’s total of 153,628 sq m, still accounted for over 30% of starts.
2.30 Unimplemented office permissions at year end 2013 totalled just over 3.7 million sq.m NIA according to the EGi data. The average size of unimplemented consent is highest in Tower Hamlets at 23,333 sq m with the City of London trailing at 14,983 sq m. Lambeth – where less than 1,000 sq m started in 2013 – has an average unimplemented consent size of 4,801 sq m, Westminster’s total of 153,628 sq m, still accounted for over 30% of starts.
2.31 Office market overview – the central London occupational and investment markets were both busy during 2013, providing a confidence boost for the supply market generally. Take-up improved on the previous year, underpinned by very significant activity in the TMT and Insurance sectors. Vacancy rates have continued their modest fall, with CBRE data suggesting availability in central London falling from 1.524m sq m in Q4 2012, to 1.458m sq ft in Q4 2013. Competition in some markets has pushed rents up, with prime space in the West End back up above £100 sq ft.
2.32 After 25 years of stalled attempts, it seems that Battersea Power Station is finally to be redeveloped, while another mega scheme, King’s Cross is emerging with a plethora of occupiers emerging, including BNP Paribas, Google, Louis Vuitton and PRS for Music.
2.33 Investment, particularly from overseas investors, has continued to rise, not only in standing investments (such as at Broadgate and Chiswick Park), but also in development projects (see for example Royal Docks, Wandsworth and Hanover Square). Tenants are continuing to show footloose tendencies, with signs that the quality of product is now more important than traditional concepts of what is an acceptable location. See for example, Ogilvy & Mather moving to Sea Containers House on the South Bank.
2.34 The pressure for office-to-resi conversions continues apace. According to H2SO, since 2001, almost 600,000 sq m of West End offices have been lost to residential use – the equivalent of around 33,000 office workers at a generous density of 18 sq m per worker. Some of this has been displaced to newer locations such as Regent’s Place and Paddington, but there may be a case for some research to establish how much, if any, is an actual loss to the area. FIGURE 2.2 OFFICE STARTS AND YEAR-END PERMISSIONS IN CENTRAL LONDON 1985-2013
Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 9
Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available
**Target:** Release of industrial land to be in line with benchmarks in the Industrial capacity SPG
2.35 Table 2.12 shows an estimated total of 72.5 hectares of industrial land was recorded in planning approvals for transfer to other uses in 2012/13. More than half of this area of industrial land (38 hectares) was transferred in just four planning approvals in Harrow (Kodak site, Headstone Drive), Newham (Strand East, Sugarhouse Lane), Enfield (9 Morson Road) and Tower Hamlets (Land at Bromley-by-Bow North, Hancock Road, Three Mill Lane).
2.36 Table 2.12 shows that industrial land release in 2012/13 planning approvals was substantially less than that in 2011/12 but still double the annual benchmark in the 2012 Land for Industry and Transport SPG. In 2012/13 the benchmark was exceeded in all sub-regions and, in absolute terms, most significantly in West London. The rate of release in 2012/13 planning approvals is below the annual average rates of release in 2001-2006 and 2006-2011.
| SUB-REGION | ANNUAL AVERAGE RELEASE 2001-2006 | ANNUAL AVERAGE RELEASE 2006-2011 | ACTUAL RELEASE 2011/12 | ACTUAL RELEASE 2012/13 | LONDON PLAN ANNUAL BENCHMARK 2006-2026 | 2012 SPG ANNUAL BENCHMARK 2011-2031 | |------------|----------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | Central | 6 | 5 | 9.4 | 6.0 | -- | 2.3 | | East | 57 | 54 | 38.6 | 29.2 | -- | 19.4 | | North | 2 | 2 | 1.5 | 6.5 | -- | 3.4 | | South | 11 | 4 | 31.7 | 5.1 | -- | 4.4 | | West | 10 | 18 | 35.1 | 25.7 | -- | 7.2 | | London | 86 | 83 | 116.3 | 72.5 | 41.0 | 36.7 |
Source: London Development Database, London Plan and SPG Land for Industry and Transport. Figures include release of land currently in industrial use and in mixed industrial/non-industrial use sites. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 10
Employment in Outer London
**Target:** Growth in total Employment in Outer London
2.37 Though there are local exceptions, the number of employee jobs in many outer boroughs has either grown or been relatively static over the past three decades. Nonetheless, since 1984, the growth in the number of employee jobs in Outer London has not been as large as in Inner London (9.5 per cent compared to 22.6 per cent). London overall experienced an increase in the number of employee jobs of 17.2 per cent.
2.38 The changes in employee jobs numbers for individual boroughs have varied significantly. Seven Outer London boroughs achieved over 15 per cent growth in the number of employee jobs since 1984, whereas four saw a reduction in employee jobs. The Mayor set up the Outer London Commission to investigate how Outer London can best realise its potential to contribute to the London economy. The Commission’s recommendations made a major contribution to the London Plan’s new policies for Outer London.
2.39 Table 2.13 shows the total number of jobs, including self-employed, from 2004 to 2012. In 2009 the total number of jobs in Outer London fell by 70,000 from its 2008 peak. However, it it has recently started to recover, increasing by 79,000 between 2011 and 2012 or by 4.1 per cent. This is similar to the level of growth in London overall.
2.40 It should be noted that the data used for this KPI differs from that used for previous reports, which was taken from the ONS Jobs Density series. The new method is consistent with what is used in GLA Economics’ employment projections, which underpin the FALP. However, the historic series presented in Table 2.13 differs slightly from estimates presented in the FALP as they have here been updated to be consistent with revised Workforce Jobs (WFJ) estimates. In December 2013, the ONS revised their historic WFJ estimates.
### TABLE 2.13 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF JOBS IN OUTER LONDON, 2004-2012
| YEAR | OUTER LONDON | LONDON | % IN OUTER LONDON | |------|--------------|--------|-------------------| | 2004 | 1,927,000 | 4,579,000 | 42% | | 2005 | 1,942,000 | 4,678,000 | 42% | | 2006 | 1,974,000 | 4,734,000 | 42% | | 2007 | 1,955,000 | 4,785,000 | 41% | | 2008 | 1,993,000 | 4,925,000 | 40% | | 2009 | 1,923,000 | 4,813,000 | 40% | | 2010 | 1,923,000 | 4,804,000 | 40% | | 2011 | 1,911,000 | 4,875,000 | 39% | | 2012 | 1,990,000 | 5,071,000 | 39% |
Source: Office for National Statistics; GLA Economics calculations
Note: Estimates of employee jobs by borough are calculated by applying borough shares of total London employee jobs from the ONS Business Register and Employment Survey to the London total employee jobs component of ONS Workforce Jobs (WFJ). Self-employed jobs are calculated by applying estimates of borough shares of London’s total self-employed jobs from the Annual Population Survey data to the London total self-employed jobs component of WFJ. Employee and self-employed jobs are then added together for an estimate of total employment. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 11
Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market
**Target:** Reduce the employment rate gap between Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups and the white population and reduce the gap between lone parents on income support in London vs the average for England & Wales
2.41 Table 2.14 shows that the gap between employment rates for White vs Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Londoners has broadly followed a downward trend and that this was reinforced in the latest year, 2012. In 2004, the gap was 16.6 percentage points and the downward trend took this down to 13.2 percentage points by 2010. However, in 2011 the gap increased to 14.6 percentage points before falling again to 14.0 percentage points in 2012. Over the eight-year period the gap has reduced by 2.6 percentage points.
2.42 London Plan Policy 4.12 supports strategic development proposals which encourage employers to recruit local people and sustain their employment, and the provision of skills development, training opportunities and affordable spaces to start a business. The GLA has also been encouraging employers to recruit local people, in particular in deprived areas of London where a large number of BAME Londoners live and sustain employment. Initiatives such as the Construction Employer Accord, the host boroughs employment and skills projects and the GLA’s Supplier Skills project also help with the objective. The latter supports TfL contractors in promoting employment and skills.
2.43 Table 2.15 shows that in terms of income support for lone parents with dependent children the absolute figure has continued to fall, but by slightly less than outside London, with a 1 percentage point increase in the gap between 2011 and 2012. However, since 2004 the gap has fallen from eight to five percentage points, after peaking at 13% in 2006.
2.44 It should be noted that since the introduction of the Employment Support Allowance (ESA) in 2008, lone parents with health issues who were previously claiming Income Support, now claim ESA. This has to be considered when comparing different years for the ‘Lone Parents on Income Support’ series. However it does not affect the comparison of London and England and Wales data for each year.
### TABLE 2.14 EMPLOYMENT RATES FOR WHITE AND BAME GROUPS, AGED 16-64, BY CALENDAR YEAR
| YEAR | ALL PERSONS IN EMPLOYMENT | WHITE GROUPS IN EMPLOYMENT | BAME GROUPS IN EMPLOYMENT | EMPLOYMENT RATE GAP WHITE/ BAME | |------|---------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------------| | 2004 | 3,448,300 | 2,532,100 | 908,300 | 16.6 | | 2005 | 3,490,100 | 2,517,500 | 967,300 | 16.3 | | 2006 | 3,538,000 | 2,503,700 | 1,026,800 | 15.9 | | 2007 | 3,600,000 | 2,500,500 | 1,095,500 | 14.2 | | 2008 | 3,662,400 | 2,542,700 | 1,115,500 | 14.7 | | 2009 | 3,639,300 | 2,541,800 | 1,091,100 | 15.5 | | 2010 | 3,639,200 | 2,476,400 | 1,155,500 | 13.2 | | 2011 | 3,669,400 | 2,459,700 | 1,203,400 | 14.6 | | 2012 | 3,737,300 | 2,494,100 | 1,239,700 | 14.0 |
Source: Annual Population Survey Note that due to changes in the ethnicity questions on the Annual Population Survey during 2011 these estimates cannot be reliably viewed as a timeseries. They can, however, be used to estimate the relative levels of economic activity of different ethnic groups.
### TABLE 2.15 LONE PARENTS ON INCOME SUPPORT IN LONDON VS ENGLAND & WALES
| ANNUAL REPORT | LONDON | ENGLAND AND WALES | DIFFERENCE | |---------------|--------|-------------------|------------| | | LONE PARENT FAMILIES ON IS | AS % OF LONE PARENT FAMILIES\* | LONE PARENT FAMILIES ON IS | AS % OF LONE PARENT FAMILIES\* | | | 2004 | 165,120 | 55 | 751,050 | 47 | 8 | | 2005 | 163,620 | 57 | 721,370 | 45 | 12 | | 2006 | 162,770 | 56 | 709,370 | 43 | 13 | | 2007 | 160,450 | 55 | 702,580 | 43 | 12 | | 2008 | 152,520 | 50 | 679,150 | 40 | 10 | | 2009 | 141,720 | 49 | 662,660 | 39 | 10 | | 2010 | 129,100 | 43 | 624,330 | 37 | 7 | | 2011 | 109,200 | 36 | 547,600 | 32 | 4 | | 2012 | 102,590 | 36 | 531,020 | 31 | 5 |
Source: DWP’s Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study extracted from NOMIS
#Lone parent families with dependent children only KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 12
Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services
**Target:** Reduce the average class sizes in primary schools
2.45 Between 2008 and 2011 the average class size across London increased, with a few exceptions in some boroughs in certain years. Between 2012 and 2013 only 10 boroughs saw a reduction in average class size compared to the 14 boroughs the previous year, 2 staying the same and 20 boroughs increasing in average class size. The trend across the whole of England has also been on the up with average class sizes currently just under 27.
2.46 The main drivers of increasing class sizes in London are demographic (primarily reduced migration out of London to other parts of the UK), resulting in an increased number of primary school children, as well as the pressure on London’s primary schools to reduce costs. It is unclear if the recent change in migration patterns driven by the economic downturn is structural or temporary with previous trends resuming. This is something that will be monitored closely.
2.47 The building of new schools is likely to continue to counter this upwards trend. In 2012, a further 16 new Free Schools were set up in London. London Plan Policy 3.18 promotes further improvements by strengthening the importance of education provision, encouraging the establishment of new schools (new build, expansion of existing or change of use to educational purposes) and opportunities to enable local people and communities to do the same. | BOROUGH | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | |-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Barking & Dagenham | 26.9 | 27.2 | 27.5 | 27.9 | 27.9 | 28.3 | | Barnet | 27.5 | 27.6 | 27.9 | 28.1 | 28 | 28.2 | | Bexley | 27.3 | 27.8 | 28 | 28.2 | 28.3 | 28.5 | | Brent | 28 | 27.8 | 28.1 | 28.5 | 28.6 | 28.7 | | Bromley | 27.2 | 27.7 | 27.8 | 28.1 | 28.3 | 28.4 | | Camden | 26.9 | 26.6 | 27.1 | 27.1 | 27.5 | 27.5 | | City | 24.8 | 24.7 | 25.9 | 25.9 | 24.7 | 25.9 | | Croydon | 27.6 | 27.7 | 27.9 | 28.1 | 28.2 | 28.2 | | Ealing | 27.5 | 27.2 | 27.7 | 27.8 | 28 | 28.3 | | Enfield | 28.3 | 28.6 | 28.2 | 28.7 | 28.8 | 28.8 | | Greenwich | 26.2 | 26.2 | 26.5 | 26.9 | 27 | 27.1 | | Hackney | 25.8 | 25.8 | 26.1 | 26.3 | 26.3 | 26.2 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 25.8 | 26.2 | 26.4 | 26.1 | 26.8 | 26.1 | | Haringey | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.6 | 28 | 27.9 | 28.2 | | Harrow | 26.1 | 26.9 | 26.7 | 28 | 28.5 | 28.8 | | Havering | 27 | 27.4 | 27.8 | 28 | 28.2 | 28.6 | | Hillingdon | 26.5 | 27.2 | 27.4 | 27.4 | 27.5 | 27.9 | | Hounslow | 27.2 | 27.4 | 27.8 | 28.2 | 28.4 | 28.4 | | Islington | 25.5 | 25.5 | 25.3 | 26.2 | 26.4 | 26.3 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 26 | 25.7 | 26.2 | 26.8 | 27 | 26.7 | | Kingston | 27.1 | 27.1 | 27.7 | 27.6 | 27.5 | 27.7 | | Lambeth | 25.8 | 25.6 | 25.7 | 26 | 26.3 | 26.6 | | Lewisham | 25.9 | 26.3 | 26.3 | 26.8 | 26.9 | 27.2 | | Merton | 26.7 | 27 | 27.1 | 27.5 | 27.9 | 27.7 | | Newham | 26.8 | 27 | 27.4 | 27.8 | 28.1 | 27.9 | | Redbridge | 29.2 | 29.1 | 29 | 29.5 | 29.6 | 29.1 | | Richmond | 26.5 | 26.9 | 27.4 | 28 | 27.9 | 28.2 | | Southwark | 24.6 | 24.6 | 24.8 | 25.3 | 25.8 | 26.3 | | Sutton | 27.9 | 27.7 | 27.9 | 28.2 | 28.5 | 28.7 | | Tower Hamlets | 26.3 | 26.3 | 26.9 | 27.3 | 27.7 | 27.6 | | Waltham Forest | 28 | 28.1 | 28.5 | 28 | 28.5 | 28.2 | | Wandsworth | 25.5 | 25.3 | 25.9 | 25.6 | 26.3 | 25.9 | | Westminster | 25.8 | 25.4 | 26.3 | 26.7 | 26.6 | 26.0 | | London | 26.8 | 27 | 27.2 | 27.6 | 27.7 | 27.8 |
Source: Department for Education KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 13
Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys
**Target:** Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head
2.48 The indices in Table 2.17 are derived from the time series of journey stages per head compiled for Travel in London Report 6 (TfL Planning December 2013). This includes all travel to, from or within Greater London, including travel by commuters and visitors. For consistency the population estimates include in-commuters and visitors (derived from the Labour Force Survey and the International Passenger Survey respectively, courtesy of ONS). It should be noted that the figures have been revised compared to previous AMRs based on revised population data via the 2011 census.
2.49 Total daily journey stages in 2012 were 30.3 million, up from 29.9 million in 2011, and 4.8 million higher than in 2001. Of these stages, 33% were by private transport, and 44% by public transport. Since 2001, use of public transport per head has grown by over 30%, and increased by 2% in the latest year. In contrast, private transport use per head has decreased by 19% since 2001, and is down almost 3% in the latest year. In line with the target, public transport use per head continues to grow while private transport continues to fall year on year.
| YEAR | PUBLIC TRANSPORT INDEX | PRIVATE TRANSPORT INDEX | |------|-------------------------|-------------------------| | 2001 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | 2002 | 103.1 | 99.5 | | 2003 | 108.1 | 97.1 | | 2004 | 113.8 | 95.1 | | 2005 | 112.0 | 92.6 | | 2006 | 114.7 | 92.0 | | 2007 | 124.4 | 90.9 | | 2008 | 128.2 | 86.4 | | 2009 | 127.5 | 85.6 | | 2010 | 127.8 | 84.8 | | 2011 | 131.2 | 82.8 | | 2012 | 133.6 | 80.7 |
*Source: Transport for London* KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 14
Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys
**Target:** Zero car traffic growth for London as a whole
2.50 Table 2.18 shows that road traffic volumes continued to fall in the latest year, down by 0.7% between 2011 and 2012, and 10.4% since 2001. In 2012, traffic volumes fell in Inner London by 3.2%, while traffic in Outer London grew slightly by 0.3%. Traffic levels in Inner London are almost 16% lower than in 2001. In Outer London, traffic levels are almost 8% lower than 2001. With regards to the target, in terms of the longer term trend car traffic is declining rather than growing across all parts of London.
2.51 For London to continue to make progress in reducing its reliance on the private car, considerable investment is required in public transport, such as the £15 billion investment in Crossrail. For further details on developer contributions to Crossrail and the use of CIL receipts please see the Environment and Transport section of chapter 3. | YEAR | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | All roads: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 32.26 | 32.14 | 31.95 | 31.59 | 31.49 | 31.16 | 30.27 | 30.07 | 29.70 | 29.10 | 28.90 | | | Inner London (excl City and Westminster) | 8.98 | 8.90 | 8.84 | 8.66 | 8.51 | 8.52 | 8.58 | 8.29 | 8.19 | 8.05 | 7.82 | 7.57 | | Outer London | 22.04 | 22.03 | 21.92 | 21.72 | 21.66 | 21.76 | 21.42 | 20.90 | 20.83 | 20.63 | 20.28 | 20.35 | | All roads index (2001=100) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 100.0 | 99.6 | 99.0 | 97.9 | 97.3 | 97.6 | 96.6 | 93.8 | 93.2 | 92.1 | 90.2 | 89.6 | | Inner London (excl City and Westminster) | 100.0 | 99.2 | 98.4 | 96.4 | 94.8 | 94.9 | 95.5 | 92.3 | 91.2 | 89.6 | 87.1 | 84.2 | | Outer London | 100.0 | 99.9 | 99.5 | 98.6 | 98.3 | 98.7 | 97.2 | 94.8 | 94.5 | 93.6 | 92.0 | 92.3 |
Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 6, section 3.10 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 15
Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys
**Target:** Increase the share of all trips by bicycle from 2 per cent in 2009 to 5 per cent by 2026
2.52 Table 2.19 shows that in 2012 almost 2% of all journeys in Greater London on an average day were made by bicycle, an increase of 53% compared to 2001. Around 0.58 million journey stages were made by bicycle in Greater London on an average day, an increase of 82% compared to 2001 and 2% more in the most recent year 2011 to 2012).
2.53 If growth is sustained at this rate, London will remain on track to meet the Mayor’s objective to see a cycling revolution, with a target for a 5% cycle mode share by 2026. The London Plan includes a range of policies to help achieve this objective, such as support for the Cycle Superhighway network and the London cycle hire scheme as well as standards for cycle parking and facilities for cyclists in new development. Transport for London is carrying out a comprehensive review of cycle parking standards; the first results of this work have informed the Early Minor Alterations of the London Plan (2013), and updated standards are proposed in the draft Further Alterations to the London Plan (2014).
| YEAR | DAILY CYCLE STAGES (MILLIONS) | CYCLE MODE SHARE (PERCENTAGE) | |------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------| | 2001 | 0.32 | 1.2 | | 2002 | 0.32 | 1.2 | | 2003 | 0.37 | 1.4 | | 2004 | 0.38 | 1.4 | | 2005 | 0.41 | 1.6 | | 2006 | 0.47 | 1.7 | | 2007 | 0.47 | 1.6 | | 2008 | 0.49 | 1.7 | | 2009 | 0.51 | 1.8 | | 2010 | 0.54 | 1.9 | | 2011 | 0.57 | 1.9 | | 2012 | 0.58 | 1.9 |
*Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 6, tables 2.3 and 3.4* KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 16
Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys
**Target:** A 50% increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2011-2021
2.54 Table 2.20 includes figures for passenger journeys on boat operators using TfL London River Services piers and the Thames Clipper London Eye to Woolwich Arsenal service. Figures also include passengers on river tours and charter boats. However, they exclude a number of other services working from independent piers as well as the Woolwich Ferry, which accounts annually for over an additional two million passenger journeys. Ticket sales count both single and return tickets as one journey on all services except Thames Clippers.
2.55 Table 2.20 shows that the number of passengers on the Thames increased until 2010. After the small decline in 2010/11 and 2012/11, numbers have gone up by 0.5% in the latest year and the number of passengers above the baseline level in 2001 has significantly increased by 163%.
2.56 In April 2012, a new extension to London Eye Millennium Pier was installed creating additional capacity at the pier.
2.57 The achievement of the KPI target still requires considerable further investment. The Mayor of London and Transport for London launched a new River Action Plan in February 2013 outlining a host of measures to increase passenger journeys on the Thames further.
2.58 The plan has already helped deliver an enhanced Putney to Blackfriars River Bus service with faster journey times and more frequent River Bus services on this route. Plans to deliver better information at London’s piers has begun with the introduction of real time boat arrival information, called iBoat.
2.59 Future plans include increasing capacity at existing central London piers, adding new piers to the river services network and further integration of river services into the wider transport network.
2.60 Table 2.21 deals with cargo carried by river. A significant proportion of the freight transported on the River Thames in the capital is aggregates for the construction industry.
2.61 The 3% reduction in 2012 was due to supply issues at the Thames Refinery, operated by Tate & Lyle. The inflated cost of raw cane sugar has meant deliveries to the refinery have been reduced. This refinery is one of the larger terminals in the part of the Port of London within Greater London and as such any reduction in supply has an effect on the overall figures. Elsewhere, growth returned to the aggregates sector and intraport trade also grew.
### TABLE 2.20 PASSENGERS ON THE RIVER THAMES
| YEAR | NUMBER OF PASSENGERS | % CHANGE ON PREVIOUS YEAR | |-----------------------|----------------------|---------------------------| | April 2000 – March 2001 | 1,573,830 | - | | April 2001 – March 2002 | 1,739,236 | + 10.5 | | April 2002 – March 2003 | 2,030,300 | + 16.7 | | April 2003 – March 2004 | 2,113,800 | + 4.1 | | April 2004 – March 2005 | 2,343,276 | + 10.9 | | April 2005 – March 2006 | 2,374,400 | + 1.3 | | April 2006 – March 2007 | 2,746,692 | + 15.7 | | April 2007 – March 2008 | 3,078,100 | + 12.1 | | April 2008 – March 2009 | 3,892,693 | + 26.5 | | April 2009 – March 2010 | 4,188,530 | + 7.6 | | April 2010 – March 2011 | 4,142,226 | - 1.1 | | April 2011 – March 2012 | 4,136,200 | - 0.1 | | April 2012 – March 2013 | 4,160,500 | + 0.5 |
Source: TfL London Rivers Services
### TABLE 2.21 CARGO TRADE ON THE RIVER THAMES WITHIN GREATER LONDON
| YEAR | TONNES OF CARGO | % CHANGE ON PREVIOUS YEAR | |------|-----------------|---------------------------| | 2001 | 10,757,000 | - | | 2002 | 9,806,000 | + 9% | | 2003 | 9,236,000 | + 6% | | 2004 | 8,743,000 | - 5% | | 2005 | 9,288,000 | + 6% | | 2006 | 9,337,000 | + 0.5% | | 2007 | 8,642,000 | - 7% | | 2008 | 9,312,000 | + 8% | | 2009 | 8,146,000 | - 13% | | 2010 | 7,754,000 | - 5% | | 2011 | 9,022,000 | + 16% | | 2012 | 8,715,000 | - 3% |
Source: Port of London Authority KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 17
Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values
**Target:** Maintain at least 50 per cent of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6
2.62 This indicator aims to show that high-density employment generators such as offices are mainly located in areas with good access to public transport - defined as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 5 or 6 - 6 being the highest, 0 the lowest. The floorspaces are gross, i.e. they do not subtract associated losses.
2.63 The amount of B1 floorspace approved during the year is relatively small, perhaps as a consequence of the spike in major approvals at the end of 2011/12. As a consequence the revised scheme for the BSkyB headquarters in Hounslow has a significant impact on the figures. This proposes nearly 170,000m2 of office and studio floorspace on a large site near Brentford with a low PTAL score. However the principle of intensification of the existing use of the site is set out in Hounslow’s Brentford Area Action Plan and the permission includes a large s106 contribution towards improving transport in the area. The PTAL score also does not reflect the shuttle bus service between the railway station and the site operated by the employer. Additionally 36,000m2 of office and light industrial space was granted in the Queen Elizabeth Park.
2.64 Overall only 49% of B1 floorspace approved during 2012/13 is in areas of high PTAL. When looking specifically at office floorspace, the percentage rises to 62. Excluding the 100,000m2 of office space in the BSkyB permission, 78% of the remaining office floorspace is within PTAL zones 5 & 6.
| PTAL LEVEL | ALL B1 FLOORSPACE (M2) | % | OFFICES (B1A) FLOORSPACE (M2) | % | |------------|------------------------|---|-------------------------------|---| | 5 or 6 | 321,169 | 49| 308,331 | 62| | 4 or less | 336,952 | 51| 190,141 | 38| | Total floorspace | 658,121 | 498,472 |
*Source: London Development Database* KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 18
Protection of biodiversity habitat
**Target:** No net loss of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs)
2.65 The tables opposite are based on the changes in SINCs as a result of planning permissions. Designation of new SINCs is not done through the planning permission process. Re-provision within the permission is taken into account but no positive numbers are recorded meaning a loss is inevitable. The London Development Database records the following conservation designations:
- Statutory Site of Special Scientific Interest,
- Site of Metropolitan Importance,
- Site of Borough Grade I Importance
- Site of Borough Grade II Importance
- Site of Local Importance
2.66 Open Space designations such as Green Belt, MOL and Local Open Space are addressed in KPI 3.
2.67 The table shows five approvals on SINCS approved in 2012/13. The total area again amounts to less than 0.6 Ha. It has gone down from 0.96 in the previous year to 0.87 Ha. The largest single loss is the approval of a housing scheme within a covered reservoir in Camden that was granted on appeal, the site being considered as previously developed land by the inspector.
2.68 The largest completion is a phase of the redevelopment New Hendon Village (former Grahame Park Estate). The total net loss of this schemes open space is anticipated to be less than 0.3 hectares.
### TABLE 2.23 LOSS OF PROTECTED HABITAT (APPROVALS)
| BOROUGH NAME | BOROUGH REFERENCE | NATURE CONSERVATION TYPE | AREA OF OPEN SPACE (HA) | |--------------|-------------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------| | Bexley | 12/00873/FUL | Metropolitan Importance | 0.003 | | Brent | 122653 | Site of Local Importance | 0.279 | | Bromley | 12/00687/FULL1 | Statutory SSSI | 0.030 | | Camden | 2011/0395/P | Borough Grade 2 | 0.510 | | Hounslow | 00132/A/P12 | Site of Local Importance | 0.047 | | **Total Loss (Gross hectares):** | | | **Sum:** 0.869 |
*Source: London Development Database*
### TABLE 2.24 LOSS OF PROTECTED HABITAT (COMPLETIONS)
| BOROUGH NAME | BOROUGH REFERENCE | NATURE CONSERVATION TYPE | AREA OF OPEN SPACE (HA) | |------------------|-------------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------| | Barnet | W01731LA/07 | Site of Local Importance | 1.220 | | Bexley | 12/00873/FUL | Metropolitan Importance | 0.003 | | Kingston upon Thames | 10/10154/FUL | Site of Local Importance | 0.047 | | Merton | 08/P0937 | Borough Grade 2 | 0.029 | | Southwark | 09-AP-1031 | Site of Local Importance | 0.043 | | **Total Loss (Gross Hectares):** | | | **SUM** 1.342 |
*Source: London Development Database* KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 19
Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination of waste to landfill by 2031
**Target:** At least 45 per cent of waste recycled/composted by 2015 and 0 per cent of biodegradable or recyclable waste to landfill by 2031
2.69 Table 2.25 shows that the total amount of local authority collected waste has continued to decline – by about 75,000 tonnes in the latest year. It also shows that London’s recycling rate for local authority collected waste has increased steadily over the previous ten years, reaching 30 per cent in 2012, although it is still well below the target. London has a lower household recycling rate than any other region in England, in part because it has a relatively high number of flats. The amount of local authority collected waste sent to landfill has gone down by over 5 per cent last year, after over 14 per cent in the year before and the amount has halved since 2007/8 with the majority being diverted to incineration with energy recovery. TABLE 2.25 WASTE TREATMENT METHODS OF LONDON’S LOCAL AUTHORITY COLLECTED WASTE (THOUSANDS OF TONNES)
| METHOD | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | |-------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Landfill | 3,163 | 3,021 | 2,856 | 2,692 | 2,404 | 2,209 | 1,946 | 1,882 | 1,696 | 1,116 | 911 | | (percentage) | 71.0% | 70.0% | 65.4% | 63.7% | 56.8% | 53.2% | 49.0% | 48.7% | 44.7% | 30.6% | 25.5% | | Incineration with EfW | 872 | 826 | 869 | 767 | 929 | 919 | 912 | 803 | 896 | 1,303 | 1,462 | | (percentage) | 20.0% | 19.0% | 19.9% | 18.2% | 21.9% | 22.1% | 22.9% | 20.8% | 23.6% | 35.7% | 40.9% | | Incineration without EfW| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | (percentage) | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | Recycled/composted | 410 | 494 | 643 | 763 | 844 | 925 | 994 | 1,060 | 1,076 | 1,105 | 1,088 | | (percentage) | 9.0% | 11.0% | 14.7% | 18.1% | 19.9% | 22.3% | 25.0% | 27.4% | 28.3% | 30.3% | 30.4% | | Other\* | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 59 | 101 | 123 | 117 | 130 | 124 | 115 | | (percentage) | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.4% | 2.4% | 3.1% | 3.0% | 3.4% | 3.4% | 3.2% | | Total | 4,446 | 4,342 | 4,370 | 4,223 | 4,235 | 4,154 | 3,975 | 3,862 | 3,797 | 3,648 | 3,576 |
# Other includes material which is sent for Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and that disposed through other treatment processes.
- Total may exceed the sum of rows above; this is accounted for by incineration without energy from waste, which does not exceed 500 tonnes of London’s local authority collected waste since 2005/06.
Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2012, http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/2011-12-ANNUAL-publication_WITHOUTLINKS_v0.2.xls KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 20
Reduce carbon dioxide emissions through new development
**Target:** Annual average percentage carbon dioxide emissions savings for strategic development proposals progressing towards zero carbon in residential developments by 2016 and all developments by 2019
2.70 Policy 5.2 of the London Plan published in July 2011 sets out a stepped approach to reaching the Government’s zero carbon targets – see Tables 2.26 and 2.27 opposite.
2.71 An analysis of the energy assessments submitted alongside Stage II planning applications determined by the Mayor between 1 January and 31 December 2012 was undertaken by the GLA in 2013 to establish the projected carbon dioxide savings secured from these schemes. The report reflects a full year of applications assessed against the Mayor’s energy hierarchy and carbon dioxide targets set out in London Plan Policy 5.2. The assessment was made against the 2010 Part L Building Regulations and showed an approximate 36 per cent reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions beyond the minimum requirements of the 2010 building regulations. This is 11% above the 25% target. The 40% target for 2013-16 began to be applied from October 2013.
2.72 Of each of the elements of the energy hierarchy, combined heat and power (CHP) produced the largest carbon dioxide savings. It accounted for 29 per cent of all projected carbon dioxide savings secured in 2012. Approximately 53,000 dwellings (nearly 95 per cent of those proposed) were proposed to be connected to heat networks.
2.73 Five per cent of the projected savings were due to energy efficiency. Renewable energy technologies accounted for approximately eight per cent of the overall savings. Of the developments that proposed renewable energy technologies, over three quarters planned to install photovoltaic (PV) panel arrays. Developers committed to the installation of approximately 87,000m2 of PV panels.
2.74 The carbon dioxide savings from developments where CHP is unsuitable were substantially less than those with CHP. As such, developments unable to obtain energy from CHP are less likely to meet the carbon dioxide reduction targets set out in the London Plan.
2.75 Boroughs are being encouraged to set up carbon dioxide off-setting funds in line with Policy 5.2 to further reduce carbon dioxide across London.
### TABLE 2.26 LONDON PLAN POLICY 5.2 CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
| YEAR | IMPROVEMENT ON 2010 BUILDING REGULATIONS | |------------|------------------------------------------| | 2010-2013 | 25 per cent | | 2013-2016 | 40 per cent | | 2016-2031 | zero carbon |
### TABLE 2.27 LONDON PLAN POLICY 5.2 CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS FOR NON-DOMESTIC BUILDINGS
| YEAR | IMPROVEMENT ON 2010 BUILDING REGULATIONS | |------------|------------------------------------------| | 2010-2013 | 25 per cent | | 2013-2016 | 40 per cent | | 2016-2019 | as per Building Regulations | | 2019-2031 | zero carbon |
*Source: Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan January 2014* KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 21
Increase in energy generated from renewable sources.
**Target:** Production of 8550 GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2026
2.76 This renewable energy generation target has been developed using data in the Mayor’s Decentralised Energy Capacity Studies. The renewable energy generation figure includes potential energy production from photovoltaics, solar water heating, ground source heat pumps, air source heat pumps and wind, hydro, biomass and energy from waste technologies.
Last year’s data was taken from the Decentralised energy capacity study Phase 1: Technical assessment (pg11). The figures in that study have not updated.
2.77 The best available figures for energy generated in London from renewable energy sources are provided by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). The figures provided by DECC do not include heat generated from renewable sources such as solar water heating. Figures may be available in the future if the take up of the renewable heat incentive is published.
### TABLE 2.28 ESTIMATE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY INSTALLED CAPACITY IN LONDON FOR 2010 AND 2011 - ELECTRICITY
| YEAR | CAPACITY (MW) | BIO-MASS | WIND AND WAVE | LANDFILL GAS | SEWAGE GAS | BIO-ENERGY | PHOTO-VOLTAICS | TOTAL | |------|---------------|----------|---------------|--------------|------------|------------|----------------|-------| | 2011\* | Total (MW) | 0 | 3.7 | 0.3 | 20.6 | 151.7 | 17.5 | 193.8 | | | Total (GWh) | 0 | 7.9 | 1.7 | 45.1 | 558.7 | 4.1 | 617.6 | | 2012\* | Total (MW) | 0 | 4.4 | 0.3 | 20.6 | 167.0 | 39.7 | 232.1 | | | Total (GWh) | 0 | 10.8 | 1.3 | 46 | 679.7 | 29.2 | 767.0 |
\*At 31 December 2011 Source: Energy Trends, September 2012: Renewable electricity in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England in 2011 (tables 2 and 3)
~At 31 December 2012 Source: Energy Trends, September 2013: Renewable electricity in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England in 2012 (tables 2 and 3).
Source: Energy Trends, September 2013: Renewable electricity in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England in 2012 (tables 2 and 3) KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 22
Increase in Urban Greening
**Target:** Increase total area of green roofs in the CAZ
2.78 Analysis of aerial imagery covering the Central Activities Zone shows an increase in green roof cover between a 2007 and a 2012 snapshot. Their comparison, using random sampling points, indicates that green roof cover in this part of central London has increased from less than 10ha in 2007 to around 25ha in 2012, a 150 per cent increase. We will continue to seek additional sources of green roof data to further validate this estimate. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 23
Improve London’s Blue Ribbon Network
**Target:** Restore 15km of rivers and streams\* 2009 - 2015 and an additional 10km by 2020 (\*defined as main river by the Environment Agency – includes larger streams and rivers but can also include smaller watercourses of local significance)
2.79 Restoration is defined as a measure that results in a significant increase in diversity of hydromorphological features and or improved floodplain connectivity and the restoration of river function through essential physical or biological processes, including flooding, sediment transport and the facilitation of species movement.
2.80 The Rivers and Streams Habitat Action Plan Steering Group, co-ordinating the implementation of this aspect of London’s Biodiversity Action Plan and managed by the Environment Agency, recommends that projects have post project appraisals. For the steering group to enable a project to be assessed as restoration, the following assessments can be made.
- River Habitat Survey (undertaking pre and post project surveys are good practice).
- Urban River Survey (undertaking pre and post project surveys are good practice).
- Pre and post fixed point photography.
2.81 The time of restoration of a habitat is defined as the point at which the necessary construction works have been carried out on the ground to the extent that the habitat is likely to develop without further construction work. For schemes that are phased over several years, an estimate of the length gained is made for each year ensuring that there is no double counting. In order to verify that habitats have been created and conditions secured, scheme details need to be submitted to the Rivers & Streams HAP Steering Group. Once the outputs have been verified then the scheme can be reported and placed on Biodiversity Action Reporting system.
2.82 The following Table 2.29 shows consistent restoration of 1.5 km p/a and above each year since 2007. Over 12.2 km restoration in total and 2.4 km p/a since the 2008 base year represents satisfactory progress towards meeting the 2015 target of 15 km. Key restoration schemes reported in 2013 include the restoration of river banks and the removal of weirs on the rivers Beam, Hogsmill and Wandle. There is greater uncertainty associated with the additional 10 km target. However, the All London Green Grid and River Basin Management Plan should facilitate further achievements. It should be noted that the London Biodiversity Action Plan includes, alongside this KPI, a target for restoration targets for maintenance and enhancement13 – reflected in London Plan Policy 7.19 (Table 7.3). | YEAR | RESTORATION (METRES) | CUMULATIVE RESTORATION (METRES) | |------|----------------------|---------------------------------| | 2000 | 680 | 680 | | 2001 | 150 | 830 | | 2002 | 600 | 1,430 | | 2003 | 2,300 | 3,730 | | 2004 | 500 | 4,230 | | 2005 | 0 | 4,320 | | 2006 | 100 | 4,430 | | 2007 | 5,100 | 9,430 | | 2008 | 2,000 | 11,430 | | 2009 | 1,500 | 12,930 | | 2010 | 1,808 | 14,738 | | 2011 | 3,519 | 18,257 | | 2012 | 3,000 | 21,257 | | 2013 | 2,395 | 23,652 |
Source: Rivers and Streams Habitat Action Plan Steering Group and the London Catchment Partnership KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 24
Protecting and improving London’s heritage and public realm
**Target:** Reduction in the proportion of designated heritage assets at risk as a percentage of the total number of designated heritage assets in London
2.83 The target includes all designated heritage assets, including World Heritage Sites, listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens and registered battlefields. Despite the pressures on development, Table 2.30 shows that the number of designated assets in London has increased from last year’s. There are 18 new listed buildings, 60 new conservation areas (although only 9 more than in 2011) and one more schedule monument in London.
2.84 In terms of designated assets at risk, between 2012 and 2013 for all designed assets there has been a decrease in the percentage of those assets at risk. The largest decrease in the percentage of designated assets at risk show schedule monuments with a 2.1% decrease from the previous year. Conservation areas and registered parks and gardens had the second highest decrease in the percentage of those assets at risk with a 0.5% and 0.6% decrease respectively while the percentage of listed buildings at risk decreased by 0.1%. For World Heritage Sites and the one registered battlefield at Barnet, the situation is unchanged in terms of both their number and their condition. For detail on individual designated assets, please visit http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/. English Heritage also provides a summary document with the number and condition of all designated assets and has also produced a Heritage at Risk 2012 summary for London.
| TABLE 2.30 NUMBER AND CONDITION OF DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | **2011** | **2012** | **2013** | | **NUMBER** | **% AT RISK** | **NUMBER** | **% AT RISK** | **NUMBER** | **% AT RISK** | | World Heritage Sites\* | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | | Listed Buildings# | 18,745 | 2.53% | 18,854 | 2.80% | 18,872 | 2.7% | | Conservation Areas | 1000 | 6.40% | 949 | 6.80% | 1,009 | 6.3% | | Schedule Monuments | 154 | 22.70% | 154 | 22.70% | 155 | 20.6% | | Registered Parks and Gardens | 149 | 5.40% | 150 | 8% | 150 | 7.3% | | Registered Battlefield | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
\*designated by UNESCO
# does not include Places of Worship
*Source: English Heritage* ENDNOTES
1 EGi data for permissions are based on planning committee decisions which are a precursor to discussion on the content of S106 agreements, whereas LDD waits for a decision letter to be issued which does not happen until the legal agreement has been signed. LDD data has a minimum threshold of 1,000 sq m gross, whereas the threshold in EGi data is 500 sq m gross. LDD data exclude refurbishments where the existing building is already in office use, which are included by EGi. In addition EGi data for starts are based on observed construction of new or refurbished space, whereas LDD records whether work is started in a legal sense, so can include demolition works as starts where these, in effect, activate the permission. Over the period 2004-2011, the office floorspace permissions recorded by LDD are typically 60-70% of the floorspace recorded by EGi. The LDD figure provides a useful measure of the store of permissions available to facilitate the immediate responsiveness of developers to changes in demand, whereas the EGi figure gives a broader measure of activity by developers in the office market (accepting that some of the permissions in that dataset may never come to fruition).
2 CBRE Central London Property Market Review Quarter 4 2013
3 H2SO (2013) London West End Office to Residential Conversion Research Study 2012
4 Further information for the reasons for these revisions can be found in ‘Revisions to Workforce Jobs’ at www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/labour-market/articles-and-reports/
5 Energy Planning. Monitoring the implementation of London Plan energy policies in 2012. GLA. 2013
6 The carbon dioxide emissions controlled by Building Regulations such as emissions generated from hot water, space heating, cooling and fans.
7 Figure has only become available after publication of the 2011 London Plan. It has been included since AMR 8.
8 https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/tackling-climate-change/energy-supply
9 https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/tackling-climate-change/energy-supply CHAPTER THREE
ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND STATISTICS HOUSING AND DESIGN
HOUSING PROVISION ANNUAL MONITOR 2012/13
INTRODUCTION
3.1 This report provides further detail on housing provision in London in addition to the tables in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report. It is based on data provided by London boroughs to the London Development Database (LDD) maintained by the GLA. The LDD was established in 2004 with the support of government and the London Local Authorities and is widely regarded as the most authoritative source of information on housing provision in London.
3.2 The majority of this section deals with housing provision defined for the purpose of monitoring the London Plan: that is, net conventional supply from new build, conversions of existing residential buildings or changes of use. The Mayor’s London Housing Strategy sets out a separate and distinctly defined target for affordable housing delivery, comprising the gross number of affordable homes delivered through conventional supply or acquisitions of existing properties. The final part of this section covers affordable housing delivery according to this latter definition.
KEY POINTS
a) There were 21,923 net conventional housing completions in London in 2012/13.
b) Taking into account net supply of 2,659 non-self-contained units and a drop of 2,018 in the number of long-term empty homes, total housing provision was 26,600.
c) New build accounted for 87% of net conventional supply in 2012/13, conversions 8% and changes of use 5%.
d) Over the last three years net conventional affordable housing completions amounted to 23,535 homes. Social rented accounting for 59% of affordable completions and intermediate housing 40%. The final 1% is affordable rent.
e) Across all tenures, gross conventional housing supply was dominated by one or two bedroom homes. 36% of completed homes had one bedroom, 41% had two bedrooms and 23% had three bedrooms or more, down slightly from 24% in 2011/12.
f) 29% of gross affordable housing completions in 2012/13 comprised homes with three or more bedrooms.
g) 22% of net approvals and 19% of net starts in 2012/13 were for affordable housing.
h) As of 31 March 2013, the net housing pipeline consisted of 216,500 homes. 57% of these are in schemes that had not yet started.
i) The average density of new housing completions in 2012/13 was 120 dwellings per hectare (dph), and the average density of approvals was 126 dph.
3.3 Total housing provision in the London Plan consists of three elements: conventional housing supply, non self-contained bedspaces, and long-term empty homes. returning to use, often referred to as ‘Vacants’. KPI 5 in the main body of the report shows housing provision at borough level (see also HPM1 and HPM2).
3.4 Figure 3.1 shows the separate elements of total housing provision for the last seven years. While overall provision in 2012/13 is lower than the previous year, this is largely due to a decrease to 2,018 compared to 5,670 units returning to use in 2011/12. The number of conventional and non-conventional completions are very similar to those recorded in the year before.
3.5 The figures for the change in long-term empty homes are taken from statistics published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, based on council tax returns from local authorities. This does not correspond with the reporting period of 1st April to 31st March for the LDD-sourced data, but is included as the best source of data on vacants available. The data for 2012/13 has been taken from CLG Table 615. FIGURE 3.1 TOTAL HOUSING PROVISION BY YEAR AND SOURCE
Source: Conventional and non-conventional supply - London Development Database Vacants - Housing Live Table 615; GOV.UK https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants | | 2004/5 | 2005/6 | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | |----------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Conventional | 25,300 | 25,084 | 27,226 | 28,215 | 29,534 | 24,732 | 19,185 | 21,988 | 21,923 | | Non-Conventional | 4,164 | 460 | 3,121 | 2,728 | 3,860 | 3,230 | 3,529 | 2,742 | 2,659 | | Vacants back in use | 2,519 | -61 | 3,608 | 287 | -398 | 2,223 | 4,882 | 5,670 | 2,018 | | Total | 31,983 | 25,483 | 33,955 | 31,230 | 32,996 | 30,185 | 27,596 | 30,400 | 26,600 |
Source: Conventional and non-conventional supply - London Development Database Vacants - GOV.UK Housing Live Table 615; https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants CONVENTIONAL COMPLETIONS
3.6 As can be seen from Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1, conventional housing completions represent the bulk of total housing provision in London.
3.7 Net conventional supply takes account of dwellings lost or replaced. In 2012/2013 there was a gross conventional supply of 25,334 homes, with 3,411 lost or replaced (see Table HPM2). Areas where large-scale estate redevelopment is taking place can show high gross but low net supply: for example, Brent had a gross supply of 1,067 homes but 405 homes were lost or replaced, for a net supply of 662.
3.8 There are three types of conventional housing supply recorded in the LDD: new build (including extensions), conversions (changes to the number of units in properties already in residential use) and changes of use (for example, from industrial or commercial uses and losses to non-C3 uses). Table HPM2 shows gross and net conventional supply by type for each borough. Across London, new build accounted for just under 87% of net conventional supply in 2012/13 (up from 81% in 2011/12), conversions 8% and changes of use 5% (down from 12% in 2011/12). The mix varied between boroughs with all completed units in the City of London coming from changes of use. Meanwhile new builds account for 99% of completions in Tower Hamlets. Conversions led to a net loss of units in four boroughs, the most significant of these is Westminster which lost 72 units. By contrast Lewisham gained 161 units through residential conversions.
3.9 The average density of new housing completions in London (shown in Table HPM14 was 120 dwellings per hectare (dph) in 2012/13 (Table HPM14), an increase on the previous year’s figure of 111 (revised). As would be expected the lowest densities are found in the outer London boroughs. The density of completions in Bromley was 49dph while the figure for the City of London was 313 dph. Tower Hamlets and Hackney delivered at the next highest densities, 279 and 278 dph respectively.
SIZE MIX OF NEW SUPPLY
3.10 Table 3.2 shows the split of total gross conventional completions in 2012/13 across London as a whole by tenure and number of bedrooms (the figures are presented in gross terms as the number of bedrooms is not recorded on LDD for homes lost or replaced). One and two-bed properties make up the majority of supply, accounting for 36% and 41% of the total respectively. However the profile of supply varies with tenure; 37% of social rented supply comprises homes with three or more bedrooms, compared to 9% for intermediate homes and 20% of market homes. Across all tenures 23% of new supply had three bedrooms or more.
Table HMP6 shows the gross conventional supply of affordable housing by borough and number of bedrooms. Hackney, with 232, has delivered the most affordable family housing (with 3 bedrooms or more). This represents 45% of their affordable completions. Tower Hamlets have completed 201 which is 65% of total gross affordable completions in the borough, the highest percentage for any borough besides Kensington and Chelsea where three of their four affordable completions are 3-bed flats.
**AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLETIONS**
3.11 Total net affordable housing supply in 2012/13 was 7,539, down from 8,611 in 2011/12. Affordable units represent 34% of all net completions during this year, this is also down on the previous year’s figure of 39%. Table HPM4 shows total net conventional affordable supply by borough over the last three years, both in numeric terms and as a proportion of total supply. In the last year the highest proportion of affordable housing supply was 62% in Haringey, followed by 58% in Waltham Forest which has the highest three-year average of 63%. The lowest delivery over the last three years is in the City of London (1%) followed by Westminster who have a three year average of 16%.
3.12 Table HPM3 breaks down net conventional affordable supply in the last three years into social rented, intermediate and Affordable Rent. Over the three-year period net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 23,535 homes, with social rented units accounting for just under 59% of these and intermediate products 40%. Affordable rent units are starting to appear in completions, accounting for the remaining 1%. The figures for 2012/13 are very similar with 59% being social rent, 38% intermediate and 3% Affordable Rent.
| TABLE 3.2 GROSS CONVENTIONAL HOUSING COMPLETIONS BY TENURE AND NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 2012/13 | |-----------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------| | DWELLINGS | 1 BED | 2 BEDS | 3 BEDS | 4+ BEDS | TOTAL | | Social Rented | 1,306 | 2,004 | 1,563 | 621 | 5,494 | | Intermediate | 1,246 | 1,361 | 207 | 56 | 2,870 | | Affordable Rent | 72 | 70 | 47 | 15 | 204 | | Market | 6,547 | 6,845 | 2,314 | 1,060 | 16,766 | | Grand Total | 9,171 | 10,280 | 4,130 | 1,752 | 25,334 | | AS A % OF TOTAL | 1 BED | 2 BED | 3 BED | 4+ BED | TOTAL | | Social Rented | 24% | 36% | 28% | 11% | 100% | | Intermediate | 43% | 47% | 7% | 2% | 100% | | Affordable Rent | 35% | 34% | 23% | 7% | 100% | | Market | 39% | 41% | 14% | 6% | 100% | | Total | 36% | 41% | 16% | 7% | 100% |
*Source: London Development Database* CONVENTIONAL APPROVALS
3.13 Annual approvals include all units in planning permissions that are granted during the year unless they are superseded by a revision to the scheme within the same year. Many of the permissions granted will be for renewals of existing permissions, revisions to previously approved schemes or provide details of the phasing of outline permissions. For this reason approvals cannot simply be added together to give a cumulative total, however they are comparable year on year.
3.14 Table 3.3 shows the trend in net approvals at London level since 2004/05, while Table HPM7 breaks down 2012/13 net approvals by tenure and Table HPM8 by type. The table shows that approvals have dropped significantly since 2011/12. Total net approvals of just 38,703 is the lowest total in recent years, but needs to be put into the context of the spike in approvals in 2011/12 prior to the introduction of London’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the ongoing high capacity within the overall pipeline which is discussed in the following section.
3.15 In terms of tenure, 78% of these units are for market sale or rent, leaving 22% as affordable units, broken down as 10% intermediate, 7% Affordable Rent and 5% social rent. It should be noted that the tenure of approved units can change before completion, for example as the result of negotiations between developers and planning authorities or by subsequent transfer of units to a housing association.
3.16 The average density of new housing approvals shown in Table HPM 13 was 126 dph. This is significantly lower than the figure of over 160 dph for 2011/12 and is in line with the finding of KPI 2 that there has been increased compliance with the SRQ density matrix in the last year. As ever there is wide variation between boroughs. The highest density is in the City of London (452 dph) and the lowest is Kingston upon Thames at just 32 dph. It is interesting to note that the density of approvals has been higher than the density on completions every year since 2004.
HOUSING STARTS
3.17 In the LDD a ‘start’ is the point at which a planning permission can no longer lapse due to the borough acknowledging a legal start on site. This can be triggered by demolition of existing buildings or preparatory digging, and does not mean the start of physical construction work on an individual building. Annual starts include all units in planning permissions that are started during the year unless they are superseded by a revision to the scheme within the same year. Many of the permissions started will be for revisions to previously approved schemes or
| TABLE 3.3 NET CONVENTIONAL HOUSING APPROVALS IN LONDON, 2004/05 TO 2012/13 | |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------| | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | | 54,779 | 52,998 | 57,816 | 80,515 | 47,254 | 45,795 | 57,537 | 84,704 | 38,703 |
Source: London Development Database provide details of the phasing of outline permissions that have been started in previous years. As with approvals, starts can’t simply be added together to give a cumulative total, however they are comparable year on year.
3.18 Table HPM9 shows net conventional housing ‘starts’ by tenure. LDD records 24,716 starts, below the 28,069 recorded for 2011/12 and well below the 47,216 in 2010/11. The low level seems to contradict anecdotal evidence that the construction sector was showing signs of recovery during this period, but this may be due to the resumption of work on schemes started in previous years which would not show up in LDD starts. The healthy number of units in the pipeline discussed below shows that the lack of new starts is not necessarily a major cause for concern. In terms of tenure, 19% of net starts in 2012/13 were affordable housing, compared to 22% in 2011/12. This suggests a growth in demand for market housing which had been less desirable to build during the recession.
3.19 The majority of the units recorded as starts are 1 and 2 bed units, with properties of 3 bedrooms or more making up 25% of starts. This is slightly below the 27% figure for approvals.
THE PIPELINE OF NEW HOMES
3.20 The ‘pipeline’ of housing supply comprises homes which have been granted planning permission but are not yet completed, and can be broken down into homes that are ‘not started’ and those that are ‘under construction’. It is important to bear in mind the definition of a start above, the under construction pipeline shows the capacity in schemes on which some work has started but should not be used to infer that work has begun on all the dwellings in those schemes.
3.21 The annual flow of planning approvals for new homes adds to the pipeline, while units are removed when they are either completed, superseded by a new scheme or pass their lapse date without a start being made.
3.22 Table 3.4 below shows the net pipeline as at the end of each financial year (31st March) at London level since 2004/05. Despite the low level of approvals, the number of units in the pipeline continues to rise, now topping 215,000 units, meaning there is capacity within the planning system to deliver 7 years of supply at the target level in the 2011 London Plan and more than 5 years at the higher target in the Draft Further Alterations to the London Plan published for consultation in January 2014.
| TABLE 3.4 NET CONVENTIONAL HOUSING PIPELINE AT YEAR END IN LONDON, 2004/05 TO 2012/13 | |---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------| | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | | 108,818 | 124,862 | 142,305 | 173,464 | 173,772 | 173,702 | 177,782 | 211,200 | 216,476 |
Source: London Development Database 3.23 Table HPM11 shows the planning pipeline as of 31 March 2013. At the end of the year there were over 130,000 units (net) which have been granted planning permission but on which construction had not started as well as 93,000 units (net) in schemes under construction. The boroughs with the largest pipeline are mainly concentrated in the East, long viewed as the part of London with the most potential to accommodate growth. At over 23,000 units, Greenwich had the largest total net pipeline, followed by Newham and Tower Hamlets. Newham have the most units recorded as under construction, 17,500. Further West, Wandsworth has a total net pipeline of 17,000 units. At the other end of the scale, both the City of London and Richmond upon Thames had a total pipeline of under 1,000 units.
3.24 HPM 12 shows the gross conventional pipeline by number of bedrooms. 23% of units for which the information is available will provide 3 bedrooms or more.
GYPSY AND TRAVELLER SITES
3.25 Since 1st April 2009 the LDD has been recording the loss and gain of gypsy and traveler pitches. During 2012/13 three permissions relating to pitches for gypsies and travelers were approved. Two relate to the continued use of existing sites, one caravan pitch in Bexley and two pitches on former agricultural land in Kingston upon Thames. Bexley have also granted permission for 4 new pitches on an existing site at Willow Walk. In terms of completions, the reconfiguration of existing Swallow Park site in Kingston upon Thames to create three additional pitches is also recorded as complete in this year, as are the seven pitches approved during the year giving a total of 10. There are no recorded losses either approved or completed during this year. There are no permissions relating to gypsy and traveler pitches in the pipeline. | BOROUGH NAME | LOST | GAINED | NET | LONDON PLAN 2011 BENCHMARK | SUPPLY AS % OF BENCHMARK | |-------------------------------|------|--------|------|-----------------------------|--------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 6 | 512 | 506 | 1,041 | 49% | | Barnet | 104 | 1,483 | 1,379| 2,048 | 67% | | Bexley | 27 | 445 | 418 | 337 | 124% | | Brent | 405 | 1,067 | 662 | 975 | 68% | | Bromley | 67 | 765 | 698 | 501 | 139% | | Camden | 182 | 746 | 564 | 500 | 113% | | City of London | 6 | 41 | 35 | 81 | 43% | | Croydon | 80 | 979 | 899 | 1,221 | 74% | | Ealing | 158 | 1,148 | 990 | 843 | 117% | | Enfield | 36 | 586 | 550 | 530 | 104% | | Greenwich | 17 | 127 | 110 | 2,429 | 5% | | Hackney | 130 | 1,290 | 1,160| 1,124 | 103% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 68 | 489 | 421 | 564 | 75% | | Haringey | 83 | 666 | 583 | 792 | 74% | | Harrow | 132 | 846 | 714 | 349 | 205% | | Havering | 20 | 257 | 237 | 972 | 24% | | Hillingdon | 48 | 1,515 | 1,467| 375 | 391% | | Hounslow | 19 | 251 | 232 | 453 | 51% | | Islington | 343 | 1,213 | 870 | 922 | 94% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 98 | 155 | 57 | 530 | 11% | | Kingston upon Thames | 29 | 232 | 203 | 329 | 62% | | Lambeth | 174 | 801 | 627 | 1,142 | 55% | | Lewisham | 255 | 2,065 | 1,810| 1,088 | 166% | | Merton | 26 | 503 | 477 | 318 | 150% | | Newham | 45 | 1,058 | 1,013| 2,499 | 41% | | Redbridge | 36 | 300 | 264 | 748 | 35% | | Richmond upon Thames | 87 | 572 | 485 | 210 | 231% | | Southwark | 143 | 1,393 | 1,250| 1,877 | 67% | | Sutton | 35 | 262 | 227 | 211 | 108% | | Tower Hamlets | 51 | 1,048 | 997 | 2,462 | 40% | | Waltham Forest | 65 | 533 | 468 | 688 | 68% | | Wandsworth | 124 | 1,081 | 957 | 1,081 | 89% | | Westminster | 312 | 905 | 593 | 594 | 100% | | London | 3,411| 25,334 | 21,923| 29,834 | 73% |
Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH NAME | NEW BUILD | CONVERSION | CHANGE OF USE | TOTAL | |------------------------------|-----------|------------|---------------|-------| | | LOST | GAINED | LOST | GAINED | LOST | GAINED | LOST | GAINED | NET | LOST | GAINED | NET | LOST | GAINED | NET | | Barking and Dagenham | 0 | 485 | 1 | 16 | 5 | 11 | 6 | 6 | 512 | 506 | | Barnet | 45 | 1,307 | 2 | 32 | 30 | 57 | 144 | 87 | 104 | 1,483 | 1,379 | | Bexley | 9 | 399 | 6 | 25 | 19 | 12 | 21 | 9 | 27 | 445 | 418 | | Brent | 363 | 993 | 2 | 24 | 22 | 40 | 50 | 10 | 405 | 1,067 | 662 | | Bromley | 42 | 657 | 2 | 44 | 42 | 23 | 64 | 41 | 67 | 765 | 698 | | Camden | 87 | 478 | 3 | 158 | 155 | 92 | 110 | 18 | 182 | 746 | 564 | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | 39 | 39 | 6 | 2 | -4 | 6 | 41 | 35 | | Croydon | 32 | 762 | 2 | 102 | 100 | 46 | 115 | 69 | 80 | 979 | 899 | | Ealing | 57 | 800 | 6 | 175 | 169 | 95 | 173 | 78 | 158 | 1,148 | 990 | | Enfield | 15 | 521 | 3 | 15 | 12 | 18 | 50 | 32 | 36 | 586 | 550 | | Greenwich | 2 | 83 | 1 | 21 | 20 | 14 | 23 | 9 | 17 | 127 | 110 | | Hackney | 91 | 1,171 | 0 | 40 | 40 | 39 | 79 | 40 | 130 | 1,290 | 1,160 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 1 | 297 | 5 | 78 | 73 | 62 | 114 | 52 | 68 | 489 | 421 | | Haringey | 13 | 521 | 1 | 34 | 33 | 69 | 111 | 42 | 83 | 666 | 583 | | Harrow | 97 | 747 | 1 | 32 | 31 | 34 | 67 | 33 | 132 | 846 | 714 | | Havering | 17 | 217 | 0 | 32 | 32 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 20 | 257 | 237 | | Hillingdon | 29 | 1,454 | 1 | 21 | 20 | 18 | 40 | 22 | 48 | 1,515 | 1,467 | | Hounslow | 9 | 232 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 13 | 4 | 19 | 251 | 232 | | Islington | 255 | 942 | 2 | 102 | 100 | 86 | 169 | 83 | 343 | 1,213 | 870 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 15 | 34 | 2 | 61 | 59 | 81 | 60 | -21 | 98 | 155 | 57 | | Kingston upon Thames | 14 | 180 | 0 | 28 | 28 | 15 | 24 | 9 | 29 | 232 | 203 | | Lambeth | 84 | 592 | 4 | 48 | 44 | 86 | 161 | 75 | 174 | 801 | 627 | | Lewisham | 89 | 1,582 | 7 | 163 | 156 | 159 | 320 | 161 | 255 | 2,065 | 1,810 | | Merton | 10 | 468 | 0 | 25 | 25 | 16 | 10 | -6 | 26 | 503 | 477 | | Newham | 2 | 843 | 3 | 116 | 113 | 40 | 99 | 59 | 45 | 1,058 | 1,013 | | Redbridge | 4 | 204 | 0 | 28 | 28 | 32 | 68 | 36 | 36 | 300 | 264 | Source: London Development Database
TABLE HPM 2: NET CONVENTIONAL COMPLETIONS BY DEVELOPMENT TYPE 2012/13 NEW BUILD CONVERSION CHANGE OF USE TOTAL BOROUGH LOST GAINED NET LOST GAINED NET LOST GAINED NET LOST GAINED NET NAME Richmond upon 35 481 446 2 28 26 50 63 13 87 572 485 Thames Southwark 101 1,260 1,159 5 50 45 37 83 46 143 1,393 1,250 Sutton 21 204 183 0 21 21 14 37 23 35 262 227 Tower Hamlets 46 1,041 995 1 2 1 4 5 1 51 1,048 997 Waltham Forest 17 369 352 0 55 55 48 109 61 65 533 468 Wandsworth 23 868 845 3 64 61 98 149 51 124 1,081 957 Westminster 60 504 444 42 263 221 210 138 -72 312 905 593 London 1,685 20,696 19,011 108 1,948 1,840 1,618 2,690 1,072 3,411 25,334 21,923
71
| BOROUGH NAME | 2010/11 SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | 2011/12 SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | 2012/13 SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | TOTAL | |------------------------------|---------------------|------|-----------|---------------------|------|-----------|---------------------|------|-----------|-------| | Barking and Dagenham | 60 | 83 | 0 | -14 | 162 | 0 | 167 | 76 | 0 | 534 | | Barnet | 202 | 26 | 0 | 303 | 138 | 0 | 285 | 118 | 0 | 1,072 | | Bexley | 125 | 29 | 0 | 126 | 39 | 0 | 17 | 12 | 0 | 348 | | Brent | -31 | 215 | 0 | 268 | 144 | 0 | 174 | 50 | 0 | 820 | | Bromley | 201 | 47 | 0 | 204 | 10 | 0 | 129 | 13 | 0 | 604 | | Camden | 110 | 32 | 0 | 37 | 25 | 0 | 194 | 105 | 0 | 503 | | City of London | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | | Croydon | 258 | 138 | 0 | 308 | 54 | 0 | 309 | 92 | 8 | 1,167 | | Ealing | 48 | 25 | 0 | 264 | 69 | 0 | 168 | 132 | 0 | 706 | | Enfield | 85 | 135 | 0 | 55 | 24 | 0 | 106 | 137 | 0 | 542 | | Greenwich | 432 | 355 | 0 | 211 | 159 | 0 | 42 | 6 | 0 | 1,205 | | Hackney | 197 | 153 | 0 | 232 | 171 | 0 | 285 | 198 | 13 | 1,249 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 17 | 179 | 0 | 80 | 0 | 5 | 102 | 0 | 383 | | Haringey | 65 | 24 | 0 | 73 | 271 | 0 | 204 | 160 | 0 | 797 | | Harrow | 108 | 59 | 0 | 45 | 147 | 0 | 179 | 85 | 28 | 651 | | Havering | 77 | 14 | 0 | 106 | 23 | 0 | 86 | 32 | 0 | 338 | | Hillingdon | 145 | 30 | 0 | 253 | 90 | 0 | 252 | 129 | 0 | 899 | | Hounslow | 63 | 286 | 0 | 222 | 97 | 0 | 28 | 21 | 0 | 717 | | Islington | -69 | 3 | 0 | 265 | 194 | 0 | 57 | 166 | 0 | 616 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 49 | 12 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 84 | | Kingston upon Thames | 59 | 6 | 0 | 56 | 25 | 0 | 29 | 9 | 0 | 184 | | Lambeth | 423 | 321 | 0 | 217 | 131 | 0 | 174 | 95 | 0 | 1,361 | | Lewisham | 239 | 100 | 0 | 272 | 197 | 0 | 257 | 265 | 70 | 1,400 | | Merton | 20 | 28 | 0 | 31 | 38 | 0 | 98 | 98 | 0 | 313 | | Newham | 179 | 257 | 0 | 261 | 130 | 16 | 64 | 160 | 81 | 1,148 | | Redbridge | 73 | 38 | 0 | 20 | 34 | 0 | 44 | 8 | 0 | 217 | | Richmond upon Thames | 37 | 8 | 0 | 44 | 35 | 0 | 118 | 49 | 0 | 291 | | Southwark | 147 | 415 | 0 | 459 | 134 | 0 | 295 | 163 | 0 | 1,613 | | Sutton | 148 | 74 | 0 | 159 | 76 | 0 | 70 | 33 | 0 | 560 | | BOROUGH NAME | 2010/11 SOCIAL RENT | 2010/11 INT. | 2010/11 AFF. RENT | 2011/12 SOCIAL RENT | 2011/12 INT. | 2011/12 AFF. RENT | 2012/13 SOCIAL RENT | 2012/13 INT. | 2012/13 AFF. RENT | TOTAL | |--------------|---------------------|-------------|------------------|---------------------|-------------|------------------|---------------------|-------------|------------------|-------| | Tower Hamlets| 191 | 124 | 0 | 538 | 167 | 0 | 160 | 102 | 0 | 1,282 | | Waltham Forest| 78 | 170 | 0 | 299 | 59 | 0 | 162 | 108 | 0 | 876 | | Wandsworth | 6 | 103 | 0 | 127 | 141 | 0 | 209 | 118 | 0 | 704 | | Westminster | 109 | 43 | 0 | 31 | 40 | 0 | 98 | 28 | 0 | 349 | | London | 3,853 | 3,532 | 0 | 5,491 | 3,104 | 16 | 4,465 | 2,870 | 204 | 23,535|
*Source: London Development Database* | BOROUGH | TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL AFFORDABLE COMPLETIONS | AFFORDABLE AS % OF NET CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY | |-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------| | | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | | Barking and Dagenham | 143 | 148 | 243 | 42 | 30 | 48 | | Barnet | 228 | 441 | 403 | 28 | 35 | 29 | | Bexley | 154 | 165 | 29 | 52 | 55 | 7 | | Brent | 184 | 412 | 224 | 47 | 74 | 34 | | Bromley | 248 | 214 | 142 | 33 | 36 | 20 | | Camden | 142 | 62 | 299 | 26 | 17 | 53 | | City of London | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | | Croydon | 396 | 362 | 409 | 35 | 52 | 45 | | Ealing | 73 | 333 | 300 | 27 | 48 | 30 | | Enfield | 220 | 79 | 243 | 48 | 26 | 44 | | Greenwich | 787 | 370 | 48 | 69 | 28 | 44 | | Hackney | 350 | 403 | 496 | 40 | 40 | 43 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 196 | 80 | 107 | 37 | 17 | 25 | | Haringey | 89 | 344 | 364 | 21 | 46 | 62 | | Harrow | 167 | 192 | 292 | 37 | 41 | 41 | | Havering | 91 | 129 | 118 | 39 | 43 | 50 | | Hillingdon | 175 | 343 | 381 | 58 | 34 | 26 | | Hounslow | 349 | 319 | 49 | 52 | 54 | 21 | | Islington | -66 | 459 | 223 | -14 | 37 | 26 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 61 | 19 | 4 | 36 | 16 | 7 | | Kingston upon Thames | 65 | 81 | 38 | 44 | 31 | 19 | | Lambeth | 744 | 348 | 269 | 56 | 41 | 43 | | Lewisham | 339 | 469 | 592 | 47 | 39 | 33 | | Merton | 48 | 69 | 196 | 13 | 15 | 41 | | Newham | 436 | 407 | 305 | 49 | 53 | 30 | | Redbridge | 111 | 54 | 52 | 32 | 10 | 20 | | Richmond upon Thames | 45 | 79 | 167 | 14 | 36 | 34 | | Southwark | 562 | 593 | 458 | 40 | 55 | 37 | | Sutton | 222 | 235 | 103 | 67 | 40 | 45 | | Tower Hamlets | 315 | 705 | 262 | 24 | 63 | 26 | | Waltham Forest | 248 | 358 | 270 | 58 | 72 | 58 | | Wandsworth | 109 | 268 | 327 | 23 | 27 | 34 | | Westminster | 152 | 71 | 126 | 20 | 8 | 21 | | London | 7,385 | 8,611 | 7,539 | 38 | 39 | 34 |
Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH | NUMBER OF BEDROOMS | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4+ | % 3+ | |-------------------------------|--------------------|---|---|---|----|------| | Barking and Dagenham | 131 | 155| 146| 80| 44%| | | Barnet | 692 | 473| 244| 74| 21%| | | Bexley | 199 | 195| 37 | 14| 11%| | | Brent | 341 | 482| 178| 66| 23%| | | Bromley | 248 | 222| 175| 120|39%| | | Camden | 289 | 281| 128| 48| 24%| | | City of London | 23 | 14 | 3 | 1 | 10%| | | Croydon | 287 | 461| 134| 97| 24%| | | Ealing | 413 | 533| 169| 33| 18%| | | Enfield | 234 | 250| 81 | 21| 17%| | | Greenwich | 73 | 35 | 18 | 1 | 15%| | | Hackney | 444 | 443| 271| 132|31%| | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 255 | 171| 40 | 23| 13%| | | Haringey | 271 | 272| 88 | 35| 18%| | | Harrow | 304 | 415| 92 | 35| 15%| | | Havering | 51 | 77 | 85 | 44| 50%| | | Hillingdon | 574 | 574| 224| 143|24%| | | Hounslow | 55 | 116| 31 | 49| 32%| | | Islington | 411 | 582| 160| 60| 18%| | | Kensington and Chelsea | 55 | 38 | 45 | 17| 40%| | | Kingston upon Thames | 79 | 97 | 30 | 26| 24%| | | Lambeth | 290 | 366| 100| 45| 18%| | | Lewisham | 936 | 793| 254| 82| 16%| | | Merton | 87 | 203| 119| 94| 42%| | | Newham | 537 | 402| 96 | 23| 11%| | | Redbridge | 108 | 99 | 78 | 15| 31%| | | Richmond upon Thames | 234 | 220| 88 | 30| 21%| | | Southwark | 378 | 727| 224| 64| 21%| | | Sutton | 68 | 147| 33 | 14| 18%| | | Tower Hamlets | 279 | 406| 294| 69| 35%| | | Waltham Forest | 219 | 224| 67 | 23| 17%| | | Wandsworth | 307 | 519| 158| 97| 24%| | | Westminster | 299 | 288| 241| 77| 35%| | | London Total | 9,171 | 10,280| 4,131| 1,752|23%| |
Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH | NUMBER OF BEDROOMS | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4+ | % 3+ | |-------------------------------|--------------------|---|---|---|----|------| | Barking and Dagenham | 44 | 69| 96| 34| 53%| | | Barnet | 180 | 125| 94| 4 | 24%| | | Bexley | 10 | 14 | 6 | 0 | 20%| | | Brent | 128 | 204| 127| 48| 35%| | | Bromley | 53 | 61 | 18| 10| 20%| | | Camden | 165 | 119| 71| 22| 25%| | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | | | Croydon | 89 | 198| 68| 54| 30%| | | Ealing | 142 | 122| 78| 6 | 24%| | | Enfield | 106 | 105| 28| 4 | 13%| | | Greenwich | 15 | 20 | 13| 0 | 27%| | | Hackney | 138 | 140| 132| 100| 45%| | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 114 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0% | | | Haringey | 131 | 164| 47| 22| 19%| | | Harrow | 92 | 186| 42| 26| 20%| | | Havering | 18 | 36 | 48| 16| 54%| | | Hillingdon | 102 | 164| 82| 33| 30%| | | Hounslow | 14 | 22 | 6 | 7 | 27%| | | Islington | 105 | 234| 93| 40| 28%| | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 75%| | | Kingston upon Thames | 11 | 11 | 12| 5 | 44%| | | Lambeth | 103 | 160| 71| 31| 28%| | | Lewisham | 194 | 296| 101| 52| 24%| | | Merton | 44 | 85 | 37| 31| 35%| | | Newham | 151 | 86 | 54| 14| 22%| | | Redbridge | 21 | 10 | 21| 0 | 40%| | | Richmond upon Thames | 55 | 66 | 45| 1 | 28%| | | Southwark | 143 | 246| 112| 34| 27%| | | Sutton | 7 | 77 | 19| 0 | 18%| | | Tower Hamlets | 39 | 68 | 139| 62| 65%| | | Waltham Forest | 77 | 136| 46| 21| 24%| | | Wandsworth | 102 | 142| 79| 5 | 26%| | | Westminster | 30 | 57 | 29| 10| 31%| | | London | 2,624 | 3,435| 1,817| 692| 29%| |
*Source: London Development Database* | BOROUGH NAME | EXISTING | PROPOSED | NET | NET % AFFORDABLE | |------------------------------|----------|----------|-----|------------------| | | MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | NET % AFFORDABLE | | Barking and Dagenham | 10 | 275 | 0 | 0 | 229 | 252 | 122 | 29 | 219 | -23 | 122 | 29 | 37% | | Barnet | 160 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 897 | 22 | 18 | 49 | 737 | 22 | 18 | 49 | 11% | | Bexley | 67 | 562 | 0 | 0 | 812 | 2 | 108 | 275 | 745 | -560 | 108 | 275 | -31% | | Brent | 92 | 317 | 0 | 0 | 658 | 182 | 33 | 68 | 566 | -135 | 33 | 68 | -6% | | Bromley | 87 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 481 | 18 | 21 | 20 | 394 | 17 | 21 | 20 | 13% | | Camden | 262 | 109 | 0 | 0 | 1,326 | 250 | 123 | 5 | 1,064 | 141 | 123 | 5 | 20% | | City of London | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 109 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 105 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | | Croydon | 95 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1,104 | 222 | 50 | 81 | 1,009 | 212 | 50 | 81 | 25% | | Ealing | 185 | 208 | 0 | 0 | 795 | 254 | 72 | 30 | 610 | 46 | 72 | 30 | 20% | | Enfield | 36 | 63 | 0 | 0 | 512 | 86 | 62 | 8 | 476 | 23 | 62 | 8 | 16% | | Greenwich | 62 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 604 | 176 | 68 | 3 | 542 | 174 | 68 | 3 | 31% | | Hackney | 160 | 359 | 0 | 0 | 993 | 415 | 171 | 15 | 833 | 56 | 171 | 15 | 23% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 77 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 642 | 14 | 117 | 18 | 565 | 6 | 117 | 18 | 20% | | Haringey | 138 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 791 | 25 | 46 | 17 | 653 | 18 | 46 | 17 | 11% | | Harrow | 75 | 64 | 0 | 0 | 1,346 | 0 | 103 | 143 | 1,271 | -64 | 103 | 143 | 13% | | Havering | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 170 | 94 | 47 | 34 | 152 | 94 | 47 | 34 | 54% | | Hillingdon | 63 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 421 | 4 | 12 | 0 | 358 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 4% | | Hounslow | 46 | 64 | 0 | 0 | 269 | 58 | 39 | 80 | 223 | -6 | 39 | 80 | 34% | | Islington | 97 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 574 | 124 | 53 | 0 | 477 | 86 | 53 | 0 | 23% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 212 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 389 | 54 | 46 | 0 | 177 | 52 | 46 | 0 | 36% | | Kingston upon Thames | 49 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 198 | 28 | 8 | 1 | 149 | 28 | 8 | 1 | 20% | | Lambeth | 164 | 124 | 0 | 0 | 1,067 | 189 | 72 | 46 | 903 | 65 | 72 | 46 | 17% | | Lewisham | 152 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 521 | 230 | 38 | 0 | 369 | 214 | 38 | 0 | 41% | | Merton | 63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 209 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 146 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 8% | | Newham | 59 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6,019 | 723 | 1,088| 752 | 5,960 | 723 | 1,088| 752 | 30% | | BOROUGH NAME | EXISTING | PROPOSED | NET | NET % AFFORDABLE | |--------------------|----------|----------|-----|------------------| | | MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | NET % AFFORDABLE | | Redbridge | 53 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 285 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 232 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 4% | | Richmond upon Thames | 95 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 162 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 67 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3% | | Southwark | 100 | 146 | 0 | 0 | 3,111 | 527 | 441 | 52 | 3,011 | 381 | 441 | 52 | 22% | | Sutton | 48 | 308 | 0 | 0 | 570 | 72 | 66 | 102 | 522 | -236 | 66 | 102 | -15% | | Tower Hamlets | 70 | 347 | 0 | 0 | 2,230 | 681 | 265 | 225 | 2,160 | 334 | 265 | 225 | 28% | | Waltham Forest | 94 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 910 | 1 | 157 | 202 | 816 | -3 | 157 | 202 | 30% | | Wandsworth | 280 | 226 | 0 | 0 | 4,287 | 269 | 403 | 384 | 4,007 | 43 | 403 | 384 | 17% | | Westminster | 366 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 1,174 | 60 | 102 | 0 | 808 | 53 | 100 | 0 | 16% | | Sum: | 3,539 | 3,269 | 2 | 0 | 33,865 | 5,047 | 3,962| 2,639 | 30,326 | 1,778 | 3,960| 2,639 | 22% |
Source: London Development Database
- The total for Newham includes 6,809 units in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park granted by the London Legacy Development Corporation under reference 11/90621/OUTODA. While the majority of the units will be in Newham, parts of the site also fall within Tower Hamlets and Hackney. | BOROUGH | NUMBER OF BEDROOMS | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4+ | % 3+ | |-------------------------------|--------------------|----|----|----|----|------| | Barking and Dagenham | | 192| 223| 177| 40 | 34% | | Barnet | | 307| 424| 151| 104| 26% | | Bexley | | 174| 545| 284| 194| 40% | | Brent | | 381| 416| 111| 33 | 15% | | Bromley | | 142| 247| 65 | 86 | 28% | | Camden | | 619| 740| 223| 122| 20% | | City of London | | 64 | 42 | 2 | 1 | 3% | | Croydon | | 528| 714| 145| 70 | 15% | | Ealing | | 383| 540| 157| 71 | 20% | | Enfield | | 154| 239| 180| 95 | 41% | | Greenwich | | 255| 450| 124| 22 | 17% | | Hackney | | 508| 611| 336| 139| 30% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | | 320| 333| 112| 26 | 17% | | Haringey | | 319| 371| 129| 60 | 22% | | Harrow | | 390| 658| 295| 249| 34% | | Havering | | 74 | 108| 129| 34 | 47% | | Hillingdon | | 179| 160| 68 | 30 | 22% | | Hounslow | | 149| 183| 79 | 35 | 26% | | Islington | | 246| 355| 118| 32 | 20% | | Kensington and Chelsea | | 178| 142| 114| 55 | 35% | | Kingston upon Thames | | 75 | 88 | 15 | 57 | 31% | | Lambeth | | 524| 623| 169| 58 | 17% | | Lewisham | | 351| 280| 116| 42 | 20% | | Merton | | 94 | 63 | 14 | 51 | 29% | | Newham | | 722| 467| 508| 76 | 33% | | Redbridge | | 131| 99 | 25 | 41 | 22% | | Richmond upon Thames | | 54 | 50 | 22 | 38 | 37% | | Southwark | | 1054|1614|1115|348|35% | | Sutton | | 205| 336| 180| 89 | 33% | | Tower Hamlets | | 921| 1575|678|227|27% | | Waltham Forest | | 343| 597| 236| 94 | 26% | | Wandsworth | | 1342|2706|966|329|24% | | Westminster | | 392| 471| 339| 134| 35% | | London | | 11,771|16,472|7,385|3,082|27% |
Source: London Development Database
*This table excludes 6,809 units approved in the outline permission for the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park for which the number of bedrooms is not defined* | BOROUGH NAME | EXISTING | PROPOSED | NET | % AFF | |------------------------------|----------|----------|-----|-------| | | MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | | Barking and Dagenham | 6 | 314 | 0 | 0 | 140 | 276 | 0 | 0 | 134 | -38 | 0 | 0 | -40% | | Barnet | 124 | 150 | 0 | 0 | 1,118 | 204 | 65 | 8 | 994 | 54 | 65 | 8 | 11% | | Bexley | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 223 | 8 | 36 | 0 | 202 | 8 | 36 | 0 | 18% | | Brent | 99 | 94 | 0 | 0 | 762 | 310 | 98 | 0 | 663 | 216 | 98 | 0 | 32% | | Bromley | 62 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 362 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 300 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 4% | | Camden | 82 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 497 | 65 | 22 | 0 | 415 | 41 | 22 | 0 | 13% | | City of London | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 370 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 361 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1% | | Croydon | 70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 505 | 99 | 34 | 59 | 435 | 99 | 34 | 59 | 31% | | Ealing | 114 | 83 | 20 | 0 | 473 | 73 | 33 | 0 | 359 | -10 | 13 | 0 | 1% | | Enfield | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 201 | 8 | 6 | 0 | 171 | 8 | 6 | 0 | 8% | | Greenwich | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 828 | 223 | 116 | 12 | 796 | 223 | 116 | 12 | 31% | | Hackney | 52 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 622 | 146 | 79 | 0 | 570 | 119 | 79 | 0 | 26% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 42 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 1,075 | 23 | 257 | 0 | 1,033 | 3 | 257 | 0 | 20% | | Haringey | 52 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 180 | 31 | 29 | 0 | 128 | 31 | 29 | 0 | 32% | | Harrow | 60 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 232 | 9 | 12 | 0 | 172 | 9 | 12 | 0 | 11% | | Havering | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 406 | 91 | 30 | 11 | 394 | 91 | 30 | 11 | 25% | | Hillingdon | 56 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1,402 | 126 | 112 | 0 | 1,346 | 125 | 112 | 0 | 15% | | Hounslow | 21 | 42 | 0 | 0 | 271 | 39 | 39 | 36 | 250 | -3 | 39 | 36 | 22% | | Islington | 91 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 598 | 74 | 15 | 0 | 507 | 74 | 15 | 0 | 15% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 236 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 525 | 97 | 62 | 4 | 289 | 96 | 62 | 4 | 36% | | Kingston upon Thames | 33 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 268 | 18 | 11 | 2 | 235 | 18 | 11 | 2 | 12% | | Lambeth | 153 | 655 | 0 | 0 | 1,111 | 707 | 167 | 12 | 958 | 52 | 167 | 12 | 19% | | Lewisham | 161 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 819 | 121 | 50 | 97 | 658 | 106 | 50 | 97 | 28% | | Merton | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 83 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | | BOROUGH NAME | EXISTING | PROPOSED | NET | % AFF | |--------------|----------|----------|-----|-------| | | MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | | Newham | 59 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 1,085 | 77 | 243 | 166 | 1,026 | 66 | 243 | 166 | 32% | | Redbridge | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 344 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 313 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | | Richmond upon Thames | 88 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 167 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 79 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2% | | Southwark | 38 | 64 | 4 | 0 | 1,467 | 342 | 171 | 0 | 1,429 | 278 | 167 | 0 | 24% | | Sutton | 28 | 357 | 0 | 0 | 494 | 103 | 90 | 79 | 466 | -254 | 90 | 79 | -22% | | Tower Hamlets| 106 | 79 | 0 | 0 | 510 | 210 | 51 | 2 | 404 | 131 | 51 | 2 | 31% | | Waltham Forest | 48 | 144 | 0 | 0 | 197 | 47 | 91 | 12 | 149 | -97 | 91 | 12 | 4% | | Wandsworth | 242 | 226 | 0 | 0 | 2,741 | 251 | 297 | 173 | 2,499 | 25 | 297 | 173 | 17% | | Westminster | 535 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 2,781 | 172 | 166 | 0 | 2,246 | 167 | 164 | 0 | 13% | | Year Total: | 2,823 | 2,313 | 26 | 0 | 22,857 | 3,961 | 2,387| 673 | 20,034 | 1,648 | 2,361| 673 | 19% |
Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH | NUMBER OF BEDROOMS | |-------------------------------|--------------------| | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4+ | % 3+ | | Barking and Dagenham | 143| 87 | 139| 47 | 45% | | Barnet | 402| 731| 201| 61 | 19% | | Bexley | 87 | 102| 60 | 18 | 29% | | Brent | 369| 531| 188| 82 | 23% | | Bromley | 106| 132| 67 | 69 | 36% | | Camden | 207| 215| 99 | 63 | 28% | | City of London | 195| 149| 20 | 8 | 8% | | Croydon | 245| 341| 64 | 47 | 16% | | Ealing | 186| 272| 90 | 31 | 21% | | Enfield | 65 | 71 | 61 | 18 | 37% | | Greenwich | 645| 361| 156| 17 | 15% | | Hackney | 281| 348| 161| 57 | 26% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 685| 325| 225| 120| 25% | | Haringey | 113| 80 | 30 | 17 | 20% | | Harrow | 115| 101| 11 | 26 | 15% | | Havering | 45 | 184| 208| 101| 57% | | Hillingdon | 362| 646| 341| 291| 39% | | Hounslow | 124| 197| 53 | 11 | 17% | | Islington | 302| 274| 86 | 25 | 16% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 189| 200| 185| 114| 43% | | Kingston upon Thames | 110| 124| 49 | 16 | 22% | | Lambeth | 743| 805| 360| 89 | 22% | | Lewisham | 497| 417| 132| 41 | 16% | | Merton | 33 | 15 | 7 | 28 | 42% | | Newham | 524| 712| 328| 7 | 21% | | Redbridge | 142| 123| 40 | 39 | 23% | | Richmond upon Thames | 61 | 44 | 26 | 38 | 38% | | Southwark | 719| 854| 335| 72 | 21% | | Sutton | 263| 303| 127| 73 | 26% | | Tower Hamlets | 271| 310| 153| 39 | 25% | | Waltham Forest | 145| 152| 27 | 23 | 14% | | Wandsworth | 897| 1982| 464| 119| 17% | | Westminster | 873| 1170| 919| 157| 34% | | London | 10,144| 12,358| 5,412| 1,964| 25% |
Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH NAME | NOT STARTED | UNDER CONSTRUCTION | TOTAL PIPELINE | |--------------|-------------|--------------------|----------------| | | EXISTING | GROSS | NET | | | EXISTING | GROSS | NET | | | EXISTING | GROSS | NET | | Barking and Dagenham | 2,499 | 2,206 | 11,227 | 11,4044 | 13,433 | | Barnet | 668 | 11,437 | 10,769 | 2,940 | 7,390 | 4,450 | 3,608 | 18,827 | 15,219 | | Bexley | 637 | 1,340 | 713 | 31 | 1,177 | 1,146 | 658 | 2,517 | 1,859 | | Brent | 491 | 7,116 | 6,625 | 125 | 1,809 | 1,684 | 616 | 6,925 | 8,309 | | Bromley | 260 | 1,573 | 1,313 | 34 | 1,195 | 1,159 | 61 | 6,925 | 8,309 | | Camden | 615 | 2,455 | 2,180 | 17 | 1,299 | 1,282 | 60 | 2,517 | 1,859 | | City of London | 222 | 4,164 | 3,922 | 75 | 2,326 | 2,216 | 107 | 6,400 | 5,745 | | Croydon | 365 | 4,882 | 4,517 | 114 | 2,342 | 2,228 | 107 | 6,400 | 5,745 | | Enfield | 123 | 957 | 834 | 195 | 797 | 742 | 31 | 2,517 | 1,859 | | Ealing | 115 | 9,365 | 9,250 | 199 | 16,198 | 14,207 | 2,106 | 23,457 | 20,593 | | Greenwich | 969 | 4,260 | 3,321 | 2,249 | 6,102 | 3,853 | 3,218 | 10,392 | 7,174 | | Hackney | 160 | 4,060 | 3,900 | 51 | 2,366 | 2,215 | 211 | 6,326 | 6,115 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 182 | 2,857 | 2,675 | 59 | 737 | 678 | 241 | 3,594 | 3,353 | | Haringey | 209 | 2,823 | 2,614 | 329 | 758 | 429 | 538 | 3,581 | 3,043 | | Havering | 107 | 2,421 | 2,314 | 299 | 1,774 | 1,475 | 406 | 4,195 | 3,789 | | Hillingdon | 118 | 909 | 791 | 89 | 3,051 | 2,962 | 207 | 3,960 | 3,753 | | Hounslow | 152 | 1,922 | 1,770 | 195 | 1,636 | 1,441 | 347 | 3,558 | 3,211 | | Islington | 136 | 2,186 | 2,050 | 409 | 2,945 | 2,536 | 545 | 5,131 | 4,586 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 224 | 1,020 | 796 | 679 | 2,957 | 2,077 | 1,103 | 5,978 | 4,873 | | Kingston upon Thames | 109 | 464 | 355 | 31 | 1,717 | 1,686 | 68 | 2,453 | 2,174 | | Lambeth | 364 | 2,366 | 2,022 | 1,993 | 1,891 | 1,789 | 1,789 | 5,582 | 5,582 | | Lewisham | 919 | 7,656 | 6,737 | 86 | 1,991 | 1,805 | 1,005 | 9,547 | 8,542 | | Merton | 168 | 7,788 | 6,620 | 160 | 610 | 532 | 31 | 1,184 | 974 | | Newham | 84 | 1,125 | 1,041 | 31 | 447 | 416 | 115 | 1,184 | 974 | | Richmond upon Thames | 107 | 549 | 442 | 103 | 635 | 532 | 31 | 1,184 | 974 | | Southwark | 649 | 6,288 | 5,639 | 297 | 3,757 | 3,460 | 946 | 10,045 | 9,099 | | BOROUGH NAME | NOT STARTED | UNDER CONSTRUCTION | TOTAL PIPELINE | |--------------|-------------|-------------------|----------------| | | EXISTING | GROSS | NET | EXISTING | GROSS | NET | EXISTING | GROSS | NET | | Sutton | 114 | 1,381 | 1,267 | 650 | 741 | 91 | 764 | 2,122 | 1,358 | | Tower Hamlets| 647 | 10,319| 9,672 | 1,234 | 11,616 | 10,382 | 1,881 | 21,935 | 20,054 | | Waltham Forest| 95 | 1,748 | 1,653 | 308 | 809 | 501 | 403 | 2,557 | 2,154 | | Wandsworth | 158 | 11,586| 11,428| 526 | 6,086 | 5,560 | 684 | 17,672 | 16,988 | | Westminster | 390 | 2,495 | 2,105 | 506 | 3,263 | 2,757 | 896 | 5,758 | 4,862 | | London | 9,967 | 132,909| 122,942| 18,203 | 111,737 | 93,534 | 28,170 | 244,646 | 216,476 |
Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH | NUMBER OF BEDROOMS | |-------------------------------|--------------------| | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4+ | % 3+ | | Barking and Dagenham | 2,314 | 6,296 | 3,974 | 1,460 | 39% | | Barnet | 5,393 | 8,023 | 2,516 | 1,092 | 21% | | Bexley | 593 | 1,261 | 401 | 262 | 26% | | Brent | 3,053 | 4,030 | 1,562 | 280 | 21% | | Bromley | 574 | 1,307 | 491 | 396 | 32% | | Camden | 1,806 | 2,002 | 804 | 407 | 24% | | City of London | 527 | 332 | 60 | 32 | 10% | | Croydon | 2,644 | 3,089 | 493 | 174 | 10% | | Ealing | 1,956 | 3,319 | 1,408 | 541 | 27% | | Enfield | 465 | 732 | 376 | 181 | 32% | | Greenwich | 9,420 | 10,265 | 4,583 | 525 | 21% | | Hackney | 3,573 | 3,765 | 2,275 | 779 | 29% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 2,427 | 2,699 | 941 | 259 | 19% | | Haringey | 2,185 | 927 | 324 | 158 | 13% | | Harrow | 1,058 | 1,581 | 532 | 410 | 26% | | Havering | 1,184 | 1,808 | 883 | 320 | 29% | | Hillingdon | 987 | 1,645 | 744 | 584 | 34% | | Hounslow | 1,143 | 1,469 | 783 | 163 | 27% | | Islington | 2,239 | 2,198 | 518 | 176 | 14% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1,226 | 1,499 | 924 | 327 | 31% | | Kingston upon Thames | 424 | 481 | 157 | 119 | 23% | | Lambeth | 2,674 | 3,573 | 1,298 | 294 | 20% | | Lewisham | 3,322 | 4,751 | 1,144 | 330 | 15% | | Merton | 625 | 584 | 152 | 195 | 22% | | Newham | 5,351 | 7,049 | 3,058 | 704 | 23% | | Redbridge | 591 | 730 | 145 | 106 | 16% | | Richmond upon Thames | 447 | 497 | 121 | 119 | 20% | | Southwark | 3,247 | 4,139 | 2,113 | 546 | 26% | | Sutton | 616 | 831 | 481 | 194 | 32% | | Tower Hamlets | 9,318 | 8,051 | 3,585 | 976 | 21% | | Waltham Forest | 777 | 1,208 | 399 | 173 | 22% | | Wandsworth | 5,142 | 8,948 | 2,691 | 891 | 20% | | Westminster | 1,629 | 2,014 | 1,672 | 443 | 37% | | London | 78,930 | 101,103 | 41,608 | 13,616 | 23% |
Source: London Development Database
Note: The table excludes 8,620 units for which the number of bedrooms is not known. The majority of these are in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in Newham (6,809) and the West Hendon Estate in Barnet (1,803). The remaining 8 units are in minor schemes granted prior to 1st April 2004. | BOROUGH | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | |-------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Barking and Dagenham | 146 | 80 | 130 | 273 | 130 | 67 | | Barnet | 83 | 112 | 100 | 99 | 69 | 61 | | Bexley | 52 | 110 | 83 | 81 | 101 | 63 | | Brent | 149 | 133 | 182 | 185 | 146 | 134 | | Bromley | 49 | 36 | 49 | 57 | 35 | 40 | | Camden | 113 | 136 | 140 | 140 | 182 | 170 | | City of London | 1263 | 329 | 235 | 457 | 462 | 452 | | Croydon | 106 | 131 | 97 | 141 | 169 | 103 | | Ealing | 115 | 162 | 153 | 144 | 110 | 103 | | Enfield | 82 | 65 | 71 | 61 | 61 | 91 | | Greenwich | 248 | 211 | 143 | 337 | 240 | 233 | | Hackney | 238 | 200 | 245 | 206 | 226 | 186 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 224 | 187 | 301 | 180 | 243 | 220 | | Haringey | 173 | 96 | 107 | 118 | 214 | 134 | | Harrow | 90 | 62 | 83 | 62 | 84 | 91 | | Havering | 41 | 55 | 99 | 121 | 52 | 45 | | Hillingdon | 68 | 91 | 39 | 57 | 69 | 58 | | Hounslow | 95 | 159 | 61 | 75 | 128 | 67 | | Islington | 252 | 243 | 271 | 310 | 287 | 194 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 163 | 132 | 193 | 228 | 191 | 153 | | Kingston upon Thames | 61 | 75 | 64 | 64 | 49 | 32 | | Lambeth | 214 | 130 | 190 | 183 | 167 | 228 | | Lewisham | 172 | 166 | 229 | 133 | 230 | 128 | | Merton | 95 | 80 | 69 | 65 | 75 | 33 | | Newham | 347 | 368 | 266 | 398 | 466 | 127 | | Redbridge | 116 | 87 | 373 | 158 | 108 | 70 | | Richmond upon Thames | 60 | 58 | 46 | 106 | 71 | 52 | | Southwark | 277 | 334 | 230 | 224 | 208 | 361 | | Sutton | 117 | 101 | 58 | 57 | 106 | 56 | | Tower Hamlets | 447 | 310 | 373 | 318 | 487 | 239 | | Waltham Forest | 128 | 132 | 121 | 111 | 147 | 128 | | Wandsworth | 151 | 168 | 142 | 206 | 290 | 193 | | Westminster | 256 | 156 | 199 | 207 | 217 | 198 | | London | 151 | 138 | 152 | 137 | 165 | 126 |
Source: London Development Database
DPH = dwellings per hectare | BOROUGH | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | |-------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Barking and Dagenham | 123 | 139 | 238 | 111 | 50 | 166 | | Barnet | 63 | 98 | 64 | 78 | 81 | 100 | | Bexley | 51 | 76 | 81 | 65 | 70 | 102 | | Brent | 106 | 144 | 150 | 156 | 141 | 134 | | Bromley | 55 | 35 | 30 | 54 | 47 | 49 | | Camden | 140 | 229 | 187 | 195 | 122 | 205 | | City of London | 535 | 505 | 500 | 319 | 857 | 313 | | Croydon | 72 | 98 | 121 | 101 | 76 | 81 | | Ealing | 136 | 159 | 110 | 112 | 104 | 103 | | Enfield | 92 | 68 | 61 | 86 | 59 | 73 | | Greenwich | 138 | 122 | 112 | 239 | 194 | 119 | | Hackney | 182 | 223 | 245 | 200 | 224 | 278 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 143 | 207 | 208 | 232 | 289 | 165 | | Haringey | 138 | 159 | 108 | 112 | 120 | 108 | | Harrow | 79 | 71 | 116 | 79 | 60 | 93 | | Havering | 63 | 71 | 71 | 53 | 61 | 50 | | Hillingdon | 54 | 60 | 94 | 44 | 25 | 107 | | Hounslow | 102 | 120 | 184 | 94 | 78 | 50 | | Islington | 236 | 285 | 199 | 187 | 297 | 201 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 167 | 173 | 126 | 194 | 153 | 157 | | Kingston upon Thames | 112 | 49 | 45 | 52 | 89 | 68 | | Lambeth | 163 | 172 | 155 | 290 | 167 | 158 | | Lewisham | 124 | 136 | 188 | 164 | 160 | 140 | | Merton | 96 | 47 | 67 | 101 | 79 | 134 | | Newham | 292 | 267 | 240 | 216 | 166 | 171 | | Redbridge | 122 | 110 | 100 | 217 | 173 | 84 | | Richmond upon Thames | 58 | 82 | 71 | 53 | 59 | 89 | | Southwark | 254 | 220 | 227 | 373 | 213 | 167 | | Sutton | 53 | 88 | 66 | 66 | 79 | 97 | | Tower Hamlets | 298 | 313 | 356 | 365 | 286 | 279 | | Waltham Forest | 125 | 131 | 118 | 169 | 125 | 132 | | Wandsworth | 135 | 172 | 165 | 104 | 125 | 133 | | Westminster | 205 | 269 | 258 | 142 | 194 | 206 | | London | 117 | 128 | 136 | 133 | 111 | 120 |
Source: London Development Database
DPH = dwellings per hectare MAP HPM 3 – NET AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET CONVENTIONAL HOUSING DELIVERY 2012/13
Net affordable housing delivery as a percentage of net conventional housing delivery 2012/13
- **55% to 62%**
- **45% to 54%**
- **30% to 44%**
- **15% to 29%**
- **1% to 14%**
- **0%**
© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Greater London Authority 100032216 (2014) AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY MONITOR
3.26 The measure of affordable housing delivery used in the Mayor’s London Housing Strategy is very different from the measure of housing provision used in the London Plan. Affordable housing delivery is measured in gross terms and includes acquisitions of existing private sector homes for use as affordable housing. Therefore it is typically higher in any given year than the net provision of affordable housing in planning terms reported in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report and the Housing Provision Monitor.
3.27 The data source for monitoring affordable housing delivery targets is the set of statistics on affordable housing supply published by the Department for Communities and Local Government. DCLG no longer publish regional statistics but have provided the GLA with updated figures at London level.
3.28 These statistics are compiled from a range of sources. The vast majority of delivery in London in recent years has been funded by the Homes and Communities Agency and the Greater London Authority, but the statistics also include units provided without any public funding and a number of assisted purchases.
3.29 Table AHM1 below shows affordable housing delivery in London by type in the four years 2009/10 to 2012/13. Over this period a total of 53,493 affordable homes were delivered, of which 32,385 were social housing, 20,699 intermediate housing and 409 were Affordable Rent.
3.30 Figure 3.2 shows the trend in total
FIGURE 3.2 CHANGE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY
!\[Affordable housing delivery in London, 1991/92 to 2012/13\](source: DCLG) affordable housing delivery in London since 1991/92. Delivery peaked at 17,148 in 1995/96, fell to 8,273 in 2000/01 and rose again to a new peak of 17,217 in 2011/12 before falling again to 8,701 in 2012/13. The drop in 2012/13 was due to the transition from the 2008-11 National Affordable Housing Programme to the 2011-15 Affordable Homes Programme.
IMMEDIATE HOUSING
3.31 Paragraph 3.62 of the 2011 London Plan sets out the income thresholds for intermediate housing and states that these will be updated on an annual basis in the London Plan Annual Monitoring Reports. The thresholds are therefore to be updated as follows. Intermediate provision is sub-market housing, where costs, including service charges, are above target rents for social rented housing, but where costs, including service charges, are affordable by households on incomes of less than £66,000. This figure has been updated from the London Plan (2011) figure of £61,400 on the basis of the latest data (as of quarter 4, 2013) on lower quartile house prices in London. This figure has been rounded, as it was in AMR 9, which has resulted in no increase in this figure.
3.32 In his 2011 replacement London Plan, the Mayor set out a higher intermediate housing income threshold of £74,000 for households with dependents, in order to reflect the higher cost of both developing and buying family-sized homes in London. This figure was derived by uprating the upper income threshold in the Plan (£61,400) by 20%. The upper threshold for intermediate family housing can therefore be updated by adding 20% to the general threshold of £66,000 and rounding for a figure of £80,000. Intermediate housing can include shared ownership, sub-market rent provision (including the new affordable rent product) and market provision, including key worker provision, where this affordability criterion is met and where provision is appropriate to meeting identified requirements.
3.33 For the criterion that provision is affordable to be met, the purchase price must be no greater than 3.5 times the household income limit specified above (i.e. no greater than £231,000), or (for products where a rent is paid) the annual housing costs, including rent and service charge, should be no greater than 40% of net household income. This is to reflect a different level of disposable income, relative to lower income households dependent on social housing. In the case of two or multiple income households, lenders will generally lend at lower multipliers in relation to incomes of household members other than the highest income earner, and consequently market access will generally be more restricted for such households.
3.34 Local planning authorities should seek to ensure that intermediate provision provides for households with a range of incomes below the upper limit, and provides a range of dwelling types in terms of a mix of unit sizes, measured by number of bedrooms. The average incomes of those entering intermediate housing will be in future be monitored annually, against the benchmarks of £43,550 pa (i.e. the midpoint of the range between £21,100 – updated from AMR9 in line with RPI - and £66,000) and £50,550 pa (i.e. the midpoint of the range between £21,100 and £80,000). On this basis, average housing costs, including service charges, would be about £1,020 a month or £235 a week for smaller homes (housing costs at 40% of net income, net income being assumed to be 70% of gross income) and £1,180 a month and £270 a week for larger homes of 3 or more bedrooms.
3.35 These intermediate income caps - £66,000 for most households, increased to £80,000 for families accessing family sized (3 bed or more) accommodation - are also applied by the GLA to determine eligibility for GLA funded intermediate housing products.
LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES
3.36 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) in paragraph 50 requires boroughs, which have identified a need for affordable housing, to set out policies for meeting this need. London Plan Policy 3.11 states that targets should be consistent with the overall strategic target of at least 13,200 (17,000 in FALP) affordable homes in London p.a. Boroughs are free to set targets in absolute or percentage terms, the London Plan sets out a range of issues boroughs should consider (capacity, viability, balanced communities etc). Table 3.10 shows adopted borough affordable housing policies. | BOROUGH | BOROUGH POLICY TARGET % (OR PRACTICE) AS AT 2002 | BOROUGH POLICY TARGET IN 2010 | ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2013 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE) | EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET | |-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 25 | 50% (August 2010) | 50% (July 2010) | n/a | | Barnet | 30 | 50% | 40% (Sept 2012) | n/a | | Bexley | 25 | 35% | 50% and a minimum of 35% of units to be affordable housing (Feb 2012) | n/a | | Brent | 30-50 | 50% | 50% (July 2010) | n/a | | Bromley | 20 | 35% | 35% (March 2008) | Plan currently being reviewed | | Camden | 50 Proposed | 50% for >50 dwellings | 50% for >50 dwellings, 10-50% for \<50 dwellings (Nov 2010) | n/a | | City of London | None | 50% | 30% (Sep 2011) | Plan currently being reviewed | | | | | (30% on site and 60% off site) | | | Croydon | 40 | 40-50% | 50% (April 2013) | n/a | | Ealing | 50 | 50% | 50% (April 2012) | n/a | | Enfield | 25 | 40% | 40% (Nov 2010) | n/a | | Greenwich | 35 | 35% min | 35% minimum | Plan currently being reviewed | | | | | (35%) | | | Hackney | 25 | 50% | 50% (Nov 2010) | n/a | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 65 | 50% | 40% (Oct 2011) | n/a | | Haringey | 30 | 50% | 50% Affordable Housing on site (March 2013) | n/a | | Harrow | 30 | London Plan | 40% (Feb 2012) | n/a | | Havering | None | 50% | 50% (2008) | n/a | | Havering | None | 50% | 50% (2008) | n/a | | Hillingdon | 25 | 365u/pa (50%) | 35% (Nov 2012) | n/a | | Hounslow | 50 | 445 u/pa (50%) | 445 u/pa (50%) | emerging | | Islington | 25 | 45% | 50% (Feb 2011) | n/a | | Kensington & Chelsea | 33 | Min of 200 units per an from 2011/12 with site specific policy of 50% affordable by floor area | 50% (Dec 2010) | n/a | | BOROUGH | BOROUGH POLICY TARGET % (OR PRACTICE) AS AT 2002 | BOROUGH POLICY TARGET IN 2010 | ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2013 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE) | EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET | |-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------| | Kingston upon Thames | 50 | 35% | 50% (April 2012) | n/a | | Lambeth | 35-50 | 40% (50% with grant) | 40% (50% with grant) (Jan 2011) | 50% when public subsidy, 40% without | | Lewisham | 30 | 35% | 35% (June 2011) | Currently being reviewed 50% | | London Legacy Development Corporation | - | - | - | Emerging local plan | | Merton | 30 | London Plan | 40% (2011) | n/a | | Newham | 25 | London Plan | 50% (Jan 2012) | n/a | | Redbridge | 25 | 50% | 50% (March 2008) | Maximum reasonable amount | | Richmond upon Thames | 40 | 50% | 50% (2009) | n/a | | Southwark | 25 | 50% overall (40% in CAZ, 35% in E&C and suburban zones) | 8,558 (equates to 35% borough-wide but varies locally) (April 2011) | Currently been reviewed | | Sutton | 25 | 50% | 50% (Dec 2009) | n/a | | Tower Hamlets | 25-33 | 50% overall, 35-50% on individual sites | 50% overall (2010) | | | Waltham Forest | 40 | 50% | To provide at least 50% (5,700 homes) of homes as affordable over the plan period. 60/40 split. (March 2012) | | | Wandsworth | None | Min 373 units per an (to be reviewed on adoption of the LP) | On individual sites a proportion of at least 33% of homes should be affordable (Oct 2010) | Currently being reviewed (on individual sites at least 33%, in Nine Elms at least 15%) | | Westminster | - | 50% overall | 30% (Nov 2013) | n/a | | AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY TYPE | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | TOTAL | |---------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|-------| | **Social Rent, of which:** | | | | | | | Homes and Communities Agency (new build) | 7,055 | 8,892 | 11,374 | 5,064 | 32,385 | | Homes and Communities Agency (acquisitions) | 5,300 | 5,807 | 9,066 | 4,474 | 24,647 | | Other Homes and Communities Agency Schemes | 1,399 | 2,080 | 795 | 161 | 4,435 | | Local authorities | 55 | 233 | 420 | 1 | 709 | | of which HCA grant funded (new build) | 4 | 508 | 611 | 118 | 1,241 | | Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total | 297 | 145 | 215 | 103 | 760 | | of which, reported on IMS | 238 | 91 | 83 | 50 | 462 | | Private Finance Initiative | 0 | 119 | 162 | 88 | 369 | | Other | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 20 | | **Affordable Rent, of which:** | | | | | | | Homes and Communities Agency (new build) | 131 | 278 | 409 | | | | Homes and Communities Agency (acquisitions) | 85 | 197 | 282 | | | | Section 106 (new build) - total | 46 | 80 | 126 | | | | of which, reported on IMS | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | | Local authorities | 1 | 1 | | | | | **Intermediate Affordable Housing** | 6,507 | 5,121 | 5,712 | 3,359 | 20,699 | | **Intermediate Rent, of which:** | | | | | | | Homes and Communities Agency (new build) | 809 | 1,353 | 937 | 402 | 3,501 | | Homes and Communities Agency (acquisitions) | 743 | 1,211 | 757 | 330 | 3,041 | | Other | 66 | 142 | 73 | 36 | 317 | | **Low Cost Home Ownership, of which:** | | | | | | | Homes and Communities Agency (new build) | 5,698 | 3,768 | 4,775 | 2,957 | 17,198 | | of which, FirstBuy | 3,237 | 2,786 | 4,189 | 2,583 | 12,795 | | Homes and Communities Agency (acquisitions) | 1,464 | 77 | 52 | 2 | 1,595 | | Other Homes and Communities Agency Schemes | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 16 | | Local authorities | 11 | 8 | 19 | | | | Section 106 (new build) - total | 467 | 295 | 208 | 247 | 1,217 | | of which, reported on IMS | 317 | 263 | 101 | 118 | 799 | | Assisted Purchase Schemes | 530 | 610 | 283 | 114 | 1,537 | | Other | 16 | 3 | 19 | | | | **All affordable** | 13,562 | 14,013 | 17,217 | 8,701 | 53,493 |
See DCLG live table 1000 and statistical release for full notes and definitions. Figures for some previous years have been revised. | BOROUGH | SOCIAL RENT | AFFORDABLE RENT | INTERMEDIATE | TOTAL | |-------------------------|-------------|-----------------|--------------|--------| | Barking and Dagenham | 52 | 0 | 42 | 94 | | Barnet | 225 | 10 | 120 | 355 | | Bexley | 11 | 1 | 157 | 169 | | Brent | 392 | 12 | 125 | 529 | | Bromley | 157 | 64 | 130 | 351 | | Camden | 368 | 0 | 105 | 473 | | City of London | 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | | Croydon | 149 | 10 | 111 | 270 | | Ealing | 128 | 0 | 65 | 193 | | Enfield | 60 | 3 | 81 | 144 | | Greenwich | 162 | 6 | 106 | 274 | | Hackney | 463 | 5 | 122 | 590 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 9 | 0 | 94 | 103 | | Haringey | 188 | 0 | 192 | 380 | | Harrow | 128 | 28 | 141 | 297 | | Havering | 354 | 31 | 68 | 453 | | Hillingdon | 61 | 8 | 128 | 197 | | Hounslow | 44 | 4 | 29 | 77 | | Islington | 254 | 0 | 139 | 393 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 138 | 0 | 3 | 141 | | Kingston upon Thames | 5 | 0 | 10 | 15 | | Lambeth | 175 | 7 | 131 | 313 | | Lewisham | 348 | 1 | 322 | 671 | | Merton | 61 | 8 | 125 | 194 | | Newham | 145 | 6 | 125 | 276 | | Redbridge | 53 | 15 | 67 | 135 | | Richmond upon Thames | 14 | 14 | 0 | 28 | | Southwark | 337 | 9 | 124 | 470 | | Sutton | 72 | 0 | 52 | 124 | | Tower Hamlets | 238 | 31 | 173 | 442 | | Waltham Forest | 145 | 5 | 169 | 319 | | Wandsworth | 56 | 0 | 87 | 143 | | Westminster | 66 | 0 | 16 | 82 | | London | 5,064 | 278 | 3,359 | 8,701 |
\*Includes Affordable Rent. Source: DCLG ACHIEVING AN INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENT
3.37 The LDD has been collecting data on Lifetime and Wheelchair Accessible Homes on all approvals since 2008. More details of the standard can be found at http://www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/index.php. The standards for Wheelchair Housing are contained in the Accessible London SPG which can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/archives/spg_accessible_london.pdf. The figures in the table are ‘gross’ approvals and calculated at scheme level, so units may be counted twice where a scheme is revised and approved within the same year. Percentages are shown rather than absolute numbers to avoid confusion as total units will be higher than total approvals in the Housing Monitor.
3.38 Although developers should seek 100% compliance with Lifetime Homes standards for all development types, there are often practical difficulties that can arise when seeking to modify existing buildings through conversion or change of use. Separate totals are therefore shown for all schemes and for new build schemes.
3.39 The data in Table 3.5 shows that compliance with Lifetime Homes standards is now the norm for unit approvals in London. Nearly 85% of all units are now designed to meet Lifetime Homes standards and the total rises to 95% for new builds. 8.4% of homes are designed to be fully Wheelchair Homes standard compliant while 9.5% of new builds are designed to this high standard of accessibility. The London Plan targets of 100% Lifetime Homes and 10% Wheelchair Homes remains elusive though, even on new builds. Several boroughs only require compliance on schemes above a certain size, often ten units or more. With 2012/13 seeing a relatively low level of approvals, small schemes in these boroughs make a bigger impact on the London total than they would in busier years. | BOROUGH NAME | % LIFETIME HOMES, ALL UNITS | % WHEELCHAIR HOMES, ALL UNITS | % LIFETIME HOMES, NEW BUILD | % WHEELCHAIR HOMES, NEW BUILD | |------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 98.4 | 15.8 | 100.0 | 16.2 | | Barnet | 54.7 | 2.6 | 76.2 | 3.4 | | Bexley | 79.8 | 6.3 | 84.0 | 6.5 | | Brent | 85.8 | 12.2 | 95.7 | 13.7 | | Bromley | 48.1 | 2.4 | 70.9 | 3.9 | | Camden | 77.9 | 8.6 | 98.2 | 11.1 | | City of London | 17.4 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Croydon | 63.0 | 11.5 | 80.8 | 15.5 | | Ealing | 83.7 | 7.8 | 98.0 | 9.2 | | Enfield | 89.7 | 10.9 | 90.6 | 14.6 | | Greenwich | 90.4 | 9.9 | 99.5 | 11.3 | | Hackney | 86.8 | 10.7 | 93.7 | 14.7 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 74.8 | 7.6 | 92.1 | 10.3 | | Haringey | 87.8 | 6.1 | 93.6 | 7.7 | | Harrow | 91.7 | 4.5 | 98.9 | 4.2 | | Havering | 82.0 | 6.4 | 85.0 | 6.6 | | Hillingdon | 87.4 | 7.1 | 98.4 | 8.5 | | Hounslow | 52.9 | 4.0 | 67.7 | 4.9 | | Islington | 56.2 | 3.9 | 93.6 | 6.6 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 43.6 | 3.7 | 70.7 | 6.3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 51.5 | 1.7 | 84.4 | 3.0 | | Lambeth | 65.7 | 6.0 | 89.6 | 8.6 | | Lewisham | 73.7 | 7.5 | 93.8 | 9.3 | | Merton | 71.8 | 4.8 | 86.8 | 7.4 | | Newham | 98.2 | 9.7 | 99.8 | 9.9 | | Redbridge | 98.6 | 3.4 | 100.0 | 6.8 | | Richmond upon Thames | 22.0 | 1.2 | 35.6 | 2.7 | | Southwark | 92.3 | 8.6 | 97.1 | 9.1 | | Sutton | 92.2 | 11.6 | 97.7 | 11.1 | | Tower Hamlets | 93.4 | 10.3 | 96.9 | 10.7 | | Waltham Forest | 84.4 | 7.6 | 97.9 | 9.1 | | Wandsworth | 93.1 | 8.9 | 97.9 | 9.2 | | Westminster | 46.7 | 5.0 | 77.4 | 8.7 | | Total: | 84.5 | 8.4 | 95.1 | 9.5 |
Source: London Development Database ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
PTAL MAP
3.40 In several important areas of planning policy (dealing, for example, with housing density and parking provision), the London Plan uses public transport accessibility levels (PTALs). The 2012 PTAL map (figure 3.3) is the current version for the time covered by this monitoring report and is the one used to calculate compliance with the density matrix. Extracts are available from TfL. FIGURE 3.3: LONDON PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY (PTAL) MAP 2012
Source: Transport for London © Crown Copyright and database right 2013. Ordnance Survey 100032216 GLA. CROSSRAIL FUNDING
3.41 For London to continue to make progress in reducing its reliance on the private car, considerable investment in public transport is required. Crossrail is a £15bn investment travelling east-west through the heart of London, serving substantial suburban locations. Under the funding agreement with the Government the Mayor is required to raise £300m from S106 contributions and £300m from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CiL). In April 2012 the Mayor’s CiL, to raise funds to contribute to the construction of Crossrail, came into effect. In April 2013 the Mayor published the “Use of Planning Obligations in the funding of Crossrail, and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy” SPG.
3.42 The CiL is a London-wide charge, applying to most land uses. The table below shows progress to date towards the £300m target for both funding streams. The CiL Regulations 2010 (as amended) require the Mayor to report on various aspects of how CiL receipts are being spent. This is set out in Table 2.18A below. It is not possible to link CiL to a specific type of expenditure as the proceeds are transferred into the Sponsor Funding Account (SFA), which then draws on the total to be spent in line with the project’s requirements. Amount of CiL ‘in hand’ is zero, as all of it is transferred to the SFA to fund the Crossrail scheme on a quarterly basis.
### TABLE 3.6 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS TO CROSSRAIL (£M)
| S106 | YEAR | CIL | |------|--------|------| | 0.24 | 2010/11| | | 1.43 | 2011/12| | | 17.20| 2012/13| 6.09 | | 7.62 | 2013/14\*| 26.68| | | 2014/15| | | | 2015/16| | | | 2016/17| | | | 2017/18| | | | 2018/19| | | | 2019/20| | | 26.46| Total | 32.77| | 300 | Agreed Total | 300 |
### TABLE 3.6A USE OF CIL RECEIPTS
| CATEGORY | £ | |---------------------------------------|------------| | Total CIL Expenditure | 32,768,803\*| | Amount used to repay borrowing | 0 | | Amount spent on administration | 341,873.00\*| | Amount of CIL ‘in-hand’ | 0 |
- figures for 2013/14 only include to the end of December 2013.
- figures correct to the end of December 2013
Source: Transport for London 3.43 The Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) was published in October 2009 and contains 19 recommendations progress against which is being monitored via the AMR. Table 3.7 provides an overview of progress at January 2014. The RFRA is currently being reviewed and a new draft was published for consultation alongside the FALP in January 2014. The review suggests some changes to the recommendations. Next year’s AMR will monitor progress against the revised set of recommendations of the final version of the new RFRA.
### TABLE 3.7 PROGRESS ON REGIONAL FLOOD RISK APPRAISAL RECOMMENDATIONS
| NO. | RECOMMENDATION | PROGRESS AT JAN 2014 | |-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | All Thames-side planning authorities should consider in their Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs) and put in place DPD policies to promote the setting back of development from the edge of the Thames and tidal tributaries to enable sustainable and cost effective upgrade of river walls/embankments, in line with Policy 5.12, Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) and Thames Estuary 2100 | Most boroughs are now making reasonable progress in recognising this in either their SFRAs or DPDs. | | 2 | The London boroughs of Richmond, Kingston-upon-Thames, Hounslow and Wandsworth should put in place policies to avoid development that would prejudice the implementation of increased channel capacity between Teddington Lock and Hammersmith Bridge in line with TE2100 findings | Relevant flood risk management measures are broadly reflected in draft planning policies in Kingston, Hounslow, Richmond and Wandsworth, | | NO. | RECOMMENDATION | PROGRESS AT JAN 2014 | |-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 3 | The London boroughs of Havering and Bexley should put in place policies to prevent development that would prejudice the use of Rainham/Wennington Marshes, Erith Marshes and Dartford/Crayford Marshes for emergency flood storage in line with TE2100 findings. Although outside London, Thurrock and Dartford should also consider this aspect of flood risk management. | The use of these areas for emergency flood storage is not a preferred option, so this requirement is no longer valid. However, the relevant boroughs are working with the Environment Agency to explore future flood risk management options in line with the TE2100 Plan. | | 4 | Boroughs at confluences of tributary rivers with the River Thames should pay particular attention to the interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risks. These are Havering, Barking & Dagenham, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Lewisham, Wandsworth, Hounslow, Richmond and Kingston. | Tidal influences are generally taken into account in the SFRA modelling addressing the interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risk at confluences. | | 4 | Boroughs at confluences of tributary rivers with the River Thames should pay particular attention to the interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risks. These are Havering, Barking & Dagenham, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Lewisham, Wandsworth, Hounslow, Richmond and Kingston. | Tidal influences are generally taken into account in the SFRA modelling by all listed boroughs addressing the interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risk at confluences. | | 5 | Regeneration and redevelopment of London’s fluvial river corridors offer a crucial opportunity to reduce flood risk. SFRAs and policies should focus on making the most of this opportunity through appropriate location, layout and design of development as set out in PPS25 and the Thames CFMP. | SFRAs and DPD policies generally promote the use of location, layout and design of new development, including the use of SUDS, to reduce flood risk. | | 5 | Once funding is confirmed Drain London will investigate and plan for long term management of London’s surface water infrastructure in order to reduce surface water flood risk. | Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs) were produced for each Borough in 2011. Project is now funding specific investigations and measures to address flood risk areas, this programme will continue to March 2014. | | 5 | Developments all across London should reduce surface water discharge in line with the Sustainable Drainage Hierarchy set out in Policy 5.13 of the London Plan. | The GLA will be working with boroughs to extend current positive trends to smaller scale development proposals. It is expected that the Mayor’s emerging Sustainable Design and Construction SPG and the emerging SUDS Approval Body mechanism will enable boroughs to increase the scale of sustainable drainage being implemented across London. | | NO. | RECOMMENDATION | PROGRESS AT JAN 2014 | |-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 6 | Regeneration and redevelopment of London’s fluvial river corridors offer a crucial opportunity to reduce flood risk. SFRAs and policies should focus on making the most of this opportunity through appropriate location, layout and design of development as set out in PPS25 and the Thames CFMP. | SFRAs and DPD policies generally promote the use of location, layout and design of new development, including the use of SUDS, to reduce flood risk. The Olympics area is a good example where river restoration has reduced flood risk to several thousand properties whilst creating a much improved river park. There are other good examples such as the Ravensbourne Corridor (Lewisham), the Ram Brewery (Wandsworth) and the Wandle Park and New South Quarter (Croydon). | | 7 | Once funding is confirmed Drain London will investigate and plan for long term management of London’s surface water infrastructure in order to reduce surface water flood risk. | Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs) were produced for each Borough in 2011. Drain London is now funding 24 specific investigations and assessment of risks to critical infrastructure. This current programme runs until March 2016. | | 8 | Organisations responsible for development with large roof areas should investigate providing additional surface water run-off storage | Drain London has funded 15 demonstration sustainable drainage projects within Business Improvement Districts. The SUDS for Schools project has introduced sustainable drainage at 10 schools. Drainage works are also part of the improvement works at Victoria Station. | | 9 | Thames Water to continue the programme of addressing foul sewer flooding | Future funding has been reduced through Ofwat settlement, but initial work is underway, in particular in relation to Counters Creek sewer in west London. | | 10 | That groundwater flood risk is kept under review | Drain London has identified areas of Indicative Potential for Elevated Groundwater within each SWMP. The Environment Agency also monitors groundwater levels and reports annually – see following link: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/34017.aspx. Specific action may be required in the light of the recent groundwater flooding in Croydon. | | 11 | Network Rail should examine the London Rail infrastructure for potential flooding locations and flood risk reduction measures. For large stations, solutions should be sought to store or disperse rainwater from heavy storms; this may involve the need for off site storage | No specific actions yet, but Drain London in contact with Network Rail through a project in Hillingdon. | | NO. | RECOMMENDATION | PROGRESS AT JAN 2014 | |-----|----------------|---------------------| | 12 | London Underground and DLR should keep potential flood risks to their infrastructure and flood risk reduction measures under review and up to date | London Underground is currently undertaking a review of flood risk from all sources that may affect its lines, stations, depots and other infrastructure. Its outcomes are expected to be available in 2015. | | 13 | TfL, Highways Agency and London boroughs should continue to monitor the flood risk and flood risk reduction measures at these locations (subterranean river crossings and road underpasses – RFRA para 148) and any others with a potential flood risk | Drain London is investigating several high risk sections of the highway network, notably underpasses on the TLRN, but a programme of further investigations will need to be developed with TfL. | | 14 | Bus operators should examine bus garages for potential flood risks and put in place remedial or mitigation measures where there is a significant risk | No specific actions yet. However, there are good practice examples of green roofs at bus depots, such as at West Ham, where also rainwater is captured for use in vehicle washing. | | 15 | Edgware Hospital should carry out a flood risk assessment of its current premises and determine any mitigation works necessary to ensure that the hospital can continue to operate in the event of a flood on the Silk Stream | A detailed flood risk assessment has been undertaken and mitigation works necessary to ensure that the hospital can continue to operate in the event of a flood on the Silk Stream have been identified. | | 16 | Operators of electricity, gas, water and sewerage utility sites should maintain an up to date assessment of the flood risk to their installations and considering the likely impacts of failure, programme any necessary protection measures, this may include secondary flood defences | No specific actions yet, but GLA will contact utility companies during 2013. | | 17 | Other hospitals in the RFRA table (para 153) should examine how they may cope in the event of a major flood | Following a scoping of hospital sites across London 12 hospitals are being assessed for surface water flood risk as part of a Drain London project. | | 18 | The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) should ensure that there is an emergency plan for Belmarsh Prison in the event of a major flood | No specific actions yet. | | 19 | Operators of London’s emergency services should ensure that emergency plans for flooding incidents are kept up to date and suitable cover arrangements are in place in the event of a flood effecting operational locations | Drain London outputs are informing London Resilience Team at City Hall. |
### TABLE 3.7 PROGRESS ON REGIONAL FLOOD RISK APPRAISAL RECOMMENDATIONS
| NO. | RECOMMENDATION | PROGRESS AT JAN 2014 | |-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | 19 | Operators of electricity, gas, water and sewerage utility sites should maintain an up to date assessment of the flood risk to their installations and considering the likely impacts of failure, programme any necessary protection measures, this may include secondary flood defences | No specific actions yet. |
*Source: GLA and Environment Agency* PLANNING
PROGRESS WITH SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
3.44 The Mayor produces Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents to provide further detail on particular policies in the London Plan. In 2013 the Mayor published the following SPGs:
Published Guidance in 2013
• Preparing Borough Tree & Woodland Strategies (Feb 13) • Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail, and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (Apr 13)
3.45 The following SPGs are available in draft:
• London Planning Statement (Dec 12) • Town Centres (Jan 13) • Shaping Neighbourhoods – Character & Context (Feb 13) • Sustainable Design & Construction (Jul 13) • Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition (Aug 13)
3.46 All complete and draft SPG are available on the following website http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/vision/supplementary-planning-guidance.
LONDON BOROUGHS POLICY CONSULTATIONS
3.47 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning authorities to produce a Local Plan for their area. In law this is described as the development plan documents (DPDs) adopted under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Current core strategies or other planning policies, which under the regulations would be considered to be DPDs, form part of the Local Plan. Several planning authorities in London are currently in the process of reviewing their Local Plans to respond to the changing circumstances in their area.
3.48 All London borough Local Development Documents (LDDs), comprising core strategies, DPDs or other LDDs, are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan in accordance with Section 24(1) (b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Under the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, Regulation 18 requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to notify the Mayor of the subject of a local plan. This is the Preparation stage. The Mayor will endeavour to provide comments to the LPAs at this stage but is not required to respond to the consultation.
3.49 Under Regulation 19, before submitting the local plan to the Secretary of State, LPAs must make a copy of the proposed submission documents available and must request an opinion from the Mayor as to the general conformity of their local plans (Regulation 21). This is the Publication stage. The Mayor has 6 weeks to respond to the consultation. The Mayor will respond to Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPD) that raise strategic issues only.
3.50 In order to achieve general conformity of LDDs the Mayor works proactively with the boroughs, commenting on and holding meetings to discuss informal drafts of documents and meetings to discuss the Mayor’s response to consultation. Table 3.8 lists policy documents the LPAs worked on in 2013; the Mayor responded to many of them.
| BOROUGH | POLICY DOCUMENTS | |--------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | Betting Offices SPD and Article 4 Direction Local Development Order: Employment Areas | | Barnet | Residential Design Guidance and Sustainable Design & Construction SPDs | | Bexley | Detailed policies and sites local plan preferred approaches paper | | Brent | Wembley Area Action Plan, Submission Work with neighbourhood forums | | Bromley | Draft Local Plan – Options and Preferred Strategy | | Camden | Site Allocations DPD Fitzrovia AAP Euston Area Action Plan Work with neighbourhood forums | | City of London | Draft Local Plan – submission | | Croydon | Local Plan: Strategic Policies DPD Croydon OAPF Fair Field Masterplan | | Ealing | Development Sites DPD and Development Management DPD Ealing Cinema SPD Sustainable Transport for New Development SPD Planning for Schools DPD – Issues and Options | | Enfield | Development Management Document and Policies Map-Submission Draft North Circular AAP Meridian Water Masterplan Edmonton Ecopark Planning Brief | | Greenwich | Core Strategy - Submission | | Hackney | Development Management and Site Allocations Local Plan Dalston AAP Manor House AAP Work with neighbourhood forums | | Hammersmith & Fulham | Development Management Local Plan Planning Guidance SPD Regeneration Area SPDs for Earls Court/West Kensington and South Fulham Riverside White City Opportunity Area draft SPD Old Oak - A Vision for the Future Work with neighbourhood forums | | BOROUGH | POLICY DOCUMENTS | |-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Haringey | Local Plan: Strategic Policies | | | Draft Development Management DPD | | | Draft Site Allocations Development Plan Document | | | Draft Tottenham Area Action Plans | | | Work with neighbourhood forums | | Harrow | Development Management Policies Local Plan | | | Site Allocations Local Plan | | | Garden Land Development SPD | | | Draft Planning Obligations & Affordable Housing SPD | | Havering | Planning Obligations SPD | | | Shop Front Design SPD | | | Draft Gypsy and Travellers’ Sites DPD | | Hillingdon | Draft Local Plan Part 2 | | Hounslow | Draft Local Plan - Policy options | | | Draft Revised Site Allocations - Policy Options | | | Shop Front Design Guidelines SPD | | | Work with neighbourhood forums | | Islington | Development Management Policies DPD | | | Site Allocations DPD | | | Finsbury Local Plan (for Bunhill and Clerkenwell) | | | Student accommodation bursaries SPD | | | Cally Plan SPD (for Caledonian Road) | | | Planning Obligations (Section 106) SPD | | | Draft Inclusive Design SPD | | Kensington & Chelsea | Partial review of core strategy re policies on conservation and design, basement | | | developments, employment & housing policies - submission | | | Policy protecting public houses and other community facilities adopted | | | Draft Notting Hill Gate SPD | | | Norland Neighbourhood Plan – Referendum | | | Work with neighbourhood forums | | Kingston upon Thames | Affordable Housing and Sustainable Transport SPDs | | | Residential Design SPD | | | Latchmere House Planning Brief | | | Draft North Kingston Development Brief | | Lambeth | Draft Local Plan – Submission | | | Vauxhall Area SPD | | | Waterloo Area SPD | | | Brixton Area SPD | | | Draft Revised Section 106 Planning Obligations SPD | | | Work with neighbourhood forums | | Lewisham | DM Policies - submission | | | Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan - Submission | | | Catford Local Plan – Submission | | | Site Allocations | | | Gypsy & Traveller Site(s) Local Plan – Reg 18 | | London Legacy Development Corporation | Draft Local Plan- pre-regulation 18 |
Source: London Borough/GLA
### PROGRESS WITH LOCAL PLAN CORE STRATEGIES
3.51 Table 3.9 provides an overview of London borough Core Strategy progress.
| CORE STRATEGY STAGE | NO. OF BOROUGHS | BOROUGH | |----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------| | Core Strategy Issues and Options yet to be published | 0 | | | Have published Core Strategy Policy Options and preferred strategy | 2 | Hounslow, Bromley | | Have published Core Strategy for Submission | 1 | Greenwich | | Core Strategy adopted | 30 | Barking and Dagenham (July 2010) | | | | Barnet (Sep 2012) | | | | Bexley (Feb 2012) | | | | Brent (July 2010) | | | | Camden (Nov 2010) | | | | City of London (Sep 2011) | | | | Croydon (April 2013) | | | | Ealing (April 2012) | | | | Enfield (Jan 2014) | | | | Hackney (Nov 2010) | | | | Hammersmith & Fulham (Oct 2011) | | | | Haringey (March 2013) | | | | Harrow (Feb 2012) | | | | Havering (2008) | | | | Hillingdon (Part 1 Nov 2012) | | | | Islington (Feb 2011) | | | | Kensington & C (2010) | | | | Kingston upon Thames (April 2012) | | | | Lambeth (Jan 2011) | | | | Lewisham (June 2011) | | | | Merton (2011) | | | | Newham (Jan 2012) | | | | Redbridge (March 2008) | | | | Richmond upon Thames (2009) | | | | Southwark (April 2011) | | | | Sutton (Dec 2009) | | | | Tower Hamlets (2010) | | | | Waltham Forest (March 2012) | | | | Wandsworth (October 2010) | | | | Westminster (Nov 2013) |
### TABLE 3.9 LOCAL PLAN CORE STRATEGY PROGRESS (POSITION AS OF JANUARY 2014)
| CORE STRATEGY STAGE | NO. OF BOROUGHS | BOROUGH | |------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Local Plan being reviewed | 17 | Bromley – Preparation | | | | City of London – Publication | | | | Croydon | | | | Greenwich – Publication | | | | Hammersmith & Fulham | | | | Havering | | | | Hillingdon | | | | Hounslow | | | | Islington – Preparation | | | | Kensington & Chelsea – partial review | | | | - Publication | | | | Lambeth – Publication | | | | Lewisham – Publication | | | | LLDC – Initial consultation | | | | Redbridge | | | | Southwark | | | | Wandsworth – Publication | | | | Westminster – Adopted |
*Source: ALBPO Local Plan Borough Updates*
3.52 Please note that many boroughs are progressing other DPDs at the same time as their Core Strategy or have adopted DPDs or site-specific Area Action Plans in advance of it. OPPORTUNITY AREAS AND AREAS OF INTENSIFICATION
3.53 Up-to-date details on all Opportunity Areas and Areas of Intensification are included in Annex 1 of the recently published FALP.
3.54 Of the 33 Opportunity Areas, Frameworks have been produced for:
- Croydon
- Earls Court and West Kensington
- Euston
- London Riverside
- Lower Lea Valley
- Olympic Legacy
- Old Oak Common
- Park Royal
- Southall
- Upper Lee Valley
- Vauxhall / Nine Elms/ Battersea
- Waterloo
- White City
3.55 During the last year, the GLA adopted Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks (OAPFs) for Croydon; Earls Court and West Kensington; Upper Lee Valley and White City. Additionally, consultation was carried out on the Euston Area Plan; Old Oak, ‘A Vision for the Future’; and Southall.
PLANNING DECISIONS
3.56 To bring about positive change on the ground, policies need to be implemented. This is why the role of development management is so crucial. Table 3.10 below highlights the ongoing work of the Mayor’s Development and Projects Team in helping to implement the London Plan. The table below shows a continuing high volume of referrals to the Mayor. This year has seen referrals rise by 17% over 2012. The Mayor has continued to use his strategic powers to call-in applications sparingly. Last year he ‘called-in’ two applications, less than 1% of referable applications. The two applications were, Convoys Wharf in Lewisham and City Forum in Islington.
| TABLE 3.10 PLANNING APPLICATIONS REFERRED TO THE MAYOR | |---------------------------------------------------------| | 2000-2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | TOTAL 2000-2013 | | Total | 1,871 | 334 | 240 | 258 | 300 | 307 | 359 | 3669 | | Strategic Call-ins | - | - | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 |
Source: GLA Planning LONDON PLANNING AWARDS
3.57 The Mayor, London First, the Royal Town Planning Institute and London Councils jointly organise the privately-sponsored annual London Planning Awards to showcase and celebrate good planning practice in the capital. The 2013/14 Awards Ceremony was held on 04 February 2014. Full details of the winning and commended entries are given in Table 3.11 below:
| TABLE 3.11 LONDON PLANNING AWARDS – WINNERS AND COMMENDED ENTRIES | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | ENTRY DESCRIPTIONS AND AWARD CITATIONS TAKEN FROM THE MAYOR’S AND SIR EDWARD LISTER’S SPEECHES AT THE LONDON PLANNING AWARDS CEREMONY, CITY HALL 04 FEBRUARY 2014 | | 1: BEST BUILT PROJECT (sponsored by CBRE) | | WINNER For its dramatic transformation of a challenging brownfield site into a vibrant hub of activity, and improvement to the area as a whole, the award for the Best Built Project category goes to The North East Quadrant. The North East Quadrant, in the Borough of Camden. Submitted by British Land. The scheme completes the radical transformation of the 5 Hectare site north of Euston Road into a lively mixed use hub. This last phase accommodates 360,000 square feet of office space and 11,600 square feet of retail. It provides 162 residential units, with 62% of them affordable. | | 2: Best Built Project – Community Scale (sponsored by Land Securities) | | WINNER For its transformational impact on the wider area, benefits to the local community, design and ingenuity, the winner of the Best Built Project – Community Scale category is The Glass Mill. The Glass Mill Leisure Centre, in Lewisham. Submitted by LA Architects, with Barrat East London, Oelikaan Construction and the London Borough of Lewisham. The scheme provides a state of the art community leisure centre surrounded by a new park and a significantly improved public realm. Its quirky elevation was developed with local artists and the name of the centre was chosen through a community competition. COMMENDATION For the inspirational level of local involvement and community ownership achieved by genuinely collaborative working, the judges have commended Van Gogh Walk. Van Gough Walk, in Lambeth. Submitted by the London Borough of Lambeth, with Streets Ahead, Shape, Atelier Works and FM Conway. The community driven transformation of a small neighbourhood street into a part pedestrianised public space. Prototyped through temporary community events and now implemented to include public seating, play facilities and tree planting. |
### TABLE 3.11 LONDON PLANNING AWARDS – WINNERS AND COMMENDED ENTRIES
**ENTRY DESCRIPTIONS AND AWARD CITATIONS TAKEN FROM THE MAYOR’S AND SIR EDWARD LISTER’S SPEECHES AT THE LONDON PLANNING AWARDS CEREMONY, CITY HALL 04 FEBRUARY 2014**
| Category | Winner | Description | |----------|--------|-------------| | 3: BEST CONCEPTUAL PROJECT (sponsored by Berwin Leighton Paisner) | Copley Close | For the careful, sensitive and responsive approach to estate renewal, the winner of the Best Conceptual Project category goes to Copley Close. Copley Close, in Ealing. Submitted by the London Borough of Ealing with Peter Brett Associates and Hunters Architects. An estate renewal project where Ealing Council are assuming the role of developer and landlord. Combining a mixture of refurbishment and redevelopment, the strategy addresses many of the issues resulting from the poor original layout of the estates whilst avoiding unnecessary disruption to the existing community. **COMMENDATION** For the innovative, challenging and topical exploration of short term homelessness, the commendation goes to Pop up HAWSE. Pop-Up Hawse, submitted by Levitt Bernstein Associates. The project proposes small single pop-up flats that can quickly be erected in underused sites to provide temporary accommodation for the short-term homeless. The units are manufactured off-site for quick and easy on-site assembly and cost £13,000 each. | | 4: BEST NEW PLACE TO LIVE (sponsored by PwC) | East Village | For its scale, quality and understated innovation, the winner of the award for the Best Place to Live category is East Village. East Village, in Stratford. Also shortlisted for Best Built Project. Submitted by East Village with Get Living London, Triathlon Homes and the Olympic Delivery Authority. The project provides 2818 high quality, tenure blind homes, from one bedroom apartments to four bedroom townhouses, all with access to good quality private amenity space and a vibrant public realm. The scheme is located adjacent to 27Ha of public open space, great transport infrastructure, sports and education facilities. | | 5: BEST NEW PUBLIC SPACE (sponsored by Hogan Lovells) | Brown Hart Gardens | For its ingenuity and historical sensitivity, the winner of the award for Best New Public Space category goes to Brown Hart Gardens. Brown Hart Gardens, in the heart of Mayfair. Submitted by BDP with Gerald Eve and Grosvenor. This eccentric new public square is located on the roof of a Grade II listed Substation. It sensitively responds to the historical importance of the building whilst improving access and creating a great piece of public realm. **COMMENDATION** For its replicability and community involvement, already commended in the Category of Community Scale project – the commendation for Best New Public Space goes to Van Gogh Walk. Van Gogh Walk, in the Borough of Lambeth. Submitted by the London Borough of Lambeth, with Shape, Atelier Works and FM Conway. Already commended in the Best Community Scale category, involved the transformation of a small neighbourhood street into a part pedestrianised public space. The scheme was prototyped through temporary events and now has been implemented to include public seating, play facilities and tree planting. |
### TABLE 3.11 LONDON PLANNING AWARDS – WINNERS AND COMMENDED ENTRIES
**ENTRY DESCRIPTIONS AND AWARD CITATIONS TAKEN FROM THE MAYOR’S AND SIR EDWARD LISTER’S SPEECHES AT THE LONDON PLANNING AWARDS CEREMONY, CITY HALL 04 FEBRUARY 2014**
| Category | Description | Winner | Details | |----------|-------------|--------|---------| | 6: BEST BUILT PROJECT FIVE YEARS ON (sponsored by GVA) | WINNER for its subtle yet transformative impact on the South Bank as a whole and revitalising the complex multi-level building to significantly improve the public realm, the winner of the Best Built Project Five Years on is: Royal Festival Hall | Royal Festival Hall | Royal Festival Hall, on the South Bank. Submitted by Allies and Morrison, with Southbank Centre, RPS, Rick Maher Architects, Max Fordham, Price and Myers, Davis Langdon, David Bonnett Associates, Kirkegaard Associates, Gross Max, Spiers and Major Associates, ISG and Carr and Angier. Refurbished to increase its public facilities by 35%. In doing so it has better integrated the South Bank with the wider area. The improved routes around and through the site now mean that it benefits from over 25 million people crossing it per year. COMMENDATION For having managed to retain some of the spirit of the more quirky east London retail offer and the careful management of the historical East End fabric, the commendation for the Best Built Project Five Year on Category goes to Spitalfields Market. Old Spitalfields Market, on the edge of the City. Submitted by Ballymore Properties, with Ashkenazy Group. The scheme sensitively combines the listed perimeter structures of the Old Market with new retail pavilions. It has carefully managed to avoid the potential sanitization of this vibrant piece of east London by a carefully considered choice of retailers and public events. | | 7: BEST HISTORIC BUILDING MANAGEMENT (sponsored by English Heritage) | JOINT WINNERS Restoring Roehampton’s Heritage and The William Morris Gallery | Restoring Roehampton’s Heritage, submitted by St James Group, carefully coordinates the restoration of a number of heritage assets in the Roehampton, bringing them back into use and using them as triggers for the areas wider regeneration. The William Morris Gallery and Gardens, submitted by Waltham Forest Council, with Pringle Richards Sharat and the Heritage Lottery Fund. The scheme involves the refurbishment of the William Morris Gallery to create new displays, research rooms, staff offices and a new tea room and exhibition space. It also included the refurbishment of the gardens around the Gallery back to its former glory. | | 8: BEST TOWN CENTRE PROJECT (sponsored by Turley Associates) | WINNER For its subtle yet transformative changes to the way Woolwich Town Centre works, the winner of Best Town Centre Project is Woolwich Squares. Woolwich Squares also shortlisted for Best New Public Space. Submitted by Gustafson Porter, with Voker Highways and the Royal Borough of Greenwich. The scheme consolidates the public realm in Woolwich Town Centre into a unified and coherent whole. It includes the re-organisation of the market, servicing to shops, a new water feature, public seating, and tree planting, transforming the quality of the town centre as a whole. | | 9: LIFETIME AWARD FOR PLANNING EXCELLENCE IN LONDON | WINNER For leading the team responsible for the £1.5bn transformation of a large portion of the West End, The Crown Estate is surely in safe hands. The award for London Planning and Development Person of the Year goes to Alastair Smart, Head of Development and Project Management, The Crown Estates. |
### TABLE 3.11 LONDON PLANNING AWARDS – WINNERS AND COMMENDED ENTRIES
**ENTRY DESCRIPTIONS AND AWARD CITATIONS TAKEN FROM THE MAYOR’S AND SIR EDWARD LISTER’S SPEECHES AT THE LONDON PLANNING AWARDS CEREMONY, CITY HALL 04 FEBRUARY 2014**
**10. MAYOR’S AWARD FOR PLANNING EXCELLENCE**
**WINNER** Not only for creating a new high quality neighbourhood in east London, but for its approach to housing delivery, its simple and replicable design solution, its scale and its overall quality, this year the Award for Planning excellence goes to East Village.
East Village, in Stratford. Also shortlisted for Best Built Project. Submitted by East Village with Get Living London, Triathlon Homes and the Olympic Delivery Authority. The project provides 2818 high quality, tenure blind homes, from one bedroom apartments to four bedroom townhouses, all with access to good quality private amenity space and a vibrant public realm. The scheme is located adjacent to 27Ha of public open space, great transport infrastructure, sports and education facilities. ENDNOTES
1 See table 615 here http://is.gd/clgstocktables
2 See Housing Live Tables: http://is.gd/CLGaffordable CHAPTER FOUR
OTHER CONTEXTUAL DATA SOURCES 4.1 This AMR cannot and does not attempt to be comprehensive. There is also a significant amount of relevant data available from both the GLA and other sources. The list of references and links below should enable anyone researching these subjects access to the most up to date data.
| TABLE 4.1 BRIEFINGS FROM THE GLA DEMOGRAPHY AND POLICY ANALYSIS GROUP | | REFERENCE | BRIEFING NAME | | 2012-01 | Claimant Count Model 2012: Technical Note - Richard Walker | | 2012-02 | London Assembly Constituency Profiles 2012 - Gareth Piggott | | 2012-03 | MDIT Briefing note - Richard Fairchild | | 2012-04 | Education Outcomes for Children in Care - David Ewens |
| UPDATES FROM THE GLA DEMOGRAPHY AND POLICY ANALYSIS GROUP | | REFERENCE | TITLE | | 01-2012 | Ward Level Summary Measures of Indices of Deprivation 2010 - Social Exclusion Team | | 02-2012 | Income Deprivation Affecting Children and Older People Social Exclusion Team | | 03-2012 | Dangerous Dogs Update - Strategic Crime Analysis | | 04-2012 | 2012 London Crime: A National Picture (12 month rolling) - Strategic Crime Analysis | | 05-2012 | 2012 London Crime: A National Picture (12 month rolling) - Strategic Crime Analysis | | 06-2012 | 2011 Census Update: Online completion in London - Demography Team | | 07-2012 | Ethnic Group Population Projections: 2011 rounded - SHLAA Demography Team | | 08-2012 | London Crime: A National Picture (12 month rolling) - Strategic Crime Analysis | | 09-2012 | Births by birthplace of Mother: - 2010 Demography Team | | 10-2012 | Unemployment in London - Social Exclusion Team | | 11-2012 | Poverty Figures for London: 2010/11 - Social Exclusion Team | | 12-2012 | Improvements in Estimating Migration - Demography Team | 4.2 A full list of publications from the Demography and Policy Analysis Group is available via the GLA’s website at: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/mayor/publications/gla-intelligence/demography
LONDON DATASTORE
4.3 The primary source of data and statistics held by the GLA is the London Datastore. http://data.london.gov.uk/ which includes data not just from the GLA but also a range of other public sector organisations.
LONDON DEVELOPMENT DATABASE
4.4 For more information on the London Development database Email the LDD Team (lddteam@london.gov.uk). The relaunched LDD public page can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/webmaps/ldd/
PLANNING DECISIONS UNIT
4.5 More information on the activities of the Mayor’s Planning Decisions Unit can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/strategic-planning-applications
GLA ECONOMICS REPORTS
4.6 The latest reports can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/gla-economics-publications
4.7 For the latest news the Mayor’s Business and Economy section can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/mayor/publications/business-economy
4.8 The London Sustainable Development Commission website is at http://www.londonsdc.org/
LONDON ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
4.9 Full details can be found on the website http://www.lep.org.uk/
OTHER LONDON DATA SOURCES
WASTE
4.10 The Mayor’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/londons-wasted-resource-mayors-municipal-waste-management-strategy
4.11 DEFRA produces statistics on waste and recycling which can be found at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/waste/
4.12 Up to date London specific data is available on the Capital Waste Facts website http://laportal.wrap.org.uk/Login.aspx
MINERALS (AGGREGATES)
4.13 Information on the London Aggregates Working Party (LAWP), including Annual Monitoring Reports, can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/london-aggregates-working-party
WATERWAYS
4.14 The London Rivers Action Plan can be found at: http://www.therrc.co.uk/lrap.php TRANSPORT
4.15 The latest information on The Mayor’s work on transport can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/transport
4.16 Transport for London performance statistics can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/publications/1482.aspx and at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/investorrelations/1458.aspx
4.17 Details on how PTAL scores are calculated can be found in http://data.london.gov.uk/documents/PTAL-methodology.pdf
4.18 A map based PTAL calculator can be found at http://www.webptals.org.uk/
4.19 The Department for Transport provides some useful data on transport at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport/about/statistics
4.20 London First are monitoring how the London boroughs are progressing with the development of their CIL charging schedules http://londonfirst.co.uk/our-focus/londons-housing/community-infrastructure-levy/
HEALTH
4.21 London Health Programmes uses health intelligence to identify health needs of Londoners and to redesign services. http://www.londonhp.nhs.uk/
4.22 London Health Observatory monitors health and healthcare in the capital. http://www.lho.org.uk/
4.23 As of April 2013 the LHO will become part of Public Health England. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england
GOVERNMENT DATA SOURCES
4.24 Government departments have moved their websites to a central domain, https://www.gov.uk/. It is likely that any links to websites outside gov.uk will cease to function in the near future.
4.25 Various data and studies on education and skills can be found at the following site: http://www.education.gov.uk/, which contains a section on Research and Statistics.
4.26 Links to a number of national reports on education provision can be found at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
4.27 Various data and studies on the environment can be found on the DEFRA site http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/ or https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments[]=department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs&publication_filter_option=statistics DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
4.28 The latest information on Government policies and publications related to planning can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/topics/planning-and-building. CLG publishes a number of statistics relating to planning at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government/about/statistics CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKING AHEAD 5.1 This AMR covers a period when at national level the National Planning Policy Framework was being implemented. In London the Revised Early Minor Alterations to the Plan took account of the National Planning Policy Framework, changes to national policy on affordable housing and other developments and a wide range of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents were published.
5.2 Robust, evidence-based and effectively monitored strategic planning policy for London continues to be vital if the progress shown across many of the indicators in this report is to be sustained, and even more so if the areas where further work is needed are to be addressed.
5.3 Looking forward, 2014 will see the progression of the Further Alterations to the London Plan to roll the Plan forward to 2036, particularly within the context of the strong population growth from the 2011 census. The continued exploration of innovative new ways to use the planning system to help fund and deliver strategic infrastructure to help ensure that growth and development can proceed sustainably in the capital will also be a priority. It will be backed up by a strengthened system of infrastructure planning underpinned by the first London Plan Implementation Plan and more recently the emerging high-profile Infrastructure Investment Plan. The latter is based on a recommendation by the London Finance Commission and will set out London’s infrastructure needs and explore costs and funding opportunities. An interim version is expected to be published during the summer. A number of further SPGs will also be published during 2014.
5.4 This AMR again makes plain that the planning system has much to contribute to Londoners’ quality of life – and there is a huge amount of activity at City Hall, in boroughs and neighbourhoods to make sure all opportunities are maximised. Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:
Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA
Telephone 020 7983 4100 Minicom 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk
You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.
If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.
Chinese 如果需要您母语版本的此文件， 请致电以下号码或与下列地址联络
Vietnamese Nếu bạn muốn có văn bản tài liệu này bằng ngôn ngữ của mình, hãy liên hệ theo số điện thoại hoặc địa chỉ dưới đây.
Greek Αν θέλετε να αποκτήσετε αντίγραφο του παρόντος εγγράφου στη δική σας γλώσσα, παρακαλείστε να επικοινωνήσετε τηλεφωνικά στον αριθμό αυτό ή ταχυδρομικά στην παρακάτω διεύθυνση.
Hindi यदि आप इस दस्तावेज़ की प्रति अपनी भाषा में चाहते हैं, तो कृपया निम्नलिखित नंबर पर कॉन करें अथवा नीचे दिए गए नंबर पर संपर्क करें
Bengali আপনি যদি আপনার ভাষায় এই লিখিতের প্রতিলিপি (কপি) চান, তা হল নিচের ফেন নম্বরে বা টেলিফোন অনুরূপ করে যোগাযোগ করুন।
Urdu اگر آپ اس دستاویز کی نقل ایکی زبان میں جاہتی ہیں، تو براہ کرم نچھ دی گئی نمبر پر فون کریں یا دیہی گئی ہے بر رابطہ کریں
Turkish Bu belgenin kendi dilinize hazırlanan bir nüshasını edinmek için, lütfen aşağıdaki telefon numarasını arayınız veya adresi başvurunuz.
Arabic إذا أردت نسخة من هذه الوثيقة بلغتك، يرجى الاتصال برقم الهاتف أو مراسلة العنوان أدناه
Punjabi ਨੇ ਉਤਾਰੂੱਦੀ ਦੀ ਸਮਾਚਾਰ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਕਿਲ ਉਤਾਰੂੱਦੀ ਅਧਿਕਾਰੀ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਕਿਲ ਕਰਨੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ, ਤਾਂ ਰੇਖਾਵਾਂ ਦੀ ਸੌਂਦਰ ਦੇ ਹੋਣ ਦੇ ਲਈ ਰੇਖਾਵਾਂ ਦੀ ਸੌਂਦਰ ਦੇ ਲਈ ਕਾਰਜ ਕਰਨੇ।
Gujarati ને ઉતારુદ્દી દી સમાચાર દી સંજીવી ઉતારુદ્દી અધિકારી દી સંજીવી હેઠળ કરવી ચાહીદે છે, તે રેખાઓ દી સૌંદર્ય દે હોય તે રેખાઓ દી સૌંદર્ય દે કરવો.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1057-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 140,
"total-input-tokens": 295710,
"total-output-tokens": 85397,
"total-fallback-pages": 1
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
623,
2
],
[
623,
623,
3
],
[
623,
2628,
4
],
[
2628,
2628,
5
],
[
2628,
2628,
6
],
[
2628,
2646,
7
],
[
2646,
5376,
8
],
[
5376,
7595,
9
],
[
7595,
10345,
10
],
[
10345,
12184,
11
],
[
12184,
12184,
12
],
[
12184,
12210,
13
],
[
12210,
15406,
14
],
[
15406,
18664,
15
],
[
18664,
21408,
16
],
[
21408,
21408,
17
],
[
21408,
21408,
18
],
[
21408,
21475,
19
],
[
21475,
23654,
20
],
[
23654,
24446,
21
],
[
24446,
27791,
22
],
[
27791,
30451,
23
],
[
30451,
31223,
24
],
[
31223,
33584,
25
],
[
33584,
36838,
26
],
[
36838,
39075,
27
],
[
39075,
44200,
28
],
[
44200,
47156,
29
],
[
47156,
47776,
30
],
[
47776,
51708,
31
],
[
51708,
51810,
32
],
[
51810,
54346,
33
],
[
54346,
56584,
34
],
[
56584,
58918,
35
],
[
58918,
61908,
36
],
[
61908,
62034,
37
],
[
62034,
65013,
38
],
[
65013,
66921,
39
],
[
66921,
68215,
40
],
[
68215,
70527,
41
],
[
70527,
73640,
42
],
[
73640,
75166,
43
],
[
75166,
77936,
44
],
[
77936,
80185,
45
],
[
80185,
81233,
46
],
[
81233,
82388,
47
],
[
82388,
84755,
48
],
[
84755,
87351,
49
],
[
87351,
89490,
50
],
[
89490,
91547,
51
],
[
91547,
92934,
52
],
[
92934,
94611,
53
],
[
94611,
95628,
54
],
[
95628,
97975,
55
],
[
97975,
100325,
56
],
[
100325,
101250,
57
],
[
101250,
103607,
58
],
[
103607,
104167,
59
],
[
104167,
106824,
60
],
[
106824,
107980,
61
],
[
107980,
110401,
62
],
[
110401,
112490,
63
],
[
112490,
112490,
64
],
[
112490,
112552,
65
],
[
112552,
115126,
66
],
[
115126,
116083,
67
],
[
116083,
116358,
68
],
[
116358,
117239,
69
],
[
117239,
120299,
70
],
[
120299,
123495,
71
],
[
123495,
126752,
72
],
[
126752,
129824,
73
],
[
129824,
131643,
74
],
[
131643,
135750,
75
],
[
135750,
139589,
76
],
[
139589,
140286,
77
],
[
140286,
145363,
78
],
[
145363,
146739,
79
],
[
146739,
150287,
80
],
[
150287,
153243,
81
],
[
153243,
156171,
82
],
[
156171,
160837,
83
],
[
160837,
162917,
84
],
[
162917,
166062,
85
],
[
166062,
170179,
86
],
[
170179,
171889,
87
],
[
171889,
174150,
88
],
[
174150,
176638,
89
],
[
176638,
177522,
90
],
[
177522,
180401,
91
],
[
180401,
183851,
92
],
[
183851,
187301,
93
],
[
187301,
187301,
94
],
[
187301,
187301,
95
],
[
187301,
187677,
96
],
[
187677,
187677,
97
],
[
187677,
189296,
98
],
[
189296,
192568,
99
],
[
192568,
193729,
100
],
[
193729,
199157,
101
],
[
199157,
202917,
102
],
[
202917,
206061,
103
],
[
206061,
209127,
104
],
[
209127,
209127,
105
],
[
209127,
210957,
106
],
[
210957,
216647,
107
],
[
216647,
217074,
108
],
[
217074,
217244,
109
],
[
217244,
218617,
110
],
[
218617,
219538,
111
],
[
219538,
221667,
112
],
[
221667,
226417,
113
],
[
226417,
229938,
114
],
[
229938,
232746,
115
],
[
232746,
233710,
116
],
[
233710,
236405,
117
],
[
236405,
238609,
118
],
[
238609,
244018,
119
],
[
244018,
248563,
120
],
[
248563,
251340,
121
],
[
251340,
253123,
122
],
[
253123,
255667,
123
],
[
255667,
258933,
124
],
[
258933,
262557,
125
],
[
262557,
263606,
126
],
[
263606,
263720,
127
],
[
263720,
263720,
128
],
[
263720,
263764,
129
],
[
263764,
265487,
130
],
[
265487,
267579,
131
],
[
267579,
269715,
132
],
[
269715,
270098,
133
],
[
270098,
270098,
134
],
[
270098,
270142,
135
],
[
270142,
271997,
136
],
[
271997,
271997,
137
],
[
271997,
273833,
138
],
[
273833,
273833,
139
],
[
273833,
273833,
140
]
]
} |
0b7b96e1fbac6e012af1c26cd6f0138f0f47a097 | Annual Report and Accounts
2012-13
(For the year ended 31 March 2013)
Accounts presented to the House of Commons pursuant to Section 6(4) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000
Annual Report presented to the House of Commons by Command of Her Majesty
Annual Report and Accounts presented to the House of Lords by Command of Her Majesty
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 4 July 2013 This is part of a series of departmental publications which, along with the Main Estimates 2013-14 and the document Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses 2013, present the Government’s outturn for 2012-13 and planned expenditure for 2013-14.
© Crown copyright 2013
You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at Direct Communications Unit, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF. Telephone: 020 7035 4848 (09:00-17:00 Mon-Fri) Fax: 020 7035 4745
This publication is available for download from our website at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office
ISBN: 9780102983227
Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office
ID 2557292 07/13
Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum
## Contents
| Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Foreword by the Home Secretary | 2 | | Foreword by the Permanent Secretary | 3 | | Chapter 1 – Our Vision | 4 | | Chapter 2 – Our Organisation | 5 | | Chapter 3 – Progress against Structural Reform plans and Business Plan indicators | 11 | | Chapter 4 – Reform Agenda progress including Better Regulation | 27 | | Chapter 5 – Departmental Core Data Tables | 28 | | Chapter 6 – Our staff | 42 | | Chapter 7 – Sustainability Report | 47 | | Chapter 8 – Public Interest Disclosures (including complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman) | 53 | | Chapter 9 – Non-Executive Board Members’ report | 57 | | Consolidated Resource Accounts 2012-13 | 59 | | Foreword to the Accounts and Remuneration Report | 82 | | Statement of Accounting Officer’s Responsibilities | 83 | | Statement of Corporate Governance | 83 | | The Certificate of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the House of Commons | 95 | | The Accounting Schedules | 97 | | Notes to the Resource Accounts | 105 | Foreword by the Home Secretary, Theresa May
As Home Secretary, I am ultimately responsible for the police, for the security of our borders, and for keeping us all safe from terrorism.
I must also make sure that my department uses taxpayers’ money wisely.
This Report shows how the Home Office spends your money. It also demonstrates that we do not waste it. My reforms to the police are having the effects that I hoped they would. Recorded crime fell again last year. It has fallen by more than 10 per cent since the last election. I believe that crime will fall further as those reforms continue.
The election of Police and Crime Commissioners last November means that, for the first time, the priorities of each local police force are determined by the voters in that area.
The new College of Policing will ensure that officers have clear professional standards, and that best practices are shared. Organised criminal gangs do not respect the boundaries of local police forces: the National Crime Agency, which will become fully operational in the autumn, will attack organised crime on a national level.
The security of our borders has also improved very significantly. This Government pledged to reduce immigration, and the Home Office is charged with implementing that promise. Immigration is at its lowest level since 2001. Net migration (the number of migrants (British and non-British Citizens) entering the UK for over a year minus the number of migrants leaving the UK for over a year) has fallen by one third. The policies we have put in place to reduce immigration - a cap on the numbers who can come to Britain to work from outside the EU, cutting out the abuse of the student visa system, and a crackdown on sham marriages and the mis-use of human rights legislation to secure permanent settlement for people who are not entitled to it - are working.
Keeping the British people safe from terrorist attack is my heaviest responsibility. Preventing terrorism is not only about enforcing the law: it also involves finding ways to diminish the chances that anyone will be drawn to the extremist attitudes that spawn terrorism. Our counter-terrorism strategy has been strengthened and sharpened to achieve that objective.
One of the Home Office’s proudest achievements last year was ensuring that the participants and spectators in the London Olympic and Paralympic Games were safe and secure. That the Games were completed so successfully was due to the unstinting commitment of Home Office staff and the many organisations they worked with.
I am pleased and proud that my department has performed so well during the last business year. Read this report and see for yourself what we have done and what we have spent. May next year be even better.
Theresa May Home Secretary Foreword by the Permanent Secretary, Mark Sedwill
Over the past year crime has fallen, net migration is down, and our counter-terrorist framework has continued to set the international benchmark. There has been significant organisational change within the Home Office: the Disclosure and Barring Service and the College of Policing became operational, and the Government Equalities Office and Commission for Equality and Human Rights transferred to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We are also making good progress towards the successful delivery of the National Crime Agency in the autumn.
One of our greatest achievements of the past year was the key role the department played in the delivery of a safe and secure Olympic and Paralympic Games. Alongside this, the Home Office maintained focus and delivery on its other departmental priorities. We also continued our work on police reform, including the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners last autumn to ensure policing priorities are managed at a local rather than a national level.
More recently, the Home Secretary announced that the UK Border Agency would be split into two commands and reintegrated into the core department. This decision saw the beginning of a wider Home Office transformation programme that will streamline governance, bringing greater coherence to operations, policy and corporate enablers. All of these changes will strengthen our focus on the delivery of the Home Office’s strategic priorities to prevent terrorism, cut crime and reduce immigration.
As Accounting Officer, my role is to ensure the department lives within its challenging 2010 Spending Review settlement, and the emerging pressures and constraints implemented since. We continue to look for value for money across all of our services. The progress we have made to date puts us in a sound position to deliver further savings while releasing resources to improve our operational impact still further.
I would like to thank my predecessors in this role, Dame Helen Ghosh and Helen Kilpatrick, for the significant contributions they made to the department during the last year. I would also like to thank all staff for their effort and commitment during a busy but successful year. The Civil Service and the Home Office continues to undergo reform and during this period of change, we ensured that effective ‘business as usual’ delivery continued unaffected. Looking forward to the year ahead I am confident of the continuing support of staff and partner organisations in the delivery our Business Plan priorities in the coming year.
Mark Sedwill Permanent Secretary CHAPTER 1 – OUR VISION
The Government’s vision for the Home Office was set out in our 2012-15 Business Plan which listed six priorities:
- empower the public to hold the police to account for their role in cutting crime
- free up the police to fight crime more effectively and efficiently
- create a more integrated criminal justice system
- secure our borders and reduce immigration
- protect people’s freedoms and civil liberties
- protect our citizens from terrorism
These have since been grouped together into three priorities for the Home Office, to:
- cut crime
- reduce immigration
- prevent terrorism
The Home Office also supports the coalition priority of promoting growth by keeping the UK safe, by cutting crime and improving the operation of the immigration and passport systems. CHAPTER 2 – OUR ORGANISATION
The Home Office, its directorates, agencies and executive non-departmental public bodies work closely together to achieve the three Home Office priorities to cut crime, reduce immigration and prevent terrorism.
1. Cutting crime
The Home Office Crime and Policing Group’s aim is to cut crime and 2012-13 saw the implementation of ambitious reforms to achieve this. These reforms add up to the most radical overhaul of the policing landscape for generations, improving our grip on organised and national crime threats, ensuring the right bodies are in place to support the police and hold them to account, and placing power on local crime and policing issues in the hands of local people.
Against the backdrop of a tough economic climate and budget reductions for the police, crime has continued to fall and in the first two years of this Government, recorded crime fell by 10%.
Increasing the accountability of the police
Police and Crime Commissioners, who were first elected on 15 November 2012, have the vital task of ensuring that the police deal with the issues that matter to the communities they serve, and the public will be holding them directly to account.
Responding to serious and organise crime
Transforming our response to serious and organised crime, we laid the groundwork in 2012-13 for the establishment of the National Crime Agency (NCA). This will be a highly visible agency of operational crime fighters, leading a joined up response to serious, organised and complex crime.
The NCA will strengthen border defences, accelerate efforts against economic crime, and build on the work of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. It will also consolidate expertise on cyber crime to form the first National Cyber Crime Unit. We are making good progress on designing and building the agency, including establishing shadow commands and functions which are already having an impact and delivering operational results.
The publication of the Strategic Policing Requirement (SPR) in July 2012 was another important measure to tackle national threats. The SPR identified the national threats the police must address and the appropriate national policing capabilities that are required to counter those threats.
Police reform
Throughout 2012-13 our focus has been on cutting crime and delivering the Government’s programme of reform for the public.
As well as implementing this significant programme of reform, we have continued to manage risks to public order such as during the Olympic and Paralympic Games and the Diamond Jubilee. Our achievements this year provide a strong foundation on which to build over the next twelve months.
We have strengthened and rationalised national policing bodies to ensure the police have the capabilities they need to do their important job. We established the new College of Policing, which began providing services to police forces in December 2012, and are phasing out the National Policing Improvement Agency.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, headed for the first time by a non-police officer, is holding the police to account more assiduously than ever, with the more powerful Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigating and taking action on serious breaches of police conduct.
We are supporting the transformation of the police and making best use of public money by leading a programme to free up police time to help the police to save money through better procurement and collaboration.
The new Police ICT Company will deliver procurement, implementation and management services to police forces and other law enforcement agencies when fully operational.
We have started significant reform of police pay and conditions, implementing Tom Winsor’s report (Independent Review of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and Conditions). Addressing the sources of crime
Our alcohol strategy started a major programme of reform to address one of the main sources of crime. The Anti-Social Behaviour White Paper outlined our plans to give the police and partners improved tools to tackle anti-social behaviour and to provide a better response to victims. We legislated to take action against metal theft, a major threat to our national infrastructure.
Cutting crime: agencies and NDPBs
College of Policing
The College of Policing became operational on 1 December 2012, with the transfer of responsibilities and resources from the National Policing Improvement Agency. As the professional body for policing in England and Wales, its purpose is to protect the public and cut crime by building professionalism in policing which includes setting national standards and supporting continuous professional development.
The College of Policing is currently a limited company owned by the Home Secretary, with the intention that it is made independent of government as soon as parliamentary time allows: its governance has been built to facilitate this.
Since it started work in December 2012 the College of Policing has developed training, recruitment, progression and leadership products and services. It, achieved designation as the national ‘What Works Institute’ for crime reduction, and also started a major programme of work to address ethics and integrity across policing.
Disclosure and Barring Service
The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Through its criminal record checking and barring functions, it also prevents unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups, including children.
DBS was established when the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) merged in 2012.
In March 2013 we introduced the arrangements to enable filtering of old and minor convictions and cautions so that they do not automatically appear on a criminal records certificate. The offences subject to the new filtering arrangements were set out in a statutory instrument and will be implemented when the Parliamentary process is complete.
During 2012-2013 we processed an increased percentage of disclosure applications and issued 2.84 million certificates between 1 April and 30 November 2012, of which around 21.5% were issued free of charge to volunteers. 2,937 people were placed on the barred lists in 2012-13 following conviction or cautioning for an automatic barring offence. A further 313 were placed on the barred lists following a referral to the ISA. 4,269 referrals were received and processed to the end of November 2012.
Independent Police Complaints Commission
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) oversees the police complaints system in England and Wales and sets the standards by which the police should handle complaints. During 2012-13 we were responsible for dealing with serious complaints and conduct matters relating to staff at the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), and the UK Border Agency (UKBA).
The IPCC is independent, making its decisions entirely independently of the police, government and complainants.
The IPCC considers appeals from people who are dissatisfied with the way a police force has dealt with their complaint, and since November 2012 has shared the responsibility for determining appeals with local police forces. Police forces refer the most serious cases, whether or not someone has made a complaint, to the IPCC. The IPCC may decide to investigate such cases independently, manage or supervise the police force’s investigation, or return it for local investigation.
Police forces refer the most serious cases, whether or not someone has made a complaint, to the IPCC. The IPCC may decide to investigate such cases independently, manage or supervise the police force’s investigation, or return it for local investigation. During 2012-2013 we responded to the changes to the police complaints system introduced by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 by issuing revised statutory guidance for police forces in January 2013.
We published the second part of our report about corruption in the police service, and, with ACPO, produced a joint report about police officers and staff who use their powers to perpetrate sexual violence. We are conducting a review of our work in cases where there has been a death, involving a major consultation exercise with stakeholders. The review is being assisted by a reference group of four independent specialists.
In March 2013, the IPCC responded to the Home Secretary’s announcement that proposed transferring resources from police force professional standards departments to the IPCC to enable it to investigate more ‘serious and sensitive’ cases.
**Security Industry Authority**
The Security Industry Authority (SIA) is the independent regulator for the UK private security industry. It licences some 330,000 individuals working in the industry and 770 businesses are members of the voluntary Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS).
We report to the Home Secretary under the terms of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and consult closely with the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly about regulation. Regulation of the private security industry supports the objectives of the Home Office and the devolved administrations to protect the public.
Our work contributes to making communities safer, helping people feel secure and cutting crime, protecting the public from terrorism, controlling immigration and safeguarding identity.
The SIA continues to perform well against its business objectives. For the year 2012-13 the number of licence applications completed within five weeks was 92% (against a target of 80%) and the performance of all contacts resolved at the point of first contact was 83% (target 80%).
Regulatory activity continues to ensure that the regime is effectively enforced. Working with partner organisations to deliver regular checks, the SIA has supported compliance rates of 99%. This is a particularly good result in a year when the Olympic and Paralympic Games presented considerable challenges.
Operational and service efficiency have continued to improve and this is reflected in the achievement of the Customer Service Excellence Award for the third year running.
The drive to support the Government’s austerity measures and reduce the SIA’s cost base has continued and additional savings of £1.8 million (6%) have been achieved mainly through driving down the costs of licensing. Whilst fees have remained stable it is anticipated that the cost reductions achieved will present opportunities for further reductions in the future whilst ensuring that the SIA remains self funding.
We continue to work with licence holders and applicants to achieve more efficient communication, including the introduction of e-renewals, which allows applicants to renew their licences on line, phone renewals and other services, such as updates through email and SMS.
During the year, the SIA has continued to lead work with the industry to deliver proposals for a new regulatory regime outside the NDPB sector in line with the Government’s proposals following the Arms Length Bodies Review in 2010. It has consulted widely and directly with industry and other stakeholders to develop the supporting principles and to begin the work of putting in place a new less burdensome regulatory regime. This programme of change is supported by the work on developing a future operational model which will deliver a timely, high quality and value for money service to both individual licence holders and businesses alike as well as developing new arrangements for the regulation of businesses.
2. **Reducing immigration**
The Home Office controls the border and immigration system in accordance with the law and Government policy. Overall, net migration reduced by 37 per cent to 153,000 in the 12 months to September 2012 from 242,000 a year earlier.
We are working to ensure that our immigration system commands public confidence and serves our economic interests. We will ensure we attract and retain the brightest and best migrants who come to the UK to work, study or invest, whilst reducing net migration and tackling abuse of the system, by increased credibility interviewing, legislation and tough enforcement against those who break our immigration law. We are also transforming border security and improving customer service for legitimate passengers and those who trade to and from the UK.
Showing its commitment to building a reputation with the public and Parliament for high professional standards of competence, in April 2013 the UK Border Agency was integrated into Home Office, with the creation of two new Directorates – UK Visas and Immigration and Enforcement – headed by two new Directorate Generals who have clear responsibilities to enable more collaborative working across the immigration system and with wider partners.
The Immigration enforcement Directorate will take tough action against foreign nationals who are in the UK illegally and those who break the law. It will take the lead in addressing organised crime by gangs that seek to undermine the UK’s immigration system, and seeks to deport or exclude foreign criminals who have no legal right to remain in the UK, including foreign criminals and foreigners whose presence in the UK poses a security threat to the public.
While operating as UK Border Agency from 2012-2013, 89 organised crime gangs were disrupted, up from 74 in 2011-12, and 4,546 foreign national offenders were removed.
Operation Nexus was carried out, which checked all detainees in London’s custody suites against immigration intelligence systems securing significant numbers of high harm removals.
We helped to ensure a safe and successful Olympics and Paralympic Games with over 400 staff volunteering to support the border over the Games’ period, just under 13,000 biometrics collected overseas and 825,000 background checks conducted on 790,000 applications. Over 4,000 Olympic and Paralympic Games visit visas were issued. We also provided staff to cover over 6,500 shifts to support the border during the remainder of the summer period.
42,429 migrants with no legal right to remain were removed or departed voluntarily, and a further 13,606 were refused entry at port and subsequently departed.
A new, single asylum command design was approved, with an aim of improving case workflows and reducing the age, size and cost of the UK asylum caseload.
In 2012-13, 20,000 interviews were conducted overseas. Tough new rules for granting student and spouse visas were implemented to reduce immigration abuse. As a result of these and other policies, net migration fell by one third in the 12 months to June 2012. Performance against service standards in our international and visa operations remained stable.
Protecting our borders
On 1 March 2012 the Home Secretary announced that Border Force would be split from the UK Border Agency to become a separate operational command within the Home Office, with its own ethos of law enforcement, led by its own Director General and accountable directly to ministers.
Border Force has a critical role in protecting national security and supporting national prosperity, securing the UK border by cutting crime and preventing terrorism, preventing illegal immigration, stopping illegal goods from entering or leaving the country, and collecting taxes on imported goods. Each year, more than 200 million people cross the UK border, and hundreds of billions of pounds worth of goods are imported and exported.
The Border Force Operating Mandate was introduced in July 2012, setting out the required levels of border security checks. It reinforced the framework of checks on all travellers put in place in November 2011, and was developed following the publication of the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s report. During 2012-13 Border Force intelligence led to the interception of Class A drugs, cash, tobacco, alcohol, firearms and other prohibited goods. It also led to the interception of clandestine entrants, on counter-terrorism and also prevented trafficking human beings into the UK.
Travellers to the UK saw a strong improvement in service at the border, with queues eliminated in time for the Olympics and Paralympic Games – gaining international recognition – and strong performance sustained ever since.
At over 138 air and sea ports around the UK and at juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium, Border Force seized 370 million cigarettes and 288 tonnes of hand rolling tobacco in the first nine months of 2012-13, playing a pivotal role in both protecting a source of revenue to the Exchequer and deterring international criminal organisations which profit from illicit trade. Border Force also refused nearly 12,000 people seeking entry to the UK in 2012-13.
In June 2012, cutter officers seized £20 million worth of cocaine. In September 2012, officers at Heathrow Airport made a single seizure of 1.5 tonnes of cannabis worth £4.3 million. First quarter published data showed 1,152 kg cocaine and 171 kg of heroin seizures.
Reducing immigration: Agencies and NDPBs
HM Passport Office
HM Passport Office (formerly The Identity & Passport Service) administers civil (birth, marriage, death) registration in England and Wales and provides passport services to UK nationals at home and abroad. Our purpose is to deliver efficient and effective passport and civil registration services to our customers while maintaining integrity and security.
We took over responsibility from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for UK passports issued overseas in April 2011 and work has continued to transfer responsibility for processing passport applications from British nationals overseas, in partnership with FCO.
In December 2012 we received our first applications directly from overseas customers and we are working towards full transition in 2014 when we will serve approximately 350,000 additional customers worldwide annually.
During 2012-13 we implemented some major system changes, including delivery of an updated Local Print Solution which was rolled out to all IPS Customer Service Centres. We have also been working on launching a new application management system, which will include an online channel through which customers can pay for and track applications online.
In September 2012, we reduced the passport fee for the majority of its customers for the first time ever, providing them with improved value for money whilst continuing to maintain high levels of customer service and security. This is as a direct result of the efficiency measures taken since 2010.
The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner
The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) is an independent body with responsibility for regulating immigration advice and immigration services.
The Commissioner has statutory regulatory, ombudsman and prosecutorial responsibilities, and is responsible for maintaining a robust regulatory regime, seeking out and taking action against those operating illegally, and promoting best practice, within the immigration advice sector.
The type of organisations that the OISC regulates varies widely from small community-based organisations and sole traders through to national charities and large specialist profit-making advisory services. Not-for-profit organisations are exempted from paying a registration fee.
The numbers of organisations directly regulated by the OISC increased during 2012-13. As of 31 March 2013 there were 1,971 organisations, compared to 1,930 in 2012. The number of advisers regulated by the OISC decreased slightly. At 31 March 2013 there were 3,968 regulated advisers, decreased from 3,971 in 2012.
An initial review of the Code and of the Complaints Scheme was carried out in 2012-13. The consultation, which was opened on 18 June and closed on 7 September, was primarily concerned with proposals aimed at clarification. The Commissioner has planned a major revision of the Code and the Rules in 2013-14.
The OISC has continually sought to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its regulatory activities in accordance with its statutory remit. Work will continue in 2013-14 to maintain the quality of its work while coping with increased budgetary pressures. 3. Prevent terrorism
The Government’s objective for counter-terrorism is to continue to keep people safe whilst ensuring that the powers used to do so are proportionate, focused and transparent. The Home Secretary is the lead minister for counter-terrorism and the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT) develops and oversees implementation of the cross-Government strategy for countering terrorism (CONTEST) as well as delivering key aspects of that strategy.
The aim of CONTEST is to ‘reduce the risk to the UK and its interests overseas from terrorism, so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence’. CONTEST also sets the objectives for counter-terrorism work across government and guides local authorities and other frontline partners in delivering key aspects of their role.
OSCT supports the National Security Council in defining and overseeing this work and the Director General of OSCT chairs the cross-Government counter-terrorism CONTEST Board which brings together security and law enforcement agencies, Whitehall departments, and the Devolved Administrations.
Securing an effective response to terrorism requires us to be genuinely strategic: being clear about what we are seeking to achieve, how we are seeking to achieve it and the resources we have at our disposal.
Following an internal restructuring at the end of 2012-13, OSCT will in future also have responsibility for oversight of delivery of ‘Local to Global’, the Government’s strategy for reducing the risk from Organised Crime, including overseeing the establishment of the National Crime Agency. By bringing responsibility for organised crime and terrorism together we will provide for organised crime the type of strategic and policy support that we provide through CONTEST for counter-terrorism, help build organised counter crime capabilities and performance and further enhance synergies between our organised crime and counter terrorism policing business support and operational capabilities.
Preventing terrorism: agencies and NDPBs
National Fraud Authority
The National Fraud Authority (NFA) is an executive agency of the Home Office, sponsored by the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism.
We lead and coordinate the fight to reduce fraud affecting individuals and the private, public and voluntary sectors – a crime which costs the UK £52 billion per year. We work in partnership with all these sectors and law enforcement and regulators.
Action Fraud, run by the NFA, is the national reporting centre for victims and potential victims of fraud and financially motivated internet crime. It also oversees the implementation of Fighting Fraud Together, the cross sector strategic plan to reduce fraud, including producing measures of the effectiveness of the strategy. It also helps to deliver important parts of related strategies to combat organised crime and cyber crime.
Using research and innovation to support our priorities
The Home Office Science directorate supports the development of Home Office policy, operations and frontline delivery, by the provision of a credible evidence base and the application and development of relevant science and technology. It provides effective regulatory functions in defined areas of responsibility and stimulates innovation and economic growth through science, engineering and technology.
The Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) provides independent scientific support, advice and challenge across the range of departmental activities, contributes more widely to science across government, and represents the Home Office internationally on scientific matters.
During 2012-13 we provided scientific support for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. We carried out search and screening operations to achieve the required security assurance, throughput and spectator experience at Olympics and Paralympic Games’ venues and we provided advice on pedestrian, vehicle, and freight issues.
We provided crucial input to queue management and measurement at the border and risk-based checking across the business.
We also secured type-approval of first device for detecting driving under the influence of drugs. CHAPTER 3 – PROGRESS AGAINST STRUCTURAL REFORM PLANS AND BUSINESS PLAN INDICATORS
1. Empower the public to hold the police to account for their role in cutting crime
1.1 Make the police more accountable through oversight by a directly elected Police and Crime Commissioner, who will be subject to strict checks and balances through Police and Crime Panels formed by elected members of local authorities and independent members
Elections were held on 15 November 2012 to elect 41 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) across England and Wales. These elections marked the biggest democratic reform to policing. In London the Mayor’s Office for Police and Crime (MOPAC) was created in January 2012 and the Metropolitan Police became directly accountable to the Mayor. PCCs took up office on 22 November.
Almost five and a half million people turned out to vote for the first ever election of PCCs, giving them a significantly bigger mandate than the unelected police authorities they replaced. That number is expected to grow in future as people see the real impact PCCs will make in their areas, delivering on public priorities in tackling crime.
PCCs will listen to the public to ensure the policing needs of their communities are met as effectively as possible. Nearly a third of the elected PCCs are independents.
Police and Crime Panels are a vital element of the reform to police accountability. Police and Crime Panels have been introduced in every police force area to scrutinise the actions and decisions of each PCC and make sure information is available for the public, enabling them to hold the PCC to account.
PCCs strategic priorities are set out in their Police and Crime Plans, which were scrutinised by their Police and Crime Panels and are now in place in all force areas.
1.2 Make the actions of the police more transparent
Police.uk has received more than 53 million visits since it launched in January 2011, on average receiving over 300,000 hits a day. These figures demonstrate the significant public appetite for the information it provides. 70% of site users agree that the website is easy to use, and 66% of users agree that the information on the site is easy to understand.
The information displayed on Police.uk crime maps is complemented by the ‘See your stats’ function, which provides a pictorial summary of the crimes and justice outcomes which have taken place in the user’s chosen area. Users can also compare crime rates in their local area with other similar areas using the ‘Compare Your Area’ tool.
Police.uk also provides key neighbourhood policing information, including contact details for local neighbourhood policing teams and details of upcoming beat meetings. It also provides information about crime prevention and how people can get involved in keeping their communities safe, for example by joining or setting up a local Neighbourhood Watch. Users can also find information about their PCC, including their name, photo, contact details and a summary of their priorities.
We are supporting a number of ‘trailblazer’ transparency projects with police forces and other criminal justice agencies to explore how we can drive transparency further and faster across the crime, policing and justice sector. For example Avon and Somerset police’s ‘Track My Crime’ tool which provides victims with online access to information about the investigation of their crime.
1.3 Empower local communities to take a more active role in their neighbourhoods, providing the incentives, training and encouragement for people from all walks of life to help to police their own communities to ensure early engagement with Police and Crime Commissioners is effective
To enable local and community partnerships to identify and disseminate effective practice, the Effective Practice website is now populated hosting 81 case studies from local areas. We have funded innovative community safety initiatives through the Community Action Against Crime Innovation Fund, developing new approaches to improve links between communities, civil society organisations and public sector agencies. Detailed case studies of 12 of the projects have been produced to support commissioners. A DVD is also available to highlight to PCCs and other partners a wider role for the Voluntary and Community Sector in delivering crime and community safety activities.
To encourage an increase in police and community safety volunteering we have updated volunteering resources and signposted police and community volunteering activities on police.uk.
The Tilley awards have again been used to recognise innovative crime fighting projects where police, community groups and the public successfully work together to identify and tackle local crime problems, supporting all three pillars of sustainability; social, economic and environmental.
1.4 Incentivise new approaches to preventing crime, working with the public, partners and industry
We have worked with a wide range of partners through the Home Office Forum for Innovation in Crime Prevention focusing on ensuring systems and processes for mobile payment technology protect the public from theft and fraud. We have also developed new processes for marking copper cable and lead to deter thieves and improve traceability of stolen metal.
We have increased prevention activity on economic crime through ‘The Devil is in your Detail’ campaign by the National Fraud Authority (NFA). The NFA used YouTube and Facebook to promote the campaign and over 70% of those who saw it stated that they intended to take proactive steps to protect their personal information.
2. Free up the police to fight crime more effectively and efficiently
2.1 Reduce bureaucracy for front-line police officers
We have reduced bureaucracy in policing as part of our broader objectives to free up the police from central control, building professional responsibility through the College of Policing, and returning accountability to the public through PCCs.
We have worked with the Association of Chief Police Officers to reduce police guidance from over 600 pieces to a single interactive pdf document which provides a clear core of Authorised Professional Practice (APP).
We have simplified police crime and data recording, including reducing the number of crime classifications. We have been working on a new framework for recording crime outcomes with the aim of removing the outdated framework of targets, allowing officers to use their professional discretion to decide on the best outcome of a case.
We issued a revised Code of Practice on Arrest, which came into force in November 2012, to encourage police officers to consider whether an arrest is necessary in cases where somebody claims to have acted in self defence.
We have expanded police powers to directly prosecute uncontested low level offences where the defendant pleads guilty, increasing police discretion and stripping out the duplication involved in handing cases over to the Crown Prosecution Service. On 19 November 2012 further changes to the Specified Proceedings Order 1999 came into force to extend the offences which the police can prosecute to include criminal damage under £5000, careless or inconsiderate driving, and a number of public order offences. This followed changes in September to enable the police to take over the Crown Prosecution Service role in prosecuting cases where the defendant does not turn up in court, or makes representations about exceptional hardship to avoid a driving ban. Together, these changes will see police being able to prosecute over half the cases dealt with in the magistrates’ courts.
The police now make charging decisions on shoplifting cases without the need to refer to the Crown Prosecution Service. Around 80% of cases the decision making power has transferred back to the police.
Many individuals suffering from mental ill health come to the attention of the police even when they have not committed an offence. We continue to work with Department of Health and with a wide range of senior partners to ensure the right services respond to the right people, in the right place and at the right time. 2.2 Simplify institutional structures for the police, phasing out the National policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and establishing a National Crime Agency (NCA)
The NPIA operationally closed in December 2012. The NPIA’s continuing functions have been transferred to successor bodies.
We have established a professional body for policing, the College of Policing which began providing services to the police on 3 December 2012. The College of Policing is a private company limited by guarantee and owned by the Home Secretary. The College of Policing will operate independently of Government, once the necessary legislation is in place to give the body a statutory basis.
The Crime and Courts Bill, which became the Crime and Courts Act, following Royal Assent on 25 April 2013, provides the legislative basis for the NCA. The NCA will be fully operational at the end of 2013.
We are making good progress on designing and building the NCA, including through the establishment of shadow commands and functions which are already delivering real operational results and will enable the NCA to hit the ground running.
The result of these changes will be a better aligned policing landscape with organisations that have more focused remits, providing support to the police to fight crime and protect the public.
2.3 Improve the efficiency of local policing
The Home Secretary received the Police Arbitration Tribunal’s findings on recommendations relating to pay and conditions from Tom Winsor’s Final Report (Independent Review of Police Officer and Staff Remuneration and Conditions) on 6 December 2012. After careful consideration, the Home Secretary decided to accept its recommendations and announced this on 15 January 2013.
This decision continues the important process of reform so that police pay and conditions reward the best in policing, while giving Chief Constables and PCCs the flexibility they need to lead their forces.
We have worked hard with the Police Negotiating Board, where the interests of officers are represented, to secure a fair pensions package for police officers reflecting the frontline nature of policing work and protecting those closest to retirement.
The Police ICT Company Ltd has been established to provide vital support to police forces and PCCs in their drive for operational effectiveness, greater innovation, and value for money from police ICT. The company is not yet operational, however in the interim the Police ICT Company Directorate within the Home Office continues to deliver essential frontline services including: the Police National Database; taking on police procurement, implementation and management of complex ICT contracts; and market-leading strategic ICT advice.
Alongside national policing partners we have supported the police in making savings as part of an agreed programme to drive value for money. This work includes launching the National Police Air Service in October 2012, which once fully operational is expected to save some £15m a year, while increasing overall service delivery. Police procurement returns from 26 forces show additional savings of £15m, which is over and above the £62m secured in 2011-12. In July, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary reported that forces were rising to the challenge of cutting their spending while largely maintaining services.
2.4 Simplify and improve anti-social behaviour powers so that the police, local authorities and others have powers and tools that are effective and easy to use and provide a real deterrent
In May 2012, we published the White Paper ‘Putting victims first: More effective responses to anti-social behaviour.’ It sets out how the Government will support local agencies to:
- focus the response to anti-social behaviour on the needs of victims
- empower communities to get involved in tackling anti-social behaviour • ensure professionals are able to protect the public quickly through the introduction of faster, more effective powers and proposals to speed up the eviction of the most anti-social tenants, and • tackle the underlying causes of anti-social behaviour
We published a draft Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Bill in December 2012, taking forward these measures. The draft Bill includes the more effective powers for frontline professionals, and also two important new measures to help focus the response to anti-social behaviour on the needs of victims.
The Community Trigger will give victims and communities the right to require agencies to deal with persistent anti-social behaviour that had previously been ignored.
The Community Remedy will give victims of low-level crime and ASB a say in the punishment of offenders out of court.
2.5 Overhaul alcohol licensing to give more power to police and local authorities to meet the concerns of local communities
In March 2012 an announcement was made that a range of measures in the Alcohol Strategy will look to radically reshape the approach to alcohol and reduce excessive drinking. Following this announcement we have introduced more effective local powers to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour associated with binge drinking and alcohol misuse, such as early morning alcohol restriction orders (EMROs) and a levy for late-night licence holders to contribute to policing and enforcement costs.
The public consultation on the Alcohol Strategy lasted for ten weeks and closed on the 6 February 2013. We are currently reviewing the responses to the consultation.
2.6 Develop a comprehensive approach to metal theft, working with other government departments and the police
We have taken action to clamp down on metal thieves and rogue scrap metal dealers, in particular through:
• banning cash payments to purchase scrap metal through legislation in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act that came into effect on 3 December 2012 • creating a dedicated national metal theft taskforce, operational since January 2012, which has arrested over 500 people for metal theft related offences and visited over 4,000 scrap metal dealers, and • seeking design solutions to make metal harder to steal and easier to identify
Through the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, we have laid the groundwork for reform of the regulation scrap metal industry. The Home Office is responsible for its commencement which is planned for 1 October 2013.
Measures taken to tackle metal theft are having an impact on the scale of the crime; with the Association of Chief Police Officers reporting that the number of police recorded metal thefts falling by 38% in 2012.
3. Create a more integrated Criminal Justice System
3.1 Support the Ministry of Justice to develop a strategy for reducing reoffending, ensuring more effective rehabilitation, especially for drug users, and to conduct a full examination of sentencing policy
We continue to work in partnership with the Ministry of Justice to support local Integrated Offender Management arrangements, which see the police and other local partners working together to reduce crime and reoffending by tackling the offenders who commit most crimes in a local area, or whose offending causes most damage to the local community, taking account of local needs, priorities and circumstances.
We have developed, in conjunction with the Association of Chief Police Officers, national guidance on police use of informal community resolutions and restorative justice. The guidance is being evaluated and will be revised in 2014. In partnership with Ministry of Justice, we have developed a new framework governing the use of out of court disposals which was published by Ministry of Justice on 8 April.
3.2 Implement the Drugs Strategy 2010, working with other government departments, where necessary
We have made significant progress in implementing the Drug Strategy since its publication in December 2010. The first annual review of the Drug Strategy 2010 was published in May 2012.
We have worked closely with our international partners through the sharing of intelligence and expertise, as well as the provision of capacity building with a view to reducing the availability of illicit drugs in the UK and increase the costs and the risks to those involved in the trade.
We led the international response to tackle the threat from New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) including leading a resolution at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs to develop a global early warning system, enabling NPS monitoring at a global level for the first time.
We have utilised our early warning systems and on the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs banned the next generation of synthetic cannabinoids and a family of NPS related drugs related to ketamine as Class B drugs.
We published a consultation on our proposals to introduce new powers to allow law enforcement agencies to seize and detain chemical substances suspected of being used as drug cutting agents.
We developed the high profile Crimestoppers ‘commercial cultivation of cannabis’ campaign to strengthen our efforts to identify and close down cannabis factories and disrupt the organised crime groups behind them.
There are positive signs our strategy is working. Effective enforcement activity has helped to restrict the supply of drugs to the UK and low purity levels and high wholesale prices for both cocaine and heroin in the UK, as well as some very large seizures, show that we are having a real effect on drug flows into the country.
3.3 Promote recovery from drug dependence and support joint actions for offenders in custody and the community, working with Department of Health and Ministry of Justice, along with other Government Departments
Working with local commissioners, we have co-designed a payment by results approach for drug and alcohol recovery services. Eight pilots went live in April 2012 and are testing whether paying for outcomes will incentivise providers to deliver better recovery outcomes for those in treatment, including reduced offending. The pilots are currently the subject of an independent evaluation led by the University of Manchester in partnership with Birkbeck College London, RAND Europe and UserVoice. The final evaluation report is expected in 2015.
We continue to work with 39 adult and 15 youth liaison and diversion sites as part of the development of a joint programme, with the Department of Health and Ministry of Justice, to roll out liaison and diversion services by November 2014.
3.4 Support collaboration between the police and other public services, working with the Ministry of Justice and other government departments
We have worked closely with the Ministry of Justice to develop and deliver a package of measures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System, with a particular emphasis on police procedures and collaboration with other agencies such as streamlined digital case working and court processes and more effective and consistent use of out of court disposals including restorative justice.
Working closely with the police, Crown Prosecution Service and HM Courts and Tribunals Service, along with the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General’s Office, we have set up nine pathfinder areas to trial a best practice model for police led prosecutions. The model is designed to speed up prosecutions for uncontested, low-level offences and reduce bureaucracy between agencies. Effective partnership working is critical to preventing and reducing crime. At the local level, Police and Crime Commissioners will need to work with a range of community safety partners to achieve shared outcomes in cutting crime.
3.5 Help the police, voluntary organisations and local communities to reduce violence against women
We have announced plans to criminalise forced marriage in England and Wales and introduced two new stalking offences, “stalking” and “stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress” which came into force on 25 November 2012. We published a refreshed action plan, ‘A call to end violence against women and girls’ on 8 March 2013, to demonstrate the Government’s ongoing commitment to tackling violence against women and girls.
As part of the violence against women and girls action plan, we ran the teenage rape prevention campaign from 1 December 2012 to 20 January 2013. The campaign aimed to prevent teenagers from becoming victims and perpetrators of sexual violence and abuse and directed them to places for help and advice.
3.6 Help the police, voluntary organisations and local communities to reduce serious youth violence
We provided up to £10,000 each in further funding for 50 organisations who we already work with through the Communities Against Guns, Gangs and Knives Fund, to be spent on continuing those activities in 2012-13.
The Ending Gang and Youth Violence programme focuses funding and support on 29 areas across the country identified as having the most significant gang problems. £10 million of Home Office funding has been re-prioritised for 2012-13 to support those 29 areas. This is intended to supplement existing local resources used to tackle gang and youth violence.
To support this work, we have established an Ending Gang and Youth Violence team, made up of practitioners with experience of dealing with gang and youth violence, to provide support and practical advice to the 29 priority areas.
The support offered by the Ending Gang and Youth Violence Team has been well received, and we have offered the opportunity to benefit from this team to a further three areas.
4. Secure our borders and reduce immigration
4.1 Strengthen the system of granting students permission to enter or stay in the UK to reduce abuse with the likely consequence of reducing net migration
The Government has continued to reform the student visa regime to tackle abuse, whilst ensuring the UK continues to attract the brightest and the best students from across the world. We have introduced the power for visa officers to interview and refuse applicants where there are doubts about their credibility. We have also closed the old post-study work scheme, which gave two years’ free access to the labour market, and have reduced work placements to one third of course time (except for university students), both of which were widely abused by non-genuine students. In addition, we have increased our targeted risk-based interviews of student applicants for the financial year 2013-14. We have also introduced a change which allows PhD students and 1,000 MBA graduates who have completed their studies to stay in the UK for 12 months to find skilled work or set up as an entrepreneur. The Home Office continues to monitor the impact of these changes, and will take further measures to strengthen the student visa regime against abuse if necessary. At the same time we have restated that there is no limit in the number of legitimate students and the latest figures show that the number of students applying to attend our universities rose by 5%.
4.2 Strengthen the system of granting spouses permission to enter or stay in the UK to reduce abuse and support the integration of long term migrants in local communities
In July 2012, the Government implemented changes to the Immigration Rules for spouses, partners and other family members, to prevent burdens on the taxpayer, promote integration and tackle abuse. These measures include a minimum income threshold of £18,600 for sponsoring a spouse or partner to settle in the UK, with higher thresholds for also sponsoring dependent children, and a longer probationary period for spouses and partners (5 years rather than 2 years) to test the genuineness of the relationship before settlement in the UK can be granted on the basis of it. We have also stepped up enforcement action against those seeking to use a sham marriage as the basis for an application to remain in the UK and, working with the Ministry of Justice, will continue to keep further measures to tackle sham marriages under review.
4.3 Set an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted to the UK. As a result of this and other policies we anticipate net migration will be in the tens of thousands in future
The 20,700 limit on economic migrants from outside the EU (introduced from April 2011) has been continuously undersubscribed. In addition, the figures show that our reforms are having an impact in all the right places. In the 12 months to June 2012, net migration was 163,000, down from a peak of 255,000 in the year to September 2010. At the same time, there was a 3% increase in visas issued for skilled workers (Tier 2 of the Points Based System) and a 3% increase in visa applications for study at British higher education institutions. We are continuing to attract the brightest and best migrants the UK needs, fulfilling our aim of controlling migration without impeding economic growth. As a consequence, it was announced in 2012-13 that the limit on economic migrants was to be extended until April 2014, and subsequently confirmed in April 2013 that the limit would be held at its current level (20,700) for the remainder of this Parliament. In July 2012, it was also announced that, from October 2013, all applicants for settlement will be required to pass the Life in the UK test (on the basis of a new Life in the UK handbook published in January 2013) and present an English language qualification at intermediate (B1) level. In addition, preparations have commenced for the extended roll-out of Biometric Residence Permits to overseas applicants in April 2014.
4.4 Transform UK border security arrangements to help protect the UK against terrorist attack, serious cross-border crime and abuses of the immigration system, including through e-Borders, assessing passengers in advance of their arrival in the UK. Reintroduce exit checks
In June 2012, at Heathrow Airport, the Home Office introduced a new roster system for the Primary Control Point to enable greater flexibility and responsiveness and opened a new control room to enhance the deployment of Home Office Border Force resources so that border risks and passenger flow are integrated. Clearing passengers at the border within published service standards has improved substantially during the year, building on success during the Olympics; 100 million people have entered the UK legally so far this year and over 99% of passengers sampled were cleared within service standards.
The Home Office successes in combating serious cross border crime included over £317 million of tax revenue protected through the detection of smuggled alcohol and tobacco goods and, in the first 6 months of the year, the seizure of over 1.4 tonnes of cocaine and 303 kg of heroin. Notable seizures of smuggled goods included:
- 45kg of cocaine stashed in a cargo ship carrying coal, with an estimated street value of £5 million
- 1.5 tonnes of cannabis with an estimated street value of approximately £4.3 million discovered in three air freight containers of fruit and vegetables
- £25,000 worth of cocaine hidden inside an ornamental elephant in freight items at Heathrow
- £150,000 cash hidden in a lorry detected by a Border Force cash search dog
- 30 million cigarettes detected in a container in Southampton, which would have cost HM Treasury around £8,064,000 in unpaid excise duty
In 2012-13, the e-Borders programme captured and processed passenger travel data on more routes into and out of the UK and took a number of steps to make the UK’s border systems more robust and resilient. Since 2005, e-Borders has led to over 14,300 arrests for offences including murder, kidnap and sexual offences and over 1900 refusals of leave to enter the UK.
The Home Office is continuing to develop enhanced freight targeting capabilities working with HM Revenue and Customs and wider. Work continues on exploring options around how future exit checks may operate and how the e-Borders system can support any technical requirements.
An evaluation of the Smart Zone concept was undertaken in 2012-13 and future work in this area is now being linked with wider work on targeted checks at the border. 4.5 Improve enforcement capability to increase the number of removals
The new Directorate General, Immigration Enforcement, which the Home Secretary announced on Tuesday 26 March, will oversee an increase in the number of frontline staff tackling illegal immigration as part of new Immigration and Compliance Enforcement (ICE) teams who will use improved intelligence tasking to tackle immigration criminality at all levels, including internationally. Illegal migrants arrested by ICE teams, directly or through joint operations with other law enforcement partners, including Border Force and the police, will be managed by the new National Removals Centre being established as the UK-wide centre of expertise in immigration removals. As part of the Home Office’s work to encourage compliance with UK immigration laws, it was decided to award a contract to Capita for contact management and casework services, of which the first piece of work was to progress and close cases where individuals were subject to a negative immigration decision and there is no evidence to show they have left the UK. Such cases are referred to collectively as the Migration Refusal Pool (MRP). Capita’s aim is to establish whether an individual in the MRP has left and, where they have not, secure their voluntary departure.
During 2012-13 the Home Office achieved success with financial data sharing pilot which now routinely shares information on migrants who have been served an Enforcement Notice and face removal from the UK with the credit industry to prevent access to credit facilities. Plans are in place to expand the type and volume of information shared to ensure that illegal migrants cannot access the services of the financial industry.
Following extensive scoping and evaluation of the existing assisted voluntary returns model between April to August 2012, a new assisted voluntary returns (AVR) model was designed and elements have already been piloted. The new model will make improvements to all aspects of the end to end AVR programme enabling 25% uplift in returns over the next 3 years. Work is ongoing to implement the revised approach with full roll out anticipated for April 2014.
4.6 Improve migration service standards to support the UK’s growth agenda
2012-13 was a challenging year, keeping up with large business volumes during a time when we were also committing significant resources to the Olympics. Action was taken to identify and tackle backlogs: most areas of our in-country (i.e. UK) decision casework will be reduced to frictional levels by early 2013-14. International and visa service standards were maintained and improved, with improved decision quality in 2012-13. A step change was delivered in the visa service for China and a campaign was launched to address visa perceptions in emerging powers and the Home Office is also reviewing service standards to ensure they are clear to our customers. We have increased online payments overseas from approximately 13% to over 45% (on a 122 month rolling basis), including some very challenging markets, such as Russia. Within the next 9 months we expect to have increased online payments to 80% including in India, China and Ukraine. Delays have occurred due to difficulties in identifying suitable alternative payment methods in some societies with a strong cash culture.
5. Protect people’s freedoms and civil liberties
5.1 Reform the use of intelligence and sensitive material in judicial proceedings; and modernise judicial, independent and parliamentary scrutiny of the security and intelligence agencies
The Justice and Security Act received Royal Assent on 25 April 2013. The Act addresses the problem of how intelligence and other sensitive material can be used in judicial proceedings by providing for closed material procedures in the small number of civil cases involving relevant national security material which the Courts recognise is too sensitive to disclose.
The Justice and Security Act also limits a legal mechanism which has become known as the ‘Norwich Pharmacal’ jurisdiction. This provides for a claimant that is involved in litigation anywhere in the world to seek disclosure of relevant information from a third party in Great Britain. Applied in the context of national security, for which it was never intended, ‘Norwich Pharmacal’ has been used to seek access to sensitive material, including that shared in confidence by our allies. This undermines the principle of confidentiality and trust on which international intelligence sharing arrangements are based and can damage these critical relationships. The Act therefore rules that ‘Norwich Pharmacal’ should not be available for information held by, originating from, or relating to, the intelligence services, or information certified by the Secretary of State as information which ought not to be disclosed as it would be contrary to the public interest. The Act also extends the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC)’s remit by granting it additional investigative powers and resources and bringing it closer to Parliament. It also extends the remit of the Intelligence Services Commissioner.
5.2 Review counter-terrorism and security legislation and implement recommendations to ensure it is necessary, effective and proportionate
The Government’s review of counter-terrorism and security powers was published in January 2011 and recommended significant changes across counter-terrorism legislation. Some of the changes were made in 2011-12 – most notably the replacement of control orders with Terrorism Prevention and Investigative Measures (TPIMs) through the TPIM Act 2011.
In 2012-13, the focus has been on implementing the legislative changes made in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 related to pre-charge detention, stop and search and covert surveillance powers.
The review of counter-terrorism powers recommended that the limit on pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects should be reduced from 28 to 14 days. This change was introduced through the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which received Royal Assent on 1 May 2012. The Government believes that the 14 day limit strikes the right balance between safeguarding national security and protecting individual rights: in practice, in the year ending 30 June 2012, only three of the 52 people arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in Great Britain were held in pre-charge detention for more than seven days and they were all subsequently charged within the 14 day limit.
The Government recognises that, in rare cases, a longer period of pre-charge detention may be required. For this reason, draft fast-track legislation to temporarily increase pre-charge detention to a maximum of 28 days was published in 2012 and subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny.
The review of counter-terrorism powers also recommended significant changes to the stop and search powers provided by the Terrorism Act 2000 in light of concerns about their necessity and proportionality. These changes were implemented through the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and came into force on 10 July 2012. The Act repealed the powers (commonly known as ‘Section 44’) in the 2000 Act, which had enabled the police to stop and search people and vehicles without suspicion and replaced them with more limited powers. The new powers (under section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000) enable the police to stop and search people and vehicles with no suspicion only in exceptional circumstances, where a senior police officer reasonably suspects that an act of terrorism will take place and where the powers are considered necessary to prevent such an act.
There has been no use of the new stop and search powers under section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000 in Great Britain. A total of 679 people were stopped and searched under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 by the Metropolitan Police Service in the year ending 30 June 2012, down from 1,283 in the previous 12 months. The Police Service of Northern Ireland publishes statistics on use of stop and search powers in that jurisdiction.
Reflecting another recommendation from the review of counter-terrorism powers, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provided for greater limits on local authority use of covert surveillance techniques under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Since November 2012, when the provisions were introduced and guidance published, local authorities must obtain judicial approval prior to using the covert techniques available to them. The Government also introduced in November a crime threshold for local authority use of the most sensitive covert technique available to them – directed surveillance. This will prevent local authorities using this technique in low level cases where the offence being investigated does not attract a six month or more custodial sentence, with the exception of investigations into the under age sale of alcohol and tobacco.
5.3 End the storage of internet and email records without good reason
Work continues to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communications data and intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework.
Communications data (CD) is data about a communication or the use of communications services. CD can help identify who has made a communication, when, where and how. CD is distinguished from the content of a communication and, unlike the content of communications obtained through interception, can be used as evidence in court. CD is of considerable value to law enforcement agencies in the investigation of all kinds of serious crime, including terrorism.
CD is presently retained by the communications industry for their own commercial reasons (e.g. in order to bill their customers). With the necessary approvals, the police and the intelligence agencies can access CD where it can facilitate a specific investigation. But new internet-based communications do not always generate CD and some CD is no longer retained for business reasons. It is, therefore, not available when needed by public authorities to help in the investigation of crime. Projects have been funded under existing legislation set out in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009 to slow the decline in capabilities. However, the decline in access to data continues despite our best efforts. Further proposals are necessary to ensure that CD continues to be available to law enforcement agencies in the future, as it has been in the past.
Draft proposals were published on 14 June 2012 and scrutinised by a Joint Committee of both Houses and by the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Joint Committee published their report on 11 December 2012 and the ISC published their report on 5 February 2013.
The Government is continuing to consider this matter carefully and the Queen’s Speech in May 2013 stated that ‘In relation to the problem of matching internet protocol addresses, my Government will bring forward proposals to enable the protection of the public and the investigation of crime in cyberspace.’ We will bring forward proposals in due course that will ensure a proportionate response to this issue.
5.4 Implementation of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The commitment on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers 2000 (RIPA) has been fully implemented. From 1 November 2012 local authorities have been required to obtain judicial approval before using RIPA and are prohibited from using covert surveillance under RIPA for any crime which does not attract at least a maximum six month term of imprisonment.
The destruction of DNA samples and profiles has begun and the deletion of fingerprint records will begin in May 2013. The remaining DNA provisions will commence this autumn.
A draft surveillance camera code of practice went out to statutory consultation, with the code planned to come into force in summer 2013. Andrew Rennison has been appointed the first Surveillance Camera Commissioner.
Provisions relating to pre-charge detention and terrorism stop and search powers came into force in July 2012.
Significant changes to the criminal records and barring regime have been introduced, with the establishment of the Disclosure and Barring Service in December 2012, replacing the Criminal Records Bureau and the Independent Safeguarding Authority. A new update service will be launched in June this year transforming how these services operate.
Consultation has taken place on a new Powers of Entry Code of Practice, and a cross-Government review of powers is under way.
A ban on wheel-clamping without lawful authority came into force in October 2012.
New offences of “stalking” and “stalking where there is fear of violence or serious alarm or distress” came into force in November 2012.
Applications are now being considered for the disregarding of certain decriminalised offences. 5.5 Improve the delivery and effectiveness of civil registration services in England and Wales
In support of the Government’s legislative priorities, the General Register Office continues to improve delivery of civil registration in England and Wales through the efficient administration and implementation of legislative change including; the introduction of same sex marriage and supporting the wider Home Office in tackling sham marriage. Over the course of 2013 Her Majesty’s Passport Office (formerly known as the Identity and Passport Service) will look to improve the storing and sharing of records with the public and other government departments in line with open public services and the government’s digital strategy.
6. Protect our citizens from terrorism
6.1 Publish progress on the implementation of CONTEST: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Terrorism
The CONTEST Annual Report was published in March 2013 and is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contest-annual-report-2012.
The report assesses the terrorist threat to the UK and its interests overseas covering the period July 2011 to December 2012 – coinciding with the Olympic Games. It summarises key achievements and sets out what we will need to do as part of the strategy’s work streams (Pursue, Prevent, Protect, Prepare) in order to stay ahead of the threat.
6.2 Change pre-departure checks to better identify people and cargo that pose a terrorist threat and prevent them flying to or from the UK
We have implemented no fly arrangements in line with our commitment to strengthen pre-departure checks and prevent people who pose a terrorist threat from flying to or from the UK. The Security and Travel Bans Authority to Carry Scheme, introduced through secondary legislation in July 2012, requires airlines providing API to seek authority to carry to the UK some named foreign nationals who we judge to pose a specific high threat.
Over the past year we have also introduced measures to improve the security of cargo entering the UK. The UK was at the forefront of work to establish a new EU Inbound Cargo Regime which came into effect in early 2012 and requires all airlines around the world to screen cargo to EU standards before being loaded onto an aircraft destined for the EU. High risk cargo is subject to additional security screening pre-departure. We regard this regime as a major step forward and continue to work closely with the Commission and other member states on its implementation.
6.3 Strengthen the UK’s protection against and ability to respond to a terrorist attack
A cross-Government programme has developed a specialist joint response to a firearms attack, involving the police, fire and ambulance services. Small specialist teams have been formed in high priority areas. The emergency services have developed guidance for all control room and frontline staff to identify and respond to the initial stages of a possible terrorist firearms attack.
6.4 Help to ensure a safe and successful Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012
The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games was the largest sporting event in UK history. From the Olympic Torch Relay in May to the athletes’ parade on 10 September, the Games involved 14,700 athletes from 205 countries at over 30 competition venues in London and across the UK; more than 10 million spectators attended Olympic events.
Protecting the Games required the largest ever peacetime security operation in this country. Up to 14,500 police officers and 18,000 armed forces personnel were deployed on Games security duties. About one million accreditation application background checks were completed for Games Family Members, workers, volunteers, athletes, journalists and officials: a significant number were refused for national security reasons. Nearly 6 million people arrived at Heathrow alone during July and August 2012. In 2010 the Government announced that it expected to deliver the programme for additional policing and wider Games security for £475 million, although up to £600 million remained available if required. Separately, £553 million was provided to London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) for venue security, including infrastructure and personnel. In December 2012 the outturn for policing and wider Games security costs was estimated at £455 million. In February 2013 the estimated outturn for venue security was reduced to £451 million, reflecting the settlement reached between LOCOG and the private security company, G4S. Final figures will be published later this year.
The Games time venue security operation was the responsibility of LOCOG working to Government requirements and with Government advice. G4S, contracted by LOCOG, was unable to deliver the agreed levels of Games venue guards and the planned military contribution to venue security rose accordingly, to a peak of 12,200 personnel. The Home Affairs Select Committee conducted an inquiry into venue guarding in September 2012 and concluded that contingency plans put in place by the Home Office, LOCOG, the military and the police had functioned well. G4S is paying all additional costs arising from additional military and police deployments.
The Government is committed to the successful delivery of the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games. Lessons from the 2012 security programme have been shared with Glasgow and the authorities in Brazil for the Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
SRP Overdue actions (at the end of March 2013)
2. Free up the police to fight crime more effectively and efficiently
2.2 Simplify institutional structures for the police, phasing out the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and establishing a National Crime Agency (NCA)
(iii) Publish an update on the organised crime strategy
Work is underway on an update to the organised crime strategy. Following Royal Assent for the Crime and Courts Act on 25 April, the update will set out revised priorities and governance ahead of the vesting of the National Crime Agency in October 2013.
3. Create a more integrated Criminal Justice System
3.1 Support the Ministry of Justice to develop a strategy for reducing reoffending, ensuring more effective rehabilitation, especially for drug users, and to conduct a full examination of sentencing policy
(ii) Develop a clear, coherent framework governing the use of out of court disposals, working in partnership with Ministry of Justice
Legislation changes from the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 were introduced on 8 April. This makes it simpler for police officers to issue out of court disposals, and with the Ministry of Justice and Crown Prosecution Service guidance, places a clearer framework around their use. This action is now complete.
4. Secure our borders and reduce immigration
4.5 Improve enforcement capability to increase the number of removals
(ix) Improve our ability to follow up allegations by improving guidance for staff and the public and by using technology to better gather and manage information, including tracking allegations from receipt to any subsequent enforcement action
The IT release date has been moved to enable additional security, audit and search capability to be delivered. 4.6 Improve migration service standards to support the UK’s growth agenda
(iii) Ensure 80 per cent of visa application payments are made online
We have increased online payments from approximately 13% to over 45% (on an annualised basis), including some very challenging markets (such as Russia). Within the next 9 months we will have increased online payments to 80% including India, China and Ukraine. Delays have occurred due to difficulties in identifying suitable alternative payment methods in some societies with a strong cash culture and identification of new requirements.
5. Protect people’s freedoms and civil liberties
5.4 Implementation of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(iv) Create a universally portable criminal records bureau check, through a new instant online check
The new instant online check has been delayed by the need to make urgent changes to the Disclosure and Barring Service’s disclosure system following a Court of Appeal judgement. We laid the relevant secondary legislation on 25 March 2013.
6. Protect our citizens from terrorism
6.2 Change pre-departure checks to better identify people and cargo that pose a terrorist threat and prevent them flying to or from the UK
(ii) Develop capability to undertake semi-automated pre-departure (no fly) checks, as an enhancement of e-Borders
We will deliver on our commitment to develop semi-automated pre-departure (no fly) checks as an enhancement of e-Borders in July 2013. The completion date of March 2013 was an estimate made ahead of a detailed project plan being developed.
Performance Indicators
This section contains information and data collected by the department to help measure the impact of our policies and reforms. The Home Office Business Plan includes our input and impact indicators and other data sets. Progress is published regularly on the Home Office website, which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office
We have continued to publish information on how we have spent our budget through the Quarterly Data Summary (QDS). In October 2012 this was refreshed and we published information in a new template on our website.
Making this information publically available is a key component of the government’s Transparency Agenda, and is intended to enable the public to judge the performance of the department and assess whether the Home Office is having the effect they want. Contextual information on Spending figures
In January 2012 the Cabinet Office published standard data definitions for common areas of spend. The definitions for the spending figures can be found at [http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/common-areas-spend-data-definitions](http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/common-areas-spend-data-definitions).
For the financial year 2012-13 the QDS has been revised and improved in line with Action 9 of the Civil Service Reform Plan to provide a common set of data that will enable comparisons of operational performance across Government so that departments and individuals can be held to account.
The QDS (shown in the Spending table below) breaks down the total spend of the department in three ways: by Budget, by Internal Operation and by Transaction.
Contextual information on Results figures
The measurement annexes for Input indicators, Impact indicators are available on GOV.UK website. Structural Reform Plan figures are based on the Home Office Business Plan 2012-15.
| 2012-2013 SPENDING | Actual(^1,2) | |---------------------|----------------| | Total Spend (£m) | 9,124.17 | | (A) Spend by budget type (£m) | | | (A1) DEL, Sub-Total | 7,889.95 | | (A2) AME, Sub-Total | 1,234.22 | | (A3) Other expenditure outside DEL and AME | 0 | | (A1+A2+A3) Total Spend | 9,124.17 | | (B) Spend by internal operation (£m) | | | (B1) Cost of running the estate, Sub-Total | 125.14 | | (B2) Cost of running IT, Sub-Total | 567.32 | | (B3) Cost of corporate services, Sub-total | 108.20 | | (B4) Policy: Police Funding, Sub-Total | 4,844.37 | | (B5) Other costs | 3,479.14 | | (B1+B2+B3+B4+B5) Total Spend | 9,124.17 | | (C) Spend by type of transaction (£m) | | | (C1) Procurement costs, Sub-Total | 2,207.24 | | (C2) People costs, Sub-Total | 1,156.53 | | (C3) Grants, Sub-Total | 6,571.49 | | (C4) Other costs | N/A | | (C1+C2+C3+C4) Total Spend (£m) | 9,935.26 |
### RESULTS
| Input Indicators | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | Context | |------------------|---------|---------|---------| | Cost per head of population of total police force cost | £191 | £198 | This excludes the Metropolitan Police service and the City of London police figures. | | Cost per case of managing a drug misusing offender into treatment and recovery | Not currently available, to be published on GOV.UK website. | £2,921 | Drug misuse is often a chronic, relapsing condition, and so individuals may have multiple contacts with the Criminal Justice System/Drug Interventions Programme during any 12 month period, thus the annual cost per contact with an individual is likely to be considerably lower. | | Cost per passenger processed at the UK border | £2.854,5 | £2.90 | This data may fluctuate as a result of deployment decisions in response to risk and operational requirements, which influence the balance between passenger processing and customs related activity at the border. | | Cost per decision for all permanent and temporary migration applications | £181 | £223 | | | The cost of producing and issuing a passport | £59.40 | £64.68 | |
| Impact Indicators | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | Context | |-------------------|---------|---------|---------| | Crime rates – violent and property crime reported to the police | 3,159,955 crimes recorded by the police in the 12 months to the end of December 2012 | 3,447,573 crimes recorded by the police in the 12 months to the end of December 2011 | 2012 data is a rate of 56 recorded offences per 1,000 population. 2011 data is a rate of 61 recorded offences per 1,000 population. | | The size, value and nature of organised crime and our success in diminishing it and its profitability | Not currently available. Data is expected to be available soon on GOV.UK website. | 38,861 known organised criminals at 30 June 2011 7,255 organised crime groups at 30 June 2011 | Organised Crime Group Mapping is based on law enforcement’s knowledge and understanding of the problem and the individuals it is aware of. Much of Organised Crime is hidden and difficult to quantify. It is not a police-recorded crime in itself. | | Net migration to the UK | 153,000 for year ending September 2012 | 242,000 for year ending September 2011 | Outturn for 2012 to be published in November 2013. Overall, net migration reduced by 37 per cent to 153,000 in the 12 months to September 2012 from 242,000 a year earlier. | | Annual level of revenue protected through detecting goods where excise duty has not been declared | £318 million | £311 million | Cigarette and hand rolling tobacco seizure information is refreshed each month. Consequently, the information published is subject to change. | | Clearance of passengers at the border within published standards | 99% | 97% | Service standards: 95% of European Economic Area (EEA) passengers within 25 minutes; 95% non-EEA passengers within 45 minutes. |
### RESULTS
| Impact Indicators | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | Context | |-------------------|---------|---------|---------| | Percentage of migration applications decided within published standards | 92%<sup>14</sup> | 89%<sup>14</sup> | The customer service standards are different for different types of applications. For some in country routes applications can be made in person at a public enquiry office or by post and there are different standards for these 2 application processes. These data are a consolidated view of the standards. | | Percentage of asylum applications concluded in one year | 63% | 63% | | | Passport applications processed within target | 85%<sup>16</sup> | 100% | 2012-13: the volume of straightforward passport applications for the year was 3,579,819 of which 3,026,063 were processed within target. 2011-12: the volume of straightforward passport applications for the year was 3,263,960 of which 3,254,126 were processed within target. | | Customer pledge target of 15 working days | 99% | 100% | 2012-13: the volume of straightforward passport applications for the year was 3,579,819 of which 3,533,925 were processed within target. 2011-12: the volume of straightforward passport applications for the year was 3,263,960 of which 3,263,960 were processed within target. |
### Structural Reform Plan Actions<sup>17</sup>
| | 2012-13 | |-------------------|---------| | Total number of actions completed during the year | 55 | | Total number of actions overdue at the end of the year | 6 | | Total number of actions ongoing | 35 |
______________________________________________________________________
01. As per Cabinet Office definitions.
02. These figures use the same definition as the Quarterly Data Summary (QDS). They cannot always be reconciled to the numbers in the accounts because the definitions for the QDS are set by Cabinet Office, which have been calculated on a different basis to those in the annual accounts.
03. The measurement annex for the input indicators is available on GOV.UK.
04. Figure quoted is based on internal management information, rounded to the nearest 5 pence.
05. There has been a revision to the allocation of staff time between passenger and detection activity due to a change in methodology that means a year on year direct comparison is not appropriate.
06. The measurement annex for the impact indicators is available on GOV.UK.
07. The list of the offence codes is available on GOV.UK website.
08. Rates are derived using population estimates from Office for National Statistics.
09. Provisional estimate of long-term migration to the UK: Migration Statistics Quarterly Report May 2013.
10. Figure quoted is management information which has been subject to internal quality checks. A recent audit has made recommendations on the assurance of the initial cleansing of data and enhanced documentation of the quality assurance process. These recommendations are currently being taken forward.
11. Figure quoted is rounded to the nearest million pounds.
12. Figure is based on management information which has been subject to internal quality checks and may be subject to change.
13. From 25th August 2012, queue measures were taken every 15 minutes at Heathrow. From 28th October 2012, queue measures were taken every 15 minutes at Gatwick.
14. Figure is based on internal management information which has been subject to internal quality checks. The numbers may differ from figures released as National Statistics in the Home Office Immigration Statistics as they are drawn from different snapshots of the Home Office databases.
15. We previously reported in the 2011-12 Home Office Annual Report and Accounts that the percentage of migration applications decided within published standards was 91 per cent. The adjusted figure from previously published data follows a data refresh and quality check.
16. Number rounded to nearest percentage. Actual volumes (by month) received and processed within target are available on GOV.UK website.
17. Figures quotes are based on the Home Office Business Plan 2012-15 (May 2012-March 2013). CHAPTER 4 – REFORM AGENDA PROGRESS INCLUDING BETTER REGULATION
Reporting on Better Regulation
The Home Office public protection imperative has made the contribution to the wider government drive on Reducing Regulation a particular challenge. The final deficit under one-in-one-out(^1) stood at £97 million for the Fifth Statement of New Regulation. The largest contributor was the migration limit, a coalition priority, which contributed around £50 million to this total. In the past year, however, the Home Office has achieved a marked improvement in performance on reducing regulation. At the last Statement, no new regulatory measures were introduced. The Home Office also conducted reviews into deregulatory options which made a substantial contribution to the alcohol strategy consultation ending in February for which no less than six deregulatory measures were identified for public discussion exceeding those already identified through the Red Tape Challenge. We will consider these measures further in the coming year.
The Regulatory Policy Committee scrutinises Government Impact Assessments and provides validation ratings. During the last year, there has been a big improvement in ratings for Home Office Impact Assessments with 70% achieving ‘fit for purpose’ ratings on first submission. This rose to 100% in the final quarter. The Home Office continues to work to ensure all Impact Assessments can receive these ratings on first submission and so not require amendment before publication.
The Red Tape Challenge website is part of this Government’s commitment to transparency and growth. It aims to tackle the burden of excessive red tape, both to free businesses to compete and create jobs and to give people greater freedom and personal responsibility. The Home Office took a number of commitments away from the Red Tape Challenge. These included a review of Poisons legislation and various ideas to deregulate some aspects of alcohol licensing such as allowing ancillary sellers of alcohol such as bed and breakfasts and hairdressers to provide alcohol as an ancillary product to customers under a simpler regulatory system. The consultation on the various alcohol measures has been completed and the Poison Board met four times during the year to take forward work relating to the poisons’ licensing regime.
Before undertaking regulation as a last resort, the Home Office continues to consider alternatives. For example, it is taking an incremental approach to regulating the overt use of CCTV and other surveillance camera systems in England and Wales. Subject to the outcome of statutory consultation and parliamentary approval, it will bring a guidance code of practice into force in summer 2013. A duty to have regard to this code will initially be placed upon local authorities, the police and Police and Crime Commissioners. Other operators, including those in the private sector, will be encouraged to adopt the code on a voluntary basis. This regulatory framework reflects a commitment to keep new burdens to a minimum while listening carefully to advice from the new Surveillance Camera Commissioner about any need to strengthen the regulatory requirements in the light of experience.
The Home Office has played an active role in the Focus on Enforcement review which aims to reduce the costs to legitimate businesses of enforcement practices operated by government. The Home Office is currently discussing options to take forward a review of enforcement of migration rules. In parallel with this, we are also undertaking a thorough review of the rules and guidance for migration which will help businesses to interpret and comply with rules.
The Home Office is firmly committed to preventing gold-plating of EU laws i.e. imposing more than the de minimis requirement when transposing EU law into UK law. As trailed in last year’s report for example, most of the provisions of Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes have been transposed unchanged in revised UK legislation implementing the Directive in line with Government policy on the implementation of European legislation. However, the majority of responses to the public consultation on the options for transposition supported the retention of UK animal welfare requirements that were stricter than those set out in the Directive. These have therefore been retained maintaining public confidence that animals used in experiments and testing will continue to receive a very high level of protection. It is estimated that retaining these UK standards will have no significant impact on costs or competitiveness.
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) The deficit under one-in-one-out represents the estimated net cost to business of Home Office regulation/deregulation brought in since 2011 CHAPTER 5 – DEPARTMENTAL CORE DATA TABLES
Contents
Table 1 – Public Spending This is a summary based on net budgetary totals from Part II Subhead detail sections. Seven columns: five prior years’ outturns (including 2012-13 – the year just ended), and (Spending Review) plans for the following two years. Scope of table will be 2008-09 to 2014-15. These numbers are taken from OSCAR, the HM Treasury’s database, as at June 2013. The numbers in the column for 2012-13 have been produced by OSCAR before the accounts have been finalised and so the numbers in this table may not reconcile to the numbers in the accounts.
Table 2 – Public Spending Control This table shows the year just ended outturn figures (from Table 1) against the budgetary control limits, showing original Estimate Supplementary Estimate and final Estimate figures as comparators. These numbers are taken from OSCAR, the HM Treasury’s database, as at May 2013. Due to the year just ended (2012-13) numbers being made available before the accounts are published, the numbers in this table may not reconcile with the numbers in the accounts.
Table 3 – Capital Employed Sets out the capital employed across the Home Office departmental group. It includes capital employed by agencies and NDPBs but excludes that of bodies such as police authorities, whose spend is not consolidated within those of the department. Five prior year outturns (including year just ended) and (Spending Review) plan for following two years are shown.
Table 4 – Administration Costs Shows the administration costs for the Home Office. Administration costs exclude front-line activities such as the police and immigration work at ports and associated casework in order to provide a clearer picture of administrative activities. It provides five prior years’ outturns (including year just ended), Spending Review plans for the following two years. The scope is from 2008-09 to 2014-15. These numbers are taken from OSCAR, the HM Treasury’s database, as at May 2013. Due to the year just ended (2012-13) numbers being made available before the accounts are published, the numbers in this table may not reconcile with the numbers in the accounts.
Table 5 – Staff in Post Provides an analysis of Home Office total staffing showing three prior year outturns (including year just ended), following Cabinet Office guidelines. This also includes numbers of non-payroll staff (consultants, and contingent labour i.e. interim managers, specialist contractors and agency staff).
Table 6 – Total spending by country and region (2007-08 to 2011-12)
Table 7 – Total spending per head by country and region (2007-08 to 2011-12)
Table 8 – Spending by function, by country and region (for latest outturn year, 2011-12)
Tables 6, 7 and 8 provide analysis of the department’s spending by country and region, and by function. The data in tables 6, 7 and 8 were taken from the HM Treasury public spending database in October 2012. Therefore the tables may not show the latest position and are not consistent with the other core data tables. The data is for five prior years’ outturns (2007-08 to 2011-12) | Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |---------------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Crime and Policing Group | 5,482,181 | 5,642,682 | 9,139,314 | 8,881,331 | 8,322,852 | 8,031,522 | 7,675,261 | | Office for Security and Counter Terrorism | 705,871 | 814,501 | 807,786 | 880,553 | 970,910 | 734,916 | 664,036 | | UK Border Agency | 1,710,051 | 1,713,561 | 1,704,436 | 1,311,786 | 608,651 | 800,357 | 767,174 | | Criminal Records Bureau | -973 | -4,616 | 1,527 | 270 | -14,783 | - | - | | Identity and Passport Service | 93,105 | 90,439 | 5,002 | -43,245 | -69,836 | 4,252 | 2,857 | | Central Home Office | 261,652 | 251,147 | 195,492 | 166,444 | 366,373 | 449,913 | 442,232 | | Arms Length Bodies (Net) | 864,673 | 878,329 | 844,873 | 852,406 | 624,278 | 496,710 | 472,658 | | Area Based Grants | 76,870 | 80,925 | 71,243 | 66,909 | 28,751 | - | - | | Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) | - | - | - | - | - | 97,944 | 5,551 | | National Fraud Authority | - | 3,943 | 4,021 | 5,995 | 8,809 | 10,049 | 9,640 | | European Solidarity Mechanism (net) | 1 | -1 | - | - | 908 | 1 | 1 | | Border Force | - | - | - | - | 594,835 | 585,164 | 569,939 | | **Total Resource DEL** | 9,193,431 | 9,470,910 | 12,773,694 | 12,122,449 | 11,441,748 | 11,210,828 | 10,609,349 | | Of which: | | | | | | | | | - Staff costs | 1,533,403 | 1,519,083 | 1,595,956 | 1,467,340 | 1,455,895 | 1,430,172 | 1,403,954 | | - Purchase of goods and services | 2,680,189 | 2,195,571 | 2,391,533 | 2,017,080 | 2,201,207 | 2,247,648 | 2,209,784 | | - Income from sale of goods and services | -1,056,904 | -1,178,113 | -1,373,124 | -1,219,850 | -1,222,075 | -1,177,483 | -1,245,269 | | - Current grants to local government (net) | 6,241,557 | 6,414,746 | 9,903,879 | 9,537,501 | 9,044,789 | 8,778,033 | 8,395,264 | | - Current grants to persons and non-profit bodies (net) | 80,169 | 446,340 | 124,731 | 178,019 | 44,389 | 79,766 | 75,673 | | - Current grants abroad (net) | -18,546 | -13,556 | -18,730 | -28,689 | -42,895 | -46,808 | -46,473 | | - Subsidies to private sector companies | - | - | - | - | 272,020 | - | - | | - Rentals | - | 308,680 | - | 278,027 | 100,339 | 40,502 | 39,531 | | - Depreciation¹ | 184,706 | 202,678 | 485,242 | 218,542 | 242,681 | 234,050 | 250,050 | | - Take up of provisions | - | - | - | 11,754 | - | - | - | | | 2008-09 Outturn | 2009-10 Outturn | 2010-11 Outturn | 2011-12 Outturn | 2012-13 Estimated Outturn | 2013-14 Plans | 2014-15 Plans | |----------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|---------------------------|---------------|---------------| | -Other resource | -451,143 | -424,519 | -335,793 | -337,275 | -654,602 | -465,009 | -466,364 | | -Unallocated funds – resource | - | - | - | - | - | 89,957 | -6,801 |
**Resource Annually Managed Expenditure (AME)**
| AME Charges | 44,450 | -102,713 | 179,006 | 1,424 | 2,943 | 1,253 | 3,682 | | Police Superannuation| 668,451 | 754,193 | 720,594 | 1,059,297 | 1,232,860 | 1,248,396 | 1,391,540 | | AME Charges Arms Length Bodies (net) | 1,002 | 27,964 | 20,603 | 20 | 24,354 | - | - | | N/A | - | - | - | 469 | 65 | - | - |
**Total Resource AME**
| | 713,903 | 679,444 | 920,203 | 1,061,210 | 1,260,222 | 1,249,649 | 1,395,222 |
**Of which:**
| -Current grants to local government (net) | 542,445 | 763,262 | 728,336 | 1,066,899 | 1,239,647 | 1,254,899 | 1,397,922 | | -Depreciation¹ | 4,901 | 30,126 | 78,225 | 7,803 | 13,221 | - | - | | -Take up of provisions | 189,687 | 39,420 | 115,872 | 74,681 | 58,543 | -2,029 | 527 | | -Release of provisions | -23,130 | -153,013 | -2,230 | -88,626 | -51,470 | -3,221 | -3,227 | | -Other resource | - | -351 | - | 469 | 65 | - | - |
**Total Resource Budget**
| | 9,907,334 | 10,150,354 | 13,693,897 | 13,183,659 | 12,701,970 | 12,460,477 | 12,004,571 |
**Of which:**
| -Depreciation¹ | 189,607 | 232,804 | 563,467 | 226,345 | 255,902 | 234,050 | 250,050 |
**Capital DEL**
| Crime and Policing Group | 269,788 | 284,949 | 261,641 | 105,853 | 138,202 | 111,152 | 119,515 | | Office for Security and Counter Terrorism | 107,644 | 206,824 | 153,103 | 92,103 | 77,124 | 65,627 | 123,223 | | UK Border Agency | 187,846 | 182,750 | 163,333 | 173,188 | 86,970 | 63,461 | 85,612 | | Criminal Records Bureau | 2,917 | 354 | 4,054 | 1,931 | - | - | - | | Identity and Passport Service | 24,835 | 111,382 | 67,295 | 23,272 | 19,341 | 31,730 | 12,867 | | Central Home Office | 4,873 | 2,633 | -2,497 | 34,003 | 22,020 | 21,962 | 31,302 | | Arms Length Bodies (net) | 238,323 | 209,899 | 92,443 | 62,455 | 45,022 | 57,520 | 26,070 | | Area Based Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |----------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Estimated Outturn | Plans | Plans | | National Fraud Authority | - | 274 | 67 | 207 | - | - | - | | Border Force | - | - | - | - | 53,430 | 53,848 | 66,411 | | **Total Capital** | **836,226** | **999,065** | **739,439** | **493,012** | **442,109** | **405,300** | **465,000** | | **Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL)** | **836,226** | **999,065** | **739,439** | **493,012** | **442,109** | **405,300** | **465,000** | | **Of which:** | | | | | | | | | - Capital support for local government (net) | 329,129 | 317,455 | 285,971 | 173,640 | 174,462 | 124,874 | 122,515 | | - Capital grants to persons and non-profit bodies (net) | 24,826 | -1,564 | -10 | - | 1,108 | - | - | | - Capital grants to private sector companies (net) | - | 46,168 | 22,950 | 28,236 | 18,132 | 24,700 | 61,070 | | - Capital support for public corporations | 10,000 | - | 28,700 | - | - | - | - | | - Purchase of assets | 489,151 | 586,346 | 337,362 | 277,993 | 226,834 | 235,648 | 228,715 | | - Income from sales of assets | -5,565 | -4,181 | -4,391 | -4,507 | - | - | - | | - Other Capital | -11,315 | 54,841 | 68,857 | 17,650 | 21,573 | 20,078 | 52,700 | | **Capital AME** | | | | | | | | | **Of which:** | | | | | | | | | **Total Capital Budget** | **836,226** | **999,065** | **739,439** | **493,012** | **442,109** | **405,300** | **465,000** | | **Total departmental spending** | **10,553,953** | **10,916,615** | **13,869,869** | **13,450,326** | **12,888,177** | **12,631,727** | **12,219,521** | | **Of which:** | | | | | | | | | - Total DEL | 9,844,951 | 10,267,297 | 13,027,891 | 12,396,919 | 11,641,176 | 11,382,078 | 10,824,299 | | - Total AME | 709,002 | 649,318 | 841,978 | 1,053,407 | 1,247,001 | 1,249,649 | 1,395,222 |
1 Includes impairments. 2 Total departmental spending is the sum of the resource budget and the capital budget less depreciation. Similarly, total DEL is the sum of the resource budget DEL and capital budget DEL less depreciation in DEL, and total AME is the sum of resource budget AME and capital budget AME less depreciation in AME. 3 The core table data comes directly from the Treasury’s OSCAR database. Machinery of Government changes (including the transfer of Police rates payments from 2010-11) have resulted in amended prior year data which, due to timing differences, may be inconsistent with the numbers in the accounts. | Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) | 2012-13 Original Plans | 2012-13 Final Plans | 2012-13 Provisional Outturn | |-------------------------------------------------|------------------------|---------------------|-----------------------------| | | Resource | Capital | Resource | Capital | Resource | Capital | | Voted expenditure | 8,896,447 | 501,000 | 8,577,406 | 461,467 | 11,441,748 | 442,109 | | Of which: | | | | | | | | Crime and Policing Group | 5,055,501 | 130,000 | 5,137,029 | 133,712 | 8,322,852 | 138,202 | | Office for Security and Counter Terrorism | 1,144,008 | 105,400 | 1,020,600 | 73,903 | 970,910 | 77,124 | | UK Border Agency | 1,000,600 | 87,800 | 775,257 | 84,966 | 608,651 | 86,970 | | Criminal Records Bureau | - | - | 64,590 | - | -14,783 | - | | Identity and Passport Service | 6,442 | 20,000 | -21,600 | 20,000 | -69,836 | 19,341 | | Central Home Office | 294,039 | 18,200 | 286,645 | 56,530 | 366,373 | 22,020 | | NDPB's (Net) | 841,987 | 46,900 | 658,112 | 35,756 | 624,278 | 45,022 | | Area Based Grants | 30,000 | - | 30,000 | - | 28,751 | - | | Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) | 43,191 | 41,900 | - | - | - | - | | National Fraud Authority | 3,573 | - | 9,403 | - | 8,809 | - | | Government Equalities Office | 19,377 | - | - | - | - | - | | European Solidarity Mechanism (Net) | 1 | - | 1 | - | 908 | - | | Border Force | 457,728 | 50,800 | 617,369 | 56,600 | 594,835 | 53,430 | | Total Spending in DEL | 8,896,447 | 501,000 | 8,577,406 | 461,467 | 11,441,748 | 442,109 |
### Spending in Annually Managed Expenditure (AME)
| | 2012-13 Original Plans | 2012-13 Final Plans | 2012-13 Provisional Outturn | |----------------------|------------------------|---------------------|-----------------------------| | | Resource | Capital | Resource | Capital | Resource | Capital | | Voted expenditure | 1,134,118 | - | 1,414,118 | - | 1,260,222 | - | | Of which: | | | | | | | | AME Charges | 8,489 | - | 68,449 | - | 2,943 | - | | Police Superannuation| 1,125,629| - | 1,335,629| - | 1,232,860 | - | | AME Charges Arms Length Bodies (Net) | - | - | 10,040 | - | 24,354 | - | | n/a | - | - | - | - | 65 | - | | **Total Spending in AME** | 1,134,118 | - | 1,414,118 | - | 1,260,222 | - | | **Total** | 10,030,565 | 501,000 | 9,991,524 | 461,467 | 12,701,970 | 442,109 | | Of which: | | | | | | | | Voted expenditure | 10,030,565 | 501,000 | 9,991,524 | 461,467 | 12,701,970 | 442,109 |
### Table 3 – Capital Employed
| | 2008-09 outturn | 2009-10 outturn | 2010-11 outturn | 2011-12 outturn | 2012-13 estimated outturn | 2013-14 plans | 2014-15 plans | |----------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|---------------------------|---------------|---------------| | **Assets** | | | | | | | | | **Non-current assets**| | | | | | | | | Intangible | 108,803 | 223,051 | 283,437 | 398,451 | 506,097 | 110,825 | 105,284 | | Tangible | 1,177,624 | 1,170,331 | 940,547 | 927,292 | 1,157,060 | 800,516 | 760,490 | | **of which:** | | | | | | | | | Land and Buildings | 641,366 | 559,415 | 536,892 | 550,353 | 580,566 | 460,319 | 437,303 | | Plant and Machinery | 71,739 | 63,607 | 132,464 | 128,353 | 245,834 | 113,572 | 107,894 | | Vehicles | 21,343 | 13,561 | 13,709 | 11,486 | 14,808 | 11,755 | 11,167 | | Information Technology | 65,745 | 90,561 | 116,983 | 107,686 | 128,662 | 97,715 | 92,829 | | Furniture and Fittings | 28,664 | 23,998 | 21,653 | 20,170 | 14,053 | 18,562 | 17,634 | | Payment on Account and Assets under Construction | 348,767 | 419,189 | 118,846 | 109,244 | 173,137 | 98,593 | 93,663 | | Other | - | - | - | - | 1,049 | - | - | | **Investments** | 18,068 | 18,068 | 1 | 1 | | | | | Current Assets | 651,528 | 803,131 | 525,458 | 419,575 | 406,907 | 381,966 | 362,868 | | **Liabilities** | | | | | | | | | Payables (\<1 year) | -1,445,927 | -1,431,338 | -1,392,610 | -1,434,247 | -1,369,913 | -1,107,371 | -947,003 | | Payables (>1 year) | -307,456 | -299,950 | -301,171 | -290,709 | -296,777 | -258,216 | -245,306 | | Provisions | -234,803 | -87,658 | -190,381 | -180,297 | -183,283 | -119,080 | -119,080 | | **Capital employed within core department** | -32,163 | 395,635 | -134,719 | -159,934 | 221,140 | -191,360 | -82,747 | | ALB net assets | -30,077 | -166,359 | 8,290 | -24,122 | -351,893 | -3,853 | -3,853 | | **Total capital employed in departmental group** | -62,240 | 229,276 | -126,429 | -184,056 | -130,753 | -195,213 | -86,600 | | Resource DEL | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |-------------------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Outturn | Estimated outturn | Plans | Plans | | Crime and Policing Group | 52,329 | 32,143 | 39,576 | 34,191 | 38,925 | 46,240 | 39,441 | | Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 25,798 | 57,028 | 56,557 | 54,599 | 48,444 | 53,643 | 52,426 | | UK Border Agency | 377,075 | 236,310 | 240,748 | 160,911 | 106,910 | 165,462 | 152,637 | | Criminal Records Bureau | -973 | -4,616 | 6,269 | 6,472 | -29 | - | - | | Identity & Passport Service | - | 47,579 | 2,631 | 5,381 | 3,463 | 3,184 | 2,943 | | Central Home Office | 167,331 | 226,696 | 179,881 | 146,479 | 180,556 | 168,006 | 166,880 | | Arms Length Bodies (Net) | - | 117,768 | 103,706 | 93,733 | 76,937 | 58,255 | 53,493 | | Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) | - | - | - | - | - | 35,838 | 25,055 | | National Fraud Authority | - | 3,943 | - | 861 | 583 | 1,279 | 1,155 | | Border Force | - | - | - | - | 21,659 | 10,992 | 10,585 | | Total administration budget | 621,560 | 716,851 | 629,368 | 502,627 | 477,448 | 542,899 | 504,615 |
Of which:
- Staff costs: 389,200 245,957 252,467 298,606 313,519 274,977 265,051
- Purchase of goods and services: 387,481 446,228 492,542 173,001 140,451 289,122 276,586
- Income from sales of goods and services: -141,970 -153,023 -142,237 -83,779 -17,787 -57,189 -58,089
- Current grants to persons and non-profit bodies (net): - - - - 7 809 837
- Current grants abroad (net): -426 -367 - -865 - -855 -886
- Rentals: - 155,345 - 89,398 102,586 40,794 40,805
- Depreciation: -14,573 8,265 15,154 13,041 10,214 7,119 6,319
- Take up of provisions: - - - 10,924 - - -
- Other resource: 848 14,446 11,442 2,301 -71,542 -50,734 -50,731
- Unallocated funds – resource: - - - - 38,856 24,723
### Table 5 – Staff in Post
**Home Office Staff Numbers – Headcount Full Time Equivalent 2010-11 to 2012–13**
| | 2010–11 | 2011–12 | 2012–13 | |----------------------|---------|---------|---------| | **Outturn** | | | | | Home Office – Core | | | | | Civil Servants Paid | 2,720 | 10,245 | 11,152 | | Civil Servants Unpaid| 321 | 646 | 700 | | Non-Civil Servants | 309 | 250 | 604 | | **Total** | 3,350 | 11,141 | 12,456 | | United Kingdom Border Agency | | | | | Civil Servants Paid | 20,480 | 10,831 | 10,426 | | Civil Servants Unpaid| 917 | 477 | 469 | | Non-Civil Servants | 228 | 208 | 1,372 | | **Total** | 21,625 | 11,516 | 12,267 | | Identity and Passport Service | | | | | Civil Servants Paid | 3,501 | 3,046 | 3,180 | | Civil Servants Unpaid| 114 | 80 | 99 | | Non-Civil Servants | 14 | 8 | 5 | | **Total** | 3,629 | 3,134 | 3,284 | | Criminal Records Bureau | | | | | Civil Servants Paid | 623 | 481 | | | Civil Servants Unpaid| 12 | 7 | | | Non-Civil Servants | | | | | **Total** | 635 | 488 | |
**Key workforce changes during 2012-13**
| | 1.10.2012 | 3.12.2012 | 18.12.2012 | 2012-13 | |----------------------|-----------|-----------|------------|---------| | **Machinery of Govt**| | | | | | Change | 507 | -96 | 339 | | | Leavers | | | | | | | 509 | -107 | 574 | |
______________________________________________________________________
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
6
### National Fraud Authority
| Category | Paid | Unpaid | Total | |---------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Civil Servants Paid | 42 | 46 | 5 | | Civil Servants Unpaid | 5 | 4 | 9 | | Non-Civil Servants | 2 | | 2 | | **Total** | 49 | 50 | 5 |
### Total Home Office including Agencies
| Category | Paid | Unpaid | Total | |---------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Civil Servants Paid | 27,324 | 24,645 | 24,804 | 692 | | Civil Servants Unpaid | 1,364 | 1,214 | 1,271 | 419 | | Non-Civil Servants | 551 | 468 | 1,981 | | | Unknown | 54 | 57 | 81 | | | **Total** | 29,293 | 26,384 | 28,137 | 1,111 |
### Non Departmental Public Bodies
| Category | Paid | Unpaid | Total | |---------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Paid Staff | 6,075 | 5,293 | | | Unpaid Staff | 63 | 82 | | | Agency/Contractors | 190 | 167 | | | **Total** | 6,328 | 5,542 | |
### Total Home Office including Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies
| Category | Paid | Unpaid | Total | |---------------------------|------|--------|-------| | Grand Total | 29,293 | 32,712 | 33,679 | Notes: (1) This information has been extracted from Data View, the Department’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) compliant source of Corporate HR Data. (2) Figures are accurate as at 31 March of each year, and include all current employees on that date. (3) Figures are subject to rounding +/- 1. (4) Figures are reported using ONS classifications. (5) Staff numbers are national statistics quoted on the ONS website and have been collated on a different basis to the staff numbers in Note (9) of the annual accounts. (6) Key workforce changes in 2012-13 include: Machinery of Government changes: 508 (FTE) National Policing Improvement (NPIA) employees transferred to core Home Office. 468 (FTE) Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) employees transferred out of the Home Office, when CRB merged with the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) to become a new NDPB – the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). 107 (FTE) Government Equalities Office employees transferred out of the Home Office, to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Employees leaving the Department: 1,111 (FTE) employees left the Department and its agencies during the period. (7) Civil Servants Paid includes permanent, temporary, fixed-term appointments (FTA), incoming loans paid (OGD) and outgoing secondments paid (Non OGD). (8) Civil Servants Unpaid includes permanent unpaid, temporary unpaid, FTA unpaid, career break, incoming loans unpaid (OGD), outgoing loans unpaid (OGD) and outgoing secondments unpaid (Non OGD). (9) Non-Civil Servants includes agency employees, contractors, incoming secondments, contractors non-paid, outgoing secondments paid/unpaid, outgoing loans. (10) These Civil Servants were moving between businesses within the department at 31 March each year. (11) The Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are: Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) – which was formed on 3rd December 2012 from Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). See: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/disclosure-and-barring-service/about. National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) – on 1st October 2012 NPIA transferred the majority of its operational functions to the core Home Office as part of a Machinery of Government change see: http://www.npia.police.uk/. Office of the Immigration Service Commissioner (OISC) Security Industry Authority (SIA) Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA)
The staff numbers in this table are correct as at 31 March 2013 and cannot be reconciled to the staff numbers in Note 7 in the main body of the accounts, which are based on average numbers for the financial year 2012-13. Country and Regional Analysis Data Tables
1. **Tables 6, 7 and 8** show analyses of the department’s spending by country and region, and by function. The data presented in these tables are consistent with the country and regional analyses (CRA) published by HM Treasury in October 2012 as part of the National Statistics release. The figures were taken from the HM Treasury public spending database in summer 2012 and the regional distributions were completed by the following autumn. Therefore the tables may not show the latest position and are not consistent with other tables in the Departmental Report. Please note that totals may not sum due to rounding.
2. The analyses are set within the overall framework of Total Expenditure on Services (TES). TES broadly represents the current and capital expenditure of the public sector, with some differences from the national accounts measure Total Managed Expenditure. The tables show the central government and public corporation elements of TES. They include current and capital spending by the department and its NDPBs, and public corporations’ capital expenditure, but do not include capital finance to public corporations. They do not include payments to local authorities or local authorities own expenditure.
3. TES is a cash equivalent measure of public spending. The tables do not include depreciation, cost of capital charges, or movements in provisions that are in departmental budgets. They do include pay, procurement, capital expenditure, and grants and subsidies to individuals and private sector enterprises. Further information on TES can be found in Appendix E of PESA 2012.
4. The data are based on a subset of spending – identifiable expenditure on services – which is capable of being analysed as being for the benefit of individual countries and regions. Expenditure that is incurred for the benefit of the UK as a whole is excluded.
5. Across government, most expenditure is not planned or allocated on a regional basis. Social security payments, for example, are paid to eligible individuals irrespective of where they live. Expenditure on other programmes is allocated by looking at how all the projects across the department’s area of responsibility, usually England, compare. So the analyses show the regional outcome of spending decisions that on the whole have not been made primarily on a regional basis.
6. The functional analyses of spending in **Table 8** are based on the United Nations Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG), the international standard. The presentations of spending by function are consistent with those used in Chapter A of the CRA October 2012 release. These are not the same as the strategic priorities shown elsewhere in the report. Table 6 – Total identifiable expenditure on services by country and region, 2007-08 to 2011-12
| National Statistics | £ million | |---------------------|-----------| | | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | | | outturn | outturn | outturn | outturn | outturn | | Home Office | | | | | | | North East | 67 | 76 | 78 | 61 | 64 | | North West | 183 | 209 | 216 | 167 | 174 | | Yorkshire and the Humber | 131 | 150 | 156 | 122 | 127 | | East Midlands | 104 | 119 | 124 | 97 | 103 | | West Midlands | 140 | 160 | 165 | 128 | 135 | | East | 132 | 151 | 158 | 124 | 131 | | London | 280 | 327 | 330 | 255 | 258 | | South East | 195 | 224 | 233 | 183 | 194 | | South West | 120 | 137 | 143 | 112 | 119 | | Total England | 1,352 | 1,553 | 1,603 | 1,249 | 1,305 | | Scotland | 66 | 70 | 78 | 64 | 74 | | Wales | 75 | 85 | 88 | 69 | 72 | | Northern Ireland | 22 | 24 | 27 | 22 | 25 | | UK identifiable expenditure | 1,515 | 1,732 | 1,796 | 1,404 | 1,476 | | Outside UK | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Total identifiable expenditure | 1,515 | 1,732 | 1,796 | 1,404 | 1,476 | | Non-identifiable expenditure | 2,068 | 2,089 | 2,197 | 1,769 | 1,687 | | Total expenditure on services | 3,583 | 3,821 | 3,993 | 3,173 | 3,163 |
Table 7 – Total Spending per Head by country and region, per head 2007-08 to 2011-12
| National Statistics | £ per head | |---------------------|------------| | | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | | | outturn | outturn | outturn | outturn | outturn | | Home Office | | | | | | | North East | 26 | 29 | 30 | 23 | 25 | | North West | 26 | 30 | 31 | 24 | 25 | | Yorkshire and the Humber | 25 | 29 | 30 | 23 | 24 | | East Midlands | 24 | 27 | 28 | 21 | 23 | | West Midlands | 25 | 29 | 30 | 23 | 24 | | East | 23 | 26 | 27 | 21 | 22 | | London | 36 | 41 | 41 | 31 | 31 | | South East | 23 | 26 | 27 | 21 | 22 | | South West | 23 | 26 | 27 | 21 | 23 | | England | 26 | 30 | 31 | 24 | 25 | | Scotland | 13 | 13 | 15 | 12 | 14 | | Wales | 25 | 28 | 29 | 23 | 23 | | Northern Ireland | 12 | 13 | 15 | 12 | 14 | | UK identifiable expenditure | 25 | 28 | 29 | 22 | 23 | 41
13
62
Public order and safety not elsewhere classified
Total public order and safety
2
2
64
R&D public order and safety
Total economic affairs
TOTAL HOME OFFICE
Economic affairs
1
48
f which: other police o services
R&D public order and safety
-
48
f which: immigration o and citizenship
Police services
Public order and safety
Home Office
North East
North West
174
5
5
169
36
2
131
-
131
Data in this table are National Statistics Yorkshire and The Humber 127
4
4
123
26
1
96
-
96
East Midlands 103
3
3
100
21
1
78
-
78
West Midlands 136
4
4
132
28
2
102
-
102
East 131
4
4
127
27
1
99
-
99
London 258
6
6
252
54
3
195
-
195
South East 195
6
6
189
40
2
147
-
147
South West 119
4
4
115
24
1
90
-
90
England 1,307
38
38
1,269
268
15
986
-
986
Scotland 74
4
4
70
14
1
55
-
55
Wales 72
2
2
70
15
1
54
-
54
Northern Ireland 25
1
1
24
5
0
19
-
19
UK Identifiable expenditure 1,477
45
45
1,432
301
17
1,114
-
1,114
## OUTSIDE UK
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total Identifiable expenditure 1,477
45
45
1,432
301
17
1,114
-
1,114
Not Identifiable 1,687
-
-
1,687
-
-
-
1,687
1,687
£ million
3,164
45
45
3,119
301
17
1,114
1,687
2,802
Totals
Table 8 – Spending by Function, Country and Region, for 2011-12
Home Office Annual Report and Accounts 2012-13
CHAPTER 6 – OUR STAFF
Enabling our people to deliver
Rising public expectations coupled with the need to achieve greater value for money and efficiency mean that the Civil Service (CS) needs to change to meet the long-term challenges that all economies are facing. The Civil Service Reform plan, published in June 2012 sets out a vision for an exceptional Civil Service that will deliver the best by becoming more skilled, less bureaucratic and more unified.
The Home Office corporate, agency and business area change programmes are aligned with Civil Service Reform and will help our people to deliver the best.
Key achievements in 2012-13 include:
- the piloting of flexible resourcing models in the department
- the launch of “switched on”, an online staff ideas scheme
- early adoption of the CS performance management system and the competency framework
- development of the Home Office capability strategy, and
- launch of an online self development guide; management development programme; support for individual and team leadership development; SCS and grade 6/7 leadership events, workshops and briefings
Our diversity strategy
The Home Office Diversity Strategy covers five strategic aims around leadership, creating a representative workforce, an inclusive working environment, meeting our statutory obligations and how we deliver services to the public. Business areas are held accountable through quarterly assessments and supported to deliver changes which look to enhance diversity and inclusion.
Actions during 2012–13 included:
- we were successfully benchmarked as Gold standard against Race for Opportunity and Opportunity Now benchmarks and recognised as one of the top ten public sector organisations in relation to gender issues
- we were successfully benchmarked as Gold standard and scored highest across comprehensive workplace measures on race
- we achieved second place in Stonewall survey on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues
- disability recruitment and retention - first organisation to be ‘Proud to be Clear Assured’- successfully reaccredited 2012
Our work to engage more with staff has led to diversity declaration for ethnicity data improving from 63% in 2007 to 99% in 2012. The Home Office Staff survey in 2012 also showed that our Black Minority Ethnic (BME) staff have higher employee engagement scores than non BME staff (57% compared with 48%).
In 2012-13 we also launched the “No Barriers” programme, which included:
- surveying staff/managers’ knowledge and experience of Reasonable Adjustments (RAs) in the Home Office
- hosting International Day of Persons with Disabilities presentations by Guide Dogs (working name of Guide Dogs for the Blind) and providing Sighted Guide training for staff
- rolling-out Reasonable Adjustment/Individual Requirements proforma. This is a formal means to capture an individual’s RAs. The Home Office version has been adopted by all but one department involved in the Central Adjustments pilot
- mental health awareness training programme for staff and managers
Employment of disabled persons policy
The Home Office remains committed to the employment and career development of disabled people and is the holder of Jobcentre Plus ‘Positive about disabled people’ Two Tick symbol. The symbol is a recognition given by Jobcentre Plus to employers who can demonstrate they are serious about achieving equality of opportunity for disabled people. The department has been a symbol holder since its inception. We actively ensure that disability is not regarded as a barrier to recruitment or promotion and focus on what a person can do rather than what they cannot and consequently selection is based upon the ability of the individual to do the job. The department is committed to ensuring that disabled staff have access to the same opportunities as other staff, not only when they first join the department but at all stages in their career. Additionally, we provide internal support to staff with disabilities through the Home Office Disability Support Network (HODS), our disabled staff support network. We also have a number of buddy networks on a variety of disabilities where staff can obtain peer support and advice.
The department operates the Guaranteed Interview Scheme, which guarantees an interview to anyone with a disability whose application meets the minimum criteria for the post. Once in post, disabled staff are provided with any reasonable support/adjustments they might need to carry out their duties.
We also became the first organisation to achieve the ‘Clear Assured’ assessment for good practice on recruiting and retaining disabled talent. ‘Clear Assured’ is a benchmark which helps ensure a consistent level of best practise across employers and talent providers.
**Capability**
We want to ensure that our people have the competencies, the skills, knowledge and behaviour to deliver the work of the Home Office in a challenging and changing environment. To help make this happen: we will ensure the Civil Service core competency framework has been embedded across the department; consider the future of professions; manage poor performance and build high performance within the Home Office. This is alongside the need to ensure that Civil Service Learning works and meets the needs of the learning and skill strategy.
As part of civil service reform, implementation of the Home Office Capability Plan 2013-16 will help ensure an agreed and integrated approach to building capability across the department.
The plan sets out how we will meet the ambitions of the Civil Service Capabilities Plan and wider reform agenda in the following priority areas:
- leading and managing change
- commercial skills and behaviours
- delivering successful projects and programmes, and
- bringing to life ‘digital by default’
We give focus and direction to current and future work in addressing capability gaps in the department, its agencies and public bodies. The plan outlines five strategic aims for improving and strengthening departmental capability in the areas of:
- leadership
- workforce planning and resourcing
- managing people and performance
- building skills and knowledge
- developing talent and high potential
**Consultation with employees**
The Home Office has in place a consultative framework, known as the Whitley system, for engaging workforce representatives. There are four recognised Trade Unions and facility time is provided to allow employee representatives to take part in industrial relations duties. Alongside this, the department has specific bodies for consulting minority groups – these include The Network covering members of staff from black and minority ethnic communities, HODS covering staff with disabilities and Spectrum covering lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender members of staff. We provide resources for these and other representative bodies.
### Distribution of Headcount of Senior Civil Service (SCS) salaries (actual) as at end of March 2013
| Salary Bands | SCS within the range as at end of March 2013 | Percentage | |--------------------|---------------------------------------------|------------| | £55,000-£65,000 | 19 | 9.27% | | £65,000-£70,000 | 28 | 13.66% | | £70,000-£75,000 | 34 | 16.59% | | £75,000-£80,000 | 28 | 13.66% | | £80,000-£85,000 | 23 | 11.22% | | £85,000-£90,000 | 15 | 7.32% | | £90,000-£95,000 | 7 | 3.41% | | £95,000-£100,000 | 7 | 3.41% | | £100,000-£105,000 | 9 | 4.39% | | £105,000-£110,000 | 6 | 2.93% | | £110,000-£115,000 | 6 | 2.93% | | £115,000-£125,000 | 10 | 4.88% | | £125,000-£145,000 | 9 | 4.39% | | £145,000-£175,000 | 0 | 0.00% | | £175,000-£180,000 | 1 | 0.49% | | £180,000-£185,000 | 2 | 0.98% | | £185,000-£200,000 | 0 | 0.00% | | £200,000-£205,000 | 1 | 0.49% | | **Grand Total** | **205** | **100.00%**|
**Notes:**
1. This information has been extracted from Data View, the department’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) compliant source of Corporate HR Data, using actual salaries as at the end of March. They are not reconcilable to the staff numbers in the accounts which are based on average figures.
2. Staff numbers are headcount of SCS, including grade equivalents in Home Office Headquarters, UK Border Agency, Identity & Passport Service (IPS) and National Fraud Authority (NFA).
3. Figures are for paid civil servants only, in line with ONS guidelines on headcount reporting.
4. Where individual bands have less than five individuals, some have been combined as per ONS statistical disclosure controls. However, those earning above £150k are subject to full disclosure. Non Payroll Engagements
The table below shows the number of non-payroll engagements (at a cost of over £58,200 per annum) that were in place as of 31 January 2012.
| | Home Office | SOCA | SIA | |--------------------------------|-------------|------|-----| | Number in place on 31 January 2012 | 195 | 16 | 11 | | of which | | | | | Number that have since come onto the organisations payroll | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Of which | | | | | Number that have since been renegotiated/re-engaged to include contractual clauses allowing the department to seek assurance as to their tax obligations | 80 | 8 | 0 | | Number that have not been successfully renegotiated and therefore continue without contractual clauses allowing the department to seek assurance as to their tax obligations | 0 | 0 | 10 | | Number that have come to an end | 115 | 8 | 1 | | Total | 195 | 16 | 11 |
The number of new non-payroll engagements commencing between 23 August 2012 and 31 March 2013 (for more than £220 per day and more than 6 months) are listed below.
| | Home Office | SOCA | SIA | |--------------------------------|-------------|------|-----| | Number of new engagements | 98 | 6 | 7 | | of which | | | | | Number of new engagements which include contractual clauses giving the department the right to request assurance in relation to income tax and National Insurance obligations | 98 | 6 | 7 | | Of which | | | | | Number for whom assurance has been requested and received | 68 | 1 | 0 | | Number for whom assurance has been requested but not received | 30 | 0 | 0 | | Number that have been terminated as a result of assurance not being received | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Total | 98 | 1 | 0 |
Notes:
1. The remaining 5 contracts are procured via the Government Procurement Service who is responsible for these assurances.
2. SIA have had various business critical pressures and have been unable to focus resources on this exercise. SIA expect the work to be completed before 31 July 2013 and do not anticipate any problems in obtaining the assurances required.
Staff Health and Wellbeing
A Civil Service wide tender for occupational health and employee assistance programs took place in 2012-13 to streamline the number of suppliers and provide financial savings. A good service remained in place throughout this exercise, with good take up of the provisions on offer by staff and managers. Our mediation service was reviewed and we now have a single point of contact in place and one co-ordinated team for the department. We have also improved the communication of the service, and the training and support available for mentors. Recruitment policy
In May 2010 an external recruitment freeze was announced across the civil service, as part of the Chancellor’s spending reduction plans. Exceptions to the recruitment freeze continue to be approved in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines.
Workforce
The department has robust and flexible workforce plans in place for the next year which will allow it to continue to manage its workforce, deliver business priorities and live within expenditure plans agreed at the Spending Review.
Community Issues
Staff can apply for special leave with pay of up to five working days a year to work outside the Home Office as a volunteer. More days are available, for example, for staff who undertake community work as a special constable (ten days), a magistrate (eighteen days) or a school governor (six days).
The Home Office recognises that staff who undertake voluntary work not only benefit the communities in which they live and work, but also gain skills and experience that may be useful in the workplace. Links to a wide range of volunteering opportunities are advertised on the departmental intranet. Chapter 7 – Sustainability Report
Introduction
This is our third published sustainability report. The organisational scope(^1) is the same as the body of the annual report. We have restated some figures from last year to take account of improvements in data quality and in-year Machinery of Government changes. Previous energy and travel data has been audited as part of the department achieving the Carbon Trust Standard. We are seeking a verification of 2012-13 carbon emissions data by Carbon Trust. A more detailed version of this report will be published at: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/about/our energy use#greening-government-commitments
Sustainability
Sustainability means making the necessary decisions now to realise our vision of stimulating economic growth and tackling the deficit, maximising wellbeing and protecting and enhancing our environment, without negatively impacting on the ability of future generations to do the same.
Materiality, Leadership and Governance Arrangements
The Home Secretary is held accountable by the Cabinet Office to deliver the Business Plan containing sustainability objectives. Business units have the opportunity to review and amend these commitments as part of this process. Overall leadership is provided by the Minister for Criminal Information and the Permanent Secretary.
Day to day leadership and direction is provided by the Sustainable Development Team who report to the Sustainability Implementation Group (SIG). SIG meets quarterly and is chaired by the Director of Shared Services comprising key Home Office bodies and business units. It ensures that action is taken to meet the Greening Government Commitments (GGC). SIG reported to the Estates and Sustainability Board, chaired by the department’s sustainability champion, Director General Financial and Corporate Services Group, who is also a member of the Home Office Supervisory Board and the Executive Management Board.
Mainstreaming sustainable development
The department’s business makes a valuable contribution to social and economic sustainability in its work.
The department is working with its partners to reduce environmental crime. The department has a specialist team to assist with matters relating to the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). This year there were 682 seizures. Live animals and plants are re-homed after taking advice from the UK’s scientific management authority to ensure it meets conservation goals.
The department has been managing the environmental aspects of its own estate and travel for some time. We also work with others, for example with Yorkshire and Humber Police forces, for the safe disposal and recycling of end-of-life police vehicles and parts whilst delivering value for money.
Sustainability is integrated into our business arrangements. For example, we have:
- incorporated sustainability into the Home Office Business Plan
- embedded sustainability in our staff competencies, our governance mechanisms and in communications and learning mechanisms
- ensured an appreciation of sustainability is incorporated into better informed policy and decision making
- embedded government targets and other mechanisms as part of corporate functions such as estates, travel, procurement and IT, including supporting small and medium sized enterprises
- implemented emerging low carbon technologies (for example ammonia chillers, solar panels etc) to reduce dependency on fossil fuel and are mindful of ensuring that our estate can cope with local effects of climate change such as flooding and subsidence
______________________________________________________________________
(^1) All our agencies and arms length bodies have been consolidated into this report except the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner and Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency who are not required to report. Greening Government Commitments
We are required to report against the Greening Government Commitments (GGC) setting out a range of measures including:
- reducing greenhouse gas emissions, waste and water use
- making procurement of goods and services more sustainable, while continuing to ensure value for money
We also participate in the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme. Improving our performance in these areas is closely linked to our efforts to achieve greater efficiency and value for money across shared corporate services.
Headline performance
We met last year’s commitments in our annual report. This year we:
- achieved the Carbon Trust Standard in December 2012
- are able to demonstrate a 17 per cent reduction in our CO₂e emissions from our buildings against the 2009-10 baseline and a 13 per cent reduction in total CO₂e emissions
- reduced waste, water consumption, and paper use against last year and the baseline
- continued to support policy makers and buyers, and promoted sustainability in our supply chain by applying a supplier assessment tool
- embedded closed loop paper purchase and waste paper recovery in our contracts
- further improved the efficiency of IT use
- improved the scope and breadth of our on-line live carbon-viewer
- supported Earth Hour, Climate Week and WRAP’s work on catering and hospitality
Performance by financial year
| Area | Metric | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | |-------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Reported greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) | Amount (tonnes CO₂e) | 88,059 | 82,321 | 73,100 | 76,664 | | Net GHG (Reported GHG less accredited carbon offsets) | Amount (tonnes CO₂e) | 82,426 | 78,413 | 68,903 | 69,089 | | Building energy | Amount (tonnes CO₂e) | 66,862 | 61,604 | 54,348 | 55,283 | | | Amount (GWh) | 158 | 144 | 128 | 136 | | | Expenditure £ million | 12 | 12 | 11 | 12 | | Travel | Amount (tonnes CO₂e) | 21,197 | 20,717 | 18,753 | 21,382 | | | Amount km (million) | 120.0 | 125 | 113 | 129 | | | Expenditure (£ million) | 24.0 | 22 | 21 | 28 | | | (excludes CRC & GCOF) | | | | | | Domestic flights | Amount (number) | 19,753 | 16,143 | 12,554 | 16,193 | | Water | Amount (‘000 m³) | 347 | 288 | 274 | 268 | | | Expenditure (£’000) | 616 | 453 | 459 | 522 |
### Office waste
| Area | Metric | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | |---------------|-----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Office waste | Amount (tonnes) | 5,243 | 4,584 | 4,429 | 4,027 | | | Expenditure (£'000) | 648 | 532 | 500 | 478 | | | Total recycled (tonnes) | 3,999 | 3,274 | 2,937 | 2,788 |
### Paper (A4 equivalent)
| Area | Metric | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | |---------------|-----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Paper (A4 equivalent) | Amount (reams) | 398,001 | 376,832 | 287,220 | 267,461 | | | Expenditure (£'000) | 672 | 739 | 833 | 617 |
### Managing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings and travel
The Greening Government Commitments (GGC) requires us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for buildings and travel, by 25 per cent by 2015 against baseline. The department’s main impacts are from electricity use in buildings and from road and air travel. We have reported this year on 97 premises including a large PFI Head Office, reporting centres, passport offices, police training centres, warehouses and a computer centre. Our vehicle fleet comprises over 3,000 administrative and operational vehicles including cars, vans and covert vehicles. Travel includes these vehicles, hire cars, taxis, staff travelling in their own vehicles (where this is reimbursed) and business air travel.
| Managing greenhouse gas emissions | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | |-----------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Non-Financial Indicators (tCO₂e) | | | | | | Gross emissions for scopes 1 & 2 (fuel from buildings and our own vehicles) | 76,718 | 72,495 | 63,924 | 63,662 | | Gross emissions scope 3 (from business travel using public transport, taxis and commercial airlines) | 11,341 | 9,826 | 9,176 | 13,002 | | Reported greenhouse gas emissions | 88,059 | 82,321 | 73,100 | 76,664 | | Net emissions (Total less accredited carbon offsets for non-operational business air travel) | 82,426 | 78,413 | 68,903 | 69,089 | | Financial Indicators (£'000) | | | | | | Building energy Expenditure | 11,697.2| 11,721.0| 10,785.8| 12,147.4| | CRC Registration and License Expenditure | 3.8 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.6 | | CRC allowances | | | 632.0 | tbc | | Expenditure on accredited carbon offsets | 56.7 | 22.0 | 22.7 | 3.1 | | Expenditure on official business travel | 24,043.9| 21,689.1| 21,144.3| 27,642.4| | Total expenditure | 35,801.6| 33,434.7| 32,587.5| 39,795.5| Managing energy use from buildings
| Non-Financial Indicators (GWh) | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | |-------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Energy Consumption | | | | | | Electricity: Non-Renewable | 68.9 | 63.0 | 59.1 | 57.3 | | Electricity: Renewable | 32.6 | 33.0 | 30.7 | 31.5 | | Gas | 43.2 | 38.7 | 33.7 | 43.8 | | LPG | 1.5 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 0.4 | | Oil | 12.1 | 7.9 | 2.6 | 3.1 | | Total | 158.3 | 143.7 | 127.7 | 136.1 |
| Financial Indicators (£ million) | Energy Expenditure | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | |----------------------------------|--------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | | | 11.7 | 11.7 | 10.8 | 12.1 |
CO₂e emissions are almost 13 per cent below the 2009-10 baseline (or a 16 per cent reduction if carbon offsets are included, from air travel). Building CO₂e emissions are now 17 per cent below the baseline. This year we have focussed upon:
- office relocations and better facilities management
- installing voltage optimisers
- use of LED lighting in place of halogen light bulbs, and improved motion sensitive light controls, and
- energy-efficiency of air conditioning units
The department in partnership with Amey and BMSI (a British Gas Business company) has secured energy savings of over £389,000 and reductions of 2,044 tonnes CO₂e in the period April 2012 to March 2013 in key buildings in London and the South East. This has resulted in £1.13 million savings between August 2010 and January 2013 and CO₂e savings in excess of 6,182 tonnes. This has been achieved by improving buildings’ system-controls and a programme of plant and equipment upgrades.
Building energy is supplied via Government Procurement Service contracts. Total annual expenditure has risen by 12 per cent this year. Electricity includes 35 per cent from renewable sources.
This year’s 5 per cent upturn in total CO₂e emissions, against the previous year, is attributable to increases in travel emissions (14 per cent) and buildings (1.7 per cent).
Compared to last year the total distance travelled rose by almost 15 per cent and the number of domestic flights increased by 29 per cent; although this is 18 per cent fewer than baseline.
Emissions from air travel increased by 80 per cent, against last year. The reasons for this increase are being investigated, but it appears that the data from previous years under-reported air travel.
Two major sites are responsible for almost all the uplift in building emissions against last year. This was due to the extended hours of building services during the Olympics, poorer general weather all year and one of these, a recently opened new site, reaching full occupation. Extended, and improved, shared services should help us to deliver enhanced and better integrated energy efficiency across the whole Department. We also plan to roll out thin client devices, deliver further energy saving measures in a number of key sites, and upgrade our gain-share model for facilities management.
We continue to promote good energy practice in our visitor reception areas in 2 Marsham Street and we have improved the scope and breadth of our on-line live carbon-viewer [http://webview2.ecodriver.net/HomeOffice/](http://webview2.ecodriver.net/HomeOffice/) including the introduction of comparative feedback with a site league chart and an indication of personal energy use. We display Energy Performance Certificates and Display Energy Certificates. We actively encourage staff and suppliers to consider their own impacts through procurement decisions and communication activities. We provide a design support service to the Police for new build projects. Other holdings where we are not responsible for the emissions, account for 22 per cent of our total floor area. We estimate the additional CO₂e emissions attributable to this space to be a further 20,000 tonnes.
Managing water
The Greening Government Commitments (GGC) requires us to reduce water consumption from a 2009-10 baseline. Reported water use from our buildings fell against the 2009-10 baseline by over 23 per cent. The main impacts are from water use for showers, washrooms, drinking, restaurant facilities or similar, and heating and ventilation systems.
| Managing water | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | |----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Non-Financial Indicators ('000 m³) | Water Consumption | Supplied | 343 | 283 | 271 | 265 | | | Abstracted | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | | | Total Water | 347 | 288 | 273 | 268 | | Financial Indicators (£ 000) | Invoiced Water Supply | 616 | 453 | 459 | 522 |
This year we have:
- improved toilet flush controls and signage
- installed no-touch sensor taps which ensure water cannot be left running after use
- installed waterless urinals which use an oil based barrier fluid as an alternative to water, and
- fitted low flush urinals at sites where waterless urinals cannot be installed
Managing office waste
The Greening Government Commitments (GGC) require us to reduce the amount of waste generated by 25 per cent from a 2009-10 baseline. Reported office waste streams include shredded and un-shredded paper, dry mixed recyclables, food waste and packaging. Work continues with our three facilities management suppliers to increase the types of waste that can be recycled. So far reported office waste has fallen by over 23 per cent against this baseline. Recovery rates are currently over 73 per cent. We have cut paper use against last year by almost 7 per cent and over 32 per cent against baseline exceeding the 10 per cent annual target.
| Managing office waste | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | |-----------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Non-Financial Indicators (tonnes) | Non-hazardous waste | Reused, Recycled | 3,999 | 3,274 | 2,937 | 2,788 | | | Composted | n/k | n/k | n/k | 6 | | | Incinerated with energy recovery | n/k | n/k | n/k | 154 | | | Incinerated without energy recovery | n/k | n/k | n/k | 3 | | | Landfill | 1,244 | 1,310 | 1,492 | 1,076 | | | Total waste | 5,243 | 4,584 | 4,429 | 4,027 | | Financial Indicators (£ '000) | Reused/Recycled/Recovered | 549 | 427 | 380 | 389 | | | Landfill | 100 | 105 | 119 | 89 | | | Total disposal cost | 649 | 532 | 499 | 478 | In our HQ we introduced:
- a three bin scheme for waste including dry mixed recycling and food/compostable collection
- Vegware compostable vending cups, lids and salad boxes, and
- a collection to divert previously landfilled waste to form material used for heat and power in industry
The department follows a “reduce, remodel, recycle” hierarchy for surplus furniture:
- reduce – once a surplus has been identified it is advertised first within the department then across the entire government network
- remodel- most desks can be remodelled into a smaller size making them reusable again
- recycle – when both of the above options have been exhausted we run a competition for the final clearance of unwanted furniture assets. Current suppliers for this service have waste accreditation methods with waste to landfill rates of between 0 to 4 per cent
We ensure that redundant ICT equipment is re-used or responsibly recycled.
We have introduced a “Closed Loop” recycled paper system across the majority of the department and have implemented the associated collection and its recovery into new paper.
Construction suppliers are required to use an online tool in order to record data on waste generated from construction projects with the aim of halving the amount sent to landfill. Some larger assets are disposed of responsibly by the Disposal Services Authority. We manage the disposal of seized-goods responsibly and innovatively to minimise landfill.
**Sustainable Procurement**
We promote sustainable procurement as Corporate and Social Responsibility (CSR) striving to improve performance beyond the minimum legal standards including the mandated Government Buying Standards (GBS) http://sd.defra.gov.uk/advice/public/buying and building CSR factors into investment decisions where they are relevant to the contract. CSR factors are incorporated throughout the procurement cycle from pre-qualification through to contract award to ensure value for money is optimised.
We use a web-based supply chain engagement tool known as CAESER (Corporate Assessment of Environmental, Social & Economic Responsibility) to allow buyers to manage supply-chain sustainability performance. Through supplier questionnaires it covers a full range of sustainability considerations (environmental, social including diversity and economic). Data is collected annually to provide an overview of our suppliers’ CSR performance and used by us to inform contract management discussions and business decisions, manage supply-chain risks and drive improved outcomes.
In our last annual review we engaged with 89 strategic suppliers. We found that:
- 93 apprenticeships have been created as a direct result of the department’s spend
- 88 per cent of suppliers have a strategy for reducing CO₂ emissions and 52 per cent have set targets
- 90 per cent of suppliers use information gathered on equality and diversity to make improvements to policy and practices
- 51 per cent of suppliers actively encourage small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and monitor the diversity of their supply chains
The Cabinet Office requires all departments to contribute to its aspiration of 25% spend with SMEs by March 2015. After three quarters SME spend was 10% (£253,141,833) of total spend.
**Other**
Biodiversity is not material for the Home Office estate because we own so few open spaces or they are being prepared for disposal. We are liaising with the Rural Proofing team in Defra and in 2013-14 we will update our action plan setting out how we plan for climate change: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/climate/documents/dept-adapt-plans/dap-home-off-110512.pdf. Chapter 8 – Public Interest Disclosures (including complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman)
Value for Money
The Home Office’s strong focus on efficiency and value for money continues to challenge all areas of the department and support the police service to secure savings, while protecting frontline delivery to the public.
The key areas of focus were:
- commercial/procurement – including the transfer of the Procurement Centre of Excellence to the Government Procurement Service in October 2012. This supports the drive to increase spend through centralised deals and will help streamline procurement resource across government to improve efficiency. At the end of the third quarter of the financial year savings of over £18 million through the Procurement Centre of Excellence had been recorded.
- shared services – use of services by the rest of the Home Office group as well as other government departments yielded further savings in 2012-13. A programme is underway to consolidate the remaining corporate service functions across the Home Office that are not already shared
- police procurement – including the setting up of the Police ICT Company, which will help police forces improve operational effectiveness and get better value for money and innovative IT. The Collaborative Police Procurement Programme covering police non-IT procurement reported savings of over £13 million by the end of third quarter of the financial year
In April we published a revised Accountability System Statement for Policing and Crime Reduction, reflecting changes to accountability arrangements in the new policing landscape. The statement sets out how local accountability for delivering VfM operates.
Continuous Improvement programmes continue to yield savings across the Home Office, whilst a systematic process of assurance underpins our VfM strategy and ensures savings and programme objectives are met.
Structured cost reduction planning across the breadth of our business, coupled with rigorous spending controls in collaboration with the Cabinet Office and active capital management, allows us to continue to ensure strategic deployment of resources to meet the public’s needs.
Spend on consultancy and temporary staff
The Home Office has a robust Consultancy & Contingent Labour expenditure control process that has ensured that exposure to costs in this area has reduced significantly. This process ensures that all requests to appoint external consultants/specialists/interims, or extend existing arrangements, require approval by the External Resource Control (ERC) Board. This control covers the Home Office HQ, agencies and NDPBs.
The ERC Board, chaired by the Finance & Commercial Director General, was established in October 2010 and meets at least every two weeks. Consultancy requests over £20,000, if approved by the ERC Board are submitted to the Permanent Secretary for approval and then onwards to the Home Secretary and the relevant minister. The same process applies to new contingent labour posts, unless included in the ERC board’s quota (delegated authority allowing the board to agree up to 20 roles per quarter). Consultancy requests over 9 months are also submitted to Cabinet Office Efficiency & Reform Group.
Full year spend in 2012-13 on Consultancy and Contingent Labour (CCL) by the Home Office, including agencies and NDPBs, was £65m. This figure has been calculated using resource (accruals) financial data. The figure represents a decrease of 8% from 2011/12 spend which was £71m. This built on the 39% reduction from 2010-11 (£117m down to £71m). The Home Office monitors consultancy/agency staff costs to ensure that the continuing expenditure represents best value for money for the organisation.
### Consultancy Costs
| Organisation | 2012-13 total expenditure (£000) | |---------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Home Office HQ | 12,224 | | UK Border Agency | 1,128 | | Identity & Passport Service | 1,209 | | Criminal Records Bureau | 0 | | National Fraud Authority | 22 | | National Policing Improvement Agency | 29 | | Independent Police Complaints Commission | 0 | | Security Industry Authority | 68 | | Independent Safeguarding Authority | 0 | | Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner | 0 | | College of Policing | 11 | | Disclosure Barring Service | 17 | | Serious Organised Crime Agency | 54 | | **TOTAL** | **14,762** |
### Contingent Labour/Agency Costs
| Organisation | 2012-13 total expenditure (£000) | |---------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------| | Home Office HQ | 17,414 | | UK Border Agency | 15,157 | | Identity & Passport Service | 915 | | Criminal Records Bureau | 464 | | National Fraud Authority | 264 | | National Policing Improvement Agency | 1,602 | | Independent Police Complaints Commission | 1,140 | | Security Industry Authority | 2,462 | | Independent Safeguarding Authority | 431 | | Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner | 0 | | College of Policing | 136 | | Disclosure Barring Service | 373 | | Serious Organised Crime Agency | 10,314 | | **TOTAL** | **50,672** | Total Consultancy and Contingent Labour/ Agency Costs 2012-13 total expenditure (£000)
| Service | 2012-13 total expenditure (£000) | |----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | Home Office HQ | 29,638 | | UK Border Agency | 16,285 | | Identity & Passport Service | 2,124 | | Criminal Records Bureau | 464 | | National Fraud Authority | 286 | | National Policing Improvement Agency | 1,631 | | Independent Police Complaints Commission | 1,140 | | Security Industry Authority | 2,530 | | Independent Safeguarding Authority | 431 | | Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner | 0 | | College of Policing | 147 | | Disclosure Barring Service | 390 | | Serious Organised Crime Agency | 10,368 | | TOTAL | 65,434 |
Health and Safety
Within this reporting period the Home Office was served a Crown Censure for breach of legislation at Robin Hood Airport. Following this censure, further control measures have been implemented to mitigate against the risks identified through the censure process. We have introduced on-line Display Screen Equipment (DSE) self assessment and appointed in house trained DSE assessors, ensuring early interventions are undertaken regarding any health issues identified. The on-line self assessment has been further developed to include primary control points at front line border controls. This year also launched an in house developed Fire Marshal e-learning course accessible throughout the business.
Performance in Responding to Correspondence from the Public
In 2012-13, Home Office Headquarters received 12,103 letters and emails from the public. We replied to 90% of correspondence within the target of 20 working days.
Complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman
In their annual report for 2011-12, which is their most recently published report, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman noted that the Home Office was among the government departments with the most complaints accepted for formal investigation.
During 2011-12 the Ombudsman accepted a total of 24 complaints for formal investigation. 22 of these complaints were against the UK Border Agency. In 2010-11 the total reported on was 26 and in 2009-10 there had been 53 cases reported against the Home Office.
There have been no new reports on the Home Office, or its agencies or arms length bodies published since the last annual report when two reports had been highlighted:
The Ombudsman’s assessment of the loss of personal data by a Home Office contractor 23 March 2010 The Ombudsman outlines her decision not to investigate 449 complaints from prisoners and former prisoners about the loss of an unencrypted data stick containing personal information about them.
Fast and fair? A report by the Parliamentary Ombudsman on the UK Border Agency 09 February 2010 ‘Fast and Fair?’ includes eleven case studies that reflect the large number and wide range of complaints referred to the Ombudsman by Members of Parliament. For further information on both of these reports please refer to: http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving_services/special_reports/pca/index.html
During 2010-11 the Home Office and its agencies were fully compliant with Ombudsman recommendations.
For more information on the Ombudsman complaints process, classification of complaints and where to find recent reports and consultations refer to: http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/home
The department believes that complaints are an opportunity to improve its services and looks upon complaints as:
- opportunities for us all to learn about the quality of the service we give, and at times to improve it
- to improve our service, rather than just fixing a specific problem for an individual
- to take responsibility for complaints on our subject area. We ‘own’ the complaint on behalf of the organisation; the complainant ‘owns’ the original issue
Also, the Home Office has published its complaint handling procedure, so the public can understand the process. Home Office staff are requested to familiarise themselves with it before handling a complaint in the interests of consistency. Chapter 9 – Lead Non-Executive Board Member’s Report
These are my views, and those of my colleagues, on the second year of operation of the Home Office Supervisory Board.
Impact in Key Areas
The impact the Board has had in key areas
The Board has been able to utilise the varied experience of Board members to contribute to the strategic direction of the department, specifically through a focus on financial planning and spending priorities. The Board has also contributed to department governance at a more granular level including an examination of the department’s management of key corporate risks and regular oversight of financial reporting and departmental performance against key performance indicators.
Reflections on departmental progress and performance
The department has performed well against a number of challenges over the past year, including the successful delivery of the security of the London 2012 Olympic Games as well the dedication shown within the department to reducing and managing queues at the border. Financial management within the department remains strong; the department will need to continue to draw on this expertise to administer the department’s financial resources in an era of increasing austerity.
Reflections on the quality of management information provided to the Board
The Board has been satisfied with the quality of management information over the past year. The information provided to the Board has allowed the Board to maintain an accurate understanding of the performance picture across the Home Office. The Board has a firm grasp of the allocation of resources within the Home Office and of the departmental appetite for risk; this understanding has been underpinned by the quality of management information provided to the Board. To further improve this oversight, further work could be done to increase the visibility of management information for the Arms Length Bodies of the Home Office.
Update on Board Arrangements & Governance
The two sub-committees of the Board have continued to meet over the last year; they both continued to be chaired and attended by non-executive board members.
The Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC) is responsible for reviewing the comprehensiveness of assurances and the integrity of financial statements. The Audit and Risk Assurance Committee has been operating well over the past year and the Board has received regular updates as to the progress of the committee. The Nominations and Governance committee is responsible for scrutinising the succession planning for the Home Office Supervisory Board and the senior leadership of the department. The committee met at the beginning of this year and an update has been provided to the Supervisory Board as to the committee’s activities.
Dianne Thompson, a non-executive director and chair of the Nominations and Governance committee, tendered her resignation early this year. The Board would like to express its thanks to Dianne for her work and contribution to the operation of the Board and its sub-committees. The process is now underway to recruit a replacement for Dianne.
The board non-executives have been active both within the department and across government. One example of non-executive impact within the department has been Philip Augar’s work with UKBA. Philip led a team that conducted a quality assurance review on UKBA’s delivery plan for the Home Secretary. The review culminated in a series of challenge sessions with UKBA board members (attended by the Chief Executive) at which Philip and the team interrogated the achievability of each directorate’s business plans for the forthcoming year. Philip produced a comprehensive evaluation for the Home Secretary following this work. Furthermore, in addition to being a member of the Home Office Supervisory Board and Executive Management Board, Philip has also been a member of the Crime and Policing Group VFM and College of Police programme boards. John Allan has also been active within the Home Office as Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee and as a member of the Developing Professionalism Working Group which led to the creation of the College of Policing. John has also sat on the appointments panel to select the new DG for Border Force and has chaired the Border Force Strategy Board in addition to being a member of the Border Strategy Board. Within Whitehall, John is also leading a review for Cabinet Office on a cross-departmental issue. Dianne Thompson contributed to the work of the Home Office Risk Committee and Chaired the Home Office Nominations Committee. She is also a member of the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretaries Remuneration Committee.
In my capacity as lead non-executive director I sat on the appointments panel for the new Permanent Secretary. Additionally, I am deputy chairman of the Audit and Risk Committee and a member of the Nominations and Governance Committee. Within Whitehall I sit on the Civil Service Reform Service Delivery Implementation Board, a board I will continue to attend into the next financial year.
**Evaluation of Board Effectiveness**
An evaluation of board effectiveness was carried out at the end of this financial year. Board members were issued with a questionnaire and were asked to consider the performance of the Board following its second year of operation, in preparation for an independent review of Board performance in 2014. Board members were able to discuss their views regarding board effectiveness with myself in my capacity as Lead Non-Executive. Board members had the opportunity to discuss the findings of the evaluation at a Supervisory Board meeting and to raise any resulting issues. The following actions were agreed as a result of this review:
- minutes or updates from sub-committees of the Board to be circulated between Board meetings; committee Chairs to provide updates at every Board meeting or should significant issues arise
- Board to consider whether monthly briefings between Board meetings on key departmental issues would improve information flows between meetings
- a review of the Supervisory Board Operating Framework by the Board Secretariat
- risk reporting data to be re-evaluated to ensure that it includes a sharper focus on key Arms Length Body risks
- Board to consider scheduling at least two informal meetings a year in addition to a Strategy Awayday
- Board to consider whether routine discussions should be condensed to the first thirty minutes of Board meetings, to allow the discussion of one priority issue for the rest of the meeting
- Board members to be briefed on any high-profile issues as they arise, if possible before media coverage
- proposals to be developed for non-executive directors to be aligned with different Home Office workstreams and to provide a source of external challenge where requested
**Concluding Remarks**
The Board continues to operate effectively over the last year even though there has been some significant change to the membership of the Board over the past year. Board discussions remain frank and supportive whilst challenging where necessary. I would like to thank the Home Office staff who have provided the Board with the support and timely information required that has helped the Board to operate effectively.
All Board members recognise the value that the Board can bring to the Home Office, and are keen to continue to further improve the contribution that the Board makes.
**Val Gooding** Home Office Lead Non-Executive FOREWORD TO THE ACCOUNTS
These accounts relate to the Home Office for the year ended 31 March 2013. The Home Office is the lead department for policies on immigration, passports, counter-terrorism, policing, drugs, crime and equalities.
ANNUAL REVIEW
Principal Activities
The central headquarters of the Home Office set the framework of objectives, financial allocations, strategy and performance management for the key services for which the Home Secretary is responsible, along with providing common support services and driving towards achievement of objectives. During the year, the Home Office also had responsibility for the UK Border Agency, the Identity & Passport Service and the National Fraud Authority, as well as lead responsibility for a number of Non-Departmental Public Bodies.
The Home Office relies on parliamentary voted funding to finance its operations.
Home Office Priorities
Our priorities are to:
- empower the public to hold the police to account for their role in cutting crime
- free up the police to fight crime more effectively and efficiently
- create a more integrated criminal justice system
- secure our borders and reduce immigration
- protect people’s freedoms and civil liberties
- protect our citizens from terrorism
Other major responsibilities include:
Civil registration in England and Wales
The Home Office, via the Registrar General who is also the Chief Executive of the Identity & Passport Service, is responsible for the administration of the policy and legislation relating to civil registration in England and Wales. This is operationally discharged in partnership with local authorities.
The Identity & Passport Service also provides passport services to UK nationals at home and to UK nationals abroad.
Counter-terrorism
The Home Secretary is the lead Minister for counter-terrorism. The Home Office develops, directs and oversees implementation of the UK’s cross-government strategy countering international terrorism (CONTEST).
Headquarters
The Home Office’s Headquarters is located at 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF. Ministers
The following ministers were responsible for the department during 2012-13:
| Name | Position | |------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Rt Hon Theresa May MP | Secretary of State for the Home Department | | Mark Harper MP | Immigration Minister (from 5 September 2012) | | Lord Taylor of Holbeach | Lords Minister and Minister for Criminal Information (from 6 September 2012) | | Jeremy Browne MP | Minister of State for Crime Prevention (from 5 September 2012) | | Damian Green MP | Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice (jointly with Ministry of Justice) (Minister of State for Immigration until 5 September 2012) | | James Brokenshire MP | Security Minister (previously Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Crime and Security) | | Lord Henley | Minister of State for Crime Prevention and Anti Social Behaviour Reduction (until 4 September 2012) | | Nick Herbert MP | Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice (until 4 September 2012) | | Lynne Featherstone MP | Parliamentary Under Secretary for Criminal Information (until 4 September 2012) |
Role of the Supervisory Board (SB)
The Secretary of State-chaired Supervisory Board (SB) monitors the department’s performance against its business plan and provides the overall strategic and operational leadership of the department. It consists of ministers, non-executive directors, drawn primarily from the commercial private sector, and senior departmental officials. It advises on five main areas:
- performance – agreeing the department’s business plan, including strategic aims and objectives; monitoring and steering performance against plans; scrutinising performance of sponsored bodies; and setting the department’s standards and values
- strategy and learning – setting the vision and/or missions and ensuring all activities, either directly or indirectly, contribute towards it; long-term capability and horizon scanning, ensuring strategic decisions are based on a collective understanding of policy issues; using outside perspective to ensure that the department is held to account for its outcomes
- resources and change – approving the distribution of responsibilities; signing off large projects or programmes; ensuring sound financial management; scrutinising the allocation of financial and human resources to achieve the plan; ensuring organisational design supports attaining strategic objectives of the board and its members, and succession planning
- capability – ensuring the department has the capability to deliver and to plan to meet current and future needs
- risk – setting the department’s risk appetite and ensuring controls are in place to manage risk
It is supported by sub-committees on Audit and Risk Assurance and Remuneration.
## Membership of the Home Office Supervisory Board
The membership of the Supervisory Board during 2012-13 is listed below:
| Ministers | | |------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Rt Hon Theresa May MP | Secretary of State for the Home Department | | Mark Harper MP | Immigration Minister (from 5 September 2012) | | Lord Taylor of Holbeach | Lords Minister and Minister for Criminal Information (from 6 September 2012) | | Jeremy Browne MP | Minister of State for Crime Prevention (from 5 September 2012) | | Damian Green MP | Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice (jointly with Ministry of Justice) | | James Brokenshire MP | Security Minister (previously Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Crime and Security)| | Lord Henley | Minister of State for Crime Prevention and Anti Social Behaviour Reduction (until 4 September 2012) | | Nick Herbert MP | Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice (until 4 September 2012) | | Lynne Featherstone MP | Parliamentary Under Secretary for Criminal Information (until 4 September 2012) |
| Officials | | |------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Mark Sedwill | Permanent Secretary (from 1 February 2013) | | Helen Kilpatrick | Acting Permanent Secretary (from 17 September 2012 to 31 January 2013), Director General, Finance and Corporate Services | | Dame Helen Ghosh | Permanent Secretary (until 28 September 2012) | | Mike Anderson | Director General, Strategy, Immigration and International Group | | Charles Farr | Director General, Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | | Stephen Rimmer | Director General, Crime and Policing Group | | Sir Charles Montgomery | Director General, Border Force (from 19 March 2013) | | Tony Smith | Acting Director General, Border Force (from 19 September 2012 to 19 March 2013) | | Rob Whiteman | Chief Executive, UK Border Agency | | Peter Kane | Acting Director General, Finance and Corporate services (from 10 September 2012 until 1 February 2013) | | Brian Moore | Director General, UK Border Force (until 31 August 2012) |
| Non-Executive Directors | | |------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Val Gooding | Chair of Premier Farnell PLC and non-Executive Director of the BBC and Standard Chartered PLC | | Philip Augar | Formerly Group Managing Director of Schroders | | Dianne Thompson | Chief Executive of Camelot UK Lotteries Limited (until 28 February 2013) | | John Allan | Chairman of Dixons Retail PLC | Role of the Executive Management Board (EMB)
The EMB, chaired by the Permanent Secretary and made up primarily of senior officials, is the department’s senior management team, providing corporate strategic leadership and overseeing the day-to-day running of the department.
It supports the Supervisory Board in driving the development of the department’s leadership and wider capability, and setting the strategy for developing all Home Office staff; in maintaining oversight of performance; and in ensuring that all parts of the organisation are working together effectively.
The EMB, which meets monthly, is chaired by the Permanent Secretary. Members of the EMB were:
| Officials | | |----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | Mark Sedwill | Permanent Secretary (from 1 February 2013) | | Helen Kilpatrick | Acting Permanent Secretary (from 17 September 2012 to 31 January 2013), Director General, Finance and Corporate Services | | Dame Helen Ghosh | Permanent Secretary (until 28 September 2012) | | Mike Anderson | Director General, Strategy, Immigration and International Group | | Charles Farr | Director General, Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | | Peter Kane | Acting Director General, Finance and Corporate Services (from 10 September 2012 until 31 January 2013) | | Stephen Rimmer | Director General, Crime and Policing Group | | Sir Charles Montgomery | Director General, Border Force (from 19 March 2013) | | Tony Smith | Acting Director General, Border Force (from 19 September 2012 to 19 March 2013) | | Brian Moore | Director General, Border Force (until 18 September 2012) | | Rob Whiteman | Chief Executive, UK Border Agency | | Jonathan Jones | Legal Adviser (from 1 October 2012) | | Kevin White | Director General, Human Resources | | Simon Wren | Director, Communications (from 16 April 2012) | | David Seymour | Legal Adviser (until 28 June 2012) | | Yasmin Diamond | Director, Communications (until 9 April 2012) |
| Non-Executive Directors | | |----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | Philip Augar | Formerly Group Managing Director of Schroders |
Non Executive directors
Independent non-executive directors of the Home Office Board are recruited through fair and open competition. All non-executive directors on the Supervisory Board are appointed by the Home Secretary. Non-executive directors of the board are appointed for an initial period of three years with an option to extend for a further three years. These appointments can be terminated with one month’s notice period.
The start and end dates of the non-executive directors were as follows:
| Non-Executive Director | Start Date | End Date | |------------------------|--------------|----------------| | Val Gooding | 4 January 2011| 3 January 2014 | | Philip Augar | 22 March 2012 | 21 February 2015 | | Dianne Thompson | 4 March 2011 | 28 February 2013 | | John Allan | 4 March 2011 | 3 March 2014 | Appointment of Senior Officials
The Permanent Head of the department was appointed by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Head of the Home Civil Service and with the agreement of the Ministerial Head of the department. All Executive Management Board appointments are permanent Civil Service appointments, the terms of which are set out in the standard Senior Civil Service contract. These appointments are for an indefinite term under the terms of the Senior Civil Service contract. The rules for termination are set out in Chapter 11 of the Civil Service Management Code.
Ministers’ and Board Members’ Remuneration
Ministers’ remuneration is set by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 (as amended by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1996) and the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991.
The Permanent Secretary’s pay is set by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Permanent Secretaries’ Remuneration Committee. The committee’s membership and terms of reference were announced by the then Prime Minister on 9 February 1995 (Hansard, cols 245-247).
Further details on remuneration are set out in the Remuneration Report beginning on page 74.
Entities Consolidated
The Home Office departmental accounting boundary encompasses the central government department, three executive agencies and six non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and the College of Policing. The executive agencies are the Identity & Passport Service, the UK Border Agency and the National Fraud Authority. The consolidation includes the Criminal Records Bureau up until its closure at the end of November 2012. The NDPBs are the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Policing Improvement Agency (which ceased operational activity at the end of September 2012), the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Security Industry Authority, the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner and the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). The consolidation also includes the activity of the Independent Safeguarding Authority prior to closure at the end of November 2012, and the College of Policing as a quasi-NDPB. The accounts of these entities form part of the Home Office’s consolidated financial statements. See note 28 to the accounts for further details.
Identity & Passport Service (IPS) The Identity & Passport Service is responsible for issuing UK passports and for administering the civil registration process in England and Wales.
Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) The Criminal Records Bureau helped protect children and other vulnerable people through safer recruitment, by making information from police records and other data sources more readily available to employers. It ceased operational activity at the end of November 2012, and was replaced by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
UK Border Agency (UKBA) The UK Border Agency regulated the flow of people and goods into the UK, strengthening our borders before, on, and after entry. (The UKBA moved into the core department on 1 April 2013).
National Fraud Authority (NFA) The National Fraud Authority works with the counter-fraud community to make fraud more difficult to commit in and against the UK.
Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) The Serious Organised Crime Agency prevents and detects serious organised crime and contributes to the reduction of such crime in other ways and to the mitigation of its consequences. National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) The National Policing Improvement Agency’s remit was to improve public safety through the provision of critical national services and professional expertise to police forces and authorities. The NPIA ceased operational activity during the year, with responsibilities largely transferring to the core department, the College of Policing and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) The Independent Police Complaints Commission’s job is to make sure that complaints against the police in England and Wales are dealt with effectively. It sets standards for the way the police handle complaints and, when something has gone wrong, it helps the police learn lessons and improve the way it works.
Security Industry Authority (SIA) The Security Industry Authority is responsible for regulating the UK private security industry.
Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) It was the role of the Independent Safeguarding Authority to decide, often following an employer’s disciplinary process, whether it is appropriate and proportionate to bar a person from working with a vulnerable group or groups because of the ongoing risk of harm they present. It closed on 30 November 2012.
Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner is responsible for regulating immigration advisers by ensuring they are fit and competent and act in the best interest of their clients.
Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) was established on 1 December 2012 to assist employers make safer recruitment decisions. It replaced the CRB and ISA.
College of Policing (CoP) The College of Policing was established as a limited company on 1 December 2012, assuming responsibility for raising the professional status of police officers and police staff. It was classified as an Arms Length Body by the Treasury, and has been consolidated within the departmental boundary as a ‘quasi-NDPB’.
Following a Machinery of Government change, the Government Equalities Office (GEO) and the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (EHRC) moved from the Home Office to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. OPERATING AND FINANCIAL REVIEW
Financial Performance
Funding
The Home Office is accountable to Parliament for its expenditure. Parliamentary approval for its spending plans is sought through Supply Estimates presented to the House of Commons, specifying the estimated expenditure and asking for the necessary funds to be voted. The department draws down voted funds in year from the Consolidated Fund as required.
The Estimates include a formal description (“ambit”) of the services to be financed. Voted money cannot be used to finance services that do not fall within the ambit.
Outturn
The Summary of Resource Outturn, which is the main parliamentary control schedule, reports the outturn against Estimate (the Estimates Boundary). Additional detailed actual spending during 2012-13 against Estimate sub-heads is reported in the Analysis of Net Resource Outturn by Section. Estimates for each sub-heading are finalised in the Supplementary Estimate with work to formulate these numbers taking place in December each year.
The differences between the various boundaries
Estimate and the Accounts
The Estimate does not include income classified as Income Payable to the Consolidated Fund. It also excludes expense associated with the write-off of Income Payable to the Consolidated Fund related debtor invoices. These are, however, included in the accounts.
Further differences exist between the accounts (and Estimates) and the budgeting boundaries:
The resource budgeting boundary excludes items such as capital grants provided by the Home Office to Local Authorities.
The budgeting boundary includes items which are not reported in the Estimate or accounts, for example, on balance sheet PFIs. Payments to suppliers are classified as resource expenditure for budgetary purposes.
Explanation of Significant Variances between Actual and Estimates
In accordance with the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM), explanations are provided for significant variances from the Net Estimate for Resources, or where it is thought appropriate to provide additional disclosure.
The total DEL resource at £8,304 million shows an under spend for 2012-13 against the Supplementary Estimate of £274 million (3%). This is broken down as follows:
- DEL admin under spend of £63 million
- DEL programme under spend of £211 million
Within these figures:
UKBA under spent by £166 million. This is due to lower Asylum support costs as a result of lower than expected numbers, increased overseas and in-country income, lower depreciation charges on Immigration Case Working projects and lower than expected project related spending. The Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT) under spent by £50 million. This reflects some of the savings delivered on Olympics security costs, and underspends across a range of other Programmes.
Border Force had an under spend of £6 million. This is largely due to delays in change projects and shared services costing less than planned.
Central Home Office had an under spend of £24 million. This is largely due to reprofiling a major technology project following a strategic review, services costing less than planned, and savings negotiated on IT and property.
The Identity & Passport Service had an under spend of £48 million. This was due to lower project IT costs (particularly the Application Management System & Critical Legacy Systems for Passports), and increased income due to higher than expected numbers of passport applications, particularly towards the end of the year.
Annually Managed Expenditure (AME), at £1,260 million, shows an under spend of £154 million. This was largely due to reduced Police Pension expenditure.
Capital at £442 million shows an under spend of £19 million. This was in line with expectations.
Cash Requirement
The overall cash requirement at 31 March 2013 was £9.791 billion, compared with a net control total figure of £10.160 billion. This was in line with expectations, reflecting both cash drawn down and in year movements in working capital.
Contingent Liabilities
As required by the FReM, note 24 also discloses the department’s contingent liabilities not required to be disclosed under IAS37, but which have been reported to Parliament in accordance with Managing Public Money. The department is taking steps to help minimise the risks of these contingent liabilities crystallising as part of its normal risk management processes.
Machinery of Government Changes
Last year’s consolidated accounts included both the Government Equalities Office (GEO) and the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights (EHRC). Following a Machinery of Government change, the GEO and EHRC transferred to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Under merger accounting rules, this transfer is accounted for as having happened on 1 April 2012, with the prior year figures restated on the same basis. Further explanation can be found at Note 31 to the accounts.
Going Concern
The Consolidated Statement of Financial Position as 31 March 2013 shows taxpayers’ equity credit of £131 million, (2011-12 £175 million).
In common with other government departments, the future financing of the department’s liabilities is to be met by future grants of Supply and the application of future income, both to be approved annually by Parliament. Accordingly, it is appropriate to adopt a going concern basis for the preparation of these financial statements.
External Auditor
These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and are subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The total notional NAO audit fee for the core department and its agencies was £949,000 (2011-12 consolidated, £1,046,000), of which that for the core department alone was £375,000 (£421,000, 2011-12). The audit fee for the department’s non-departmental public bodies was not notional and totalled £539,000 (£391,000, 2011-12). No remuneration has been paid to the NAO during 2012-13 for non-audit work (2011-12 £nil).
In so far as the Accounting Officer is aware, there is no relevant audit information of which the entity’s auditor is unaware.
Political and Charitable Donations
The Home Office has not made any political or charitable donations during 2012-13.
Future developments
The 2010 Spending Review (SR2010) imposed significant future reductions in departmental expenditure. The SR2010 period covers the financial years 2011-12 through to 2014-15. Over this period, the department’s resource expenditure limits (excluding depreciation) will reduce to £7,813 million, which equates to a real reduction of 23 per cent over the four years compared to the 2010-11 baseline. Within this resource settlement, the department’s administration budget (excluding depreciation) will reduce to £538 million, equivalent to a real reduction of 33 per cent over the four years on the 2010-11 baseline. All departments continue to come under additional budgetary pressures. However, we continue to put in place the systems and controls required to ensure that future departmental expenditure does not exceed control totals. The 2015-16 Spending Review announcement on 26 June confirmed the need for future structural reform.
Events since the Year end
From 1 April 2013, the UK Border Agency ceased to be an executive agency of the Home Office, moving to within the core department. These accounts reflect the organisational structure up to the end of the financial year, when the UKBA was still an executive agency.
Audit and Risk Assurance Committee
The Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC) comprises the non-executive chairs of the equivalent Committee of its agencies and two non-executive Home Office Supervisory Board members, together with one independent external member.
The Committee provides independent advice and guidance to the Permanent Secretary as Accounting Officer, and to the Supervisory Board on corporate governance, internal control and risk management.
The Committee’s oversight extends to associated agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies. They each have their own Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, but arrangements are in place for audit assurances and significant issues arising within their remit to be notified to the Home Office Audit and Risk Assurance Committee and the Accounting Officer.
From April 2012 to March 2013, the Committee sat four times. Members reviewed the comprehensiveness of the internal audit coverage in meeting the Supervisory Board and Accounting Officer’s needs, and assessed the reliability and integrity of these assurances.
In particular, the Committee gave consideration to the:
- activity and results of both internal and external audit, including assessment of the adequacy of management response to issues identified by that activity
- assurances relating to the corporate Home Office Risk Management policies and processes
- high level assurance framework spanning the bodies and units within the activities of the Internal Audit Unit, and
- the Home Office’s annual accounts including consolidation of NDPB’s and agencies Following each meeting, the Chair updates the Supervisory Board on the work of the Committee and submits an annual report which includes an assessment of the effectiveness of the department’s control framework.
Public Bodies
The Home Office currently sponsors 16 Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and 12 other public bodies and statutory office holders. This does not include Executive Agencies which are reported on separately. Each public body is supported by a sponsor team which manages the body’s relationship with the department; acting as a point of liaison and driving accountability through work that includes monitoring performance and finance and undertaking public appointment campaigns. A list of the Home Office public bodies can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations#home-office. During the year the landscape of Home Office public bodies has undergone significant change. The Criminal Records Bureau (an Executive Agency) merged with the Independent Safeguarding Authority to create the Disclosure and Barring Service, an Executive NDPB. The National Policing Improvement Agency was closed and legislation to create the National Crime Agency is being considered by Parliament. Under EU Directive 2010/63, the Animals in Science Committee (ASC) has replaced the Animal Procedures Committee. Details of changes are reflected on the Gov.UK website.
Public Appointments
Appointments to Home Office sponsored public bodies follow the Commissioner for Public Appointments Code of Practice as best practice whether they are regulated by the Commissioner or not. This ensures that the principles of openness and transparency and appointment on merit permeate all of our appointment campaigns. Looking ahead, the department is prepared to comply with the new Code of Practice which will be launched by the Commissioner on 1 April 2012. We will continue to adhere to the principles laid out by the Commissioner.
To ensure that Ministers can select appointees from the widest possible pool of talent the Home Office welcomes applications from candidates regardless of ethnic origin, religious belief, gender, sexual orientation, or other irrelevant factor.
Risk Management
The process of risk management across the department is explained within the Governance Statement.
Health and Safety
Within this reporting period the Home Office was served a Crown Censure for breach of legislation at Robin Hood Airport. From this censure, further control measures have been implemented to mitigate against the risks identified through the censure process. We have introduced on-line Display Screen Equipment (DSE) self assessment and appointed in house trained DSE assessors, ensuring early interventions are undertaken regarding any health issues identified. The on-line self assessment has been further developed to include primary control points at front line border controls. This year also launched an in house developed Fire Marshal e-learning course accessible throughout the business.
Information Assurance
The Home Office maintains a very strong emphasis on managing information risk. The risk of data loss is on our HR and Finance & Corporate Services directorate risk registers and is regularly reviewed. We continue to have a sustained programme of activity in place to reduce information risks and improve the way the department uses and protects information against loss, corruption and unauthorised disclosure or destruction.
Wider Information Management
During 2012-13, we collated six-monthly reports on progress against the Information Management Strategy implementation plan, which covers a wider range of information management issues than just information assurance. We have also developed and successfully piloted, a new Information Management Maturity Model (I3M), which has already provided a clear picture of the level of IM capability in HQ, IPS and the UKBA. It will be rolled out during 2013-14 and promises to deliver clarity on the standards of information management across the Home Office group and provide both the stimulus and action plans for improving those standards. The I3M model measures performance against the seven cross-government Information Principles. The National Archives (TNA) has been closely involved in the development of the Model and is providing external “critical friend” oversight of the process. High-Level governance is provided via the processes established for the Government ICT Strategy and the model will also continue its close connection with the Information Assurance Maturity Model (IAMM), following a similar yearly cycle and contributing to the Security Risk Management Overview.
**Information Assurance Maturity Model (IAMM)**
In May 2012, the department was assessed against the Information Assurance Maturity Model (IAMM). The IAMM provides a set of key measures in the form of “Compliance Milestones” for measuring progress of the culture change work which covers the Home Office Headquarters, executive agencies, NDPBs and third party suppliers. The results from the 2012 assessment confirmed that we have maintained our compliance against Level 3 of the maturity model.
In order to maintain this compliance and prepare for future improvement, the department will be assessed in May 2013. The results of this exercise are expected to show consolidation of our Level 3 compliance, represented by embedding good practice throughout the Home Office and third party suppliers.
**Training Education and Awareness**
All Home Office Headquarter staff have been required to undertake annual Protecting Information Level 1 e-learning training.
A refresh of the Home Office Corporate Information Asset Register (IAR) is underway and will be concluded by 31 May 2013. All Information Asset Owners are fully aware of their responsibilities and have undertaken and passed Level 3 Protecting Information e-learning and refresher training.
Information Asset Officers (IAO) workshops and training for the Home Office Group are being planned for 2013-14. These workshops will both educate new IAOs and provide a refresher for those already in place. In addition all, IAOs will be required to successfully complete Levels 1 and 3 of the “Protecting Information” e-learning training.
**Information Management**
| Category | Nature of Incident | Total | |----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------| | I | Loss of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper documents from secured government premises. | 2 | | II | Loss of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper documents from outside secured government premises | 3 | | III | Insecure disposal of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper documents. | 0 | | IV | Unauthorised disclosure. | 4 | | V | Other | 5 |
Table 1: SUMMARY OF PROTECTED PERSONAL DATA INCIDENTS FORMALLY REPORTED TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE IN 2012-13
A total of three incidents have been formally reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office during 2012-13.
Table 2: SUMMARY OF OTHER PROTECTED PERSONAL DATA INCIDENTS RECORDED IN 2012-13
Incidents deemed by the Data Controller not to fall within the criteria for report to the Information Commissioner’s Office but recorded centrally within the department are set out in the table below. Small, localised incidents are not recorded centrally and are not cited in these figures. Table 3: SUMMARY OF LOST/STOLEN BLACKBERRIES, MOBILE PHONES, LAPTOPS AND REMOVABLE MEDIA FOR 2012
| | TOTAL | |--------------------------|-------| | Lost Blackberries / Mobile Phones | 46 | | Stolen Blackberries / Mobile Phones | 13 | | Lost Laptops | 3 | | Stolen Laptops | 7 | | Lost Removable Media | 0 | | Stolen Removable Media | 0 | | Recovered Blackberries / Mobile Phones | 1 | | Recovered Laptops | 0 |
Notes:
1. For the purpose of reporting, “Home Office Group” includes core Home Office, UK Border Agency, Identity & Passport Service (IPS), National Fraud Authority (NFA) and excludes Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and other Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs).
2. Each year’s figures represent thefts, losses and recoveries reported between 1 January and 31 December.
3. Examples of removable media include CDs, DVDs, memory cards, USB memory sticks, external hard disk drives and tapes.
It has been departmental policy to encrypt all portable systems and removable media holding sensitive data since 2008. All laptops included in the above figures were compliant with this policy.
Community Issues
Staff can apply for special leave with pay of up to five working days a year to work outside the Home Office as a volunteer. More days are available, for example, for staff who undertake community work as a special constable (ten days), a magistrate (eighteen days) or a school governor (six days).
The Home Office recognises that staff who undertake voluntary work not only benefit the communities in which they live and work, but also gain skills and experience that may be useful in the workplace. Links to a wide range of volunteering opportunities are advertised on the departmental intranet.
Staff Sickness
The rolling year average working days lost to sick absence for the Home Office as at 31 March 2013 is 7.52 days (7.88 days in 2011-12). This figure is per staff year which is in line with cross-Government guidelines from Cabinet Office.
Pension Scheme Liabilities
Employees in the core department are primarily members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). This scheme is an unfunded multi-employer defined benefit scheme with benefits paid by the Cabinet Office as they fall due, secured against future tax yield. The Cabinet Office produces a separate annual PCSPS scheme statement. The Home Office pays contributions to meet the actuarially calculated cost of pensions and is responsible for certain costs associated with early retirements. These costs are charged to the Statement of Consolidated Net Expenditure. The Home Office (in common with other departments) is unable to identify its share of the underlying PCSPS assets and liabilities. A full actuarial valuation was carried out as at 31 March 2007. Details can be found in the Civil Superannuation Resource Accounts at http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/my-civil-service/pensions/governance-and-rules/resource-accounts.aspx
Civil servants may be in one of four defined benefit schemes; either a ‘final salary’ scheme (classic, premium or classic plus) which are now closed to new members, but which continue to take new contributions from existing members; or a ‘whole career’ scheme (nuvos). Nuvos has been available to new members since 30 July 2007. Since 1 October 2002, civil servants have also been able to opt for a good quality ‘money purchase’ stakeholder pension with a significant employer contribution (partnership pension account). Direct recruits from within the police service will be members of the Police Pension scheme. The Police Pension is an unfunded defined benefit pension scheme, which is administered at police force level. Employer contributions are paid by police authorities (including SOCA and NPIA), and employee contributions by police officers, to meet the actuarially assessed cost of the scheme. Pension benefits in payment are funded by a pensions account in each police force (including SOCA and NPIA), offset by the employee and employer contributions paid in respect of current contributing members. The pensions account in each force is balanced on an annual basis, with any deficit being funded by top-up grant from the exchequer, and any surplus recovered, by central government.
Ministers of the Home Office are members of the Ministerial Pension Scheme (MPS) which is a part of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF) and provides benefits on a ‘final salary’ basis. It is a funded scheme and is administered by the House of Commons Pensions Unit. These accounts include the Home Office liabilities for undischarged contribution payments, and for the future costs of early retirement compensation payable to the PCSPS. They do not show the total pension liability in respect of employees or pensioners within the departmental boundary.
Payment of Suppliers
The Home Office has signed up to the Confederation of British Industry’s (CBI) prompt payment code and BS7890, the British Standard for payment. Through the adoption of measured Service Improvement, accurate and timely management information and effective Business engagement, we continue to maintain our prompt payment performance throughout the year. We aim to pay all valid invoices within five days of receipt of the compliant invoice.
Estates Strategy
The department owns limited freehold property. Most of our property assets are leasehold. Our Estate Strategy supports business needs. We are improving our use of buildings, surrendering leases, consolidating the number of buildings we use and using them more efficiently and effectively by introducing flexible working and targeting 8 sq. m. of office space per full time equivalent for major refurbishments and new acquisitions. We are working with the Government Property Unit on the release of surplus leasehold or freehold sites.
We have already completed major consolidations in Croydon, Liverpool and Sheffield and we are now consolidating our use of buildings in Greater London. However, we purchased two freehold properties (Aragon Court and Vulcan House) to yield future costs savings.
We do not routinely obtain alternative use valuations for freehold properties but have instead separately examined the redevelopment potential and existing viability of the larger two freehold properties for which valuations were obtained in 2011. The property analysis found that the two properties had limited redevelopment potential.
Environmental Issues
The ambition of the Home Office is to be recognised as a green organisation for the way we do our business.
A full Sustainability Report for the Home Office has been included in Chapter 7 of the Annual Report and Accounts. This report aims to provide information that is consistent and comparable between different public sector bodies and also between different accounting periods for the same body. Remuneration Report
Remuneration Policy
The remuneration of senior civil servants is set by the Prime Minister following independent advice from the Senior Salaries Review Body.
The Review Body also advises the Prime Minister from time to time on the pay and pensions of Members of Parliament and their allowances, on Peers' allowances and on the pay, pensions and allowances of ministers and others whose pay is determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975.
In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body has regard to the following considerations:
- the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people to exercise their different responsibilities
- regional and local variations in labour markets and their effects on the recruitment and retention of staff
- Government policies for improving the public services including the requirement on departments to meet the output targets for the delivery of departmental services
- the funds available to departments as set out in the Government's Departmental Expenditure Limits, and
- the Government's inflation target
In making recommendations, the Review Body considers any factors that the Government and other witnesses may draw to its attention. In particular it has regard to:
- differences in terms and conditions of employment between the public and private sector and between the remit groups, taking account of relative job security and the value of benefits in kind
- changes in national pay systems, including flexibility and the reward of success, and job weight in differentiating the remuneration of particular posts
- the need to maintain broad linkage between the remuneration of the three main remit groups, while allowing sufficient flexibility to take account of the circumstances of each group, and
- the relevant legal obligations, including anti-discrimination legislation regarding age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religion and belief and disability
The Review Body takes account of the evidence it receives about wider economic considerations and the affordability of its recommendations.
Further information about the work of the Review Body can be found at www.ome.uk.com.
The disclosures within this Remuneration Report are subject to audit.
Service Contracts
The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 requires Civil Service appointments to be made on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. The Recruitment Principles published by the Civil Service Commission specify the circumstances when appointments may be made otherwise.
Unless otherwise stated below, all the named officials covered by this report hold appointments which are open-ended. Early termination, other than for misconduct, would result in the individual receiving compensation as set out in the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.
Further information about the work of the Civil Service Commission can be found at www.civilservicecommission.org.uk.
Ministers
The Ministers responsible for the department during 2012-13 are reported in the foreword to the accounts in this document on page 62. Membership of the Home Office Supervisory Board
The membership of the Supervisory Board during 2012-13 is reported in the foreword to the accounts in this document on page 63.
Executive Management Board (EMB)
The membership of the Executive Management Board during 2012-13 is reported in the foreword to the accounts in this document on page 64.
Non Executive directors
The information details relating to the non-executive directors are reported in the foreword to the accounts in this document on page 64.
Remuneration Committees
The Home Office Remuneration Committee work to Cabinet Office guidelines to determine the amount of non-consolidated performance-related pay for senior civil servants (SCS) within the Home Office. To assess the 2011-12 performance year the committees comprised:
| Pay Band 3 Remuneration Committee | |----------------------------------| | Dame Helen Ghosh (Chair), Philip Augar, Sally Hulks |
| Pay Band 2 Remuneration Committee | |----------------------------------| | Dame Helen Ghosh (Chair), Kevin White, Helen Kilpatrick, Charles Farr, Stephen Rimmer, Rob Whiteman, Mike Anderson, and David Seymour |
| Pay Band 1 Remuneration Committee | |----------------------------------| | Dame Helen Ghosh (Chair), Kevin White, Helen Kilpatrick, Simon Wren, Charles Farr, Stephen Rimmer, Rob Whiteman, Mike Anderson, and David Seymour |
The assessment and review of performance for senior civil servants is based on individual performance. Individuals were ranked in three performance groups in each pay band
Group 1 – top 25% of performers Group 2 – achieving 65% of performers Group 3 – bottom 10% of performers
For the 2011-12 performance year, only Group 1 was eligible for a non-consolidated performance payment.
The Senior Salaries Review Board (SSRB) determines the percentage of SCS pay that can be used for non-consolidated performance payments. Following SSRB recommendations, the Cabinet Office set the guidelines on senior civil service bonuses for all government departments.
For the 2011-12 performance year Cabinet Office guidelines allowed for up to 5% of the SCS paybill to be used for these payments. The Home Office paid out 1.2% of the SCS paybill which equates to £280,000.
Bonus payments for the 2011-12 performance year were paid in July 2012. These were up to £10,000 (Pay Band 3); £7,000 (Pay Band 2) and £5,000 (Pay Band 1).
The assessment and review of performance for the 2012-13 performance year will be undertaken shortly.
Remuneration (including salary) and pension entitlements
The following sections provided details of the remuneration and pension interests of the Ministers and most senior management (i.e. Board members) of the department. Remuneration (salary and payments in kind)
Where an individual has only served for part of the year, the full year equivalent salary is reported in brackets. Ministers do not receive bonuses.
| Ministers | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |-----------|---------|---------| | | Salary £ | Benefits in kind (to nearest £100) | Salary £ | Benefits in kind (to nearest £100) | | Rt Hon Theresa May MP Home Secretary | 68,827 | - | 68,827 | - | | Mark Harper MP 1 (from 5 September 2012) | 18,885 (33,002) | - | - | - | | Lord Taylor of Holbeach 2 (from 6 September 2012) | 59,835 (105,076) | 4,200 | - | - | | Jeremy Browne MP (from 5 September 2012) | 18,885 (33,002) | - | - | - | | Damian Green MP | 33,002 | - | 33,002 | - | | James Brokenshire MP | 23,697 | - | 23,697 | - | | Lord Henley 2, 3 (until 4 September 2012) | 69,027 (115,257) | - | 62,111 (115,257) | - | | Nick Herbert MP 3 (from 13 May 2010 until 4 September 2012) | 22,369 (33,002) | - | 33,002 | - | | Lynne Featherstone MP (until 4 September 2012) | 10,137 (23,697) | - | 23,697 | - |
1 Included in Mark Harper MP Home Office salary is £1,711 apportionment of September pay, which was paid by the Cabinet Office. 2 Lord Henley and Lord Taylor of Holbeach sit in the House of Lords and are not in receipt of an MP’s salary; therefore, their full ministerial salary is reported here. They both received the Lords nightly allowance of £36,366 in 2012-13 inclusive in the salary. 3 Lord Henley and Nick Herbert MP both received compensation in lieu of notice payment of £19,723 and £8,251 respectively.
The salary shown for other ministers only relates to the difference between their MP’s salary and their minister’s salary, as the MP element is paid via the House of Parliament and not the Home Office.
| Officials | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |-----------|---------|---------| | | Salary £000 | Bonus Payments £000 | Benefits in kind (to nearest £100) | Salary £000 | Bonus Payments £000 | Benefits in kind (to nearest £100) | | Mark Sedwill Permanent Secretary (from 1 February 2013) | 30-35 (180-185) | - | - | - | - | - | | Officials | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |-----------|---------|---------| | | Salary £000 | Bonus Payments £000 | Benefits in kind (to nearest £100) | Salary £000 | Bonus Payments £000 | Benefits in kind (to nearest £100) | | Helen Kilpatrick\
*Acting Permanent Secretary (from 17 September 2012 until 31 January 2013)*\
*Director General, Finance and Corporate Services* | 210-215 | 5-10 | - | 210-215 | 10-15 | - | | Dame Helen Ghosh\
*Permanent Secretary (from 1 January 2011 until 28 September 2012)* | 85-90 | - | - | 180-185 | - | - | | Peter Kane\
*Acting Director General, Finance and Corporate Services (from 10 September 2012 until 31 January 2013)* | 55-60 | - | - | - | - | - | | Mike Anderson\
*Director General, Strategy, Immigration and International Group* | 135-140 | - | - | 95-100 | - | - | | Charles Farr\
*Director General, Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism* | 140-145 | 5-10 | - | 140-145 | 5-10 | - | | Stephen Rimmer\
*Director General, Crime and Policing Group* | 125-130 | - | - | 125-130 | - | - | | Sir Charles Montgomery\
*Director General, Border Force (from 19 March 2013)* | 0-5 | - | - | - | - | - | | Tony Smith\
*Acting Director General, Border Force (from 19 September 2012 until 19 March 2013)* | 80-85 | - | - | - | - | - | | Brian Moore\
*Interim Director General, Border Force (from 1 March to 18 September 2012)* | 95-100 | - | - | - | - | - | | Rob Whiteman\
*Chief Executive, UK Border Agency* | 175-180 | - | - | 85-90 | - | - | | Jonathan Jones\
*Legal Advisor (Board member from 1 October 2012)* | 65-70 | - | - | - | - | - |
### Officials
| Name | Position | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|---------|---------| | Kevin White | Director General, Human Resources | 140-145 | 140-145 | | Simon Wren | Director, Communications (from 16 April 2012) | 100-105 | 105-110 | | David Seymour | Legal Advisor (Board Member From 10 January 2011 until 28 June 2012) | 35-40 (145-150) | 145-150 | | Yasmin Diamond | Director, Communications (until 9 April 2012) | 20-25 (125-130) | 130-135 |
1. Stephen Rimmer has declined payment of both the bonuses he was awarded in respect of performance year 2011-12 and 2012-13.
2. Tony Smith’s salary includes a payment of £22,526 as compensation in lieu of notice on leaving Home Office.
3. Brian Moore was on secondment from Police & Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire and the salary reflects the invoice value for the period. No further information will be disclosed on his pension details.
4. Mike Anderson and Yasmin Diamond salaries include a payment of £4,732 and £8,805 respectively for excess leave.
### Non-Executive Directors
| Name | Position | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|---------|---------| | Dianne Thompson | (from 4 March 2011 until 28 February 2013) | 10-15 (15-20) | 15-20 | | Val Gooding | (From 4 January 2011) | 20-25 | 20-25 | | John Allan | (from 4 March 2011) | 15-20 | 15-20 | | Philip Augar | (From 22 March 2012) | 15-20 | - |
1. Philip Augur waived his salary in 2011-12.
The non-executive directors listed above are those who sat on the Home Office Board, the Home Office Supervisory Board and the Executive Management Board. Non-executive directors do not receive bonuses. Other non-executive directors are employed by the Home Office’s agencies and NDPBs and their details can be found in the accounts of these bodies. Remuneration ratio
Reporting bodies are required to disclose the relationship between the remuneration of the highest-paid director in their organisation and the median remuneration of the organisation’s workforce.
The banded remuneration of the highest paid director in the Home Office in the financial year 2012-13 was £220,000 - £225,000 (2011-12, £220,000 - £225,000). This was 6.8 times (2011-12, 7.6 times) the median remuneration of the workforce, which was £32,799 (2011-12, £29,244).
In 2012-13, 0 (2011-12, 0) employees received remuneration in excess of the highest-paid director. Remuneration ranged from £10,000 - £15,000 to £220,000 - £225,000 (2011-12, £10,000 - £15,000 to £220,000 - £225,000). Total remuneration includes salary, non-consolidated performance-related pay and benefits-in-kind. It does not include severance payments, employer pension contributions and the cash equivalent transfer value of pensions.
The following table shows the median earnings of the department’s workforce and the ratio between this and the earning of the highest paid director.
| Band of Highest Paid Director’s Total Remuneration (£’000) | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |-----------------------------------------------------------|---------|---------| | Median Total (£) | 32,799 | 29,224 | | Remuneration Ratio | 6.8 | 7.6\* |
The pay multiple has decreased due to the increase in the median salary as a result of both changes in the grade profile of the Home Office workforce and the proportion of allowances paid to them.
- The remuneration Ratio for 2011-12 published in last year’s Annual Report and Accounts was 7.4. This figure was calculated based on salary only (it excluded benefit in kind and non-consolidated payment). The Remuneration Ratio now includes salary, benefits in kind and non-consolidated payment in this year’s report to be consistent with information on the remuneration report.
Salary
‘Salary’ includes gross salary; overtime; reserved rights to London weighting or London allowances; recruitment and retention allowances; private office allowances and any other allowance to the extent that it is subject to UK taxation. This report is based on accrued payments made by the department and thus recorded in these accounts. In respect of Ministers in the House of Commons, departments bear only the cost of the additional Ministerial remuneration; the salary for their services as an MP (£65,738 from 1 April 2010) and various allowances to which they are entitled are borne centrally. However, the arrangement for Ministers in the House of Lords is different in that they do not receive a salary but rather an additional remuneration, which cannot be quantified separately from their Ministerial salaries. This total remuneration, as well as the allowances to which they are entitled, is paid by the department and is therefore shown in full in the figures above.
Benefits in Kind
The monetary value of benefits in kind covers any benefits provided by the employer and treated by HM Revenue & Customs as a taxable emolument. Benefits reported are calculated as the taxable value and include the private use of a car, travel and accommodation.
Bonuses
Bonuses are based on performance levels attained and are made as part of the appraisal process. Bonus payments disclosed in this report for 2012-13 are bonus payments for the 2011-12 performance year which were paid in July 2012. Payments relating to 2012-13 are yet to be finalised. Pension Benefits
| Ministers | Accrued pension at age 65 as at 31 March 2013 | Real increase in pension at age 65 | CETV at 31 March 2013 | CETV at 31 March 2012 | Real increase in CETV | |-----------|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Rt Hon Theresa May MP Home Secretary | 0-5 | 0-2.5 | 68 | 41 | 15 | | Mark Harper MP (from 5 September 2012) | 0-5 | 0-2.5 | 22 | 17 | 2 | | Lord Taylor of Holbeach¹ (from 6 September 2012) | - | - | - | - | - | | Jeremy Browne MP (from 5 September 2012) | 0-5 | 0-2.5 | 27 | 23 | 2 | | Damian Green MP | 0-5 | 0-2.5 | 41 | 27 | 8 | | James Brokenshire MP | 0-5 | 0-2.5 | 22 | 15 | 3 | | Lord Henley (until 4 September 2012) | 5-10 | 0-2.5 | 131 | 117 | 8 | | Nick Herbert MP (until 4 September 2012) | 0-5 | 0-2.5 | 27 | 22 | 2 | | Lynne Featherstone MP (until 4 September 2012) | 0-5 | 0-2.5 | 26 | 22 | 3 |
¹ Lord Taylor of Holbeach opted out of the ministerial section of the Parliamentary Contribution Pension Fund
Ministerial Pensions
Pension benefits for ministers are provided by the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF). The scheme is made under statute (the regulations are set out in Statutory Instrument SI 1993 No 3253, as amended).
Those ministers who are Members of Parliament may also accrue an MP’s pension under the PCPF (details of which are not included in this report). The arrangements for ministers provide benefits on an ‘average salary’ basis, taking account of all service as a minister. The accrual rate has been 1/40 since 15 July 2002 (or 5 July 2001 for those that chose to backdate the change) but ministers, in common with all other members of the PCPF, can opt for a 1/50 accrual rate and a lower rate of employee contribution. An additional 1/60 accrual rate option (backdated to 1 April 2008) was introduced from 1 January 2010.
Benefits for Ministers are payable at the same time as MPs’ benefits become payable under the PCPF or, for those who are not MPs, on retirement from Ministerial office from age 65. Pensions are re-valued annually in line with Pensions Increase legislation. From 1 April 2013 members pay contributions between 7.9% and 16.7% depending on their level of seniority and chosen accrual rate. The contribution rates are planned to increase in April 2014, subject to consultation.
The accrued pension quoted is the pension the Minister is entitled to receive when they reach 65, or immediately on ceasing to be an active member of the scheme if they are already 65.
In line with reforms to other public service pension schemes, it is intended to reform the Ministerial Pension Scheme in 2015.
The Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV)
This is the actuarially assessed capitalised value of the pension scheme benefits accrued by a member at a particular point in time. The benefits valued are the member’s accrued benefits and any contingent spouse’s pension payable from the scheme. A CETV is a payment made by a pension scheme or arrangement to secure pension benefits in another pension scheme or arrangement when the member leaves a scheme and chooses to transfer the pension benefits they have accrued in their former scheme. The pension figures shown relate to the benefits that the individual has accrued as a consequence of their total Ministerial service, not just their current appointment as a Minister. CETVs are calculated in accordance with The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 and do not take account of any actual or potential reduction to benefits resulting from Lifetime Allowance Tax which may be due when pension benefits are taken.
The Real Increase in the Value of the CETV This is the element of the increase in accrued pension funded by the Exchequer. It excludes increases due to inflation and contributions paid by the Minister. It is worked out using common market valuation factors for the start and end of the period. Where the individual was not in post for the full year, the CETV at 31 March 2012 represents the value as at their start date and the CETV at 31 March 2013 represents the value as at their end date.
| Officials | Accrued pension at pension age as at 31 March 2013 and related lump sum | Real increase / (decrease) in pension and related lump sum at pension age | CETV at 31 March 2013 | CETV at 31 March 2012 | Real increase / (decrease) in CETV¹ | Employer contribution to partnership pension account | |-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------| | Mark Sedwill Permanent Secretary (from 1 February 2013) | 55-60 | 0-2.5 | 772 | 766 | 2 | - | | Helen Kilpatrick² Acting Permanent Secretary (from 17 September 2012 until 31 January 2013) Director General, Finance and Corporate Services | 85-90 | 5-7.5 | 1,436 | 1,283 | 75 | - | | Dame Helen Ghosh¹ Permanent Secretary (from 1 January 2011 until 28 September 2012) | 65-70 plus lump sum 195-200 | (0-2.5) plus lump sum of (0-2.5) | 1,336 | 1,325 | (7) | - | | Peter Kane Acting Director General, Finance and Corporate Services (from 10 September 2012 until 31 January 2013) | 50-55 plus lump sum 80-85 | 0-2.5 plus lump sum of (0-2.5) | 959 | 920 | 3 | - | | Mike Anderson Director General, Strategy, Immigration and International Group | 20-25 | 0-2.5 | 316 | 269 | 26 | - | | Charles Farr Director General, Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 60-65 plus lump sum 185-190 | 2.5-5 plus lump sum of 7.5-10 | 1,165 | 1,060 | 43 | - | | Stephen Rimmer Director General, Crime and Policing Group | 45-50 plus lump sum 135-140 | 0-2.5 plus lump sum 0-2.5 | 787 | 738 | 6 | - | | Sir Charles Montgomery Director General, Border Force (from 19 March 2013) | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Officials | Accrued pension at pension age as at 31 March 2013 and related lump sum | Real increase / (decrease) in pension and related lump sum at pension age | CETV at 31 March 2013 | CETV at 31 March 2012 | Real increase / (decrease) in CETV | Employer contribution to partnership pension account | |-----------|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|----------------------------------| | Tony Smith⁴ Acting Director General, Border Force (from 19 September 2012 until 19 March 2013) | 50-55 plus lump sum 160-165 | 5-7.5 plus lump sum 17.5-20 | 1,221 | 1,044 | 131 | - | | Rob Whiteman² Chief Executive, UK Border Agency | 5-10 | 2.5-5 | 76 | 21 | 43 | - | | Jonathan Jones Legal Advisor (Board member from 1 October 2012) | 35-40 plus lump sum 115-120 | 0-2.5 plus lump sum 0-2.5 | 674 | 660 | 4 | - | | Kevin White¹, ³ Director General, Human Resources | 30-35 plus lump sum 100-105 | 0-2.5 plus lump sum 0-2.5 | 737 | 729 | (0) | - | | Simon Wren Director, Communications (from 16 April 2012) | 35-40 plus lump sum 110-115 | 0-2.5 plus lump sum 0-2.5 | 587 | 551 | 4 | - | | David Seymour Legal Advisor (Board Member From 10 January 2011 until 28 June 2012) | 65-70 plus lump sum 195-200 | 0-2.5 plus lump sum 0-2.5 | 1,493 | 1,483 | 1 | - | | Yasmin Diamond³ Director, Communications (until 9 April 2012) | 20-25 plus lump sum 70-75 | 0-2.5 plus lump sum 0-2.5 | 359 | 358 | 0 | - |
¹ Where this figure is negative, taking account of inflation, the CETV funded by the employer has decreased in real terms. ² New factors are used in the calculator for the CETV values at the start and end of period. This means that the CETV value shown for the start of the period will not match the CETV value for the end of the period in last year’s disclosure exercise. ³ Where this figure is zero, the real increase is less than one thousand ⁴ A compensation lump sum of £95,017 was awarded during the year.
Civil Service Pensions
Pension benefits are provided through the Civil Service pension arrangements. From 30 July 2007, civil servants may be in one of four defined benefit schemes; either a final salary scheme (classic, premium or classic plus); or a whole career scheme (nuvos). These statutory arrangements are unfunded with the cost of benefits met by monies voted by Parliament each year. Pensions payable under classic, premium, classic plus and nuvos are increased annually in line with Pensions Increase legislation. Members joining from October 2002 may opt for either the appropriate defined benefit arrangement or a ‘money purchase’ stakeholder pension with an employer contribution (partnership pension account). Employee contributions are salary-related and range between 1.5% and 3.9% of pensionable earnings for classic and 3.5% and 5.9% for premium, classic plus and nuvos. Increases to employee contributions will apply from 1 April 2013. Benefits in classic accrue at the rate of 1/80th of final pensionable earnings for each year of service. In addition, a lump sum equivalent to three years initial pension is payable on retirement. For premium, benefits accrue at the rate of 1/60th of final pensionable earnings for each year of service. Unlike classic, there is no automatic lump sum. classic plus is essentially a hybrid with benefits for service before 1 October 2002 calculated broadly as per classic and benefits for service from October 2002 worked out as in premium. In nuvos a member builds up a pension based on his pensionable earnings during their period of scheme membership. At the end of the scheme year (31 March) the member’s earned pension account is credited with 2.3% of their pensionable earnings in that scheme year and the accrued pension is uprated in line with Pensions Increase legislation. In all cases members may opt to give up (commute) pension for a lump sum up to the limits set by the Finance Act 2004.
The partnership pension account is a stakeholder pension arrangement. The employer makes a basic contribution of between 3% and 12.5% (depending on the age of the member) into a stakeholder pension product chosen by the employee from a panel of three providers. The employee does not have to contribute, but where they do make contributions, the employer will match these up to a limit of 3% of pensionable salary (in addition to the employer’s basic contribution). Employers also contribute a further 0.8% of pensionable salary to cover the cost of centrally-provided risk benefit cover (death in service and ill health retirement).
The accrued pension quoted is the pension the member is entitled to receive when they reach pension age, or immediately on ceasing to be an active member of the scheme if they are already at or over pension age. Pension age is 60 for members of classic, premium and classic plus and 65 for members of nuvos.
Further details about the Civil Service pension arrangements can be found at the website http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/pensions
Cash Equivalent Transfer Values
A Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) is the actuarially assessed capitalised value of the pension scheme benefits accrued by a member at a particular point in time. The benefits valued are the member’s accrued benefits and any contingent spouse’s pension payable from the scheme. A CETV is a payment made by a pension scheme or arrangement to secure pension benefits in another pension scheme or arrangement when the member leaves a scheme and chooses to transfer the benefits accrued in their former scheme. The pension figures shown relate to the benefits that the individual has accrued as a consequence of their total membership of the pension scheme, not just their service in a senior capacity to which disclosure applies.
The figures include the value of any pension benefit in another scheme or arrangement which the member has transferred to the Civil Service pension arrangements. They also include any additional pension benefit accrued to the member as a result of their buying additional pension benefits at their own cost. CETV’s are worked out in accordance with The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 and do not take account of any actual or potential reduction to benefits resulting from Lifetime Allowance Tax which may be due when pension benefits are taken.
Real increase in CETV
This reflects the increase in CETV that is funded by the employer. It does not include the increase in accrued pension due to inflation, contributions paid by the employee (including the value of any benefits transferred from another pension scheme or arrangement) and uses common market valuation factors for the start and end of the period. Where the individual was not in post for the full year, the CETV at 31 March 2012 represents the value as at their start date and the CETV at 31 March 2013 represents the value as at their end date.
Mark Sedwill Accounting Officer
28 June 2013 Statement of Accounting Officer’s Responsibilities
Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (the GRAA), HM Treasury has directed the Home Office to prepare, for each financial year, consolidated resource accounts detailing the resources acquired, held or disposed of, and the use of resources, during the year by the department (inclusive of its executive agencies) and its sponsored non-departmental public bodies designated by order made under the GRAA by Statutory Instrument 2012 No.717 (together known as the ‘departmental group’ consisting of the department and sponsored bodies listed at note 28 to the accounts). The accounts are prepared on an accruals basis and must give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the department and the departmental group and of the net resource outturn, resources applied to objectives, recognised gains and losses and cash flows of the departmental group for the financial year.
In preparing the accounts, the Accounting Officer is required to comply with the requirements of the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) and in particular to:
- observe the Accounts Direction issued by Treasury, including relevant accounting and disclosure requirements, and apply suitable accounting policies on a consistent basis
- ensure that the department has in place appropriate and reliable systems and procedures to carry out the consolidation process
- make judgements and estimates on a reasonable basis, including those judgements involved in consolidating the accounting information provided by non departmental public bodies
- state whether applicable accounting standards, as set out in the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) have been followed, and disclose and explain any material departures in the accounts and
- prepare the accounts on a going concern basis
HM Treasury has appointed the Permanent Secretary of the department as Accounting Officer of the Home Office.
The Accounting Officer of the department has also appointed the Chief Executives of its sponsored Non-Departmental Public Bodies as Accounting Officers of those bodies. The Accounting Officer of the department is responsible for ensuring that appropriate systems and controls are in place to ensure that any grants that the department makes to its sponsored bodies are applied for the purposes intended and that such expenditure and the other income and expenditure of the sponsored bodies are properly accounted for, for the purposes of consolidation within the resource accounts. Under their terms of appointment, the Accounting Officers of the sponsored bodies are accountable for the use, including the regularity and propriety, of the grants received and the other income and expenditure of the sponsored bodies.
The responsibilities of an Accounting Officer, including responsibility for the propriety and regularity of the public finances for which the Accounting Officer is answerable, for keeping proper records and for safeguarding the assets of the department or non-departmental public body for which the Accounting Officer is responsible, are set out in Managing Public Money published by HM Treasury.
Mark Sedwill Accounting Officer 28 June 2013 Statement of Corporate Governance
Scope of Responsibility
As Accounting Officer, I have responsibility for maintaining a sound system of internal control that supports the achievement of the Home Office’s policies, aims and objectives, whilst safeguarding the public funds and departmental assets for which I am personally responsible, in accordance with the responsibilities assigned to me in ‘Managing Public Money’.
I delegate my responsibility as Accounting Officer to Accounting Officers of the department’s agencies, Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and other public bodies. My relationship with Accounting Officers is set out in statements contained in the respective Framework Arrangements, Financial Memoranda and designatory letters. Each of the Home Office agencies and NDPBs produce their own Governance Statement which is published in their Annual Report and Accounts.
The systems in place are designed to manage risk to a high level rather than to eliminate all risk of failure to achieve policies, aims and objectives; it can therefore only provide high and not absolute assurance of effectiveness.
This Governance Statement covers the year ending March 2013 but will remain open until the Home Office Annual Report and Accounts are signed.
Governance, Control and Risk Management Framework
We continuously review the effectiveness of the department’s governance, control and risk management framework and this is provided through our corporate governance structures and key controls. The main elements of the governance structure are:
- the Home Office Supervisory Board (SB), which is responsible for setting the department’s strategic direction. This has been delivered through a series of standing agenda items, including corporate reporting (performance, risk and resource); in-depth discussion of particular risks from the Corporate Risk Register; updates on major programmes and projects; and updates from the sub-committees on Audit and Risk Assurance and Nominations and Governance. The SB met on five occasions between April 2012 and March 2013. Attendance at those meetings is outlined in the annex following this Governance Statement
- the Home Office Executive Management Board (EMB), which is responsible for driving the development of the department’s leadership and wider capability. It also discusses and challenges the development of the Home Office’s key policies and programmes and ensures that all parts of the organisation are working together effectively. This has been delivered through a wide ranging programme of discussions at monthly board meetings, led by individual board members. The EMB met on 10 occasions between April 2012 and March 2013. Attendance at those meetings is outlined in the annex following this Governance Statement. It is anticipated that, in the next financial year, the Executive Management Board will meet on a more frequent basis. I have also recently refocused the work of the Executive Management Board. EMB will meet every three weeks out of four focusing in turn on the key priority areas of the Home Office that cut across separate managerial responsibilities in the department
- the Home Office Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC), which provides independent advice to the Accounting Officer and SB members on the adequacy of arrangements for corporate governance, internal control and risk management. The ARAC met on four occasions between April 2012 and March 2013. Attendance at those meetings is outlined in the annex following this Governance Statement
- the Home Office Risk Committee (RC), which provides the EMB with advice on the top risks that it should consider for escalation to the corporate risk register. The RC is a sub-committee of the EMB
The main governance, control and risk management controls are highlighted below:
- the Group Investment Board (GIB), which approves and monitors at key stages, projects above threshold criteria based on priority, risk, value, complexity and sensitivity • the Internal Audit Unit (IAU), who complete a risk based programme of audits annually and provide independent advice to the ARAC • the Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO), who provides an assessment of the department’s information risk exposure and provides assurance on this and • the application of the Home Office Assurance Framework. This is designed to supplement risk management arrangements. The framework describes ‘what good control looks like’ in the context of the Home Office business and it describes the benchmark standards that management should follow
Home Office Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC)
The Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC) comprises the non-executive chair of the equivalent Committee of the Identity and Passport Agency (during the 2012-13 year the non-executive Chair of the UKBA was also included), the chair of the Criminal Records Bureau, and two non-executive Home Office Supervisory Board members, together with one independent external member.
The Committee provides independent advice and guidance to the Permanent Secretary as Accounting Officer, and to the Supervisory Board on corporate governance, internal control and risk management.
The Committee’s oversight extends to associated agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies. They each have their own Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, but arrangements are in place for audit assurances and significant issues arising within their remit to be notified to the Home Office Audit and Risk Assurance Committee and the Accounting Officer.
From April 2012 to March 2013, the Committee met four times. Members reviewed the comprehensiveness of the internal audit coverage in meeting the Supervisory Board and Accounting Officer’s needs, and assessed the reliability and integrity of these assurances.
In particular, the Committee considered
• the effectiveness of the UKBA/Border Force split • assurances relating to the corporate Home Office Risk Management policies and processes • programme and project resource capacity and capability • integration of administrative and operational roles from National Policing Improvement Agency to the Home Office • the business case for the formation of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) • high level assurance framework spanning the bodies and units within the activities of the Internal Audit Unit (IAU) • the reporting of departmental provisions and contingent liabilities to ensure these are effectively managed • following each meeting, the Chair updates the Supervisory Board on the work of the Committee and submits an annual report which includes an assessment of the effectiveness of the department’s control framework
Nominations and Governance Committee
The Nominations and Governance Committee (NGC) comprises two non-executive Home Office Supervisory Board members one of whom is the chair, the Permanent Secretary, the Director General of Human Resources and the Director General and Finance Director of Financial and Corporate Services Group.
The Committee supports the Supervisory Board in its responsibilities in relation to identifying and developing leadership and high potential; succession planning for senior/pivotal roles; and governance arrangements.
Risk Management
Risk management remains one of the critical processes in the Home Office which we have continued to strengthen, by further embedding a risk management culture across the department. The level of ‘risk maturity’ (measuring capability to manage risk) has increased this year and is reviewed every two months. We have ensured clear ownership and accountability throughout the risk management process. Each business area is represented at the Risk Committee, which is a sub-board of the Home Office Executive Management Board (EMB). This approach confirms responsibility for individual risks, and ensures that mitigating actions are challenged and effective.
Our focus this year has been the identification and effective management of key threats to the public, such as with high profile events including the delivery of a safe, secure and successful Olympics. At the senior level this culminates in the Home Office Risk Committee advising the Home Office EMB of emerging risks so they can review and consider the actions being taken to counter them. They regularly review the Corporate Risk Register as part of this process.
Our risk management approach is to be clear about what we are trying to achieve; to identify what might stop us from achieving these objectives; to assess the risks identified; to take action to mitigate them to an agreed level and then to review progress. This framework comprises:
- clear accountabilities for the action to tackle risks
- a structured process for identifying, assessing, communicating, escalating and managing risks, as detailed in the Home Office Risk Management Policy and Guidance document
- expected behaviours
Our risk assessments and the actions being taken to address risk are documented in risk registers at corporate, directorate/group/agency, Non-Departmental Public Body and unit/project levels. Our approach to risk appetite is embedded within our risk processes and is overseen and moderated by the Risk Committee when it reviews our top level risks and advises the EMB on the current level of risk exposure.
To assure the risk process, the Home Office Central Risk Team collaborates closely with the Home Office Internal Audit Unit (IAU). IAU undertakes audits to provide assurance that there is evidence to support the risk maturity assessments. If necessary, steps are taken to address shortfalls in capability or to address issues that have been identified.
**Governance Compliance**
Government policy on departmental governance is outlined in Corporate Governance in Central Departments: Code of Good Practice (Cabinet Office, July 2011). This Code operates on a 'comply or explain' basis, whereby departments are asked to disclose any element of the Code with which they are not fully compliant, explaining their rationale and any alternative measures which have been put in place to meet the objectives of the Code.
The Home Office meets nearly all of the provisions outlined in the Code through the operation of the Home Office Supervisory Board, which operates by following the enhanced departmental board structure outlined in the Code. However, there are two areas (board compliance and Chief Internal Auditor (CIA) attendance at SB meetings) where the code is not completely met. In relation to board compliance, the Supervisory Board is expected to review the Supervisory Board Operating Framework in June 2013, a few months after the two year period in which it should be reviewed in order to fully comply with the code. All other provisions of this section have been met. Although the Chief Internal Auditor (CIA) does not receive an invitation to attend the Supervisory Board, the CIA does have the facility to provide updates and briefings to the Executive Management Board as well as routine sight of the Board’s agendas and papers. The CIA also has a programme of one to one sessions with the Permanent Secretary.
Action has been taken to rectify the areas of partial compliance last year, including publishing the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee’s Terms of Reference on the Home Office website and a meeting between the Non-Executive Board Members and the Secretary of State in October 2012, to facilitate the requirement for Non-Executive Board Members to meet the Secretary of State alone from time to time.
The Supervisory Board is chaired by the Home Secretary. Its membership is made up of the six Home Office ministers, the Permanent Secretary, five other senior officials and, currently, three Non-Executive Directors. One Non-Executive Director has resigned; the recruitment process to replace this Non-Executive Director is underway. This Board sets the strategic direction of the Home Office and has oversight of delivery of the departmental Business Plan. Through its operation, the Board assures sound financial management; sets the department’s risk appetite and ensures appropriate controls are in place to manage risk; has oversight of the performance of the department’s sponsored bodies; and ensures the department has the capacity to deliver against current and future needs. This delivery is ensured via standing agenda items (discussed at the bi-monthly meetings) and includes corporate reporting of performance, risk and resource; analysis of significant risks chosen as high priority from the Corporate Risk Register; updates on major programmes and projects; and updates from the sub-committees on Audit and Risk and Nominations and Governance.
**Evaluation of Board Effectiveness**
An evaluation of board effectiveness has been conducted in consultation with Board Members. This is reported in the Lead Non-Executive’s Statement which is reported within the Annual Report and Accounts.
**Significant in-year Risks and Issues**
The Home Office’s priorities are to:
- free up the police to fight crime more effectively and efficiently
- secure our borders and reduce immigration
- protect our citizens from terrorism
- protect people’s freedoms and civil liberties
- empower the public to hold the police to account for their role in cutting crime
- create a more integrated criminal justice system
Moving forward into 2013-14 these priorities will be updated to become:
- cut crime
- reduce immigration
- prevent terrorism
- promote growth by keeping the UK safe
The nature of the department’s business means that we have to manage a range of significant risks across our operational, policy and enabling functions. The key top-level risks to the department are held on the Home Office Corporate Risk Register which is updated at least bi-monthly. The main corporate risks are listed below:
- public concern around the failure to detain or remove foreign national offenders
- failure to prevent a terrorist attack
- failure to detect and counter serious crime and violent extremist attack
- failure to reduce net migration
- weaknesses or vulnerabilities in our border control systems or processes
- lack of join-up and consistency in sharing criminality information
- major IT incident or underperforming IT service delivery
- failure to secure a sustainable budget for the Home Office and police
All the current corporate risks have full mitigation strategies and contingency plans in place, as required by the Home Office Risk Management Policy and Guidance.
The main, high-level issues that have occurred during the period are outlined below.
**Olympics related**
A major risk was the delivery of a safe and secure Olympic Games in 2012. The delivery relied on the counter-terrorist capabilities developed as part of the broader CONTEST strategy. The Internal Audit Unit undertook an independent review which concluded that the risk management, governance and assurance functions of the Olympics programme were sufficiently mature and operating consistently and effectively. The Olympics were safe and secure, although there was a failure to deliver sufficient security cleared staff by G4S.
Border Force faced a considerable challenge ensuring that the Primary Control Point (PCP) was fully resourced and border security was maintained. The significant staff reductions before March 2012 meant that, with the requirement to complete full checks, Border Force could not operate the PCP effectively without reliance on contingency resources from the wider Home Office and other government departments. Improved resource management in the future will lessen the risk. Provisions had been put in place to provide extra support to the PCP during the Olympic period (22 July – 4 September 2012). However this was extended to cover both the wider summer and autumn pressure periods providing support nationally including at key ports such as Heathrow and those in the South East. Significant management time was also required to ensure that Border Force continued to maintain the security of the Border.
Border Force is still not self sufficient in workforce terms and this remains a top priority. A major recruitment and training campaign commenced in July 2012. Modular training pathways have been developed to produce multi-skilled Border Force Officers and Assistant Officers. These pathways are being externally accredited by Skills for Justice (the Justice Sector Skills Council). A Learning and Development Accreditation Unit will be established to enable existing staff to be professionally benchmarked against the same standards with minimal bureaucracy. The recruitment of new staff to backfill is underpinned by an established workforce approvals process. This ensures that there is the necessary head count cover as well as ensuring the posts are affordable in budgetary terms.
**UK Border Agency**
UK Border Agency continued to undergo significant change during the year. The changes were implemented to ensure the organisation retained the capability and aptitude to better perform against its objectives. However, further change will need to be implemented in 2013-14, as UKBA was incorporated into the core department from 1 April 2013.
During the year an issue emerged within UK Border Agency in relation to the tracing of temporary migrants, who were seeking to extend their stay or regularise their position. The numbers exceeded forecasts, so case-working capacity was bolstered and processes reviewed and improved. The size of the Migration Refusal Pool (MRP) increased in the year. This is the group of immigration applicants where analysis suggests that individual applications for in-country extensions of leave in the UK have been refused, but where it has not been confirmed that they have actually left the country. In December 2012, the UKBA Chief Executive reported to the Home Affairs Select Committee that, up to the end of September 2012, there were an estimated 181,541 cases within the MRP. In October 2012, UKBA signed a contract with Capita to contact up to 150,000 of these cases. Capita are contacting foreign nationals who entered the UK on valid visas and have subsequently been refused an extension of leave to remain, but evidence of their departure has not been confirmed.
The UK Border Agency manages funds allocated to the UK by the European Commission under three funding schemes – the European Return Fund (RF), the European Integration Fund (EIF) and the European Refugee Fund (ERF). The UKBA EU Funding team invite applications from internal and external bidders to oversee these projects. During the year, EU audits confirmed a lack of evidence to support some of the work undertaken. This in turn could lead to a cost to the Exchequer of around £8.6 million. The lessons learned from this year’s audit will be applied to the EU programme audit.
**Managing Change**
Following a major transition programme the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) operationally closed in December 2012. The NPIA’s continuing functions have been transferred to successor bodies. The transfers led to some challenges for monthly financial reporting as a result of delays in agreeing budget transfers with successor bodies which impacted on the ability to update the affected budget delegation letters immediately and also the asset and liabilities at the time of operational transfer. The early disbanding of the transformation project team meant that it was resource intensive to resolve the outstanding queries. However, there have been no breaches of control as a result and the budgets have been fully agreed and reconciled.
The College of Policing was legally incorporated as a company limited by guarantee under the name of College of Policing Limited. The College is being established in two phases. The interim College came into existence on 1 December 2012. We are committed to establishing the College in Statute as soon as Parliamentary time allows. The College of Policing was established as a new Arms Length Body of Crime and Policing Group (CPG) and currently has financial systems which need strengthening and staffing issues that need to be addressed. CPG and the Accounting and Finance Unit have recognised this and are working to support them in the development of these, including through the deployment of flexible finance resource. The merger of the Criminal Records Bureau and the Independent Safeguarding Authority that formed the Disclosure and Barring Service has not been a smooth transition. An increased level of business risk surrounding the service contract transition has been recognised and actions are being put in place to address them.
National Audit Office reports
In July 2012 the NAO published two reports. One was a review of the data systems in the Home Office and the second was on the progress in cutting costs and improving performance in the UKBA and Border Force.
The review of the data systems was on a sample of the data systems underpinning the input and impact indicators in the Home Office’s Business Plan, Common Areas of Spend and wider management information. Of the samples chosen, four estates and workforce indicators (contingent labour; total cost of office estate; cost of office estate per full-time equivalent; and the cost of office estate per square metre) were said to have some weaknesses which the department was addressing. Also, there were three business plan indicators (cost per decision for all permanent and temporary migration applications; crime rates (violent and property crime reported to the police); and percentage of migration applications decided within target) which were adequate where some improvements could be made and two business plan indicators (cost of producing and issuing a passport; and percentage of passport applications processed within target) that were fit for purpose and cost-effectively run.
The report on the progress in cutting costs in the UKBA and Border Force confirmed that both organisations had achieved cost reduction and performance improvement and that they deserved credit for planning ambitious transformation initiatives in caseworking and in workforce practices at the border, as well as a range of cost reduction measures in contracting and central services. However, insufficiently coherent planning, poor data and delayed delivery of key projects hampered progress.
The Home Office provides leadership and support to help police forces improve procurement to make the savings needed following the 2010 Spending Review. It is also responsible for putting in place a system of assurance to ensure value for money of police expenditure as set out in its Accountability System Statement for Policing and Crime Reduction. On 26 March 2013, the NAO published a report for the Home Office on police procurement. Among the recommendations issued by the NAO was that the department should review and map out the current governance structure for all police expenditure. The report highlighted the need for the department to consider how best to manage the risks implicit in operating a light-touch oversight regime. It identified the need for better understanding of police procurement activity and clarity about how directives will be enforced.
The NAO concluded that the HO financial management provides value for money and is broadly at the required level for our business needs (Financial Management in the Home Office – a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General issued 26 April 2012). However, the report highlighted insufficient access to finance skills as risks to the successful delivery of the department’s change programmes. During 2012-13, a flexible finance resourcing team has been established. The team has provided effective and practical support to a number of change initiatives since its establishment.
Financial Management
Financial management continues to be implemented in accordance with HM Treasury principles, including ensuring regularity, propriety and value for money. Controls are in place to monitor Home Office expenditure/forecasts against key HM Treasury control totals and mechanisms are in place to address any risks of breaching such control totals.
This year the central Home Office Financial Reporting Team prepared the accounts of all the agencies and also the Disclosure and Barring Service. Each of those bodies has access to a dedicated member of the core HO accounts production team. This has assisted in the improved two-way discussions that have enabled greater understanding of the work in each of the areas covered. This has ensured a clear thread from the core to its agencies that assists with the speedier production of the consolidated accounts.
Following last year’s assessment against the NAO financial management maturity model, we have begun to embed the Financial Improvement Programme. We have started by ensuring that there is the right expertise in all areas of the department. To this end we have started a programme of flexible resourcing where a pool of qualified accountants and experienced finance staff are available to assist projects elsewhere in the department. We are liaising closely with the Treasury on their Financial Transformation Programme, and sharing best practice with other government departments, to ensure we benefit from our collective experience and expertise. Sharing best practice across government will help to get transformation of finance right, and ensure the finance community can continue to provide the right advice and support deficit reduction.
Managing Risk of Financial Loss
The Home Office has implemented Managing Risk of Financial Loss, a cross government initiative to encourage departments to embed a systematic approach to assessing the risk of financial loss arising from the operation of financial processes. We set up a central team in the Performance and Finance Directorate, and put in place a stakeholder network to share best practice. We took a risk based approach and ensured that assessments were proportionate to the size of each organisation and drew on pre-existing mechanisms and tools (e.g. the risk framework) so that we joined up, to limit duplication and remain light touch. This project has now been subsumed into ‘business as usual’ financial management across the department. However, we continue to monitor and review financial processes following the move to the Government Procurement Service.
Resources made available to locally governed organisations
A large proportion of Home Office funding is directed through grants to local delivery organisations.
Assurance is gained about probity in the use of public funds through validation of grant payments. Evidence is collated throughout the financial year to provide assurance to the Accounting Officer by the grant holding unit. The financial policy on grants ensures that legislation is in place and is supported by evidence to justify the grant funding from each grant holding unit.
The Accounting Officer encourages value for money in the local use of grants by ensuring that the grant funding links to the delivery of Home Office aims and objectives, with the use of appropriate legislation. Each request must demonstrate value for money, including evidence on how value for money will be achieved and measured. Grants payments are made in accordance with the Home Office regularity and propriety policy as well as HM Treasury guidance on Managing Public Money.
A provision for grant payments is included in the Home Office’s Supply/Main Estimate for each financial year and subsequent years for multiple years grant agreements. The Home Office ensures that grant agreements are signed by the budget holder, in accordance with the Home Office delegated letter of authority.
The Accounting Officer utilises disaggregated information about performance to improve decision making in respect of grant funding allocations, based on evidence gathered on actual activities, outcomes (short/long term) and lessons learnt from grant holding units.
Grant funding allocated to Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) contributes to the delivery of The Home Office Vision statement and Coalition Priorities, as outlined in The Home Office Business Plan 2012-15. Police and Crime Commissioners are accountable for the grant funding, which would be granted to enhance their policing capabilities and operational policing activities to comply with the Police Act 1996. Police and Crime Commissioners are subject to external audit and auditors are required to express an opinion on the arrangements made by each PCC to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of the grant funding.
Accountability System Statement for Policing and Crime Reduction
Accountability System Statements are a formal statement to Parliament by departmental Accounting Officers whose Vote includes provision for locally-delivered public services. The statement enables the Accounting Officer to show Parliament the approach followed, within their part of the public sector, to assuring regularity, propriety and value for money. The Public Accounts Committee uses Accountability System Statements to inform parliamentary scrutiny of the adequacy of systems, supported by the National Audit Office.
Using guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government, whose accountability arrangements in local government are very similar, the Accounting Officer has published a statement that describes the approach followed to ensure regularity, propriety and value for money of funding provided to the police. The statement describes how the Accounting Officer is accountable for the allocation of grants to Local Policing Bodies so that they fulfil their statutory responsibilities, as intended by Parliament, to secure an efficient and effective police force whilst acting with regularity, propriety and securing value for money. It describes further that the Accounting Officer is accountable for the health and effectiveness of the overall system, drawing on information, including reports by regulatory bodies, in order to advise Ministers on any changes that need to be made.
The statement describes how the key components of the system, including Police and Crime Commissioners; Police and Crime Panels; Chief Constables; regulatory and inspection bodies and the public, work together to provide a framework of assurance.
In addition, the statement sets out the legislation and guidance which underpins the system and signposts changes that are expected to be made during the year. It also describes the sources of information, published locally as well as by independent sources, which allow judgements to be made about the efficiency and effectiveness of policing and crime reduction.
The department’s accountability system statement can be accessed through the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accountability-system-statement-for-policing-and-crime-reduction
Transparency
The Home Office continues to meet all its core commitments in support of the transparency programme on time and to quality during 2012-13. Details of our key commitments to opening up government data, and our other work on transparency, were published in our Open Data Strategy in June 2012. This is currently being refreshed, and an updated Open Data Strategy for the Home Office will be published in April 2013.
The Home Office contributes to the quarterly Written Ministerial Statements laid by Cabinet Office before Parliament, the first of which was laid in December 2012. These summarise the progress being made by departments with regard to their work on Transparency. Although the Home Office has performed well in meeting its core commitments, we have experienced delays in meeting some of the specific commitments included in our Open Data Strategy for 2012-13, particularly those relating to the cost and disruption of serious organised crime. Work is ongoing to publish this data during 2013-14.
The Permanent Secretary attended the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearing in May 2012, following publication of the NAO report on Transparency earlier that year. Although the PAC were concerned that insufficient work was being done to understand and communicate the benefits of transparency across government, the Home Office work in this regard in relation to Police.uk was seen as a positive example.
Our Transparency Minister, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, provides the leadership and strategic direction for our work on transparency, whilst more routine governance of this area resides with our SIROs for both the core Home Office and our arm’s length bodies, who combine their SIRO role with that of Transparency Champion. This ensures that an appropriate balance between the twin considerations of information assurance and transparency is maintained, and transparency is a regular agenda item at SIRO meetings. We also benefit from external support and challenge from the joint Crime and Justice Transparency Sector panel which is run jointly with the Ministry of Justice, and is chaired by Dr Kieron O’Hara from the University of Southampton.
Conclusion
We continue to make good progress in improving our control frameworks and in introducing further measures to ensure effective controls operate consistently across the Home Office Group. Over the year ahead, we will extend our strong focus on efficiency and value for money within declining budgets, challenging areas of the business to meet the current and future pressures and to build on the efficiency gains that have been made to date.
There were problems early in the year with long queues at Border Control and also a failure to deliver sufficient security cleared staff by G4S. Lessons have been learned from the outcome of these events with changes made to address their causes. However, the delivery of a safe and secure 2012 Olympics was a major success. We are successfully delivering a number of key programmes, such as the establishment of the National Crime Agency. We have created the College of Policing and the Disclosure and Barring Service during the year and moved towards the phasing out of the National Policing Improvement Agency. The department continues to undergo significant organisational change, including the move of the UKBA to within the core department from 1 April 2013. This change in the department’s structure was necessary because the agency had not been performing well enough. There had been high profile events that led to this decision including the report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, John Vine, that found a backlog of 14,000 cases (some of which had dated back to 2003) where the UKBA failed to deal with requests to reconsider decisions after an initial rejection. The move to bring the different work streams that formed the UKBA into the main department is part of a series of managerial reforms that aim to bring greater coherence to the Home Office’s operations, policy and corporate services.
Mark Sedwill Accounting Officer 28 June 2013 Annex A
Attendance at Supervisory Board Meetings
| Name | Role | Meetings Attended | |-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | Theresa May | Home Secretary | 5 | | Mark Harper (from 5 September 2012) | Immigration Minister | 2 | | Lord Taylor of Holbeach (from 6 September 2012) | Lords Minister and Minister for Criminal Information | 2 | | Jeremy Browne (from 5 September 2012) | Minister of State for Crime Prevention | 2 | | Damian Green (until 4 September 2012) | Immigration Minister | 3 | | Damian Green (from 5 September 2012) | Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice (jointly with Ministry of Justice) | - | | James Brokenshire | Security Minister | 4 | | Lord Henley (until 4 September 2012) | Minister of State for Crime Prevention and Anti-Social Behaviour Reduction | 1 | | Lynne Featherstone (until 4 September 2012) | Parliamentary Under Secretary for Equalities and Criminal Information | 1 | | Nick Herbert (until 4 September 2012) | Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice (jointly with Ministry of Justice) | 2 | | Dame Helen Ghosh (until 28 September 2012) | Permanent Secretary | 2 | | Helen Kilpatrick (from 28 September 2012 until 1 February 2013) | Acting Permanent Secretary | 3 | | Mark Sedwill (From 1 February 2013) | Permanent Secretary | | | Helen Kilpatrick (from 1 April 2012 until 27 September 2012 and from 1 February 2013) | Director General, Finance and Corporate Services | 2 | | Mike Anderson | Director General of the Strategy, Immigration and International Group | 5 | | Charles Farr | Director General, Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 4 | | Peter Kane (from 10 September 2012 until 1 February 2013) | Acting Director General, Finance and Corporate Services | 3 | | Stephen Rimmer | Director General, Crime and Policing Group | 5 | | Brian Moore (until 31 August 2012) | Director General, UK Border Force | 2 | | Tony Smith (since 19 September 2012) | Acting Director General, Border Force | 3 | | Rob Whiteman | Chief Executive, UK Border Agency | 5 | | Philip Augar | Non-executive board member | 4 | | Val Gooding | Non-executive board member | 5 | | Dianne Thompson | Non-executive board member | 3 | | John Allan | Non-executive board member | 5 |
### Attendance at Executive Management Board meetings
| Name | Role | Meetings Attended | |-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------| | Dame Helen Ghosh | Permanent Secretary | 4 | | (until 28 September 2012) | | | | Helen Kilpatrick | Acting Permanent Secretary | 3 | | (between 28 September 2012 | | | | until 1 February 2013) | | | | Mark Sedwill | Permanent Secretary | 3 | | (From 1 February 2013) | | | | Helen Kilpatrick | Director General, Finance and Corporate Services | 7 | | (from 1 April 2012 until | | | | 27 September 2012 and from | | | | 1 February until present) | | | | Mike Anderson | Director General of the Strategy, Immigration and International Group| 9 | | Charles Farr | Director General, Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 10 | | Peter Kane | Acting Director General, Finance and Corporate Services | 3 | | (from 10 September 2012 | | | | until 1 February 2013) | | | | Stephen Rimmer | Director General, Crime and Policing Group | 10 | | Tony Smith | Acting Director General, Border Force | 5 | | (since 19 September 2012) | | | | Brian Moore | Director General, UK Border Force | 3 | | (until 18 September 2012) | | | | Rob Whiteman | Chief Executive, UK Border Agency | 10 | | Jonathan Jones | Legal Advisor | 6 | | (since 1 October 2012) | | | | David Seymour | Legal Advisor | - | | (until 28 June 2012) | | | | Kevin White | Director General, Human Resources | 9 | | Simon Wren | Director, Communications | 8 | | Philip Augar | Non-executive board member | 7 | | Sir Charles Montgomery | Director General, Border Force | 1 | | (From 19 March 2013) | | |
## Attendance at Audit and Risk Assurance Committee meetings
| Name | Role | Meetings Attended | |-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------| | John Allan | Chair | 3 | | Val Gooding | Deputy Chairperson | 4 | | Peter Conway | Independent Member | 3 | | Mike Hawker (until 1 October) | Audit Chair of UKBA | 2 | | Anne Tutt | Audit Chair of IPS | 4 | | Charlie Pienkowski (until 31 October) | Audit Chair of CRB | 2 | | Katherine Kerswell (From 2 October) | Audit Chair of UKBA | 1 | THE CERTIFICATE AND REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
I certify that I have audited the financial statements of the Home Office and of its Departmental Group for the year ended 31 March 2013 under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. The Department consists of the core Department and its agencies. The Departmental Group consists of the Department and the bodies designated for inclusion under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Estimates and Accounts) Order 2012. The financial statements comprise: the Department’s and Departmental Group’s Statements of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, Financial Position, Cash Flows, Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity; and the related notes. I have also audited the Statement of Parliamentary Supply and the related notes. These financial statements have been prepared under the accounting policies set out within them. I have also audited the information in the Remuneration Report that is described in that report as having been audited.
Respective responsibilities of the Accounting Officer and auditor As explained more fully in the Statement of Accounting Officer’s Responsibilities, the Accounting Officer is responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a true and fair view. My responsibility is to audit, certify and report on the financial statements in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. I conducted my audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland). Those standards require me and my staff to comply with the Auditing Practices Board’s Ethical Standards for Auditors.
Scope of the audit of the financial statements An audit involves obtaining evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. This includes an assessment of: whether the accounting policies are appropriate to the Department’s and the Departmental Group’s circumstances and have been consistently applied and adequately disclosed; the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by the Accounting Officer; and the overall presentation of the financial statements. In addition I read all the financial and non-financial information in the annual report to identify material inconsistencies with the audited financial statements. If I become aware of any apparent material misstatements or inconsistencies I consider the implications for my certificate.
I am required to obtain evidence sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the Statement of Parliamentary Supply properly presents the outturn against voted Parliamentary control totals and that those totals have not been exceeded. The voted Parliamentary control totals are Departmental Expenditure Limits (Resource and Capital), Annually Managed Expenditure (Resource and Capital), Non-Budget (Resource) and Net Cash Requirement. I am also required to obtain evidence sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the expenditure and income recorded in the financial statements have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions recorded in the financial statements conform to the authorities which govern them.
Opinion on regularity In my opinion, in all material respects:
• the Statement of Parliamentary Supply properly presents the outturn against voted Parliamentary control totals for the year ended 31 March 2013 and shows that those totals have not been exceeded; and • the expenditure and income recorded in the financial statements have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions recorded in the financial statements conform to the authorities which govern them.
Opinion on financial statements In my opinion:
• the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of the Department’s and the Departmental Group’s affairs as at 31 March 2013 and of the Department’s net operating cost and Departmental Group’s net operating cost for the year then ended; and • the financial statements have been properly prepared in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and HM Treasury directions issued thereunder. Emphasis of Matter – Uncertainties over e-Borders legal case
Without qualifying my opinion, I draw attention to the disclosures made in Note 30 which describes the uncertainty as to the outcome of the arbitration process between UKBA and Raytheon, who are both claiming damages from the other party.
Opinion on other matters In my opinion:
• the part of the Remuneration Report to be audited has been properly prepared in accordance with HM Treasury directions made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000; and • the information given in the Foreword to the accounts and Remuneration Report and the Sustainability Report for the financial year for which the financial statements are prepared is consistent with the financial statements.
Matters on which I report by exception I have nothing to report in respect of the following matters which I report to you if, in my opinion:
• adequate accounting records have not been kept or returns adequate for my audit have not been received from branches not visited by my staff; or • the financial statements and the part of the Remuneration Report to be audited are not in agreement with the accounting records and returns; or • I have not received all of the information and explanations I require for my audit; or • the Governance Statement does not reflect compliance with HM Treasury’s guidance.
Report I have no observations to make on these financial statements.
Amyas C E Morse Comptroller and Auditor General
Date 2 July 2013
National Audit Office 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road Victoria London SW1W 9SP
## STATEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY SUPPLY
### Summary of Resource and Capital Outturn 2012-13
| £000 | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |------|---------|---------| | | Estimate | Outturn | Voted | Non-Voted | Total | Voted | Non-Voted | Total | Restated Total | | **Departmental Expenditure Limit** | | | | | | | | | | | - Resource | 2 | 8,577,406 | - | 8,577,406 | 8,303,748 | - | 8,303,748 | 273,658 | 8,835,170 | | - Capital | 2 | 461,467 | - | 461,467 | 442,109 | - | 442,109 | 19,358 | 487,507 | | **Annually Managed Expenditure** | | | | | | | | | | | - Resource | 2 | 1,414,118 | - | 1,414,118 | 1,260,214 | - | 1,260,214 | 153,904 | 1,060,092 | | - Capital | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | **Total Budget** | | | | | | | | | | | 10,452,991 | - | 10,452,991 | 10,006,071 | - | 10,006,071 | 446,920 | 10,382,769 | | **Non-Budget** | | | | | | | | | | | - Resource | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | **Total** | | | | | | | | | | | 10,452,991 | - | 10,452,991 | 10,006,071 | - | 10,006,071 | 446,920 | 10,382,769 | | **Total Resource** | | | | | | | | | | | 9,991,524 | - | 9,991,524 | 9,563,962 | - | 9,563,962 | 427,562 | 9,991,262 | | **Total Capital** | | | | | | | | | | | 461,467 | - | 461,467 | 442,109 | - | 442,109 | 19,358 | 487,507 | | **Total** | | | | | | | | | | | 10,452,991 | - | 10,452,991 | 10,006,071 | - | 10,006,071 | 446,920 | 10,382,769 |
### Net Cash Requirement 2012-13
| 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |---------|---------| | Note | Estimate | Outturn | Outturn | | 4 | 10,160,441 | 9,790,866 | 369,575 | 9,991,249 |
### Administration Costs 2012-13
| 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |---------|---------| | Note | Estimate | Outturn | | 3.2 | 540,796 | 477,448 | 548,558 |
Explanations to variances between Estimates and Outturn are given in the foreword to the accounts. The notes on pages 105 to 171 form part of these accounts.
### CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE NET EXPENDITURE
for the year ended 31 March 2013
| Note | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | |------|-----------------|---------------------------|-----------------|---------------------------| | Administration Costs: | | | | | | Staff costs | 7 | 169,816 | 257,428 | 303,658 | 164,224 | 261,806 | 312,699 | | Other costs | 8 | 168,199 | 241,061 | 280,491 | 156,401 | 222,850 | 269,601 | | Income | 10 | (34,821) | (83,694) | (92,417) | (34,768) | (79,619) | (83,530) | | Programme Costs: | | | | | | Staff costs | 7 | 381,443 | 864,545 | 1,163,099 | 358,226 | 844,488 | 1,165,206 | | Other costs | 9 | 8,316,360 | 9,707,062 | 10,095,532 | 8,125,151 | 9,455,683 | 10,002,866 | | Income | 10 | (421,635) | (1,939,999) | (2,058,600) | (229,375) | (1,824,853) | (1,734,010) | | Grant in Aid to NDPBs | | 551,653 | 555,641 | - | 804,422 | 808,103 | - | | Net Operating Costs for the year ended 31 March 2013 | | 9,131,015 | 9,602,044 | 9,691,763 | 9,344,281 | 9,888,458 | 9,932,832 | | Total expenditure | | 9,587,471 | 11,625,737 | 11,842,780 | 9,608,424 | 11,592,930 | 11,750,372 | | Total income | | (456,456) | (2,023,693) | (2,151,017) | (264,143) | (1,704,472) | (1,817,540) | | Net Operating Costs for the year ended 31 March 2013 | | 9,131,015 | 9,602,044 | 9,691,763 | 9,344,281 | 9,888,458 | 9,932,832 |
All activities are continuing operations. The 2011-12 results have been restated to remove the Government Equalities Office and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
### OTHER COMPREHENSIVE NET EXPENDITURE
| Note | Core Department | Core Dept. & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Dept. & Agencies | Departmental Group | |------|-----------------|-----------------------|-------------------|-----------------|-----------------------|-------------------| | Net (gain)/loss on: | | | | | | | | - revaluation of property plant & equipment | (11,170) | (20,869) | (19,536) | (13,811) | (23,241) | (27,502) | | - Intangibles | (9,501) | (22,806) | (25,843) | (698) | (2,925) | (2,925) | | - revaluation of available for sale financial assets | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Pensions – Actuarial (gains)/losses | - | - | 10,937 | - | - | (7,326) | | Total comprehensive expenditure for the year ended 31 March 2013 | 9,110,344 | 9,558,369 | 9,657,321 | 9,329,772 | 9,862,292 | 9,895,079 |
The notes on pages 105 to 171 form part of these accounts.
## CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION
as at 31 March 2013
| Note | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | |------|----------------|---------------------------|--------------------|----------------|---------------------------|--------------------|----------------|---------------------------|--------------------| | | 31 March 2013 £000 | Restated 31 March 2012 £000 | Restated 31 March 2011 £000 | | | Non-current assets: | | | | | Property, plant and equipment | 12 | 646,982 | 1,157,060 | 1,311,897 | 407,079 | 927,291 | 1,300,817 | 422,218 | 940,547 | 1,348,236 | | | Intangible assets | 13 | 123,312 | 506,097 | 568,267 | 58,568 | 398,452 | 544,626 | 33,148 | 283,437 | 438,192 | | | Investments | 15 | - | - | 510 | 1 | 1 | 468 | 1 | 1 | 428 | | | Trade receivables and other non-current assets | 18 | - | 1,049 | 3,211 | - | - | 3,670 | - | - | 4,990 | | | Total non-current assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | 770,294 | 1,664,206 | 1,883,885 | 465,647 | 1,325,744 | 1,849,581 | 455,367 | 1,223,985 | 1,792,846 | | | Current assets: | | | | | Assets classified as held for sale | 11 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 45 | 45 | | | Inventories | 17 | - | 12,343 | 12,343 | - | 8,307 | 8,307 | - | 7,558 | 7,558 | | | Trade and other receivables | 18 | 249,405 | 348,381 | 376,542 | 201,445 | 355,723 | 386,122 | 211,319 | 316,170 | 372,167 | | | Cash and cash equivalents | 19 | 32,962 | 46,183 | 95,715 | 53,100 | 53,722 | 132,529 | 121,116 | 200,402 | 246,603 | | | Total current assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | 282,367 | 406,907 | 484,600 | 254,545 | 417,752 | 526,958 | 332,435 | 524,175 | 626,373 | | | Total assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1,052,661 | 2,071,113 | 2,368,485 | 720,192 | 1,743,496 | 2,376,539 | 787,802 | 1,748,160 | 2,419,219 | | | Current liabilities: | | | | | Provisions | 21 | 11,295 | 41,592 | 44,544 | 62,237 | 93,191 | 99,289 | 80,470 | 119,816 | 124,884 | | | Trade and other payables | 20 | 956,869 | 1,369,913 | 1,454,220 | 989,472 | 1,433,599 | 1,517,536 | 1,058,938 | 1,392,083 | 1,501,309 | | | Total current liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | 968,164 | 1,411,505 | 1,498,764 | 1,051,709 | 1,526,790 | 1,616,825 | 1,139,408 | 1,511,899 | 1,626,193 | | | Non-current assets plus/less net current assets/ liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | 84,497 | 659,608 | 869,721 | (331,517) | 216,706 | 759,714 | (351,606) | 236,261 | 793,026 | | | Non-current liabilities: | | | | | Other payables | 20 | 230,301 | 296,777 | 302,969 | 222,348 | 290,709 | 309,505 | 223,988 | 301,171 | 322,200 | | | Provisions | 21 | 79,601 | 141,691 | 160,307 | 36,533 | 87,106 | 111,331 | 20,778 | 70,565 | 94,076 | | | Pensions Liability | - | - | 537,198 | - | - | 514,291 | - | - | 501,362 | | | Total non-current liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | 309,902 | 438,468 | 1,000,474 | 258,881 | 377,815 | 935,127 | 244,766 | 371,736 | 917,638 | | | Assets less liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | (225,405) | 221,140 | (130,753) | (590,398) | (161,109) | (175,413) | (596,372) | (135,475) | (124,612) | | | Taxpayers’ equity and other reserves: | | | | | General fund | | | | | | | | | | | | | Revaluation reserve | | | | | | | | | | | | | Pensions Reserve | - | - | (404,282) | - | - | (393,290) | - | - | (400,536) | | | Total equity | | | | | | | | | | | | | (225,405) | 221,140 | (130,753) | (590,398) | (161,109) | (175,413) | (596,372) | (135,475) | (124,612) |
The notes on pages 105 to 171 form part of these accounts.
Mark Sedwill Accounting Officer 28 June 2013
## CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
for the year ended 31 March 2013
| Note | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | |------|---------------------------------|-------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------| | | 2012-13 | Restated 2011-12 | | | | | | | | | | Cash flows from operating activities | | | | | | Net operating cost | (9,602,044) | (9,691,763) | (9,888,458) | (9,932,832) | | Adjustments for non-cash transactions | 281,615 | 394,090 | 319,961 | 434,851 | | (Increase)/decrease in trade and other receivables | 18 | 6,293 | 10,039 | (39,553) | (12,635) | | less movements in receivables relating to items not passing through the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure | (9,508) | (9,532) | 21,458 | 21,510 | | (Increase)/decrease in inventories | 17 | (4,036) | (4,036) | (749) | (749) | | Increase/(decrease) in trade payables | 20 | (57,618) | (69,852) | 32,334 | 4,812 | | less movements in payables relating to items not passing through the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure | 23,110 | 33,106 | 161,242 | 160,173 | | Use of provisions | 21 | (44,065) | (48,776) | (93,496) | (98,574) | | Reduction in pension liability | - | 11,915 | - | 20,255 | | Net cash outflow from operating activities | (9,406,253) | (9,374,809) | (9,487,261) | (9,403,189) | | Cash flows from investing activities | | | | | | Purchase of property, plant and equipment | (107,990) | (138,170) | (69,275) | (108,105) | | Purchase of intangible assets | (146,710) | (163,448) | (160,898) | (184,523) | | Proceeds of disposal of property, plant and equipment | (6) | 348 | 2,946 | 4,416 | | Proceeds of disposal of intangibles | 56 | 33 | 262 | 478 | | Proceeds of disposal of assets held for sale | - | - | 45 | 45 | | Payments to acquire investments | - | (43) | - | - | | Receipts from sale of investments | - | - | - | - | | Loans to other bodies | - | - | - | - | | (Repayments) from other bodies | - | - | - | - | | Net cash outflow from investing activities | (254,650) | (301,280) | (226,920) | (287,689) | | Cash flows from financing activities | | | | | | From the Consolidated Fund (Supply) – current year | 9,804,320 | 9,804,320 | 9,811,879 | 9,811,879 | | From the Consolidated Fund (Supply) – prior year | 26,659 | 26,659 | - | - | | From the Consolidated Fund (non-Supply) | - | - | - | - | | ARIS funding | - | - | - | 8,725 | | Capital element of payments in respect of finance leases and on balance sheet (SoFP) PFI contracts | (63,085) | (73,323) | (89,107) | (88,520) | | Net financing | 9,767,894 | 9,757,656 | 9,722,772 | 9,732,084 | | Net increase/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents in the period before adjustment for receipts and payments to the Consolidated Fund | 106,991 | 81,567 | 8,591 | 41,206 | | Payments of amounts due to the Consolidated Fund | (114,530) | (118,381) | (153,991) | (154,000) | | Net increase/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents in the period after adjustment for receipts and payments to the Consolidated Fund | (7,539) | (36,814) | (145,400) | (112,794) | | Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the period | 53,722 | 132,529 | 199,122 | 245,323 | | Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period | 46,183 | 95,715 | 53,722 | 132,529 |
The notes on pages 105 to 171 form part of these accounts.
(\*) Included within the non-cash transaction adjustment are adjustments for opening balance differences and asset transfers of £25,355k (departmental group) and £53,714k (core department and agencies).
## CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN TAXPAYERS’ EQUITY
for the year ended 31 March 2013
| General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | Balance at 31 March 2011 | 137,965 | 137,959 | (400,536) | (124,612) | | Changes in accounting policy | 1,166 | 579 | - | 1,745 | | Restated balance at 1 April 2011 | 139,131 | 138,538 | (400,536) | (122,867) | | Net Parliamentary Funding – drawn down | 9,811,879 | - | - | 9,811,879 | | Net Parliamentary Funding – deemed | 109,241 | - | - | 109,241 | | ARIS funding | 8,725 | - | - | 8,725 | | Supply payable/(receivable) adjustment | 26,660 | - | - | 26,660 | | Amounts payable to the Consolidated Fund | (112,766) | - | - | (112,766) | | Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the year | (9,932,832) | - | - | (9,932,832) |
### Non-Cash Adjustments:
- Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of property, plant and equipment: - 27,502 - 27,502
- Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of intangible assets: - 2,925 - 2,925
- Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of investments: - - - -
### Movements in Reserves:
- Non-cash charges – auditor’s remuneration: 1,046 - - 1,046
- Notional charges and income: 328 - - 328
- External transfers: (910) 141 - (769)
- Actuarial gain/loss in year: - - 7,326 7,326
- Release of reserves to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure: (710) - - (710)
- Other – ABIOS and Omnibase revaluations: (1,529) - - (1,529)
- Other – DBS VAT adjustment: 428 - - 428
- Transfers between reserves: 12,208 (12,128) (80) -
| Balance at 31 March 2012 | 60,899 | 156,978 | (393,290) | (175,413) |
### General Fund
| Description | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |--------------------------------------------------|-------------------|--------------------------|----------------------|---------------------| | Balance at 31 March 2012 | 60,899 | 156,978 | (393,290) | (175,413) | | Border Force opening adjustment | (11,737) | - | - | (11,737) | | Restated balance at 1 April 2012 | 49,162 | 156,978 | (393,290) | (187,150) | | Net Parliamentary Funding – drawn down | 9,804,320 | - | - | 9,804,320 | | Net Parliamentary Funding – deemed | - | - | - | - | | Supply payable/(receivable) adjustment | (13,454) | - | - | (13,454) | | Amounts payable to the Consolidated Fund | (88,923) | - | - | (88,923) | | Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the year | (9,691,763) | - | - | (9,691,763) | | **Non-Cash Adjustments:** | | | | | | Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of property, plant and equipment | - | 19,536 | - | 19,536 | | Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of intangible assets | - | 25,843 | - | 25,843 | | Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of investments | - | - | - | - | | **Movements in Reserves:** | | | | | | Non-cash charges – auditor’s remuneration | 949 | - | - | 949 | | Notional charges and income | - | - | - | - | | External transfers | 13,495 | (509) | (3) | 12,983 | | Actuarial gain/loss in year | - | - | (10,937) | (10,937) | | Release of reserves to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure | - | - | - | - | | Other – Consolidated Fund payable adjustment | (2,157) | - | - | (2,157) | | Transfers between reserves | 15,183 | (15,131) | (52) | - | | **Balance at 31 March 2013** | 86,812 | 186,717 | (404,282) | (130,753) |
Of which:
| Description | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |-------------|-------------------|--------------------------|----------------------|---------------------| | Core department | (305,414) | 80,009 | - | (225,405) | | Agencies | 351,310 | 95,235 | - | 446,545 | | NDPBs | 40,916 | 11,473 | (404,282) | (351,893) | | **Total** | 86,812 | 186,717 | (404,282) | (130,753) | STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN TAXPAYERS’ EQUITY (CORE DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES)
for the year ended 31 March 2013
| Description | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|--------------------------|----------------------|---------------------| | **Balance at 31 March 2011** | (247,327) | 111,852 | - | (135,475) | | Changes in accounting policy | 1,166 | 579 | - | 1,745 | | **Restated balance at 1 April 2011** | (246,161) | 112,431 | - | (133,730) | | Net Parliamentary Funding – drawn down | 9,811,879 | - | - | 9,811,879 | | Net Parliamentary Funding – deemed | 109,241 | - | - | 109,241 | | Supply payable/(receivable) adjustment | 26,660 | - | - | 26,660 | | Amounts payable to the Consolidated Fund | (112,757) | - | - | (112,757) | | **Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the year** | (9,888,458) | - | - | (9,888,458) | | **Non-Cash Adjustments:** | | | | | | Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of property, plant and equipment | - | 23,241 | - | 23,241 | | Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of intangible assets | - | 2,925 | - | 2,925 | | **Movements in Reserves:** | | | | | | Non-cash charges – auditor’s remuneration | 1,046 | - | - | 1,046 | | Notional charges and income | 325 | - | - | 325 | | External transfers | (591) | 207 | - | (384) | | Release of reserves to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure | 2 | - | - | 2 | | Other – ABIOS and Omnibase revaluations | (1,527) | - | - | (1,527) | | VAT movement | 428 | - | - | 428 | | Removal of CFER write off | - | - | - | - | | Transfers between reserves | 12,128 | (12,128) | - | - | | **Balance at 31 March 2012** | (287,785) | 126,676 | - | (161,109) |
### General Fund
| Description | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |--------------------------------------------------|-------------------|--------------------------|----------------------|---------------------| | Balance at 31 March 2012 | (287,785) | 126,676 | - | (161,109) | | Border Force opening adjustment | (11,737) | - | - | (11,737) | | Restated balance at 1 April 2012 | (299,522) | 126,676 | - | (172,846) | | Net Parliamentary Funding – drawn down | 9,804,320 | - | - | 9,804,320 | | Net Parliamentary Funding – deemed | - | - | - | - | | Supply payable/(receivable) adjustment | (13,454) | - | - | (13,454) | | Amounts payable to the Consolidated Fund | (85,065) | - | - | (85,065) | | Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the year | (9,602,044) | - | - | (9,602,044) |
### Non-Cash Adjustments:
- Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of property, plant and equipment: - 20,869 - 20,869
- Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of intangible assets: - 22,806 - 22,806
- Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of investments: - - - -
### Movements in Reserves:
- Non-cash charges – auditor’s remuneration: 949 - - 949
- Notional charges and income: - - - -
- Change in accounting policy: - - - -
- External transfers: 227,816 19,946 - 247,762
- Non retainable element of bad debt write off: - - - -
- Consolidated Fund payable adjustment: (2,157) - - (2,157)
- Transfers between reserves: 15,053 (15,053) - -
### Balance at 31 March 2013
| General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |-------------------|--------------------------|----------------------|---------------------| | 45,896 | 175,244 | - | 221,140 |
The notes on pages 105 to 171 form part of these accounts. Notes to the departmental accounts for the period ending 31 March 2013
1. Statement of accounting policies
Basis of preparation
The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the 2012-13 Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) issued by HM Treasury. The accounting policies contained in the FReM apply International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as adapted or interpreted for the public sector context. Where the FReM permits a choice of accounting policy, the accounting policy which is judged to be most appropriate to the particular circumstances of the department for the purpose of giving a true and fair view has been selected. The particular policies adopted by the department are described below. They have been applied consistently in dealing with items that are considered material to the financial statements.
In addition to the primary statements prepared under IFRS, the FReM also requires the department to prepare a Statement of Parliamentary Supply and supporting notes show outturn against Estimate in terms of the net resource requirement and the net cash requirement.
The financial statements are presented in Sterling and all values are rounded to the nearest thousand pounds (£000). The Consolidated Statement of Financial Position as at 31 March 2013 shows taxpayers’ equity of (£104) million.
In common with other government departments, the future financing of the department’s liabilities is to be met by future grants of Supply and the application of future income, both to be approved annually by Parliament. It has been considered appropriate to adopt a going concern basis for the preparation of these financial statements.
The accounts have been prepared under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.
1.1 Accounting convention
These accounts have been prepared on an accruals basis under the historical cost convention modified to account for the revaluation of property, plant and equipment, intangible assets and inventories.
1.2 Restatement of 2011-12 Results
The results for 2011-12 have been restated to exclude the financial data of both the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the Government Equalities Office (GEO) under a Machinery of Government change. Following a change in Ministerial responsibilities, the EHRC and GEO transferred to the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) on 1 April 2012 under merger accounting rules.
1.3 Changes within the departmental boundary
The department underwent significant organisation change during the year. This included:
a) the creation of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) from the merger of the former executive agency the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and the Non Departmental Public Body the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). The DBS was created on 1 December 2012. The creation of the DBS and winding up of the CRB and ISA has been accounted for under absorption accounting principles; and
b) the creation of College of Policing (CoP) which commenced operations on 3 December 2012. The CoP was created by a transfer of responsibilities, staff and assets from the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA). It was established as a company limited by guarantee, and, in its interim state, is consolidated within the department’s accounts as a quasi-NDPB. The winding up of the NPIA continued during the year, with other transfers of responsibilities to the core department. The NPIA is expected to be formally wound up during 2013-14. 1.4 Basis of consolidation
These accounts include the non-agency parts of the department (the core department) and its executive agencies: UK Border Agency (UKBA), the Identity & Passport Service (IPS), the National Fraud Authority (NFA) and the former Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). In addition, the Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) of the Home Office are also consolidated in these accounts. The NDPBs consolidated within the departmental boundary are: Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), the former Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC), Security Industry Authority (SIA), Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
The executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies also produce and publish their own Annual Reports and Accounts. Transactions between entities included in the consolidated accounts are eliminated.
1.5 Judgments and key sources of estimation uncertainty
The preparation of financial statements requires management to make judgements and assumptions that affect the amounts reported for assets and liabilities at the year ending 31 March, and for amounts reported for income and expenses during the year.
In the process of applying the department’s accounting policies, management has made the following judgements, which have the most significant effect on the amounts recognised in the financial statements:
Impairment of assets The department assesses whether there are any indicators of impairment for all financial and non-financial assets at each reporting date. Assets are tested for impairment when there are indicators that the carrying amounts may not be recoverable.
When value in use calculations are undertaken, if the asset is not held for the purpose of generating cash flows, value in use is assumed to be equal to the cost of replacing the service potential provided by the asset, unless there has been a reduction in service potential.
Leases The department is the lessee of property, plant and equipment. The classification of such leases as operating or finance lease requires the department to determine, based on an evaluation of the terms and conditions of the arrangements, whether it retains or acquires the significant risks and rewards of ownership of these assets and accordingly whether the lease requires an asset and liability to be recognised in the Statement of Financial Position.
Service concession arrangements The department is party to Private Finance Initiatives (PFI). The classification of such arrangements as service concession arrangements requires the department to determine, based on an evaluation of the terms and conditions of the arrangements, whether it controls the infrastructure.
Development costs Initial capitalisation of costs is based on management’s judgement that technological and economical feasibility is confirmed.
There were no key sources of estimation uncertainty.
1.6 Administration and programme expenditure
The Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure is analysed between administration and programme costs. Administration costs reflect the costs of running the department. These include both the administration costs and associated operating income.
Programme costs reflect non-administration costs, including payments of grants and other disbursements by the department, as well as certain staff costs where they relate directly to service provision. The classification of expenditure and income as administration or as programme follows the definition of administration costs set out by HM Treasury.
1.7 Property, plant and equipment
Property, plant and equipment is recognised initially at cost and thereafter carried at fair value less depreciation and impairment charged subsequent to the date of revaluation.
Cost comprises the amount of cash paid to acquire the asset and includes any costs directly attributable to making the asset capable of operating as intended. The capitalisation threshold for expenditure on property, plant and equipment is £5,000.
Fair value of properties is based on professional valuations every five years and in the intervening years by the use of published indices appropriate to the type of property. Valuations are undertaken in accordance with the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Appraisal and Evaluation Manual. Other operational assets are revalued to open market value where obtainable, or on the basis of depreciated replacement cost where market value is not obtainable. Published indices appropriate to the category of asset are normally used to estimate value.
Any revaluation surplus is credited to the revaluation reserve except to the extent that it reverses a decrease in the carrying value of the same asset previously recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, in which case the increase is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. A revaluation deficit is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, except to the extent of any existing surplus in respect of that asset in the revaluation reserve.
Depreciation is calculated to write down the costs of the assets to their estimated residual value on a straight-line basis over their expected useful lives as follows:
| Asset Type | Useful Life | |-----------------------------|----------------------| | Buildings | up to 60 years or life of lease | | Improvements to leasehold buildings | duration of lease or anticipated useful life | | Plant and equipment | 2 to 15 years | | Computers | 2 to 15 years | | Vehicles | 3 to 7 years | | Furniture and fittings | 3 to 10 years |
Assets in the course of construction are not depreciated until the point at which they are ready to be brought into use. No depreciation is provided on freehold land and non-current assets held for sale.
The carrying values of property, plant and equipment are reviewed for impairment if events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value may not be recoverable, and are written down immediately to their recoverable amount. Useful lives and residual values are reviewed annually and where adjustments are required these are made prospectively.
1.8 Intangible assets
Intangible assets are measured on initial recognition at cost. Following initial recognition, where an active market exists, intangible assets are carried at fair value at the period ending 31 March. Where no active market exists the department uses published indices to assess the depreciated replacement cost. Internally generated intangible assets, excluding capitalised development costs, are not capitalised and expenditure is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure in the year in which the expenditure is incurred.
The useful lives of intangible assets are assessed to be either finite or indefinite. All intangible assets are currently assessed to have a finite life and are assessed for impairment whenever there is an indication that the intangible asset may be impaired. The amortisation period and the amortisation method are reviewed at least at each financial year end.
Software licences
Externally acquired computer software licences are amortised over the shorter of the term of the licence and the useful economic life of three to fifteen years. Internally developed software This includes software that arises from internal or third party development for internal or external access. The direct costs associated with the development stage of internally developed software are included in the cost of the asset. These assets are amortised over the useful economic life of three to ten years. Note 13 to the accounts refers to these assets as Information Technology (IT).
Research and development Research costs are expensed as incurred. Development expenditure is recognised as an intangible asset when the department can demonstrate: the technical feasibility of completing the intangible asset so that it will be available for use, its intention to complete and its ability to use the asset, how the asset will generate future economic benefits, the availability of resources to complete the asset and the ability to measure reliably the expenditure during development.
Following initial recognition of development expenditure as an asset, where an active market exists, the asset is subsequently measured at fair value. Where no active market exists, the asset is carried at amortised replacement cost, indexed for relevant price increases, as a proxy for fair value.
Assets in the course of construction are not amortised until the point at which they are ready to be brought into use.
Expenditure which does not meet the criteria for capitalisation is treated as an operating cost in the year in which it is incurred.
1.9 Third party assets The department holds funds on behalf of third parties. Such funds include citizenship ceremony fees, proceeds of crime and bail bonds. These funds are not recognised in the financial statements as the department has no beneficial interest in them. Details of the assets held on behalf of third parties are given in Note 27 to the accounts.
1.10 Leases Assets held under finance leases, which transfer to the department substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of the leased item, are capitalised at the inception of the lease, with a corresponding liability being recognised for the lower of the fair value of the leased asset and the present value of the minimum lease payments. Lease payments are apportioned between the reduction of the lease liability and finance charges in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure so as to achieve a constant rate of interest on the remaining balance of the liability. Assets held under finance leases are depreciated over the shorter of the estimated useful life of the asset and the lease term.
Leases where the lessor retains a significant portion of the risks and benefits of ownership of the asset are classified as operating leases and the rentals payable are charged to the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure on a straight line basis over the lease term.
1.11 Service concessions (PFI/PPP) The department accounts for PFI transactions on a control approach based on the FReM, which uses IFRIC 12 Service Concession Arrangements to inform its treatment. The department is considered to control the infrastructure in a public-to-private service concession arrangement if:
- the department controls or regulates the services that the operator must provide using the infrastructure, to whom it must provide them, and at what price
- the department controls any significant residual interest in the property at the end of the concession term through ownership, beneficial entitlement or otherwise
Where it is determined that such arrangements are not in scope of IFRIC 12, the department assesses such arrangements under IFRIC 4 Determining whether an Arrangement contains a Lease. Where it is identified that the arrangement conveys a right to use an asset in return for a payment or series of payments, the lease element is accounted for as either an operating lease or finance lease in accordance with the risk and reward based approach set out at section 1.10 Leases.
Where it is determined that arrangements are in scope of IFRIC 12, the department recognises the infrastructure as a non-current asset.
Where the contract is separable between the service element, the interest charge and the infrastructure asset, the asset is measured as under IAS 17, with the service element and the interest charge recognised as incurred over the term of the concession arrangement. Where there is a unitary payment stream that includes infrastructure and service elements that cannot be separated, the various elements will be separated using estimation techniques.
In determining the interest rate implicit in the contract, the department applies the risk-free market rate at the time the contract was signed. The rate is not changed unless the infrastructure element or the whole contract is renegotiated. The risk-free rate is determined by reference to the real rate set by HM Treasury, currently 3.5%. The nominal rate is then calculated by adjusting this real term rate by the UK inflation rate.
The department recognises a liability for the capital value of the contract. That liability does not include the interest charge and service elements, which are expensed annually to the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure.
On initial recognition of existing PPP arrangements or PFI contracts under IFRS, the department measures the non-current asset in the same way as other non-current assets of that generic type. A liability is recognised for the capital value of the contract at its fair value at the period end, which will normally be the outstanding liability in respect of the property (that is, excluding the interest and service elements), discounted by the interest rate implicit in the contract.
Assets are revalued in accordance with the revaluation policy for property, plant and equipment (section 1.7 above) and intangible assets (section 1.8 above). Liabilities are measured using the appropriate discount rate. Revenue received under any revenue sharing provision in the service concession arrangement is recognised when all the conditions laid down in IAS 18 Revenue have been satisfied.
1.12 Financial Instruments
Financial assets
Financial assets are recognised when the department becomes party to the contracts that give rise to them and are classified as: financial assets at fair value through profit or loss, loans and receivables, held-to-maturity investments, or as available-for-sale financial assets as appropriate. The department determines the classification of its financial assets at initial recognition and, where allowed and appropriate, re-evaluates this designation at each financial year-end.
When financial assets are recognised initially, they are measured at fair value, except for loans, Public Dividend Capital (PDC) and other interests in public bodies outside the departmental boundary which are reported at historical cost, less any impairment.
Fair value is determined as the transaction price plus, in the case of financial assets not at fair value through profit or loss, directly attributable transaction costs. The department considers whether a contract contains an embedded derivative when the entity first becomes party to it. Embedded derivatives are separated from the host contract if it is not measured at fair value through profit or loss and when the economic characteristics and risks are not closely related to those of the host contract.
The subsequent measurement of financial assets depends on their classification. The following classifications are currently applicable:
Financial assets at fair value through profit or loss
Financial assets classified as held for trading and other assets designated as such on inception are included in this category. Financial assets are classified as held for trading if they are acquired for sale in the short term. Derivatives, including separated embedded derivatives, are also classified as held for trading unless they are designated as effective hedging instruments or as financial guarantee contracts. Assets are carried in the Statement of Financial Position at fair value with gains or losses recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure.
**Loans and receivables** Trade and other receivables are recognised and carried at the lower of their original invoiced value and recoverable amount. Where the time value of money is material, receivables are subsequently measured at amortised cost. Provision is made when there is objective evidence that the department will not be able to recover balances in full. Balances are written off when the probability of recovery is assessed as being remote.
Financial assets are derecognised when the contract that gives rise to it is settled, sold, cancelled or expires.
**Financial liabilities** Financial liabilities are classified as either financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss or other financial liabilities.
**Financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss** Derivatives, including any separated embedded derivatives, where they are not recognised as financial assets, are classified as held for trading and included in this category. Gains or losses on liabilities held for trading are recognised in profit or loss.
**Other financial liabilities** Trade and other payables are recognised at cost, which is subsequently deemed to be materially the same as the fair value. Where the time value of money is material, payables are subsequently measured at amortised cost.
Financial liabilities are derecognised when the contract that gives rise to it is settled, sold, cancelled or expires.
1.13 **Inventories** Inventories are valued at the lower of cost and net realisable value. Consumable stocks are valued at current replacement cost.
Net realisable value is based on estimated selling price less any further costs expected to be incurred to completion and disposal.
1.14 **Cash and cash equivalents** Cash in the Statement of Financial Position comprises cash at bank and in hand. For the purpose of the cash flow statement, cash and cash equivalents consist of cash, less any outstanding bank overdrafts.
1.15 **Provisions** A provision is recognised when the department has a legal or constructive obligation as a result of a past event, it is probable that an outflow of economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. If the effect is material, expected future cash flows are discounted using the real rate set by HM Treasury.
1.16 **Contingent liabilities** In addition to contingent liabilities disclosed in accordance with IAS 37 *Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets*, the department discloses for parliamentary reporting and accountability purposes certain statutory and non-statutory contingent liabilities where the likelihood of a transfer of economic benefit is remote, but which have been reported to Parliament in accordance with the requirements of *Managing Public Money*. These comprise:
- items over £250,000 (or lower, where required by specific statute) that do not arise in the normal course of business and which are reported to Parliament by departmental Minute prior to the department entering into the arrangement • all items (whether or not they arise in the normal course of business) over £250,000 (or lower, where required by specific statute or where material in the context of resource accounts) which are required by the FReM to be noted in the resource accounts
Where the time value of money is material, contingent liabilities which are required to be disclosed under IAS 37 are stated at discounted amounts and the amount reported to Parliament separately noted. Contingent liabilities that are not required to be disclosed by IAS 37 are stated at the amounts reported to Parliament.
1.17 Operating income
Operating income is income which relates directly to the operating activities of the department. It is stated net of VAT.
Rendering of services
Operating income principally comprises fees and charges for services provided on a full cost basis to external customers, as well as public repayment work. Operating income also includes:
• income for the Identity & Passport Service from their continuing activities, representing the sale value of all services provided during the year. All income is recognised when the services and goods are issued. Income from free passports issued for all British Nationals born on or before 2 September 1929 that was introduced on 18 October 2004 is financed from Parliamentary Supply drawn down by the Home Office and passed to the Identity & Passport Service
• licence fee income for the Security Industry Authority is recognised at the point when an application is accepted. At this point, the fee paid becomes non-refundable and the SIA is committed to paying the managed service provider for processing the application
• application fee income for the Security Industry Authority is recognised at the point when a decision is made on the status of that application. Annual registration is charged to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure on a straight line basis over the period covered by the registration
• income for the Disclosure and Barring Service from their continuing activities, representing the sale value of all services provided during the year. Operating income represents – fees charged to applicants for applications for enhanced and standard disclosure of prescribed criminal record information and – fees charged to register corporate bodies and signatories to access the criminal record process
The DBS recognises income on completion of the DBS application process, in line with the requirements of IAS 18 – Revenue. Up until this point, income is only recognised to the extent that costs have been incurred.
Some income streams for the UK Border Agency are charged below the cost of delivery where UKBA has to maintain its international competitiveness. To assist this, some fees are set above the cost of delivery. Some fees were set so a contribution be made to a fund which was designed to manage the transitional impacts of migration. This scheme ended in August 2010. UKBA’s overall aim is to ensure income contributed to the end-to-end costs of the immigration system.
Dividends
Income from investments is recognised when the department’s right to receive payment is established. Retained income Operating income includes both retained income and income due to the Consolidated Fund which HM Treasury has agreed should be treated as operating income.
1.18 Foreign currency translation
The department’s functional currency and presentation currency is pounds sterling. Transactions in foreign currency are initially recorded in the functional currency by applying the exchange rate ruling at the date of the transaction, except where rates do not fluctuate significantly, in which case an average rate for the period is used. Monetary assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currency are retranslated at the functional currency rate of exchange ruling at the period ending 31 March. All translation differences are taken to the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure.
Non-monetary items that are measured in terms of historical cost in a foreign currency are translated using the exchange rates as at the dates of the initial transactions.
1.19 Pensions
Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme: Past and present employees are ordinarily covered by the provisions of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). From 30 July 2007, civil servants may be in one of four defined benefit schemes; either a final salary scheme (classic, premium or classic plus); or a whole career scheme (nuvos). These statutory arrangements are unfunded with the cost of benefits met by monies voted by Parliament each year. The department recognises the expected cost of these elements on a systematic and rational basis over the period during which it benefits from employees’ services by payments to the PCSPS of amounts calculated on an accruing basis. Liability for payment of future benefits is a charge on the PCSPS.
The Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) is an unfunded multi-employer defined benefit scheme but the Home Office is unable to identify its share of the underlying assets and liabilities. As a result the scheme is accounted for as a defined contribution scheme and the department recognises the contributions payable for the year. The scheme actuary valued the scheme as at 31 March 2007. Details can be found in the Resource Accounts of the Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation (http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/my-civil-service/pensions/index.aspx).
For 2012-13, employers’ contributions were payable to the PCSPS at one of four rates in the range 16.7% to 24.3% of pensionable pay, based on salary bands. The scheme’s Actuary reviews employer contributions usually every four years following a full scheme valuation. The contribution rates are set to meet the cost of the benefits accruing during 2012-13 to be paid when the member retires and not the benefits paid during this period to existing pensioners. Employer contributions to the PCSPS are charged to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure as incurred at the relevant percentage of employees’ pensionable pay.
Partnership and Stakeholder Schemes: Members joining from October 2002 may opt for either the appropriate defined benefit arrangement or a ‘money purchase’ stakeholder pension with an employer contribution (partnership pension account). The employer makes a basic contribution of between 3% and 12.5% (depending on the age of the member) into a stakeholder pension product chosen by the employee from a panel of three providers. The employee does not have to contribute, but where they do make contributions, the employer will match these up to a limit of 3% of pensionable salary (in addition to the employer’s basic contribution). Employers also contribute a further 0.8% of pensionable salary to cover the cost of centrally-provided risk benefit cover (death in service and ill health retirement).
Local Government Pension Scheme: The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) is a multi-employer defined benefit scheme and eligible ex-SOCA employees participate in a fund managed by the London Pensions Fund Authority (LPFA). These accounts provide for the full value of the expected future pension liabilities to the officers. Employer contributions to the LGPS Scheme are charged to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure as incurred at the relevant percentage of employees’ pensionable pay as specified by the pension scheme administrators. Valuation of the scheme’s net assets/liabilities is shown on the Statement of Financial Position. Police Pension Scheme: The core department (formerly NPIA) operates a defined benefit Police Pension Scheme for direct recruits from within the police service, identical to the Police Pension Scheme 1987. SOCA also operates the defined benefit Police Pension Scheme for former police officers. The cost of providing unfunded pension benefits is charged to Net Expenditure over the qualifying service life of the officer. The qualifying service for these pension benefits includes prior service with a police force in addition to service with SOCA or NPIA, although no funding is received from the officer’s previous employer in relation to this past service.
These accounts provide for the full value of the expected future pensions liabilities of these officers and include a provision for future injury awards. The annual charge to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure is calculated so that the Statement of Financial Position provision reflects the proportion of the future pension liability relevant to accumulated qualifying service at the Statement of Financial Position date. The value of the scheme’s liabilities has been calculated by the Government Actuary’s Department.
Broadly By Analogy: The NPIA and IPCC also operate a Broadly By Analogy (BBA) pension scheme, a pension arrangement entitling the recipient to benefits similar to those provided by the PCSPS scheme. The Chairman for NPIA and former Chairs of legacy Commissions, and some former members of the Police Complaints Authority within IPCC, are provided pensions under this arrangement. The BBA pensions are unfunded, with benefits being paid as they fall due. Liabilities for the scheme rest with NPIA and IPCC, and provision for these liabilities is reflected in the Statement of Financial Position. The annual cost of the associated pension contribution is recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, and amounts relating to changes in the actuarial valuation of scheme liabilities are adjusted via the Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity. The scheme liabilities have been calculated by the Government Actuary’s Department.
1.20 Home Office grants
Grants (excluding Grant in Aid) are accounted for on an accruals basis and are paid as a reimbursement against expenditure that the grant recipient has already made. Grant in Aid is a funding mechanism to finance all or part of the costs of the body receiving the Grant in Aid.
The Home Office provides funding to Local Authorities to support activities provided locally to help achieve Home Office aims and objectives. Some of that funding takes the form of specific grants, which are provided directly by the department to Local Authorities to spend on specific activities, within prescribed terms and conditions. The remaining funding is provided through Area Based grants. This provides the Local Authorities with a greater degree of discretion over the precise nature of the activities funded. The department and other contributing departments channel their Area Based grant funding through a centrally pooled funding stream which is managed within the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). DCLG is responsible for making the grant payments from the central Area based grant pool to the various Local Authorities, who are the Accountable Bodies in respect of Area Based grants. The roles and responsibilities of the contributing departments and DCLG are defined in a “Memorandum of Understanding between Departmental Accounting Officers”. In 2012-13, those Local Authorities that did not have an Area Based grant also received Home Office funding through DCLG’s centrally pooled freestanding Safer and Stronger Communities Fund (SSCF) arrangements; similar roles and responsibilities were agreed between the two departments.
The Home Office also provides Police revenue grant funding to the Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). The National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) was funded in the financial year 2012-13 by taking a top-slice from the total funds available to provide for policing including grants to police authorities.
1.21 Value Added Tax
Most of the activities of the department are outside the scope of VAT and, in general, output tax does not apply and input tax on purchases is not recoverable. Irrecoverable VAT is charged to the relevant expenditure category or included in the capitalised purchase cost of fixed assets. Where output tax is charged or input tax is recoverable, the amounts are stated net of VAT. 1.22 Corporation Tax
Home Office Executive NDPBs are corporate bodies and are subject to Corporation Tax under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. The NDPBs are all registered for Corporation tax and are liable to account for corporation tax on all non statutory activities, bank interest received and property income.
1.23 Machinery of Government changes
Machinery of Government (MoG) changes which involve the transfer of functions or responsibilities between two or more government departments are accounted for using merger accounting in accordance with the FReM. See note 1.2 above. Following a change in Ministerial responsibilities, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and Government Equalities Office transferred to the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) on 1 April 2012 under merger accounting rules. The prior year comparator has been revised to exclude the EHRC and GEO numbers.
1.24 Segmental Reporting
IFRS 8 – Operating Segments has been applied in full without interpretation or adaption in line with HM Treasury guidance. Financial information for operating segments for a minimum of 75% of comprehensive net expenditure has been disclosed in a note to the accounts. Segmental information is included in Note 6 to these accounts.
1.25 Intra-Government balances
Core and agency Intra-Government balances have been derived from information obtained directly from the accounts payable and receivable sub-ledgers based on supplier and customer. Items which cannot be directly attributed to an individual supplier or customer are allocated on a proportional basis.
NDPB Intra-Government balances are obtained from their accounting systems.
1.26 Deferred Income
Income is recognised at the point at which any conditions attached to the grant have been met or, if there were no such conditions, on receipt. The grants, or elements of them, are shown as deferred income if at the year-end monies have been received, but where the conditions relating to the grant have not yet been met.
We also include deferred application fees from the Disclosure and Barring Service as deferred income.
Lease incentives are deferred on a straight line basis over the life of the lease.
1.27 International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and other accounting changes that have been issued but are not yet effective
IAS 1 – Presentation of financial statements (Other Comprehensive Income) is effective from 1 July 2012. This amendment requires items of Other Comprehensive Income (OCI) to be grouped on the basis of whether they might at some point be reclassified (‘recycled’) from OCI to profit (e.g. cash flow hedges) or where they will not (e.g. gains on property revaluation). This will be effective in 2013-14 and it will make it clearer to users what the potential effect on profit or loss will be in future periods, notably in light of improved disclosure of financial instruments and pensions, and where there will be no impact.
IAS 19 – Post-employment benefits (pensions) is effective from 1 January 2013. It introduces a number of changes including: Recognition – the elimination of the option to defer the recognition of gains and losses resulting from defined benefit plans (the ‘corridor approach’);
Presentation – the elimination of options for the presentation of gains and losses relating to those plans; and
Disclosures – the improvement of disclosure requirements that will better show the characteristics of defined benefit plans and the risks arising from those plans. It also modifies accounting for termination benefits, including distinguishing benefits provided in exchange for service and benefits provided in exchange for the termination of employment and affect the recognition and measurement of termination benefits. Due to the corridor approach not being permitted by the FReM, the main impact of the change will not be relevant.
IFRS9 – Financial Instruments was issued in November 2009 and will become effective from January 2015. This IFRS has three phases. Phase 1 addresses classification and measurement issues. Phase 2 addresses impairments – in particular how impairments of financial assets should be calculated and recorded. Phase 3 addresses hedge accounting. IAS 39 previously contained guidance on Hedge Accounting – this will be updated with more detailed guidance and principles on hedge accounting, including guidance on accounting for certain hedging relationships. There are likely to be elements of the final proposals that will require further review by HM Treasury and the other relevant authorities before due process and consultation. However, this due process cannot commence until a final IFRS has been issued. The Home Office will apply the new standard in line with the FReM advice. Until this advice is received, the impact of applying this standard is not known.
IFRS 10 – Consolidated Financial Statements; IFRS 11 – Joint Arrangements; IFRS 12 -Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities; IAS 27 – Separate Financial Statements and IAS 28 – Investments in Associates and Joint Ventures were all effective form 1 January 2013, with EU adoption from 1 January 2014. The IASB have issued new and amended standards that affect the consolidation and reporting of subsidiaries, associates, joint ventures and investment entities: IFRS 10 definition of control (investor power and ability to direct activities of an investee) requires more judgement, notably of agency-principal relationships. Clarity on investor exposure or rights to variable returns (e.g. cost savings) may result in new consolidations, notably asset and fund managers. IFRS 11 provides a principles-based definition of joint arrangements (joint operations or joint ventures) based on rights and obligations. Proportional consolidation accounting for joint ventures is no longer permitted (only equity accounting). IFRS 12 requires more disclosure of the financial effects on, and risks to, the consolidating entity. All of these are still subject to consultation at the Treasury and until we receive guidance on how these updates can be applied via the FReM, the impact of applying these standards is not known.
IFRS 13 – Fair Value Measurement was issued on 1 January 2013 but has yet to be adopted by the EU. IFRS 13 has been prepared to provide consistent guidance on fair value measurement for all relevant balances and transactions covered by IFRS. Guidance on how this should be applied across government has yet to be issued by the Treasury. Until guidance on its adoption is issued by HMT in the FReM, we are unable to provide an assessment on the impact of adopting this Standard.
IAS 1 – Presentation of Financial Statements. This is part of the annual improvements from 2009-11 to be effective on or after 1 January 2013. This will be effective next year and represents the clarification of the requirements for comparative information. This clarification does not alter our minimum reporting requirements and so will not impact.
IAS 34 – Interim Financial Reporting will be effective in 2013-14. It relates to interim financial reporting and segmental information for total assets and liabilities.
1.28 Taxpayers’ Equity
The General Fund shows the balance of accumulated surpluses or deficits in income and funding over expenditure.
The Revaluation Reserve shows the accumulated revaluation surplus on property, plant and equipment and intangible assets net of the realised element of this surplus, in line with Modified Historic Cost Accounting (MHCA).
The Pensions reserve represents the accumulated surplus or deficit on Home Office pension schemes. See 1.19 for more information on these schemes.
## 2. Net outturn
### 2.1 Analysis of net resource outturn by section
| Administration | Programme | Outturn | Estimate | Restated 2011-12 | 2012-13 | Net total compared to Estimate, adjusted for virements | Total | |----------------|-----------|---------|----------|------------------|---------|------------------------------------------------------|-------| | | | | | | | | | | Gross | Income | Net | Gross | Income | Net | | | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | £000 | | Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limit | | | | | | | | | Voted: | | | | | | | | | A – Crime and Policing Group | 41,479 | (2,744) | 38,735 | 5,297,924 | (151,597) | 5,145,927 | 5,184,662 | 5,137,029 | (47,633) | - | 5,536,331 | | B – Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 48,549 | (105) | 48,444 | 1,116,114 | (193,650) | 922,464 | 970,908 | 1,020,600 | 49,692 | 49,692 | 880,553 | | C – UK Border Agency | 108,627 | (1,717) | 106,910 | 1,441,457 | (939,716) | 501,741 | 606,651 | 775,257 | 166,606 | 100,108 | 1,311,786 | | D – Criminal Records Bureau | 4,213 | (4,242) | (29) | 60,277 | (75,031) | (14,754) | (14,783) | 64,590 | 79,373 | 33,573 | 270 | | E – Identity and Passport Service | 43,717 | (40,254) | 3,463 | 341,957 | (415,256) | (73,299) | (69,836) | (21,600) | 48,236 | 48,256 | (43,245) | | F – Central Home Office | 211,588 | (30,858) | 180,730 | 226,057 | (56,630) | 169,427 | 350,157 | 286,645 | (63,512) | - | 171,301 | | G – Arms Length Bodies (Net) | 76,937 | - | 76,937 | 547,341 | - | 547,341 | 624,278 | 658,112 | 33,834 | 33,834 | 896,684 | | H – Area Based Grants | - | - | - | 28,751 | - | 28,751 | 28,751 | 30,000 | 1,249 | 1,249 | 66,909 | | I – National Fraud Authority | 583 | - | 583 | 8,226 | - | 8,226 | 8,809 | 9,403 | 594 | 820 | 5,995 | | J – European solidarity mechanism (Net) | - | - | - | 908 | - | 908 | 908 | 1 | (907) | - | - | | K – Border Force | 22,633 | (958) | 21,675 | 593,983 | (4,415) | 589,568 | 611,243 | 617,369 | 6,126 | 6,126 | - | | Government Equalities Office | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8,586 | | Annually Managed Expenditure | | | | | | | | | | Voted: | | | | | | | | | | L – AME charges | - | - | - | 2,935 | - | 2,935 | 2,935 | 68,449 | 65,514 | 51,134 | 1,423 | | M – Police superannuation | - | - | - | 1,232,859 | - | 1,232,859 | 1,232,859 | 1,335,629 | 102,770 | 102,770 | 1,059,297 | | N – AME Charges Arms Length Bodies (Net) | - | - | - | 24,420 | - | 24,420 | 24,420 | 10,040 | (14,380) | - | (628) | | Total | 558,326 | (80,878) | 477,448 | 9,662,995 | (1,836,695) | 7,826,300 | 8,303,748 | 8,577,406 | 273,658 | 273,658 | 8,835,170 |
### Annually Managed Expenditure
| Administration | Programme | Outturn | Estimate | Restated 2011-12 | 2012-13 | Net total compared to Estimate, adjusted for virements | Total | |----------------|-----------|---------|----------|------------------|---------|------------------------------------------------------|-------| | | | | | | | | | | Gross | Income | Net | Gross | Income | Net | | | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | £000 | | Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limit | | | | | | | | | Voted: | | | | | | | | | L – AME charges | - | - | - | 2,935 | - | 2,935 | 2,935 | 68,449 | 65,514 | 51,134 | 1,423 | | M – Police superannuation | - | - | - | 1,232,859 | - | 1,232,859 | 1,232,859 | 1,335,629 | 102,770 | 102,770 | 1,059,297 | | N – AME Charges Arms Length Bodies (Net) | - | - | - | 24,420 | - | 24,420 | 24,420 | 10,040 | (14,380) | - | (628) | | Total | 558,326 | (80,878) | 477,448 | 10,923,209 | (1,836,695) | 9,086,514 | 9,563,962 | 9,991,524 | 427,562 | 427,562 | 9,895,262 |
### 2.2 Analysis of net capital outturn by section
| Gross | Income | Net | 2012-13 Estimate | Net total compared to Estimate, adjusted for virements | Net | |-------|--------|-----|------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-----| | £000 | £000 | £000| £000 | £000 | £000|
#### Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limit
**Voted:**
- **A – Crime and Policing Group**
- 138,202 - 138,202
- 133,712 (4,490) - 105,852
- **B – Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism**
- 77,126 - 77,126
- 73,903 (3,223) - 92,103
- **C – UK Border Agency**
- 86,970 - 86,970
- 84,966 (2,004) - 173,188
- **D – Criminal Records Bureau**
______________________________________________________________________
- - - 1,931
- **E – Identity and Passport Service**
- 19,341 - 19,341
- 20,000 659 659 23,272
- **F – Central Home Office**
- 22,020 - 22,020
- 56,530 34,510 15,527 27,129
- **G – Arms Length Bodies (Net)**
- 45,022 - 45,022
- 35,756 (9,266) - 63,825
- **H – Area Based Grants**
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
- **I – National Fraud Authority**
______________________________________________________________________
- - - 207
- **J – European Solidarity Mechanism (Net)**
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
- **K – Border Force**
- 53,428 - 53,428
- 56,600 3,172 3,172 -
**Total**
- 442,109 - 442,109
- 461,467 19,358 19,358 487,507
#### Annually Managed Expenditure
**Voted:**
- **L – AME charges**
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
- **M – Police superannuation**
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
- **N – AME Charges Arms Length Bodies (Net)**
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
**Total**
- 442,109 - 442,109
- 461,467 19,358 19,358 487,507
3. Reconciliation of outturn to net operating cost and against administration budget
3.1 Reconciliation of net resource outturn to net operating cost
| Note | Outturn 2012-13 £000 | Outturn 2011-12 £000 | |------|----------------------|----------------------| | Budget | 9,563,962 | 9,895,262 | | Non-Budget | - | - | | **Total** | 9,563,962 | 9,895,262 | | Add: Capital Grants | 214,614 | 219,668 | | PFI adjustments | 2,110 | - | | **Total** | 9,780,686 | 10,114,930 |
Less:
| Note | Outturn 2012-13 £000 | Outturn 2011-12 £000 | |------|----------------------|----------------------| | Income payable to the Consolidated Fund | 88,923 | 112,766 | | Capital Grant Income | - | 1,478 | | PFI adjustments | - | 17,613 | | Machinery of Government Change | - | 50,241 | | Fine refunds to carriers | - | - | | **Total** | 88,923 | 182,098 |
Net operating cost in Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure
| | 2012-13 £000 | 2011-12 £000 | |---|---|---| | **Total** | 9,691,763 | 9,932,832 |
3.2 Outturn against final administration budget and administration net operating cost
| Note | Outturn 2012-13 £000 | Outturn 2011-12 £000 | |------|----------------------|----------------------| | Estimate – administration costs limit | 540,796 | 620,730 | | Outturn – Gross administration costs | 558,326 | 627,842 | | Outturn – Gross Income relating to administration costs | (80,878) | (79,284) | | Outturn – Net administration costs | 477,448 | 548,558 | | Reconciliation to operating costs: | | | | Add: provisions movements (transfer from Programme) | 4,445 | (18,107) | | Less: Capital grant income | - | (1,478) | | Add: PFI adjustments | 12,654 | 9,782 | | Add: Machinery of Government Change | - | (39,985) | | Less: Admin consolidated fund extra receipts | (2,815) | - | | Administration net operating costs | 491,732 | 498,770 | 4. Reconciliation of Net Resource Outturn to Net Cash Requirement
| Note | Estimate £000 | Outturn £000 | Saving/Excess £000 | |------|---------------|--------------|-------------------| | 2.1 | 9,991,524 | 9,563,962 | 427,562 | | 2.2 | 461,467 | 442,109 | 19,358 |
**Accruals to cash adjustments**
- **Adjustments to remove non-cash items:**
- Depreciation and amortisation: (187,163) (174,055) (13,108)
- New provisions and adjustments to previous provisions: (62,187) (37,422) (24,765)
- Departmental Unallocated Provision: - - -
- Supported capital expenditure (revenue): - - -
- Prior Period Adjustments: - - -
- Other non-cash items: (840) (26,482) 25,642
- **Adjustments for NDPBs:**
- Remove voted resource and capital: (703,908) (693,720) (10,188)
- Add cash grant-in-aid: 638,141 555,641 82,500
- **Adjustments to reflect movements in working balances:**
- Increase/(decrease) in inventories: - 4,036 (4,036)
- Increase/(decrease) in receivables: 20,000 3,215 16,785
- (Increase)/decrease in payables: - 109,517 (109,517)
- (Increase)/decrease in pension liability: - - -
- Use of provisions: 3,407 44,065 (40,658)
| | Estimate £000 | Outturn £000 | Saving/Excess £000 | |------------------|---------------|--------------|-------------------| | | 10,160,441 | 9,790,866 | 369,575 |
**Removal of non-voted budget items:**
- Consolidated Fund Standing Services: - - -
- Other adjustments: - - -
**Net cash requirement:**
| | Estimate £000 | Outturn £000 | Saving/Excess £000 | |------------------|---------------|--------------|-------------------| | | 10,160,441 | 9,790,866 | 369,575 | 5. Income payable to the Consolidated Fund
5.1 Analysis of income payable to the Consolidated Fund
In addition to income retained by the department, the following income relates to the department and is payable to the Consolidated Fund (cash receipts being shown in italics).
| Note | Outturn 2012-13 | Outturn 2011-12 | |------|----------------|----------------| | | Income (£000) | Receipts (£000) | Income (£000) | Receipts (£000) | | Operating income outside the ambit of the Estimate | 78,886 | 79,189 | 74,573 | 70,987 | | Excess cash surrendable to the Consolidated Fund | 10,037 | 10,037 | 38,193 | 38,193 | | Total income payable to the Consolidated Fund | 88,923 | 89,226 | 112,766 | 109,180 |
5.2 Consolidated Fund Income
Consolidated Fund income shown in note 5.1 above does not include any amounts collected by the Home Office where it was acting as agent of the Consolidated Fund rather than as principal.
The Home Office collects Immigration Penalties and Civil Penalties. The department is not permitted to retain this income; it is surrendered to the Consolidated Fund. In accordance with HM Treasury guidelines, the income generated is not recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure; however, the net receivable due in respect of penalties raised, along with the receipt payable to the Consolidated Fund is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position.
5.2.1 Penalties raised
| Note | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | Immigration Penalties Raised | (2,552) | (2,550) | | Civil Penalties Raised | (8,912) | (8,728) | | Total Penalties Raised | (11,464) | (11,278) | | less: Element retained by the Home Office | 3,000 | 3,000 | | | (8,464) | (8,278) |
5.2.2 Write-offs
| Note | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | Immigration Penalties | - | 20 | | Civil Penalties | 7,804 | 4,702 | | | 7,804 | 4,722 | 5.2.3 Receivables
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | Immigration Penalties| 644 | 592 | | Civil Penalties | 16,714 | 22,593 | | | 17,358 | 23,185 | | Accrued Income | 130 | 140 | | less: Provision for Doubtful Receivables | (10,048) | (16,187) | | | 7,440 | 7,138 |
5.2.4 Payable to the Consolidated Fund
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | Total Payable to the Consolidated Fund | 7,440 | 7,138 |
6. Statement of Operating Costs by Operating Segment
for the year ended 31 March 2013
| Reportable Segment | Administration Expenditure | Programme Expenditure | Gross Expenditure | Income | Net | |-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------|-------------------|--------|-----| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000| | Crime and Policing Group | 113,018 | 7,317,203 | 7,430,221 | (232,674) | 7,197,547 | | Criminal Records Bureau | 4,245 | 61,239 | 65,484 | (75,765) | (10,281) | | Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 48,554 | 1,189,292 | 1,237,846 | (196,157) | 1,041,689 | | Border Force | 22,633 | 594,069 | 616,702 | (11,664) | 605,038 | | UK Border Agency | 115,693 | 1,458,076 | 1,573,769 | (964,483) | 609,286 | | Identity & Passport Service | 39,953 | 346,071 | 386,024 | (523,496) | (137,472) | | National Fraud Authority | 583 | 8,226 | 8,809 | - | 8,809 | | Central Home Office | 239,470 | 284,455 | 523,925 | (146,778) | 377,147 | | Net Expenditure | 584,149 | 11,258,631 | 11,842,780 | (2,151,017) | 9,691,763 | | Reportable Segment | Total Assets £000 | Total Liabilities £000 | Net Assets £000 | |----------------------------------------|-------------------|------------------------|-----------------| | Crime and Policing Group | 278,587 | (1,200,296) | (921,709) | | Criminal Records Bureau | - | - | - | | Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 55,621 | (104,272) | (48,651) | | Border Force | 232,266 | (125,267) | 106,999 | | UK Border Agency | 829,141 | (478,157) | 350,984 | | Identity & Passport Service | 201,028 | (92,000) | 109,028 | | National Fraud Authority | 272 | (1,121) | (849) | | Central Home Office | 771,570 | (498,125) | 273,445 | | Total balance | 2,368,485 | (2,499,238) | (130,753) |
for the year ended 31 March 2012
| Reportable Segment | Administration Expenditure £000 | Programme Expenditure £000 | Gross Expenditure £000 | Income £000 | Net Expenditure £000 | |----------------------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|-------------|----------------------| | Crime and Policing Group | 122,872 | 7,681,769 | 7,804,641 | (287,107) | 7,517,534 | | Criminal Records Bureau | 6,469 | 104,231 | 110,700 | (108,410) | 2,290 | | Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 54,599 | 938,186 | 992,785 | (25,073) | 967,712 | | Border Force | 40,976 | 575,389 | 616,365 | (7,463) | 608,902 | | UK Border Agency | 107,987 | 1,427,728 | 1,535,715 | (900,154) | 635,561 | | Identity & Passport Service | 48,715 | 278,390 | 327,105 | (440,383) | (113,278) | | National Fraud Authority | 860 | 5,134 | 5,994 | - | 5,994 | | Central Home Office | 199,822 | 157,245 | 357,067 | (48,950) | 308,117 | | Net Expenditure | 582,300 | 11,168,072 | 11,750,372 | (1,817,540) | 9,932,832 | | Reportable Segment | Total Assets £000 | Total Liabilities £000 | Net Assets £000 | |------------------------------------------|-------------------|------------------------|-----------------| | Crime and Policing Group | 664,447 | (1,256,330) | (591,883) | | Criminal Records Bureau | 42,952 | (7,341) | 35,611 | | Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism| 23,181 | (173,658) | (150,477) | | Border Force | 216,231 | (111,030) | 105,201 | | UK Border Agency | 801,397 | (489,482) | 311,915 | | Identity & Passport Service | 192,804 | (91,024) | 101,780 | | National Fraud Authority | 501 | (994) | (493) | | Central Home Office | 435,026 | (422,093) | 12,933 | | **Total balance** | **2,376,539** | **(2,551,952)** | **(175,413)** |
This segmental analysis is consistent with how financial performance is reported to the Home Office Supervisory Board.
The underlying factors in identifying the reportable segments are driven by the budget allocations, departmental priorities and financial risks. This provides the Board with decision making information based upon sound financial reporting. It enables the determination of resource spend by entity, departmental priority and operational activity.
Chapter 3 of the Annual Report outlines activities and performance across all reportable segments. 7. Staff numbers and related costs
Staff costs comprise:
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | | Departmental Group | Departmental Group | | | Total | Permanently employed staff | Others | Ministers | Special advisers | Total | | Wages and salaries | 1,185,595 | 1,048,806 | 136,312 | 326 | 151 | 1,182,653 | | Social security costs| 82,038 | 81,974 | 20 | 28 | 16 | 81,794 | | Other pension costs | 202,615 | 202,534 | 48 | - | 33 | 215,111 | | **Sub Total** | 1,470,248 | 1,333,314 | 136,380 | 354 | 200 | 1,479,558 | | Less recoveries in respect of outward secondments | (3,491) | (3,491) | - | - | - | (1,654) | | **Total net costs** | 1,466,757 | 1,329,823 | 136,380 | 354 | 200 | 1,477,904 |
Of which:
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | | Departmental Group | Departmental Group | | Core Department | 551,259 | 519,859 | 30,846 | 354 | 200 | 522,450 | | Agencies | 570,714 | 499,629 | 71,085 | - | - | 583,843 | | Other designated bodies | 344,784 | 310,335 | 34,449 | - | - | 371,611 | | **Total** | 1,466,757 | 1,329,823 | 136,380 | 354 | 200 | 1,477,904 |
- Of which:
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | | Departmental Group | Departmental Group | | Charged to administration costs | 303,658 | 312,699 | | Charged to programme costs | 1,163,099 | 1,165,206 | | **Total** | 1,466,757 | 1,477,905 |
Core Department & Agencies -
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | Charged to administration costs | 257,428 | 261,806 | | Charged to programme costs | 864,545 | 844,488 | | **Total** | 1,121,973 | 1,106,294 |
Core Department -
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | Charged to administration costs | 169,816 | 164,224 | | Charged to programme costs | 381,443 | 358,226 | | **Total** | 551,259 | 522,450 |
\*\* The total amount of capitalised staff costs not included in the figures above is £4.8 million (£4.6 million in 2011-12).
### Staff Costs by Business Segment
| Business Segment | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | Restated | |---------------------------------------|---------|---------|----------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | | **Departmental Group** | | | | | Crime and Policing Group | 355,360 | 315,715 | 382,261 | | Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 32,085 | 25,427 | 30,661 | | Border Force | 362,832 | 356,136 | 356,036 | | UK Border Agency | 465,251 | 395,809 | 471,481 | | Identity & Passport Service | 95,026 | 94,111 | 95,943 | | Criminal Records Bureau | 9,900 | 9,442 | 16,149 | | National Fraud Authority | 3,076 | 2,806 | 2,854 | | **Total** | 1,323,530 | 1,199,446 | 1,355,385 | | **Central Home Office** | 143,227 | 130,378 | 122,519 | | **Total Staff Costs** | 1,466,757 | 1,329,824 | 1,477,904 |
### Average number of persons employed
The average number of whole-time equivalent persons employed during the year was as follows. These figures include those working in the department as well as in the agencies and other bodies included within the consolidated departmental accounts.
| Business Segment | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | Restated | |---------------------------------------|---------|---------|----------| | | | | | | **Departmental Group** | | | | | Crime and Policing Group | 6,389 | 5,896 | 6,382 | | Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 537 | 484 | 546 | | Border Force | 8,008 | 7,782 | 7,414 | | UK Border Agency | 13,554 | 12,573 | 14,112 | | Identity & Passport Service | 3,151 | 3,145 | 3,321 | | Criminal Records Bureau | 322 | 318 | 542 | | National Fraud Authority | 48 | 47 | 47 | | Central Home Office | 3,188 | 2,939 | 2,587 | | **Total** | 35,197 | 33,184 | 34,951 | | **Of which:** | | | | | Core department | 11,789 | 11,231 | 10,672 | | Agencies | 17,015 | 16,023 | 17,962 | | Other designated bodies | 6,393 | 5,930 | 6,317 | | **Total** | 35,197 | 33,184 | 34,951 |
Included within the staff numbers above are 162 members of staff who were engaged in capital projects (366 in 2011-12). 7.1 Reporting of Civil Service and other compensation schemes – exit packages
Civil Service Compensation Scheme
| Exit Package cost band | Number of compulsory redundancies | Number of other departures agreed | Total number of exit packages by cost band | Number of compulsory redundancies | Number of other departures agreed | Total number of exit packages by cost band | |------------------------|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | Less than £10,000 | 1 | 14 | 15 | 25 | 82 | 107 | | £10,000 – £25,000 | 16 | 38 | 54 | 10 | 682 | 692 | | £25,000 – £50,000 | 6 | 29 | 35 | 5 | 554 | 559 | | £50,000 – £100,000 | 2 | 28 | 30 | - | 266 | 266 | | £100,000 – £150,000 | - | 19 | 19 | - | 58 | 58 | | £150,000 – £200,000 | - | 7 | 7 | 1 | 12 | 13 | | £200,000 – £250,000 | - | 2 | 2 | - | 6 | 6 | | £250,000 – £300,000 | - | 1 | 1 | - | 1 | 1 | | £300,000 – £350,000 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Total number of exit packages by type | 25 | 138 | 163 | 41 | 1,661 | 1,702 | | Total resource cost (£000) | 623 | 7,925 | 8,548 | 644 | 60,357 | 61,002 |
Redundancy and other departure costs have been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, a statutory scheme made under the Superannuation Act 1972. Exit costs are accounted for in full in the year of departure. Where the department has agreed early retirements, the additional costs are met by the department and not by the Civil Service pension scheme. Ill-health retirement costs are met by the pension scheme and are not included in the table.
(a) Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme
The Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) is an unfunded multi-employer defined benefit scheme but the Home Office is unable to identify its share of the underlying assets and liabilities. The scheme actuary valued the scheme as at 31 March 2007. You can find details in the resource accounts of the Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation (www.civilservice.gov.uk/pensions).
For 2012-13, employers’ contributions of £184.6 million were payable to the PCSPS (£186.5 million in 2011-12) at one of four rates in the range 16.7% to 24.3% of pensionable pay, based on salary bands. The Scheme Actuary reviews employer contributions usually every four years following a full scheme valuation. The contribution rates are set to meet the cost of the benefits accruing during 2012-13 to be paid when the member retires and not the benefits paid during this period to existing pensioners.
(b) Partnership and Stakeholder Schemes
Employees can opt to open a partnership pension account, a stakeholder pension with an employer contribution. Employers’ contributions of £707.2k (£626.6k in 2011-12) were paid to one or more of the panel of three appointed stakeholder pension providers. Employer contributions are age-related and range from 3% to 12.5% of pensionable pay. Employers also match employee contributions up to 3% of pensionable pay. In addition, employer contributions of £42.2k (£40.4k in 2011-12), 0.8% of pensionable pay, were payable to the PCSPS to cover the cost of the future provision of lump sum benefits on death in service or ill health retirement of these employees.
Contributions due to the partnership pension providers at 31 March 2013 were £12.7 million. Contributions prepaid were £nil (£nil in 2011-12).
42 persons (30 in 2011-12) retired early on ill-health grounds; the total additional accrued pension liabilities in the year amounted to £84.2k (£55.3k in 2011-12). (c) Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS)
The LGPS is a multi-employer defined benefit scheme and eligible ex-SOCA employees participate in a fund managed by the London Pensions Fund Authority (LPFA). In order to comply with the Government Financial Reporting Manual, the Home Office is required to provide in these accounts for the full value of the expected future pension liabilities to the officers. The LPFA have provided a valuation of the scheme assets as at 31 March 2013 showing net pension liability of £63k (£132k in 2011-12); this figure is reflected in the Statement of Financial Position.
The net scheme assets at 31 March
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | Present value of assets | (1,049) | (924) | | Present value of liabilities | 1,112 | 1,056 | | Net pension (asset)/liability | 63 | 132 | | Movement in pension asset/reserve | (73) | 195 | | (Surplus)/loss in Statement of Financial Position | (10) | 327 |
The main assumptions used by the actuaries Barnett Waddingham, employed by LPFA, were as follows:
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | Inflation assumption | 3.4 | 3.3 | | Rate of salaries increase | 4.3 | 4.2 | | Rate of pensions increase | 2.6 | 2.5 | | Discount rate | 4.7 | 4.6 |
During 2012-13 employers’ contributions of £33k (£41k in 2011-12) were paid to the LPFA at 16.9% of pensionable pay (14.9% in 2011-12). The contribution rate is determined by the fund actuary based on a three yearly actuarial valuation. Under pension fund regulations the contribution rates must be set to meet the overall liabilities of the fund. The latest formal valuation of the LPFA pension fund was at 31 March 2013. The fair value of assets held by the scheme at the beginning and end of the year is disclosed below, analysed by investment class, together with expected rate of return for each class for the subsequent period.
| | Assets at 31 March 2013 | Expected rate of return | Assets at 31 March 2012 | Expected rate of return | |----------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------| | | £000 | % | £000 | % | | Equities | 766 | 6.0 | 675 | 6.3 | | Target rate portfolio/bonds | 105 | 4.6 | 111 | 4.5 | | Alternative assets/property | 157 | 5.0 | 129 | 5.3 | | Cash | 21 | 0.5 | 9 | 3.0 | | Corporate bonds | - | - | - | - | | Total | 1,049 | 5.6 | 924 | 5.9 | (d) Police Pension Scheme
SOCA and NPIA operate defined benefit Police Pension schemes for direct recruits from within the police service. The Police Pension schemes are identical to the Police Pension Scheme 1987.
As part of the scheme SOCA and NPIA (now core department) accept liability for payment of the pension benefits in respect of the officers’ past service with a police force, although no transfer values are payable from a former employer in respect to this liability, as well as pensionable service whilst employed. Pension benefits will be paid as they fall due from the department’s resources.
In order to comply with the Government Financial Reporting Manual and accounts guidance, the department is required to provide in these accounts for the full value of the expected future pensions liabilities of these officers. The Government Actuary’s Department now value contingent injury awards, the previous approach valued injury awards as they came into payment. This change in practice is due to the adoption of IAS 19. The Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) were commissioned to value the scheme liabilities at 31 March 2013.
The main assumptions of these schemes are as follows:
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |------------------------|---------|---------| | Inflation assumption | 1.70 | 2.00 | | Rate of salaries increase | 3.95 | 4.25 | | Rate of pensions increase | 1.70 | 2.00 | | Discount rate | 4.10 | 4.85 |
Pension liabilities
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |------------------------|---------|---------| | Present value of liabilities – police officers | 535,060 | 512,430 | Changes in Pension assets and liabilities for the year
The change in the pension liabilities resulting from operating and finance costs have been charged to the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. The charge is reduced by contributions receivable in the year from active members.
| | 2012-13 £000 | 2011-12 £000 | |--------------------------|--------------|--------------| | Expense recognised in Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure | | | | Current service cost (net of participant's contributions) | 9,550 | 11,040 | | Interest cost | 24,550 | 27,790 | | Total | 34,100 | 38,830 | | Actuarial gain/(loss) | | | | Experience gain/(loss) arising on pension liability | 24,570 | 11,340 | | Changes in assumptions underlying the present value of pension liabilities | (35,010) | (3,670) | | | (10,440) | 7,670 |
Movement in the liabilities during the year
| | 2012-13 £000 | 2011-12 £000 | |--------------------------|--------------|--------------| | Net liabilities at start of year | 512,430 | 499,841 | | Current and past service cost | 9,580 | 11,070 | | Pensions paid in the year | (22,050) | (18,630) | | Pension transfers-in | 110 | 29 | | Net finance charge | 24,550 | 27,790 | | Actuarial (gain)/loss | 10,440 | (7,670) | | Net liabilities at end of year | 535,060 | 512,430 | (e) By Analogy Pension Scheme
The NPIA and IPCC also operate a ‘Broadly by Analogy’ (BBA) Pension Scheme for the Chairman, this scheme is analogous with the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). The Chairman for NPIA and some former members of the Police Complaints Authority within IPCC, are provided pensions under this arrangement. The BBA pensions are unfunded, with benefits being paid as they fall due. Liabilities for the scheme rest with NPIA and IPCC, and provision for these liabilities is reflected in the statement of financial position.
The By Analogy Pension arrangement is operated under broadly the same rules as the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). The benefits valued are those accrued up to 31 March 2013. Liabilities relating to payments made before normal retirement under the terms of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme are excluded. The pension arrangements are unfunded, with benefits being paid as they fall due and guaranteed by the employer. There is no fund and, therefore, no surplus or deficit.
The main assumptions used to assess liabilities as at 31 March 2013 were as follows:
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |------------------------|---------|---------| | Inflation assumption | 1.70 | 2.00 | | Rate of salaries increase | 3.95 | 4.25 | | Rate of pensions increase | 2.35 | 2.00 | | Discount rate | 4.10 | 4.85 |
Pension liabilities
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |------------------------|---------|---------| | Present value of liabilities | 2,072 | 1,731 |
Total pension liabilities at 31 March
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |------------------------|---------|---------| | Police Pensions | 535,060 | 512,430 | | LGPS | 63 | 132 | | BBA scheme | 2,072 | 1,731 | | | 537,195 | 514,293 |
The total actuarial loss on pension schemes in 2012-13 was £10,937k (In 2011-12 there was an actuarial gain of £7,326k). 8. Other Administration Costs
| Note | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Core Departmental Group | Restated 2011-12 £000 | |------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|-----------------------| | | 2012-13 £000 | | | | | Rentals under operating leases | 3,767 | 3,767 | 4,960 | 2,224 | 2,240 | 3,457 | | PFI & service charges | 60,307 | 82,688 | 84,989 | 47,177 | 70,542 | 71,095 | | Non-cash items | | | | | | | | Depreciation | 18,465 | 21,862 | 22,178 | 13,160 | 14,303 | 16,490 | | Amortisation | 3,122 | 4,983 | 5,384 | 2,773 | 4,662 | 5,461 | | Impairment | 16 | 131 | 339 | 339 | 4,269 | 4,269 | | (Profit)/loss on disposal of property, plant and equipment | 448 | 454 | 529 | (10) | (147) | (179) | | PFI Interest charges | 23,804 | 23,804 | 23,804 | 23,818 | 23,818 | 23,833 | | Finance lease interest charges | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Notional charges | - | - | - | - | 325 | 325 | | Auditor’s remuneration and expenses | 375 | 949 | 949 | 421 | 1,046 | 1,046 | | Provision movements | 21 | 1,111 | 4,445 | 4,422 | 915 | (1,081) | (1,414) | | Bad debt movement | 167 | 174 | 176 | (258) | (335) | (375) | | Publication stationery & printing | 1,431 | 1,910 | 2,070 | 1,273 | 2,124 | 2,282 | | Facilities management and staff services | 12,290 | 27,036 | 50,519 | 22,881 | 52,328 | 79,643 | | Travel, subsistence and hospitality | 10,180 | 15,515 | 17,800 | 4,460 | 7,947 | 10,472 | | Professional fees | 15,526 | 19,783 | 22,905 | 26,350 | 30,309 | 31,685 | | Auditor’s remuneration and expenses | - | - | 331 | - | - | 208 | | Media and IT | 8,035 | 8,439 | 12,513 | 4,941 | 6,097 | 14,052 | | Early retirement costs | 2,557 | 3,439 | 3,430 | 1,476 | 5,576 | 5,576 | | Other administration expenditure | 6,483 | 21,474 | 23,193 | 509 | (1,193) | 1,655 | | **Total** | **168,199** | **241,061** | **280,491** | **156,401** | **222,850** | **269,601** |
No remuneration has been paid to the National Audit Office for non-audit work (2011-12, £nil).
## 9. Programme Costs
| Note | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Core Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Core Departmental Group | |------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------------------| | | 2012-13 £000 | Restated 2011-12 £000 | | | | | | | 1,279 | 1,384 | 5,137 | 13,160 | 6,611 | 14,695 | | | 251,510 | 402,614 | 532,352 | 106,731 | 219,552 | 445,837 | | | 42,649 | 86,207 | 135,551 | 35,058 | 81,105 | 151,901 | | | 23,247 | 99,695 | 118,474 | 11,792 | 45,417 | 66,430 | | | 1,643 | 4,506 | 13,717 | 713 | 1,261 | 16,048 | | | 59 | 1,495 | 1,539 | (6) | (6) | (279) | | | 493 | 7,139 | 7,139 | 531 | 7,273 | 7,273 | | | 16 | 103 | | - | - | 3 | | | 21 | 7,028 | 32,977 | 38,584 | 64,913 | 84,310 | | | 72 | 9,334 | 9,356 | 489 | 5,537 | 5,525 | | | 6,241,164 | 6,342,147 | 6,344,636 | 6,429,244 | 6,542,057 | 6,545,705 | | | 214,528 | 214,533 | 214,533 | 219,669 | 219,669 | 219,669 | | | 214,528 | 214,533 | 214,533 | 219,669 | 219,669 | 219,669 | | | 214,528 | 214,533 | 214,533 | 219,669 | 219,669 | 219,669 | | | 1,232,859 | 1,232,859 | 1,232,859 | 1,059,297 | 1,059,297 | 1,059,297 | | | 869 | 5,475 | 6,380 | 628 | 4,083 | 6,162 | | | - | 133,905 | 133,905 | - | 99,395 | 99,395 | | | 84,528 | 205,669 | 258,297 | 49,951 | 186,012 | 238,161 | | | 22,230 | 36,717 | 63,987 | 10,149 | 18,318 | 44,633 | | | 24,320 | 201,062 | 205,888 | 23,075 | 94,131 | 99,960 | | | - | 208 | | - | - | 183 | | | 2,388 | 2,967 | 93,069 | 5,461 | 2,362 | 142,991 | | | 241 | 2,754 | 730 | 13,615 | 55,641 | 55,641 | | | 165,253 | 624,700 | 619,925 | 70,280 | 648,448 | 616,353 | | | 8,316,360 | 9,707,062 | 10,095,532 | 8,125,151 | 9,455,683 | 10,002,866 |
No remuneration has been paid to the National Audit Office for non-audit work (2011-12, £nil).
## 10.1 Income
| Retained Income | 2012-13 £000 | Restated 2011-12 £000 | |-----------------|--------------|-----------------------| | Passport fees | - 436,679 | - 378,018 | | Other administration income | 34,595 40,602 49,323 | 34,768 79,619 83,530 | | Programme income | 406,424 1,439,954 1,554,113 | 213,751 1,105,944 1,215,092 | | EU income | 339 21,388 21,979 | 429 28,134 28,134 | | **Total Retained Income** | 441,358 1,938,623 2,062,094 | 248,948 1,591,715 1,704,774 |
| Payable to Consolidated Fund | 2012-13 £000 | Restated 2011-12 £000 | |-----------------------------|--------------|-----------------------| | Passport fees | - 67,468 | - 64,240 | | Excess receipts | 4,673 6,208 10,037 | 4,914 38,193 38,193 | | Other administration income | 154 2,814 2,816 | - - - | | Other programme income | 10,271 8,580 8,602 | 10,281 10,324 10,333 | | Other CFER receipts | - - - | - - - | | **Total payable to Consolidated Fund** | 15,098 85,070 88,923 | 15,195 112,757 112,766 |
| Total | 2012-13 £000 | Restated 2011-12 £000 | |-------|--------------|-----------------------| | | 456,456 2,023,693 2,151,017 | 264,143 1,704,472 1,817,540 |
| Of which | 2012-13 £000 | Restated 2011-12 £000 | |----------|--------------|-----------------------| | Administration income | 34,821 83,694 92,417 | 34,768 79,619 83,530 | | Programme income | 421,635 1,939,999 2,058,600 | 229,375 1,624,853 1,734,010 | | **Total** | 456,456 2,023,693 2,151,017 | 264,143 1,704,472 1,817,540 |
### 10.2 Analysis of income from services provided to external and public sector customers
| Segment | Note | Income | Full Cost | Surplus / (deficit) | Fee recovery actual | Fee recovery target | |---------|------|--------|-----------|---------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | Core Home Office | Animal Licences (scientific procedures) | 4,000 | 3,829 | 171 | 104 | 100 | | Core Home Office | Border Force | 1 | 2,870 | 2,657 | 213 | 108 | 100 | | CRB | CRB Disclosures – Enhanced | 2 | 73,657 | 61,843 | 11,814 | 119 | 100 | | CRB | CRB Disclosures – Standard | 2 | 4,702 | 3,167 | 1,535 | 148 | 100 | | DBS | DBS Disclosures – Enhanced | 2 | 37,886 | 38,368 | (482) | 99 | 100 | | DBS | DBS Disclosures – Standard | 2 | 1,954 | 1,752 | 202 | 112 | 100 | | UKBA | UKBA International Group – Visas | 3 | 444,759 | 366,571 | 78,188 | 121 | 100 | | UKBA | UKBA Immigration Group | 4 | 482,559 | 200,283 | 282,276 | 241 | 184 | | IPS | Passports | 5 | 439,742 | 367,605 | 72,137 | 120 | 100 | | IPS | Certificate Services | 6 | 15,767 | 18,653 | (2,886) | 85 | 100 | | NDPB | NPIA – Information Services | 7 | 56,747 | 190,695 | (133,948) | 30 | 100 | | NDPB | NPIA – People Development | 8 | 11,318 | 21,363 | (10,045) | 53 | 100 | | NDPB | College of Policing – People Development | 8 | 5,903 | 12,180 | (6,277) | 48 | 100 | | NDPB | SIA – Licensing Income | 32,112 | 28,037 | 4,075 | 115 | 100 | | NDPB | SIA – ACS Income | 9 | 2,122 | 1,915 | 207 | 111 | 100 | | NDPB | OISC – Registration Fees | 10 | 1,057 | 4,092 | (3,035) | 26 | 100 |
| | | **Total** | **Total** | **Total** | **Total** | **Total** | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | | | 1,617,155 | 1,323,010 | 294,145 | | |
This analysis of income satisfies the Fees and Charges requirements of HM Treasury rather than IFRS 8 Operating Segments. Categories of income and costs below £1m have been excluded from this analysis.
**Notes**
01. Border Force charges Airline Carriers for the costs of detaining passengers arriving in the UK without the required UK entry documentation and also for charges for the cost of providing fast track services. The cost recovery target is 100%.
02. An Enhanced CRB Checks provides details of all Cautions, Warnings, Reprimands and Convictions held on an individual’s criminal record. It will also search whether the applicant is on the children / vulnerable adults Barred Lists. The Barred Lists are a list of the names of individuals that are barred by law from working with children or vulnerable adults. The Enhanced CRB Check also has a section for ‘Other Relevant Police Information’ where the applicant’s local police force can add any further notes should they deem it relevant. A Standard CRB Disclosure provides details of all convictions held on the Police National Computer including current and “spent” convictions as well as details of any cautions, reprimands or final warnings on the applicant. The CRB ceased to exist on 30 November 2012 with all assets, liabilities and responsibilities transferred to DBS on 1 December 2012.
03. UKBA International Group is responsible for issuing Visas. The Group’s cost recovery target is 100% and until the end of August 2010 certain fees included a surcharge to fund the Government’s Migration Impact Fund (MIF).
04. UKBA Immigration Group deals with UK based applications for permanent settlement and Nationality applications. The Group’s cost recovery target is 184% with the additional income from fees contributing to the overhead costs within the Agency.
05. Passport activities include all services relating to the issuing of passports where the financial objective of this activity is to break even in year. A fee is charged for all passports except for those issued to war veterans.
06. Includes all services relating to the issuing of certificates for birth, death and marriage. In addition central HO funding is provided for support functions to maintain the registers of all vital events. The financial objective is to break even after central HO funding for non fee bearing activities.
07. NPIA Information Services includes the Airwave radio service, fingerprint identification, the Police National Computer, police science and forensics as well as project support and IT systems.
08. NPIA People Development includes exams and assessments, learning and development services and leadership development services. On 1 December 2012 some of the NPIA functions transferred to the College of Policing, who are continuing to derive income from People Development and other services.
09. The SIA Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) income is the registration and application fees for companies joining the voluntary scheme for providers of security services. Companies who satisfactorily meet the agreed standards may be registered as approved and advertise themselves as such.
10. OISC charge immigration advisers the registration fees on application to join or remain within the OISC scheme.
| Segment | Notes | Income £000 | Full Cost £000 | Surplus / (deficit) £000 | Fee recovery actual % | Fee recovery target % | |---------|-------|-------------|----------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------| | Core Home Office | Animal Licences (scientific procedures) | | | | | | | Core Home Office | Border Force | 2 | 2,726 | 2,597 | 129 | 105 | 100 | | CRB | CRB Disclosures – Enhanced | 3 | 103,972 | 105,685 | (1,713) | 98 | 100 | | CRB | CRB Disclosures – Standard | | 6,549 | 5,349 | 1,200 | 122 | 100 | | CRB | CRB Disclosures – ISA Adult First | 4 | 1,161 | 878 | 283 | 132 | 100 | | UKBA | UKBA International Group – Visas | 5 | 428,580 | 416,550 | 12,030 | 103 | 100 | | UKBA | UKBA Immigration Group | 6 | 433,734 | 206,072 | 227,662 | 210 | 184 | | IPS | Passports | 7 | 427,254 | 378,131 | 49,123 | 113 | 100 | | IPS | Certificate Services | 8 | 16,947 | 23,349 | (6,402) | 73 | 100 | | NDPB | NPIA – Information Services | 9 | 113,085 | 406,245 | (293,160) | 28 | 100 | | NDPB | NPIA – People Development | 10 | 19,585 | 36,091 | (16,506) | 54 | 100 | | NDPB | SIA – Licensing Income | 11 | 31,410 | 26,363 | 5,047 | 119 | 100 | | NDPB | SIA – ACS Income | | 2,271 | 1,985 | 286 | 114 | 100 |
1,591,274 1,613,137 (21,863)
### Analysis of 2012-13 income streams by Segment
| Segment | Income £000 | Full Cost £000 | Surplus / (deficit) £000 | Fee recovery actual % | Fee recovery target % | |------------------|-------------|----------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------| | Core Core Home Office | 6,870 | 6,486 | 384 | 106 | 100 | | CRB Criminal Records Bureau | 78,359 | 65,010 | 13,349 | 121 | 100 | | DBS Disclosure and Barring Service | 39,839 | 40,119 | (280) | 99 | 100 | | UKBA UK Border Agency | 927,318 | 566,854 | 360,464 | 164 | 128 | | IPS Identity and Passport Service | 455,509 | 386,258 | 69,251 | 118 | 100 | | NDPB NPIA | 68,065 | 212,058 | (143,993) | 32 | 100 | | NDPB SIA | 34,234 | 29,952 | 4,282 | 114 | 100 | | NDPB OISC | 1,057 | 4,092 | (3,035) | 26 | 100 | | NDPB CoP | 5,903 | 12,180 | (6,277) | 48 | 101 | | **Total** | **1,617,154** | **1,323,009** | **294,145** | | |
### Analysis of 2011-12 income streams by Segment
| Segment | Income £000 | Full Cost £000 | Surplus / (deficit) £000 | Fee recovery actual % | Fee recovery target % | |------------------|-------------|----------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------| | HO Central Home Office | 6,726 | 6,439 | 287 | 104 | 100 | | CRB Criminal Records Bureau | 111,682 | 111,912 | (230) | 100 | 100 | | UKBA UK Border Agency | 862,314 | 622,622 | 239,692 | 138 | 128 | | IPS Identity and Passport Service | 444,201 | 401,480 | 42,721 | 111 | 100 | | NDPB NPIA | 132,670 | 442,336 | (309,666) | 30 | 100 | | NDPB SIA | 33,681 | 28,348 | 5,333 | 119 | 100 | | **Total** | **1,591,274** | **1,613,137** | **(21,863)** | | |
### 11. Assets held for sale
At 31 March 2013, the department had no assets held for sale (31 March 2012: £nil).
## 12. Property, plant and equipment
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Vehicles £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-----------| | **Cost or valuation**| | | | | | | | | | At 1 April 2012 | 48,082 | 1,064,264 | 81,426 | 411,015 | 514,488 | 80,328 | 129,672 | 2,329,275 | | Additions | 1,851 | 23,410 | 8,553 | 16,361 | 10,332 | 2,192 | 63,548 | 126,247 | | Disposals | - (5,257) | (5,158) | (9,680) | (2,058) | (11,236) | (23) | (33,412) | | | Impairment | - (10,574)| (13) | (16,979) | (1,643) | (2,748) | (3,359) | (35,316) | | | External transfers | - (1,702) | (877) | (14,634) | (1,344) | (108) | (6,442) | (25,107) | | | Transfers to assets held for sale | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | Reclassifications | 172 | 1,125 | 1,202 | 32,165 | 1,534 | 37 | 12,197 | 48,432 | | Revaluations | (959) | (3,066) | 954 | 32,425 | 8,214 | 1,009 | 66 | 38,643 | | **At 31 March 2013** | 49,146 | 1,068,200 | 86,087 | 450,673 | 529,523 | 69,474 | 195,659 | 2,448,762 |
### Depreciation
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Vehicles £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-----------| | At 1 April 2012 | - (424,786) | (59,994) | (260,176) | (231,338) | (52,164) | - | (1,028,458) | | | Charged in year | - (38,622) | (6,158) | (65,669) | (36,626) | (8,654) | - | (157,729) | | | Disposals | - 4,320 | 4,654 | 9,281 | 1,979 | 10,762 | - | 30,996 | | | Impairment | - 1,256 | 11 | 16,714 | 1,630 | 1,851 | - | 21,462 | | | External transfers | - 1,428 | 876 | 12,904 | 1,105 | 23 | - | 16,336 | | | Transfers to assets held for sale | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | | Reclassifications | - (391) | - | 8,570 | (8,541) | (3) | - | (365) | | | Revaluations | - 2,947 | (658) | (17,447) | (3,517) | (432) | - | (19,107) | | | **At 31 March 2013** | - (453,848)| (61,269) | (295,823) | (277,308) | (48,617) | - | (1,136,865) | |
### Net book value at 31 March 2013
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Vehicles £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-----------| | 49,146 | 614,352 | 24,818 | 154,850 | 252,215 | 20,857 | 195,659 | 1,311,897 | |
### Net book value at 1 April 2012
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Vehicles £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-----------| | 48,082 | 639,478 | 21,432 | 150,839 | 283,150 | 28,164 | 129,672 | 1,300,817 | |
### Asset financing:
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Vehicles £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-----------| | Owned | 49,146 | 347,225 | 24,818 | 102,398 | 95,494 | 15,355 | 195,659 | 830,095 | | Finance leased | - 79,826 | - | 73 | - | - | - | 79,899 | | | On balance sheet PFI/other concession arrangements | - 187,301 | - | 52,379 | 156,721 | 5,502 | - | 401,903 | | | **Net book value at 31 March 2013** | 49,146 | 614,352 | 24,818 | 154,850 | 252,215 | 20,857 | 195,659 | 1,311,897 | |
### Analysis of property, plant and equipment at 31 March 2013
| | Core department | Agencies | Non-Departmental Public Bodies | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------------|----------|-------------------------------|-----------| | 6,718 | 240,738 | 8,994 | 48,124 | 646,982 | | 38,674 | 294,436 | 5,814 | 80,538 | 510,078 | | 3,754 | 79,178 | 10,010 | 26,188 | 154,837 | | **Net book value at 31 March 2013** | 49,146 | 614,352 | 24,818 | 154,850 | 252,215 | 20,857 | 195,659 | 1,311,897 |
### Cost or valuation
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Vehicles £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|------------| | **At 1 April 2011** | 46,052 | 1,032,647 | 81,670 | 383,416 | 506,638 | 80,130 | 141,598 | 2,272,151 | | **Additions** | - | 24,708 | 2,431 | 22,297 | 16,094 | 2,417 | 40,158 | 108,105 | | **Disposals** | - | (18,850) | (3,700) | (14,099) | (18,547) | (3,075) | (414) | (58,685) | | **Impairment** | (744) | (13,496) | - | (2,280) | (27) | (4,693) | (4,524) | (25,764) | | **External transfers** | - | - | 1 | 920 | (1,150) | - | 538 | 309 | | **Transfers to assets held for sale** | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | **Reclassifications** | 5 | 17,886 | (303) | 23,997 | 4,729 | 5,101 | (48,228) | 3,187 | | **Revaluations** | 2,769 | 21,369 | 1,327 | (3,235) | 6,751 | 448 | 544 | 29,973 | | **At 31 March 2012** | 48,082 | 1,064,264 | 81,426 | 514,488 | 80,328 | 129,672 | 2,329,276 | 2,329,276 |
### Depreciation
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Vehicles £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|------------| | **At 1 April 2011** | - | (405,216) | (55,575) | (219,454) | (193,761) | (49,909) | - | (923,915) | | **Charged in year** | - | (37,661) | (7,670) | (60,328) | (53,508) | (9,224) | - | (168,391) | | **Disposals** | - | 16,548 | 3,295 | 13,837 | 18,196 | 2,851 | - | 54,727 | | **Impairment** | - | 6,312 | - | 1,629 | 20 | 4,372 | - | 12,533 | | **External transfers** | - | - | - | (293) | 272 | - | - | (21) | | **Transfers to assets held for sale** | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | **Reclassifications** | - | - | 208 | 1,461 | (208) | - | - | 1,461 | | **Revaluations** | - | (4,769) | (252) | 2,772 | (2,350) | (254) | - | (4,853) | | **At 31 March 2012** | - | (424,786) | (59,994) | (260,176) | (231,339) | (52,164) | - | (1,028,459)|
### Net book value at 31 March 2012
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Vehicles £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|------------| | **Net book value at 31 March 2012** | 48,082 | 639,478 | 21,432 | 150,840 | 283,149 | 28,164 | 129,672 | 1,300,817 |
### Analysis of property, plant and equipment at 31 March 2012
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Vehicles £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|------------| | **Net book value at 1 April 2011** | 46,052 | 627,431 | 26,095 | 163,962 | 312,877 | 30,221 | 141,598 | 1,348,236 |
### Asset financing:
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Vehicles £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|------------| | **Owned** | 48,082 | 367,819 | 21,432 | 97,430 | 122,614 | 21,361 | 129,672 | 808,410 | | **Finance leased** | - | 75,930 | - | 47 | - | 128 | - | 76,105 | | **On balance sheet PFI/other concession arrangements** | - | 195,729 | - | 53,363 | 160,535 | 6,675 | - | 416,302 | | **Net book value at 31 March 2012** | 48,082 | 639,478 | 21,432 | 150,840 | 283,149 | 28,164 | 129,672 | 1,300,817 |
### Analysis of property, plant and equipment at 31 March 2012
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Vehicles £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|------------| | **Of the total:** | | | | | | | | | | **Core department** | 3,598 | 215,857 | 10,398 | 25,321 | 116,986 | 9,008 | 25,910 | 407,078 | | **Agencies** | 36,823 | 294,075 | 1,088 | 82,370 | 11,367 | 11,161 | 83,329 | 520,213 | | **Non-Departmental Public Bodies** | 7,661 | 129,546 | 9,946 | 43,149 | 154,796 | 7,995 | 20,433 | 373,526 | | **Net book value at 31 March 2012** | 48,082 | 639,478 | 21,432 | 150,840 | 283,149 | 28,164 | 129,672 | 1,300,817 |
Buildings comprises freehold, long leasehold (leases with 50+ years to run from the year ending 31 December) and short leasehold buildings.
Other property, plant and equipment were revalued on the basis of the latest available indices.
Assets under Construction comprise capital additions for projects that have not yet gone live. Once assets are ready for use they are reclassified to the appropriate asset category and are subject to depreciation.
NPIA Communications when transferred to the Core Home Office has been categorised as Plant and Machinery, when it was shown within IT in previous years. Prior year asset movements have been adjusted to reflect this change.
The present value of the minimum lease payments is used to value finance leases.
### 13. Intangible assets
| Information Technology £000 | Software Licenses £000 | Websites £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------|------------| | **2012-13 Departmental Group** | | | | | | Cost or valuation | | | | | | At 1 April 2012 | 415,726 | 148,924 | 379 | 277,897 | 842,926 | | Additions | 114,523 | 9,202 | 497 | 39,226 | 163,448 | | Donations | - | - | - | - | - | | Disposals | (26,496) | (6,145) | - | - | (32,641) | | Impairments | (1,148) | (2,693) | - | (80) | (3,921) | | Reclassifications | 192,695 | (17,275) | 462 | (224,325) | (48,443) | | Transfers | 14,609 | (7,869) | 2,405 | (1) | 9,144 | | Revaluations | 48,826 | 3,465 | 61 | - | 52,352 | | **At 31 March 2013** | 758,735 | 127,609 | 3,804 | 92,717 | 982,865 | | Amortisation | | | | | | At 1 April 2012 | (224,991) | (73,211) | (98) | - | (298,300) | | Charged in year | (106,654) | (17,016) | (187) | - | (123,857) | | Disposals | 26,491 | 6,117 | - | - | 32,608 | | Impairments | 1,095 | 2,624 | - | - | 3,719 | | Reclassifications | (76,342) | 76,727 | (9) | - | 376 | | Transfers | (3,158) | 523 | - | - | (2,635) | | Revaluations | (24,471) | (2,003) | (35) | - | (26,509) | | **At 31 March 2013** | (408,030) | (6,239) | (329) | - | (414,598) | | Carrying amount at 31 March 2013 | 350,705 | 121,370 | 3,475 | 92,717 | 568,267 | | Carrying amount at 1 April 2012 | 190,735 | 75,713 | 281 | 277,897 | 544,626 | | Asset financing: | | | | | | Owned | 282,441 | 116,932 | 3,475 | 78,564 | 481,412 | | Finance leased | 66 | 1,108 | - | - | 1,174 | | On balance sheet PFI/other concession arrangements | 68,198 | 3,330 | - | 14,153 | 85,681 | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2013** | 350,705 | 121,370 | 3,475 | 92,717 | 568,267 |
### Analysis of intangible assets at 31 March 2013
Of the total:
- **Core department**
- Information Technology: 84,700
- Software Licenses: 11,461
- Websites: 389
- Payments on Account & Assets under Construction: 26,762
- Total: 123,312
- **Agencies**
- Information Technology: 252,580
- Software Licenses: 91,543
- Websites: 186
- Payments on Account & Assets under Construction: 38,476
- Total: 382,785
- **Non-Departmental Public Bodies**
- Information Technology: 13,425
- Software Licenses: 18,366
- Websites: 2,900
- Payments on Account & Assets under Construction: 27,479
- Total: 62,170
- **Carrying amount at 31 March 2013**
- Information Technology: 350,705
- Software Licenses: 121,370
- Websites: 3,475
- Payments on Account & Assets under Construction: 92,717
- Total: 568,267
### Information Technology
| | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | |----------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Cost or valuation | | | | | | | At 1 April 2011 | 323,032 | 95,966 | 236 | 248,282 | 667,516 | | Additions | 16,865 | 42,884 | 143 | 124,631 | 184,523 | | Donations | - | - | - | - | - | | Disposals | (7,932) | (1,263) | - | (93) | (9,288) | | Impairments | (162) | (23) | - | (7,060) | (7,245) | | Reclassifications | 82,726 | 2,004 | - | (87,917) | (3,187) | | Transfers | (3,329) | 2,871 | - | 54 | (404) | | Revaluations | 4,526 | 6,485 | - | - | 11,011 | | **At 31 March 2012** | 415,726 | 148,924 | 379 | 277,897 | 842,926 |
### Amortisation
| | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | |----------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | At 1 April 2011 | (190,107) | (38,177) | (40) | - | (228,324) | | Charged in year | (38,057) | (33,776) | (58) | - | (71,891) | | Disposals | 7,916 | 894 | - | - | 8,810 | | Impairments | 128 | 11 | - | - | 139 | | Reclassifications | (1,461) | - | - | - | (1,461) | | Transfers | 741 | (609) | - | - | 132 | | Revaluations | (4,151) | (1,554) | - | - | (5,705) | | **At 31 March 2012** | (224,991) | (73,211) | (98) | - | (298,300) |
### Carrying amount at 31 March 2012
| | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | |----------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Carrying amount at 31 March 2012 | 190,735 | 75,713 | 281 | 277,897 | 544,626 |
### Asset financing:
| | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | |----------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Owned | 172,277 | 74,903 | 281 | 277,897 | 525,358 | | Finance leased | - | - | - | - | - | | On balance sheet PFI/other concession arrangements | 18,458 | 810 | - | - | 19,268 | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2012** | 190,735 | 75,713 | 281 | 277,897 | 544,626 |
### Analysis of intangible assets at 31 March 2012
| | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | |----------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | Of the total: | | | | | | | Core department | 4,449 | 22,013 | - | 32,106 | 58,568 | | Agencies | 123,814 | 29,779 | 281 | 186,010 | 339,884 | | Non-Departmental Public Bodies | 62,472 | 23,921 | - | 59,781 | 146,174 | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2012** | 190,735 | 75,713 | 281 | 277,897 | 544,626 | 14. Financial instruments
Risk Management Objectives and Policies
The FReM requires disclosure of the objectives and policies of an entity in holding financial instruments, and the role financial instruments have had during the period in creating or changing the risks the entity faces in undertaking its activities.
As the cash requirements of the department are met through the Estimates process, financial instruments play a more limited role in creating and managing risk than would apply to a non-public sector body of a similar size. The department has very limited powers to borrow, invest surpluses, or purchase foreign currency. Financial assets and liabilities are generated by day-to-day operational activities and are not held to change the risk facing the department in undertaking its activities.
The majority of financial instruments relate to contracts to buy non-financial items in line with the department’s expected purchase and usage requirements and the department is, therefore, exposed to little credit, liquidity or market risk.
Market Risk – Currency Risk
The majority of the department’s foreign currency transactions are undertaken by UKBA. All foreign currency transactions are accounted for in accordance with accounting policy 1.18. The agency has a number of transactions in currencies other than Sterling, which are explained below.
1. UKBA International Group has a large number of foreign currency transactions. Salaries for locally engaged staff and most overseas expenditure are covered by a Service Level Agreement with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The rates are agreed annually and adjusted for exchange rate movements. The FCO collect visa fee income on the agency’s behalf, and the department manages the risk to reduce exchange loss.
2. UKBA International Group use two large commercial partners to deliver their service around the world. One contract charges the agency a fixed monthly fee, and therefore they hold the risks. The other contract charges the agency based on the prevailing rate at the time of transaction, therefore the agency is subject to the risks and rewards of the variations.
3. The UKBA receives grants from the EU, which funds projects carried out by third parties as well as projects carried out by the agency. The risk of currency fluctuation is borne by the agency, as the amounts are agreed in euros and reported back to the EU in euros.
The only items above which are deemed to have significant currency risk relate to items (2) and (3). A sensitivity analysis has been prepared below to show the net effect on the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure of changes to the exchange rate.
| | Value per accounts | Value if exchange rate reduced by 1% | Value if exchange rate increased by 1% | |----------------|--------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | (2) One Commercial Partner | 18,247 | 18,065 | 18,429 | | (3) EU Income | (23,003) | (22,776) | (23,233) | | Net charge to CSCNE | (4,756) | (4,711) | (4,804) |
Credit risk
There are no significant concentrations of credit risk within the department unless otherwise disclosed. The maximum credit risk exposure relating to financial assets is represented by carrying value as at the period end. Credit risks arising from acting as a guarantor are disclosed in the contingent liabilities note.
### 31 March 2013
| Financial assets | Loans and receivables £000 | Equity investments £000 | Amortised cost £000 | Total book value £000 | Fair value £000 | |------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|---------------------|----------------------|-----------------| | Cash | 95,715 | - | - | 95,715 | 95,715 | | Loan notes | - | - | - | - | - | | Investments | - | 510 | - | 510 | 510 | | Trade and other receivables | 236,998 | - | - | 236,998 | 236,998 |
| Financial liabilities | Loans and receivables £000 | Equity investments £000 | Amortised cost £000 | Total book value £000 | Fair value £000 | |-----------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|---------------------|----------------------|-----------------| | Bank overdraft | - | - | - | - | - | | Finance lease and hire purchase obligations | - | - | (357,762) | (357,762) | (357,762) | | Trade and other payables | - | - | (1,150,534) | (1,150,534) | (1,150,534) |
| Total | 332,713 | 510 | (1,508,296) | (1,175,073) | (1,175,073) |
As per IFRS 7.37, an aged debt analysis of trade and other receivables categories from note 18 as at 31 March 2013 is included below. This analysis does not include accrued income, staff receivables, VAT receivables, PFI receivables and receivables from other Government departments.
| Financial Assets | 0-30 days £000 | 31-60 days £000 | After 60 days £000 | Total £000 | |------------------|----------------|-----------------|-------------------|------------| | Trade and other receivables | 105,813 | 4,661 | 27,227 | 137,701 |
### 31 March 2012
| Financial assets | Loans and receivables £000 | Equity investments £000 | Amortised cost £000 | Total book value £000 | Fair value £000 | |------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|---------------------|----------------------|-----------------| | Cash | 132,529 | - | - | 132,529 | 132,529 | | Investments | - | 468 | - | 468 | 468 | | Trade and other receivables | 232,299 | - | - | 232,299 |
| Financial liabilities | Loans and receivables £000 | Equity investments £000 | Amortised cost £000 | Total book value £000 | Fair value £000 | |-----------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|---------------------|----------------------|-----------------| | Bank overdraft | - | - | - | - | - | | Finance lease and hire purchase obligations | - | - | (357,762) | (357,762) | (357,762) | | Trade and other payables | - | - | (1,226,290) | (1,226,290) | (1,226,290) |
| Total | 364,828 | 468 | (1,584,052) | (1,218,756) | (1,218,756) |
As per IFRS 7.37, an aged debt analysis of trade and other receivables categories from note 18 as at 31 March 2012 is included below. This analysis does not include accrued income, staff receivables, VAT receivables, PFI receivables and receivables from other Government departments. Financial Assets
| | 0-30 days £000 | 31-60 days £000 | After 60 days £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|----------------|-----------------|--------------------|------------| | Trade and other receivables | 118,859 | 10,346 | 12,714 | 141,919 |
- All assets and liabilities are sterling denominated. Amortised costs are quoted at current day prices.
15. Investments in other public sector bodies
| | Forensic Science Service Ltd (FSS) | College of Policing Investments | |----------------------|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------| | | Share Capital £000 | Loan Stock £000 | Share Capital £000 | Total £000 | | Balance at 31 March 2011 | 1 | - | 427 | 428 | | Additions | - | - | 40 | 40 | | Loan repayments | - | - | - | - | | Impairments | - | - | - | - | | Loans repayable within 12 months transferred to receivables | - | - | - | - | | Balance at 31 March 2012 | 1 | - | 467 | 468 | | Additions | - | - | 43 | 43 | | Loan repayments | (1) | - | - | (1) | | Impairments | - | - | - | - | | External transfers | - | - | - | - | | Loans repayable within 12 months transferred to receivables | - | - | - | - | | Balance at 31 March 2013 | - | - | 510 | 510 |
The Home Office’s nominal investment in the FSS was written off during 2012-13.
The College of Policing (CoP) owns non-current investments of £510k in unit trusts held as investments for charities by the Police Training Authority Trust within the CoP. 16. Impairments
The Home Office has incurred the following impairments to non current assets and investments during the financial year:
| Note | 2012-13 £000 | 2011-12 £000 | |------|--------------|--------------| | Charged to the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure | 13,848 | 20,337 | | Charged to the Revaluation Reserve | 7,169 | 3,885 | | **Total** | **21,017** | **24,222** |
**Segmental analysis**
| 2012-13 £000 | 2011-12 £000 | |--------------|--------------| | Crime and Policing Group | 16,192 | 18,612 | | Criminal Records Bureau | - | 43 | | Office for Security and Counter Terrorism | - | - | | UK Border Agency | 1,600 | 560 | | Border Force | - | 146 | | Identity and Passport Service | 1,451 | 3,235 | | Central Home Office | 1,774 | 1,626 | | **Total** | **21,017** | **24,222** |
An analysis of these impairments by asset class are as follows:
| 2012-13 £000 | 2011-12 £000 | |--------------|--------------| | Property, Plant and Equipment – Land | 959 | 744 | | Property, Plant and Equipment – Buildings | 15,340 | 7,184 | | Property, Plant and Equipment – Vehicles | 2 | - | | Property, Plant and Equipment – IT | 265 | 3,853 | | Property, Plant and Equipment – Plant and Machinery | 2 | 207 | | Property, Plant and Equipment – Furniture and Fittings | 896 | 321 | | Property, Plant and Equipment – Assets under Construction | 3,283 | 4,926 | | Intangible – IT | 39 | 236 | | Intangible – Software | 76 | 52 | | Intangible Assets under Construction | 155 | 6,699 | | Investments | - | - | | **Total** | **21,017** | **24,222** |
Impairments in 2012-13 amounted to £21.0 million.
### 17. Inventories
| | 31 March 2013 | 31 March 2012 | 31 March 2011 | |----------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | | Finished goods and goods for resale | - 10,804 | - 7,198 | - 7,284 | | Work in Progress | - 1,539 | - 1,109 | - 274 | | | - 12,343 | - 8,307 | - 7,558 |
### 18. Trade receivables, financial and other assets
| | 31 March 2013 | Restated 31 March 2012 | Restated 31 March 2011 | |----------------------|---------------|------------------------|------------------------| | | Dept. Group £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | | Amounts falling due within one year: | | | | | | | | Trade receivables | 62,537 | 33,255 | 24,638 | | VAT receivables net of payables | 32,976 | 33,205 | 65,217 | | Staff receivables | 7,694 | 4,218 | 7,828 | | Receivables – government departments | - 9,566 | 26,703 | 3,603 | | Other receivables | 8,936 | 9,175 | 8,611 | | Prepayments and accrued income | 137,262 | 68,229 | 101,422 | | Current part of PFI and other service concession arrangements prepayment | - | - | - | | Amounts due from the Consolidated Fund in respect of supply | - | 26,660 | 211,319 | | | 249,405 | 201,445 | 211,319 |
| | 31 March 2013 | 31 March 2012 | 31 March 2011 | |----------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | | Amounts falling due after more than one year: | | | | | Trade receivables | - | - | - | | Other receivables | - 1,049 | - 45 | - 4,990 | | Staff receivables | - | - | - | | Receivables government departments | - | - | - | | Prepayments and accrued income | - 2,151 | - 3,625 | - 4,990 | | | - 1,049 | - 3,670 | - 4,990 |
### 18.1 Intra-Government balances
| | 31 March 2013 | 31 March 2012 | 31 March 2011 | |----------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | | | Dept. Group £000 | Dept. Group £000 | Dept. Group £000 | | **Current** | | | | | Balances with other central government bodies | 125,930 | 134,774 | 125,844 | | Balances with local authorities | 38,404 | 38,621 | 43,817 | | Balances with NHS Bodies | 1 | 1 | 1,101 | | Balances with public corporations and trading funds | 39 | 364 | 572 | | **Subtotal: intra-government balances** | 164,374 | 173,760 | 171,334 | | Balances with bodies external to government | 85,031 | 174,621 | 205,208 | | **Total receivables at 31 March** | 249,405 | 348,381 | 376,542 |
| | 31 March 2013 | 31 March 2012 | 31 March 2011 | |----------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------| | | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | | | Dept. Group £000 | Dept. Group £000 | Dept. Group £000 | | **Non-current** | | | | | Balances with other central government bodies | - | - | - | | Balances with local authorities | - | - | - | | Balances with NHS Bodies | - | - | - | | Balances with public corporations and trading funds | - | - | - | | **Subtotal: intra-government balances** | - | - | - | | Balances with bodies external to government | - | 1,049 | 3,211 | | **Total receivables at 31 March** | - | 1,049 | 3,211 |
Included within receivables is £10.7 million (2011-12: £10.7 million) that will be due to the Consolidated Fund once debts are collected. 19. Cash and cash equivalents
| | Core Department | Core Dept. & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Dept. & Agencies | Departmental Group | |--------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------------|--------------------|-----------------|-----------------------|--------------------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Balance at 1 April | 53,100 | 53,722 | 132,529 | 121,116 | 200,402 | 246,603 | | Net change in cash and cash equivalent balances | (20,138) | (7,539) | (36,814) | (68,016) | (146,680) | (114,074) | | Balance at 31 March | 32,962 | 46,183 | 95,715 | 53,100 | 53,722 | 132,529 |
The following balances at 31 March were held at:
| | Core Department | Core Dept. & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Dept. & Agencies | Departmental Group | |--------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------------|--------------------|-----------------|-----------------------|--------------------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Government Banking Service (GBS) | 32,923 | 46,144 | 64,564 | 52,769 | 53,280 | 53,884 | | Commercial banks and cash in hand | 39 | 39 | 31,151 | 331 | 442 | 78,645 | | Balance at 31 March | 32,962 | 46,183 | 95,715 | 53,100 | 53,722 | 132,529 |
## 20. Trade payables and other current liabilities
| Amounts falling due within one year: | 31 March 2013 | Restated 31 March 2012 | Restated 31 March 2011 | |-------------------------------------|---------------|------------------------|------------------------| | | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | | Other taxation and social security | (44) | 2,244 | - | - | 10,659 | 62,266 | 62,266 | 70,960 | | Trade payables | 17,567 | 21,877 | 25,857 | 41,893 | 45,174 | 43,678 | 71,466 | 90,903 | | Other payables | (3) | 11,747 | 38 | 57 | (3,367) | 10,122 | 12,497 | 12,644 | | Bank overdraft | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Staff payables | - | 437 | - | - | 430 | 705 | 705 | 2,309 | | Accruals and deferred income | 840,535 | 1,281,089 | 1,249,888 | 1,320,273 | 644,487 | 942,015 | 1,018,681 | | Unpaid pension contributions | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Payables – government departments | 1,482 | 12,731 | 12,299 | 12,304 | 34,166 | 14,247 | 14,247 | | Current part of finance leases | 638 | 9,168 | 9,168 | 9,062 | 9,062 | 657 | 7,287 | 7,287 | | Current part of imputed finance lease element of on balance sheet (SoFP) PFI contracts and other service concession arrangements | 31,283 | 39,294 | 44,083 | 40,644 | 43,245 | 32,400 | 49,863 | 52,541 | | Amounts issued from the Consolidated Fund for supply but not spent at year end | 13,454 | 13,454 | 13,454 | - | - | 109,241 | 109,241 | 109,241 | | Consolidated Fund extra receipts due to be paid to the Consolidated Fund | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | – received | 41,263 | 39,597 | 69,051 | 69,061 | 73,737 | 73,737 | 73,737 | | – receivable | 10,694 | 10,694 | 10,695 | 10,695 | 47,253 | 47,253 | 47,253 | | | 956,869 | 1,369,913 | 1,454,220 | 989,472 | 1,433,599 | 1,517,536 | 1,058,938 | 1,392,083 | 1,501,309 |
## Amounts falling due after more than one year:
| Amounts falling due after more than one year: | 31 March 2013 | Restated 31 March 2012 | Restated 31 March 2011 | |-----------------------------------------------|---------------|------------------------|------------------------| | Other payables, accruals and deferred income | - | 3,637 | - | - | 4,050 | - | 7,139 | 14,568 | | Imputed finance lease element of on-balance sheet (SoFP) PFI contracts and other service concession arrangements | 227,048 | 229,603 | 218,950 | 218,950 | 233,696 | 220,483 | 220,483 | 234,083 | | Finance leases | 3,253 | 69,729 | 3,398 | 71,759 | 71,759 | 3,505 | 73,549 | 73,549 | | | 230,301 | 296,777 | 222,348 | 290,709 | 223,988 | 301,171 | 322,200 |
### 20.1 Intra-Government balances
| Current | Core Department £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | |---------|----------------------|---------------------------|-----------------|----------------------|---------------------------|-----------------|----------------------|---------------------------|-----------------|----------------------|---------------------------|-----------------|----------------------|---------------------------|-----------------| | Balances with other central government bodies | 169,118 | 167,093 | 164,032 | 216,985 | 215,202 | 214,863 | 464,494 | 499,455 | 506,251 | | Balances with local authorities | 451,918 | 495,573 | 505,135 | 102,717 | 146,372 | 151,759 | 360,147 | 458,926 | 469,016 | | Balances with NHS Bodies | 116 | 870 | 891 | 497 | 1,251 | 1,827 | - | 9 | 21 | | Balances with public corporations and trading funds | 1,228 | 3,217 | 3,266 | 598 | 2,587 | 2,770 | 3,124 | 3,407 | 3,502 | | Subtotal: intra-government balances | 622,380 | 666,753 | 673,324 | 320,797 | 365,412 | 371,219 | 827,765 | 961,797 | 978,790 | | Balances with bodies external to government | 334,489 | 703,160 | 780,896 | 668,675 | 1,068,187 | 1,146,317 | 231,173 | 430,286 | 522,519 | | Total payables at 31 March | 956,869 | 1,369,913 | 1,454,220 | 989,472 | 1,433,599 | 1,517,536 | 1,058,938 | 1,392,083 | 1,501,309 |
### Non current
| Current | Core Department £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept. & Agencies £000 | Dept. Group £000 | |---------|----------------------|---------------------------|-----------------|----------------------|---------------------------|-----------------|----------------------|---------------------------|-----------------|----------------------|---------------------------|-----------------|----------------------|---------------------------|-----------------| | Balances with other central government bodies | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3,174 | | Balances with local authorities | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Balances with NHS Bodies | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Balances with public corporations and trading funds | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Subtotal: intra-government balances | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 3,174 | | Balances with bodies external to government | 230,301 | 296,777 | 302,969 | 222,348 | 290,709 | 309,505 | 223,988 | 301,171 | 319,026 | | Total payables at 31 March | 230,301 | 296,777 | 302,969 | 222,348 | 290,709 | 309,505 | 223,988 | 301,171 | 322,200 |
## 21. Provisions for liabilities and charges
| | Core Department | Core Dept & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Dept & Agencies | Departmental Group | Restated 2011-12 | |----------------------|-----------------|----------------------|--------------------|-----------------|----------------------|--------------------|------------------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | **Balance at 1 April** | | | | | | | | | | 98,770 | 180,297 | 210,620 | 101,248 | 190,381 | 218,960 | | | Provided in the year | 8,800 | 58,290 | 65,219 | 73,688 | 110,662 | 118,000 | | | Provisions not required written back | (1,481) | (24,597) | (25,929) | (8,390) | (29,105) | (29,619) | | | Provisions utilised in the year | (26,304) | (44,065) | (48,776) | (68,306) | (93,496) | (98,574) | | | Transfer of provisions | 10,290 | 9,628 | - | - | - | - | | | Borrowing costs (unwinding of discounts) | 821 | 3,730 | 3,717 | 530 | 1,855 | 1,853 | | | **Balance at 31 March** | 90,896 | 183,283 | 204,851 | 98,770 | 180,297 | 210,620 | |
Analysed as:
- **Current**
- Core Department: 11,295
- Core Dept & Agencies: 41,592
- Departmental Group: 44,544
- Total: 98,770
- **Non current**
- Core Department: 79,601
- Core Dept & Agencies: 141,691
- Departmental Group: 160,307
- Total: 388,699
**Total**
- Core Department: 90,896
- Core Dept & Agencies: 183,283
- Departmental Group: 204,851
- Total: 478,930
### Analysis of expected timing of discounted flows
| | Core Department | Core Dept & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Dept & Agencies | Departmental Group | Restated 2011-12 | |----------------------|-----------------|----------------------|--------------------|-----------------|----------------------|--------------------|------------------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | **Not later than one year** | | | | | | | | | | 11,295 | 41,592 | 44,544 | 62,237 | 93,191 | 99,289 | | | **Later than one year and not later than five years** | | | | | | | | | | 60,040 | 101,952 | 117,139 | 22,173 | 53,180 | 67,333 | | | **Later than five years** | | | | | | | | | | 19,561 | 39,739 | 43,168 | 14,360 | 33,926 | 43,998 | | | **Balance at 31 March** | 90,896 | 183,283 | 204,851 | 98,770 | 180,297 | 210,620 | |
### Early Departure
| | Core Department | Core Dept & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Dept & Agencies | Departmental Group | Restated 2011-12 | |----------------------|-----------------|----------------------|--------------------|-----------------|----------------------|--------------------|------------------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | **Not later than one year** | | | | | | | | | | 12,289 | 9,210 | 14,123 | - | 8,922 | 44,544 | | | **Later than one year and not later than five years** | | | | | | | | | | 22,739 | 20,094 | 21,284 | 6,400 | 46,622 | 117,139 | | | **Later than five years** | | | | | | | | | | 3,926 | 19,116 | 313 | 14,750 | 5,063 | 43,168 | | | **Balance at 31 March 2013** | 38,954 | 48,420 | 35,720 | 21,150 | 60,607 | 204,851 | | Early Departure Costs
The department meets the additional costs of benefits beyond the normal PCSPS benefits in respect of employees who retire early by paying the required amount to PCSPS to cover the period between early departure and normal retirement date. The department provides for this in full when the early retirement programme becomes binding on the department by establishing a provision or accrual for the estimated payments. Early retirement provisions are discounted at the HM Treasury discount rate of 2.35% in real terms. Severance costs outstanding at year end under the new Civil Service Compensation Scheme are accrued for rather than provided for in a provision.
Dilapidations
The Home Office, its agencies and NDPBs makes provisions to cover its obligations for the reinstatement of its leasehold buildings to their original state before its occupation.
Legal claims
Provision has been made for various legal claims against the Home Office, its agencies and NDPBs. The provision reflects all known claims where legal advice indicates that it is more than 50% probable that the claim will be successful and the amount of the claim can be reliably estimated. The amount provided is on a percentage expected probability basis. No reimbursement will be received in respect of any of these claims. Legal claims, which may succeed but are less likely to do so (or cannot be estimated), are disclosed as contingent liabilities in Note 24.
Forensic Science Service
An amount of £71.3 million was provided to fund the winding up of the FSS by 1 April 2012; £2.0 million of this provision remains as at 31 March 2013. An additional provision of £19.9 million has been made to fund FSS pensions, of which £19.2m remains at 31 March 2013.
Riot Damages Act
A £52.1 million provision has been created for costs arising from the summer riots under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 of which £35.4 million remains as at 31 March 2013.
Other Provisions
The department has further provisions which do not fall into the above categories but which satisfies the criteria for provision creation. The following is a list of significant provisions making this figure:
Conservation costs for urgent repairs required to the Bramshill mansion (a Grade I listed building), and to the grounds and outbuildings (some Grade I and some Grade II), as set out in a report by Gilmore Hankey Kirke and Scott Wilson Group PLC dated April 2009. The costs of the required works are estimated to be £10.3 million, however due to the nature of conservation work this figure is not certain. 22.1. Capital Commitments
| | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | |----------------------|----------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------| | Property, Plant & Equipment | 22,696 | 27,005 | 36,501 | | Intangible assets | 13,617 | 16,752 | 18,426 | | | | | | | | 36,313 | 43,757 | 54,927 |
Contracted capital commitments of over £100,000 as at 31 March 2013 not otherwise included in these financial statements
The Home Office has agreed to support the development of an interface between the Police National Computer (police data from England and Wales) and PSNI (police data from Northern Ireland). This is to mitigate the significant risk that police in England and Wales would not have access to background information on criminals previously active in Northern Ireland who have moved to England or Wales. The remaining commitment is £1.3 million.
In May 2000 the UK Government application to join the Schengen Convention was approved by the EU. Schengen Information System II (SIS II) is a European data system that allows participating countries to exchange information on wanted and missing people, and stolen and missing objects. It also allows for tracing of people for investigations. There is a requirement under EU legislation to contribute towards the cost of development of the infrastructure and £12 million has been committed.
£17.7 million of the core department’s commitments relate to Border Force and are for IT systems and equipment.
The PEACE Capital Project, a contract with two suppliers for an IT System has commitments of £5 million.
UKBA’s intangible commitments have decreased by £25m as the IBIS commitment ceased in March 2013.
IPS capital commitments have decreased from £12 million to £4.9 million due to a combination of factors, which include payment of charges during the period, offsetting completed milestones against the man day bank credits and changes to the scope, delivery timescales and financial impacts of the DLR and Computer Services Corporation (CSC) contracts.
SOCA’s commitments of £9.5 million include contractual obligations for the provision of information technology and communications services.
DBS have a commitment of £1.5 million relating primarily to the Update Service. 22.2. Commitments under leases
22.2.1 Operating Leases Total future minimum lease payments under operating leases are given in the table below for each of the following periods.
Obligations under operating leases for the following periods comprise:
| | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | |----------------------|----------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|----------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------| | **Land** | | | | | | | | Not later than one year | 332 | 1,324 | 1,324 | 332 | 752 | 805 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 1,330 | 5,561 | 5,561 | 1,330 | 2,922 | 3,133 | | Later than five years | 3,270 | 20,891 | 20,891 | 3,603 | 9,778 | 14,029 | | | 4,932 | 27,776 | 27,776 | 5,265 | 13,452 | 17,967 | | **Buildings** | | | | | | | | Not later than one year | 1,407 | 36,264 | 58,505 | 11,484 | 56,467 | 81,309 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 3,608 | 102,735 | 175,402 | 22,108 | 155,781 | 233,081 | | Later than five years | 1,346 | 102,474 | 223,388 | 9,836 | 123,263 | 254,077 | | | 6,361 | 241,473 | 457,295 | 43,428 | 335,511 | 568,467 | | **Other** | | | | | | | | Not later than one year | 94 | 417 | 440 | 74 | 520 | 552 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 50 | 901 | 916 | 25 | 617 | 617 | | Later than five years | - | 3,095 | 3,095 | - | - | - | | | 144 | 4,413 | 4,451 | 99 | 1,137 | 1,169 | | **Total Commitment** | 11,437 | 273,662 | 489,522 | 48,792 | 350,100 | 587,603 |
The figures reported in 2011-12 in respect of UKBA’s land have now been restated, as certain contracts have now been excluded from classification as operating leases. 22.2. Commitments under leases
22.2.2 Finance Leases
Total future minimum lease payments under finance leases are given in the table below for each of the following periods.
Obligations under finance leases for the following periods comprise:
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Buildings | | | | | | | | Not later than one year | 638 | 9,168 | 9,168 | 1,131 | 9,555 | 9,555 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 2,552 | 37,808 | 37,808 | 3,067 | 37,865 | 37,865 | | Later than five years | 3,582 | 119,199 | 119,199 | 2,140 | 126,004 | 126,004 | | Less interest element | 6,772 | 166,175 | 166,175 | 6,338 | 173,424 | 173,424 | | Present value of obligations | 2,881 | 87,278 | 87,278 | 2,302 | 92,602 | 92,602 | | Total Commitment | 3,891 | 78,897 | 78,897 | 4,036 | 80,822 | 80,822 |
Present Value of obligations under finance leases for the following periods comprise:
| | 2012-13 | Restated 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|------------------| | | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Buildings | | | | | | | | Not later than one year | 638 | 9,168 | 9,168 | 638 | 9,062 | 9,062 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 1,824 | 30,045 | 30,045 | 1,824 | 29,699 | 29,699 | | Later than five years | 1,429 | 39,684 | 39,684 | 1,574 | 42,061 | 42,061 | | Total present value of obligations | 3,891 | 78,897 | 78,897 | 4,036 | 80,822 | 80,822 |
22.3. Commitments under PFI and other service concession arrangements
22.3.1 “Off balance sheet” (SoFP)
In 2000, the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), which later became part of the NPIA, entered into a 19 year Public Finance Initiative (PFI) arrangement to design, build and operate a digital radio system providing national secure voice and data coverage for UK Policing (Airwave). Responsibility for this has now transferred to the Home Office.
The cost consists of a core service charge and a menu service charge. The core service charge is estimated to cost £1.2 billion over the entire 19 year life of the initiative with payments being made on a monthly basis. The menu service charge is estimated to cost £290 million over the 19 year life of the initiative, payable in respect of services provided over and above those within the core provision.
This is determined to be an off-balance sheet deal under IFRIC12 Service Concession Arrangements as the department does not control access to the Service or use all but an insignificant amount of the output. Airwave is increasingly being used by the Fire and Ambulance Services as well as other Public Sector Organisations. Total obligations under “off balance sheet” PFI and other service concession agreements for the following periods comprises:
| Period | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | |-------------------------------|----------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|----------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------| | Not later than one year | 376,318 | 376,318 | 376,318 | - | - | 216,422 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 803,580 | 803,580 | 803,580 | - | - | 929,611 | | Later than five years | 212,270 | 212,270 | 212,270 | - | - | 505,782 | | **Total** | **1,392,168** | **1,392,168** | **1,392,168** | - | - | **1,651,815** |
22.3.2 “On balance sheet” (SoFP)
**Home Office IT Systems**
In October 2009, the Home Office signed extensions to its IT contracts with Fujitsu and ATOS Origin to January 2016. The services provided under these contracts remained unchanged (i.e. to provide the IT infrastructure and support for the Home Office and the UK Border Agency); Previously ATOS serviced the UK Border Agency and Fujitsu the Core Home Office.
There was an overlap between the services provided by both these suppliers, but renegotiations at Home Office level have ensured that both ATOS and Fujitsu are now delivering a common IT infrastructure, development and support service which is used by both core Home Office and UKBA.
Under IFRIC 12, this arrangement is deemed as an on balance sheet (SOFP) service concession, the assets being treated as the assets of the Home Office and the UK Border Agency. Given the shared nature of this arrangement, all costs, assets and liabilities have been apportioned to each entity on an agreed percentage.
**Home Office Secure Network**
In 2008-09, the Home Office entered into a contract with Hewlett Packard to provide and support a secure email system and this contract expires in 2014 (the system went live in 2009-10).
Under IFRIC 12, this arrangement is reported as an on balance sheet (SoFP) service concession with intangible and tangible IT assets being treated as assets of the Home Office. The operational and variable payment streams to the contractor are charged to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure.
**Home Office Central London Accommodation**
On 26 March 2002, a 29 year public private partnership contract was signed for the construction and maintenance of a new central London headquarters building at 2 Marsham Street. The new building houses the majority of staff in the Home Office based in Central London. Under IFRIC 12, 2 Marsham Street is recorded as an asset on the Statement of Financial Position (“balance sheet”) of the Home Office. The operational and variable payment streams to the contractor for building services are charged to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure.
The contract contains an option for the Home Office to purchase the building.
**Independent Police Complaints Commission IT and Telephony Service**
On 25 August 2009, a 10 year fixed price contract was signed for the provision of IT and Telephony services to the IPCC from Steria Limited. The contract was effective from 20 December 2009, with a break point at seven years. The assets acquired under the contract are under the control of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Under IFRIC 12, the contract is a service concession arrangement with the IPCC as grantor and Steria Limited as the operator.
**Airwave**
The on balance sheet portion of the Airwave commitment represent assets for the London Underground and the resilience network which have been paid for. Airwave Solutions Ltd will transfer some assets deemed transferable to the Home Office at the end of its contract period upon receipt of payment for the assets at fair market value. The value on-balance sheet represents the current assessment of these assets’ fair value and they are treated as if they were a finance lease.
**Disclosure and Barring Service**
2011-12 was the final year of a 10 year contract awarded under the PPP initiative to provide the CRB checking service. Under IFRIC 12, assets were treated as assets of the DBS. The substance of the contract was that the CRB had a finance lease and that payments comprised two elements – imputed finance lease charges and service charges. At the end of March 2012 the finance lease creditor was fully settled. As a result, a lease arrangement no longer exists, and payments will no longer be split between imputed finance lease charges and service charges. Upon expiry of the contract the CRB reserve the option to retain or transfer the title of the technical infrastructure for the payment of a nominal sum. All CRB assets were transferred to DBS on 1 December 2012.
A contingency arrangement to extend this contract has been put in place until October 2013. Consequently, payments made for the DBS checking service have been charged in full to the SoCNE since 1 December 2012. A new PPP contract has been awarded to TCS (Tata Consultancy Services) which is due to commence 1 October 2013 for a period of 5 years.
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Total obligations under “on balance sheet” PFI and other service concession agreements for the following periods comprises: | | | | | | | | Not later than one year | 76,265 | 126,279 | 131,005 | 59,359 | 107,637 | 110,743 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 260,549 | 344,730 | 376,833 | 197,860 | 329,127 | 339,818 | | Later than five years | 665,479 | 665,479 | 665,647 | 460,211 | 460,211 | 465,898 | | Less interest element | 1,002,293 | 1,136,488 | 1,173,485 | 717,430 | 896,975 | 916,459 | | Present Value of Obligations | 373,838 | 373,838 | 374,007 | 397,142 | 397,142 | 399,279 | | Present Value of Obligations | 628,455 | 762,650 | 799,478 | 320,288 | 499,833 | 517,180 | 22.3.3 Charge to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure and future commitments
The total amount charged in the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure in respect of “off balance sheet” (SoFP) PFI and other service concession arrangement transactions and the service element of “on balance sheet” (SoFP) PFI and other service concession arrangement transactions was £303,929,000 (2011-12 377,328,000) and the payments to which the department, its agencies and NDPBs are committed is as follows.
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Not later than one year | 47,152 | 97,166 | 100,450 | 44,207 | 120,557 | 123,678 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 154,544 | 238,725 | 251,178 | 182,111 | 313,378 | 325,859 | | Later than five years | 171,339 | 171,339 | 175,913 | 186,081 | 186,081 | 193,343 | | | 373,035 | 507,230 | 527,541 | 412,399 | 620,016 | 642,880 |
22.4. Other financial commitments
The Home Office has entered into non-cancellable contracts (which are not leases or PFI contracts):
The Airwave Project is funded by a Memorandum of Understanding between NPIA and the Metropolitan Police Service by grant agreement. The remaining value of the contract is £1.1 million.
UKBA has entered into non-cancellable contracts (which are not leases or PFI contracts) worth an estimated £387 million for the provision of detention services, the development of the Immigration and Asylum Biometric System (IABS), and the facilitation of Worldwide Visa Application Centres.
IPS’s other financial commitments are primarily operational in nature and exist from entering into non-cancellable contracts (which are not leases or PFI contracts) for the provision of contracted out services for passport production (DLR), cashiering and application scanning (Steria), administration of IT systems (CSC), secure delivery and the provision of a telephone contract centre (SMS). They have decreased by £89 million due to contract payments in year and changes to the scope and delivery of major contracts.
SOCA has an outsourcing contract with a consortium company for the delivery of ICT and related services which expires in December 2020. SOCA additionally has a storage and retrieval contract which runs to December 2017 and there are two facilities contracts which run to 2013.
Capita has a contractual obligation to carry out work for DBS under the Service Transfer Plan in terms of the transfer of the new PPP contract to the new supplier.
The payments to which the department and its agencies are committed, analysed by the period during which the commitment expires are as follows:
| | 2012-13 | Restated 2011-12 | |----------------------|---------|-----------------| | | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Dept & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Not later than one year | 41,884 | 341,347 | 385,346 | 32,860 | 245,301 | 271,322 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 71,376 | 493,127 | 574,665 | 69,992 | 494,132 | 559,209 | | Later than five years | 212 | 77,832 | 115,983 | 763 | 154,568 | 206,438 | | Total | 113,472 | 912,306 | 1,075,994 | 103,615 | 894,001 | 1,036,969 | 23. Financial Guarantees, Indemnities and Letter of Comfort
The department has entered into the following quantifiable guarantees, indemnities or provided letters of comfort. None of these is a contingent liability within the meaning of IAS 37 since the likelihood of a transfer of economic benefit in settlement is too remote. They therefore fall to be measured following the requirements of IAS 39.
Managing Public Money requires that the full potential costs of such contracts be reported to Parliament. These costs are reproduced in the table below.
| Indemnities | 1 April 2012 £000 | Increase in year £000 | Liabilities crystallised in year £000 | Obligation expired in year £000 | 31 March 2013 £000 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|----------------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------| | Indemnity provided to BAA in respect of damage or injury caused to third parties from Border Force in their use of vehicles operating airside while transporting immigration officers between airside locations. | 52,000 | - | - | - | 52,000 | | Indemnity in respect of rolling out the Airwave contract in the London Underground (amount capped per incident). Minute dated 15 October 2009. | 100,000 | - | - | - | 100,000 | | Claims arising from the Simplifying Passenger Travel Interest Group (SPT) not exceeding £5 million. Minute dated 8th July 2008. | 5,000 | - | - | - | 5,000 | | Indemnity issued to third parties from SOCA for using their facilities for firearms training, up to a maximum of live exposure at any one time of £50 million. Minute dated 11 October 2011. | 50,000 | - | - | - | 50,000 | | Indemnities were given to various port and airport authorities during installation stage of Cyclamen. The maximum exposure is £115 million with no individual indemnity being above £10 million. Minute dated 29 May 2009. | 115,000 | - | - | - | 115,000 | | Total | 322,000 | - | - | - | 322,000 |
The below quantifiable operational indemnities have been confirmed by HM Treasury as not required to be reported to Parliament.
| Indemnities | 1 April 2012 £000 | Increase in year £000 | Liabilities crystallised in year £000 | Obligation expired in year £000 | 31 March 2013 £000 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|----------------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------| | Indemnity from Home Office to Raytheon to protect against IPR breach post novation of contract, limited to £5 million. | 2,490 | - | - | (120) | 2,370 | | Indemnity from Home Office to Raytheon to protect against IPR breach post novation of contract, limited to £5 million. | 5,000 | - | - | - | 5,000 | | Total | 7,490 | - | - | (120) | 7,370 |
In addition to the above mentioned indemnities, there is a €10 million, £8.15 million indemnity converted at the rate at 20 December 2012 from the European Central Bank website relating to the Cyclamen programme as at 31 March 2013. 24. Contingent Liabilities Disclosed Under IAS 37
The department has the following contingent liabilities:
The Home Office, its agencies and NDPBs have various legal claims which are currently outstanding. The liabilities described below cover all known claims where legal advice indicated that the criteria for recognition of a provision has not been met.
Following the public disturbances of August 2011, the Home Office was made aware of certain high value claims totalling £148.9 million which were rejected by the relevant Police Authorities on the basis that they were not covered by the Riot Damages Act.
The PCC elections were run by Local Returning Officers (LROs) in each local authority, with Police Area Returning Officers (PAROs) co-ordinating the election across each force area. The elections took place in November 2012 and, as they are personally liable for a variety of costs a contingent liability up to a value of £3 million was reported.
There are a number of cases of unlawful detention claims outstanding against UKBA. Based on past experience these give rise to an overall contingent liability of £8.9 million.
UKBA is currently in dispute with five former accommodation providers relating to asylum support accommodation contracts. The value of claims is difficult to quantify but claims against the agency are likely to be in the region of £37.5 million.
UKBA also has a number of other cases outstanding, predominantly relating to changes by UKBA on the immigration rules and their implementation which may have a negative impact on institutions and individuals. The potential liability is £21.2 million.
UKBA has a liability relating to personal injury at work. This has been estimated at £2.8 million.
The Home Office has terminated the e-Borders contract on the basis of material and repeated defaults committed by RSL, who are disputing the termination. See Note 30 for details.
IPS has had operational changes made during the past two years; certain contracts with suppliers were renegotiated. Advice received has indicated that in some instances, this may have resulted in a change of the VAT status of the supplies received that could lead to input tax of up to £700,000 becoming irrecoverable. The IPCC has a contingent liability of £75,000 in respect of a number of legal claims or potential claims against the IPCC, the outcome and timing of which cannot be estimated with certainty. Full provision is made in the financial statements for all liabilities that are expected to materialise.
SOCA has an obligation to reinstate leasehold buildings to their original state before its occupation. This has been estimated at £5 million.
The department has also entered into the following unquantifiable contingent liabilities by offering guarantees, indemnities or by giving letters of comfort. These are considered unquantifiable because either a potential liability cannot be estimated with a degree of certainty at the current time or because there is no stated maximum exposure. None of these is a contingent liability within the meaning of IAS 37 since the possibility of a transfer of economic benefit in settlement is too remote.
Guarantees
Police – City of London Economic Crime Basic Command Unit (ECBCU) (Minute dated 12 March 2004)
If the Home Office reduces or discontinues its share of the match funding of the expanded ECBCU then it will contribute up to 50% to any resulting costs e.g. redundancy payment or property cost. Indemnities
Home Office Central London Accommodation Strategy (HOCLAS) (Minute dated 23 January 2002)
The Home Office has indemnified the contractor for an unquantifiable amount against any financial loss arising from the Home Office providing defective information in respect of the contract.
UKBA New Detection Technology (NDT)
The following minutes have been used to notify Parliament of the contingent liability relating to the UK Border Agency NDT, dated:
10 September 2003, 18 December 2003, 18 March 2004 and 2 July 2004.
The minutes above refer to the following locations and NDT equipment which is loaned by the agency to recipients:
i) Calais: Heartbeat equipment and building and Passive Millimetric Wave Imager trucks. Heartbeat equipment and two buildings in juxtaposed control zone commenced Spring 2004.
ii) Coquelles: Heartbeat Detection Unit at the Euro tunnel operated in the juxtaposed control zone by the UKIS. Passive Millimetric Wave Imager trucks. Shelter for and Heartbeat detection equipment which is under control of, and operated by, the UK Border Agency in the juxtaposed control zone.
iii) Dunkerque: Heartbeat building commenced Summer 2005. Heartbeat equipment and building operated by the UKIS in the juxtaposed control zone and commenced operation in Spring 2004.
iv) Ostend and Zeebrugge: Heartbeat shelters.
v) St. Malo: CO2 probes to be operated by French operators.
vi) Vlissingen: Heartbeat equipment and shelters.
vii) Zeebrugge: Two further Heartbeat buildings and one Passive Millimetric Wave Imager truck.
The minutes also refer to the following:
Indemnity in respect of the deployment and/or demonstration of NDT by the UK Border Agency in Europe. Within the scope of this indemnity “Europe” is defined as the member states of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE); those North African and Middle Eastern countries with which the OSCE has special relationships (Algeria, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia); and those countries which participate in Euro-Mediterranean dialogue with the Council of Europe (Libya, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority).
Harmondsworth and Campsfield Inquiry Team (Minute laid 4 July 2007)
Indemnity provided to the Chairman and members of the team carrying out, in good faith and honesty, the inquiry into the disturbances at the Harmondsworth and Campsfield Immigration Removal Centres.
Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance Service (CIFAS) – Fraud Protection Service
(Minute dated 23 November 2011)
To indemnify bodies against erroneous data entered on the CIFAS database, resulting in claims lodged against those organisations.
The UK Border Agency use of Foreign & Commonwealth Office Premises
Commitment to conditional support provided to the FCO against all third party claims arising out of, or in connection with, the agency’s occupation of the premises. Police Pay and Conditions Review
A standard board indemnity was given to the Lead Reviewer for the Police Pay and Conditions Review.
24.1 Contingent Assets Disclosed Under IAS 37
In 2007, the NPIA sold a police training centre at cost to a government agency. The eventual price was dependent on planning permission and resale for development. The NPIA is expecting to receive additional funds of around £1 million once that sale has been completed.
UKBA have challenged the service level provided from a supplier in the previous financial year. If the supplier accepts negligence UKBA could receive an estimated credit note of £480,000. 25. Losses and Special Payments
25.1 Losses Statement
Losses are transactions of a type which Parliament could not have known when Supply funding for the department was voted. The term loss includes loss of public monies, stores, stocks, cash and other property entrusted to the Home Office. Examples include: cash losses, bookkeeping losses, exchange rate fluctuations, losses of pay, allowance and superannuation benefits, losses arising from overpayments, losses arising from failure to make adequate charges, and losses arising from accountable stores.
| | Core Department | Core Dept & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Dept & Agencies | Departmental Group | Restated 2011-12 | |----------------------|-----------------|----------------------|--------------------|-----------------|----------------------|--------------------|------------------| | | Number of cases | £000 | Number of cases | £000 | Number of cases | £000 | Number of cases | | Losses under £250,000| 2,039 | 198 | 3,168 | 1,274 | 3,185 | 1,407 | 215 | | Cases over £250,000 | 1 | 382 | 9 | 21,859 | 10 | 22,163 | 2 | | Total | 2,040 | 580 | 3,177 | 23,133 | 3,195 | 23,570 | 217 |
Cases over £250,000 comprise:
- Overpayments
- Fruitless Payments
- Loss of Pay
- Constructive Losses
- Claims Waived or Abandoned
| | Number of cases | £000 | Number of cases | £000 | Number of cases | £000 | Number of cases | £000 | |----------------------|-----------------|------|-----------------|------|-----------------|------|-----------------|------| | Overpayments | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Fruitless Payments | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Loss of Pay | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Constructive Losses | 1 | 382 | 6 | 5,826 | 7 | 6,130 | - | - | | Claims Waived or Abandoned | - | - | 3 | 16,033 | 3 | 16,033 | - | - | | Total | 1 | 382 | 9 | 21,859 | 10 | 22,163 | 2 | 806 |
Claims Waived or Abandoned
£8.6 million of losses arose as a result of UKBA-led projects incurring expenditure which was deemed ineligible under the terms of the EU eligibility criteria.
UKBA wrote off £5.5 million for claims which have had all recovery attempts exhausted and £2.0 million for debts that cannot be collected due to entities entering administration.
Constructive Losses
A £2.5 million loss was incurred by UKBA due to cancellations of scheduled and chartered flights originally intended to remove ineligible asylum seekers, which were subsequently cancelled due asylum seekers being granted the right to appeal.
The loss of £1.7 million was due to design development, planning consent and site preparation on the former MOD site at Bullingdon. The development of Bullingdon was not chosen as a preferred option of the detention strategy and subsequently the planning consent lapsed.
A payment of £396,000 was made by the UKBA for one empty property. Unavoidable payments relating to rent, rates and utilities are made to landlords and other parties after occupation ended. These payments are the consequence of an estate management and rationalisation plan designed to increase the overall long term benefit to the business. Part of the building has been sublet to minimise future losses.
A payment of around £382,000 was made as a result of under occupancy of block booked hotel rooms to meet staff duty needs during the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. IPS wrote off £569,000 worth of stock rendered obsolete due to the introduction of the new style passport books. In addition £279,000 worth of residual balance was written off when IPS inventory control account migrated onto a new accounting system.
SIA made a £304,000 adjustment to the debtor balance with the managed service provider, to write off fees waived as a result of significant delays in collecting payments in 2007-08.
25.2 Special Payments
Special Payments are transactions that Parliament could not have anticipated when passing legislation or approving Supply Estimates for the department. Examples include: extra contractual payments to contractors, ex gratia payments to contractors, other ex gratia payments, compensation payments, and extra statutory and extra regulatory payments.
| Special Payment Under £250,000 | Core Department | Core Dept & Agencies | Departmental Group | 2012-13 | Core Department | Core Dept & Agencies | Departmental Group | Restated 2011-12 | |-------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------|-------------------|---------|-----------------|----------------------|-------------------|------------------| | Number of cases | £000 | Number of cases | £000 | Number of cases | £000 | Number of cases | £000 | Number of cases | £000 | | Special Payment Under £250,000 | 499 | 1,224 | 4,656 | 21,360 | 4,680 | 21,935 | 790 | 2,013 | 4,111 | 16,582 | 4,119 | 16,647 | | Special Payment Over £250,000 | 2 | 979 | 7 | 2,625 | 7 | 2,625 | - | - | 5 | 1,379 | 5 | 1,379 | | Total | 501 | 2,203 | 4,663 | 23,985 | 4,687 | 24,560 | 790 | 2,013 | 4,116 | 17,961 | 4,124 | 18,026 |
An amount totalling £713,000 is included in the above table representing claimant’s legal costs borne by the Home Office.
The Core Home Office made an ex-gratia payment to a member of staff in relation to a personal injury claim. The total costs amount to £266,000 of which £203,000 relates to 2012-13 and £63,000 to prior years.
UKBA lost a challenge in the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, resulting in the Appeals Judge awarding the claimants up to the full amount of the appeal fees, totalling £1 million.
Two special payments were made by the UKBA due to removals being successfully challenged by two families. Total costs over a two year period amounted to £624,000 in adverse legal costs and £103,000 in compensation payments.
UKBA made two payments consisting of £405,000 adverse legal cost and £122,000 compensation over two years, in relation to unlawful detention cases, successfully challenged by the detainees. 26. Related-party Transactions
At 31 March 2013 the Home Office was the parent department of the UK Border Agency (UKBA), Identity & Passport Service (IPS), National Fraud Authority (NFA) and the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) (until closure on 30 November 2012). The Home Office was the sponsor of the Non-Departmental Public Bodies listed in Note 28. These bodies are regarded as related parties, with which the Home Office has had various material transactions during the year.
In addition, the department has had transactions with other government departments and other central government bodies. There have also been transactions with The Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation relating to the employees’ pension scheme. The employer’s contribution to this pension scheme can be found in Note 7 to these accounts.
Outside of other government departments and other central government bodies, the department also has had related party transactions with Police and Crime Commissioners (previously police authorities). Among the grants paid to them have been:
- Police main grant – England and Wales £4,440 million
- Neighbourhood policing fund £338 million
- Police special grant (including Riot (Damages) Act 1886 costs) £21 million
- Police capital grant £123 million
- Police PFI grants £54 million
- Police other grants £593 million
In addition, the Home Office has paid £1,233 million to fund the deficit of the police pensions’ schemes.
Ministers’ interests are declared and maintained through the Register of Members Interests at the House of Commons and the Register of Lords’ Interest at the House of Lords.
The Home Office also requests that Ministers, Board members and senior managers complete returns stating whether they, their spouses or close family members have been in a position of influence or control in organisations with which the Home Office has transactions.
No Board member, key managerial staff or other related parties have undertaken any material transactions with the department during the reporting period other than those reported.
Notes 18 and 20 provide details of intra-government balances. The Remuneration Report provides information on key management compensation.
Details of related party transactions of the UKBA, IPS, CRB and the NFA are disclosed in their audited accounts. Details of related party transactions of the consolidated Executive NDPBs are disclosed in their audited accounts. 27. Third-party assets
The UK Border Agency receives applications from foreign nationals to obtain British nationality. The application money includes a ceremony fee of £80 (2011-12 £80), and the local authorities who carry out the ceremonies are entitled to the whole of the fee after the ceremony has been completed.
UKBA therefore holds the funds on behalf of the local authority until the ceremony has taken place. The money is then collected through the UKBA account and is incorporated into the Home Office GBS account so that control over the assets can be maintained.
Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Section 24 of the UK Borders Act 2007 assets can be appropriated by UKBA, SOCA and other law enforcement bodies. UKBA has the authority to seize cash linked to offences against the Immigration Acts. Any cash seized is held in a separate bank account until a judicial case decision is made. Upon decision the monies, including any interest earned, are either returned to the owner or transferred to the agency or NDPB as a seized asset. Monies are held in separate bank accounts depending on currency to eliminate any exchange rate transactions. The balances in these accounts are excluded from the cash balance within the Home Office accounts.
Under the legal system in Scotland, the UKBA has to hold monies for people who are cautioned at court for immigration offences. A bail bond is collected and held in a separate bank account.
The assets held by the Home Office, its agencies and NDPBs at the reporting period date to which it was practical to ascribe monetary values comprised monetary assets, such as bank balances and monies on deposit, listed securities, motor vehicles and other valuables. They are set out, including interest, in the table immediately below.
| | 2012-13 | Restated 2011-12 | |------------------------|---------|------------------| | Citizenship Ceremony Fee | 5,875 | 6,498 | | Proceeds of Crime (UKBA) | 5,227 | 5,249 | | Proceeds of Crime (SOCA) | 11,200 | 10,200 | | Bail Bond Accounts | 239 | 208 | | Total GBP | 22,541 | 22,155 |
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |------------------------|---------|---------| | Proceeds of Crime (Euro) | 3,038 | 2,185 | | Total Euro | 3,038 | 2,185 |
| | 2012-13 | 2011-12 | |------------------------|---------|---------| | Proceeds of Crime (US Dollar) | 487 | 636 | | Total US Dollar | 487 | 636 |
Seized assets
During the financial year, the consolidated department recognised £159.2 million (164.1 million in 2011-12) of retained income in relation to amounts recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2001 and earlier legislation. 28. Entities within the Departmental Boundary
The entities within the departmental boundary during 2012-13 were as follows:
Entities Consolidated
The Home Office departmental accounting boundary encompassed the central government department, four executive agencies and seven non-departmental public bodies. The accounts of these entities form part of the Home Office’s consolidated financial statements.
Executive Agencies
United Kingdom Border Agency Criminal Records Bureau (until closure on 30 November 2012) Identity and Passport Service National Fraud Authority
Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs)
Executive NDPBs: typically established in statute and carrying out executive, administrative, regulatory and/or commercial functions.
Independent Police Complaints Commission Independent Safeguarding Authority (until closure on 30 November 2012) National Policing Improvement Agency Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner Security Industry Authority Serious and Organised Crime Agency Disclosure and Barring Service (from 1 December 2012)
Other Entities:
College of Policing
The College of Policing was established as a limited company on 1 December 2012. It was classified as an Arms Length Body by the Treasury, and has been consolidated within the departmental boundary as a ‘quasi-NDPB’.
Following a Machinery of Government change, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights moved from the Home Office to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The EHRC has been excluded from the 2012-13 consolidation, with the prior year similarly restated.
The National Policing Improvement Agency ceased operational activity during the year, with responsibilities largely transferring to the core department, the College of Policing and the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The NPIA will formally be wound up during 2013-14.
The accounts of these bodies can be found at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.
Entities Not Consolidated
Advisory and Tribunal NDPB’s do not publish accounts as they do not have any money delegated to them. Where there are costs, these are met from Home Office budgets. 29. Organisational Change within the Departmental Boundary
The entities consolidated within the departmental boundary during 2012-13 are listed in note 28. The department is under-going a substantial re-organisation. The key changes are listed below:
- the Government Equalities Office (GEO) and the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (EHRC) moved from the Home Office to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport following a Machinery of Government (MoG) change. Under merger accounting rules, the results of GEO and EHRC have been excluded from the 2012-13 consolidation, with the prior year similarly restated. See note 31 for further details.
- the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) was established in 1 December 2012 to provide a joined up, seamless service combining the criminal records checking and barring functions. The DBS enables organisations to check information held on the Police National Computer and official lists held by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health for any records held on individuals seeking to work with vulnerable people in society and in other regulated areas. These functions were previously carried out by the executive agency, the Criminal Records Bureau, and the non departmental public body, the Independent Safeguarding Authority. Both these organisations ceased operational activity on 30 November 2012.
- the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) ceased operational activity at the end of September 2012. National information services transferred to the core department on 1 October 2012, training and leadership services and workforce development transferred to the College of Policing on 1 December 2012, and operational support and advisory services transferred to the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 1 April 2012 (before future transfer to the National Crime Agency once that has been established). The NPIA will formally be wound up during 2013-14.
- the interim College of Policing was established as a company limited by guarantee on 1 December 2012. It was classified as an Arms Length Body by the Treasury, and has been consolidated within the departmental boundary as a ‘quasi-NDPB’. The mission of the CoP is to safeguard the public and to support the fight against crime by ensuring professionalism in policing. In due course, Parliamentary time permitting, the College of Policing will be established as a statutory body, independent of government.
In addition, the department is working towards the establishment of the National Crime Agency in 2013-14. The NCA will be established as an independent non-Ministerial government department. 30. Termination of the e-Borders contract
The e-Borders contract with Raytheon Systems Limited (“RSL”), a subsidiary of Raytheon Company, was terminated for cause on 22 July 2010. The Home Office subsequently initiated arbitration proceedings. The termination occurred before the 2009-10 accounts had been signed and disclosure of this termination was made in the 2009-10 accounts as a post balance sheet event. Within the 2010-11 accounts the UKBA made a full disclosure of the impairment charges, capital commitments, contingent liability and contingent asset.
The e-Borders Programme started in 2003 and it developed a prototype which successfully tested the core concept of an intelligence led, multi agency, integrated border control. The e-Borders contract with Raytheon was intended to enhance and replace this earlier prototype, in line with the business case agreed in October 2007.
Following a full external procurement, the e-Borders contract was signed in November 2007 with RSL as the prime contractor, heading the Trusted Borders consortium. The delivery was split into four release projects (RPs): RP1 – carrier gateway, RP2 – development of additional core software, RP3 – roll out to ports and RP4 – various enhancements.
At termination, the RP1 Carrier Gateway was in partial operation but has now been decommissioned. The agency did not proceed further with the development of RP2 Core software, RP3 roll out and the additional enhancements in RP4. The costs associated with these parts of the programme were impaired in the 2010-11 UKBA accounts. In 2011-12 the e-Borders programme has continued, as part of the Border Systems Programme, with development and enhancement of legacy systems.
Impairment Charges
Termination of the contract and the decisions subsequently taken to stabilise the systems resulted in an impairment charge of £207.5 million in the 2010-11 accounts of which the Home Office had paid £156.3 million, not paid £50.1 million, with £1.2 million going to the revaluation reserve. This includes costs in assets under construction related to RP2 and RP3, which the Home Office decided not to complete, and an impairment of £112 million against the book value of the RP1 live assets.
The table below sets out the impact of these impairment charges on the RSL related e-Borders assets in the accounts at 31 March 2010 and during the 2010-11 accounting year. From 1 April 2011 the only transactions in respect of these assets was the application of further depreciation charges.
| RSL RP1 Assets | Opening Balance Apr-2010 £000 | Net Movements to Jul-2010 £000 | Impairment Jul-2010 £000 | Net Movements to Mar-2011 £000 | Opening Balance Apr-2011 £000 | Net Movements to Mar-2012 £000 | Opening Balance Apr-2012 £000 | Net Movements to Jan-2013 £000 | Closing Balance Mar-2013 £000 | |----------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------| | Intangible | 116,942 | 7,873 | (109,513) | (3,530) | 11,772 | (4,390) | 7,382 | (7,382) | - | | IT | 4,308 | (112) | (2,449) | (665) | 1,082 | (404) | 678 | (678) | - | | Assets Under Construction | 106,921 | (11,334) | (95,587) | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Total | 228,171 | (3,573) | (207,549) | (4,195) | 12,854 | (4,794) | 8,060 | (8,060) | - | | Paid | 168,372 | 4,956 | (156,279) | (4,195) | 12,854 | (4,794) | 8,060 | (8,060) | - | | Unpaid | 59,799 | (9,703) | (50,096) | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Revaluation and Depreciation | - | 1,174 | (1,174) | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Total | 228,171 | (3,573) | (207,549) | (4,195) | 12,854 | (4,794) | 8,060 | (8,060) | - | These impairments set out above have been included in the losses note for 2010-11. They represent the reduction in the net book value of the assets relating to e-Borders arising from the termination of the contract. There have been no further impairments of the RSL RP1 assets in 2011-12 or 2012-13.
**Contingent Liability**
The e-Borders contract with RSL was terminated for cause. RSL is disputing the termination.
The dispute is in arbitration. The Home Office has made a claim for damages. RSL has alleged that the termination by the agency was not valid and is making a counter-claim for damages.
The Home Office recognises that there is an inherent risk in all litigation. Consequently, as at 31 March 2013, the Home Office has disclosed this issue as a contingent liability (as was the case in the 2011-12 accounts). Due to the complexity of the Home Office’s claim and RSL’s counter-claim we are unable to quantify the amount of this contingent liability.
In addition to the above, as part of the contract termination process with RSL, the Home Office has transferred a contract between RSL and a subcontractor so that the contract is directly between the Home Office and the sub contractor. As part of the transfer the Home Office provided an indemnity of £5 million to RSL against losses arising from the infringement of intellectual property rights. The contract transferred on 15 April 2011.
**Future Developments**
The Home Office has taken forward e-Borders as part of its wider programme of investment in border security. 31. Machinery of Government changes
On 1 April 2012 the Government Equalities Office (GEO) ceased to be part of the Home Office and was moved to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) as the result of a Ministerial Reshuffle. The 2011-12 comparatives of these accounts have therefore been restated to exclude the GEO from the core department and consolidated department balances. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is an NDPB accountable through the GEO. The 2011-12 comparatives of these accounts have therefore been restated to exclude EHRC from the consolidated department balances.
| Operating costs: | 2011-12 | 2011-12 | 2011-12 | 2011-12 | 2011-12 | |-----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | GEO | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Administrative staff costs | (5,510) | (5,510) | (5,510) | (19,962) | (25,472) | | Other Administrative costs | (1,828) | (1,828) | (1,828) | (14,179) | (16,007) | | Administration income | 1,143 | 1,143 | 1,143 | 351 | 1,494 | | Programme staff costs | - | - | - | (1,868) | (1,868) | | Other Programme costs | (885) | (885) | (885) | (7,575) | (8,460) | | Programme income | - | - | - | 72 | 72 | | Non Retainable Income | - | - | - | - | - | | Grant-in-Aid (EHRC from GEO) | (35,975) | (35,975) | (35,975) | 35,975 | - | | Total | (43,055) | (43,055) | (43,055) | (7,186) | (50,241) |
| Statement of Financial Position: | 2011-12 | 2011-12 | 2011-12 | 2011-12 | 2011-12 | |---------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Property, plant and equipment | - | - | - | (1,404) | (1,404) | | Intangible assets | - | - | - | (41) | (41) | | Inventories | - | - | - | - | - | | Trade and other receivables | (646) | (646) | (646) | (964) | (1,610) | | Cash and cash equivalents | (1,140) | (1,140) | (1,140) | (1,063) | (2,203) | | Trade and other payables | 618 | 618 | 618 | 8,450 | 9,068 | | Provisions | - | - | - | 3,310 | 3,310 | | Long term trade and other payables | - | - | - | 1,530 | 1,530 | | Total Assets Less Liabilities | (1,168) | (1,168) | (1,168) | 9,818 | 8,650 |
| General fund | (1,168) | (1,168) | (1,168) | 10,013 | 8,845 | | Reserves | - | - | - | (195) | (195) | | Total | (1,168) | (1,168) | (1,168) | 9,818 | 8,650 | An additional in-year Machinery of Government change was the movement of the department’s Procurement Centre of Excellence (PCOE) to the Cabinet Office’s Government Procurement Service (GPS) on 1 October 2012.
As both the number of staff transferred and the overall cost were immaterial in relation to Home Office expenditure, the results of the prior year have not been restated.
### 32. Events after the Reporting Period
The UK Border Agency moved to within the core department on 1 April 2013.
The Identity and Passport Service was renamed as Her Majesty’s Passport Office from 1 April 2013.
These financial statements were authorised for issue on the same date that the Comptroller and Auditor General signed his certificate.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1060-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 173,
"total-input-tokens": 388319,
"total-output-tokens": 149154,
"total-fallback-pages": 1
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
414,
1
],
[
414,
1627,
2
],
[
1627,
3326,
3
],
[
3326,
6120,
4
],
[
6120,
8758,
5
],
[
8758,
9555,
6
],
[
9555,
13427,
7
],
[
13427,
17410,
8
],
[
17410,
21938,
9
],
[
21938,
26386,
10
],
[
26386,
29959,
11
],
[
29959,
34134,
12
],
[
34134,
38017,
13
],
[
38017,
42309,
14
],
[
42309,
46175,
15
],
[
46175,
49793,
16
],
[
49793,
53722,
17
],
[
53722,
57920,
18
],
[
57920,
62494,
19
],
[
62494,
67411,
20
],
[
67411,
71837,
21
],
[
71837,
75544,
22
],
[
75544,
79453,
23
],
[
79453,
82849,
24
],
[
82849,
85266,
25
],
[
85266,
87308,
26
],
[
87308,
90244,
27
],
[
90244,
94270,
28
],
[
94270,
99066,
29
],
[
99066,
102202,
30
],
[
102202,
105137,
31
],
[
105137,
109059,
32
],
[
109059,
112012,
33
],
[
112012,
114045,
34
],
[
114045,
115280,
35
],
[
115280,
118822,
36
],
[
118822,
121233,
37
],
[
121233,
123056,
38
],
[
123056,
124484,
39
],
[
124484,
127177,
40
],
[
127177,
129938,
41
],
[
129938,
133495,
42
],
[
133495,
134917,
43
],
[
134917,
138424,
44
],
[
138424,
141830,
45
],
[
141830,
144437,
46
],
[
144437,
147498,
47
],
[
147498,
148624,
48
],
[
148624,
152487,
49
],
[
152487,
155511,
50
],
[
155511,
158298,
51
],
[
158298,
162277,
52
],
[
162277,
164887,
53
],
[
164887,
168545,
54
],
[
168545,
172138,
55
],
[
172138,
175223,
56
],
[
175223,
178873,
57
],
[
178873,
180005,
58
],
[
180005,
183980,
59
],
[
183980,
187516,
60
],
[
187516,
189604,
61
],
[
189604,
192682,
62
],
[
192682,
197189,
63
],
[
197189,
200873,
64
],
[
200873,
204312,
65
],
[
204312,
206571,
66
],
[
206571,
209209,
67
],
[
209209,
212215,
68
],
[
212215,
215719,
69
],
[
215719,
219856,
70
],
[
219856,
223461,
71
],
[
223461,
227008,
72
],
[
227008,
230396,
73
],
[
230396,
233510,
74
],
[
233510,
236231,
75
],
[
236231,
238328,
76
],
[
238328,
239924,
77
],
[
239924,
242144,
78
],
[
242144,
245702,
79
],
[
245702,
250087,
80
],
[
250087,
253013,
81
],
[
253013,
255761,
82
],
[
255761,
260037,
83
],
[
260037,
263254,
84
],
[
263254,
267264,
85
],
[
267264,
271066,
86
],
[
271066,
275694,
87
],
[
275694,
278917,
88
],
[
278917,
283644,
89
],
[
283644,
288445,
90
],
[
288445,
292895,
91
],
[
292895,
297237,
92
],
[
297237,
298396,
93
],
[
298396,
302005,
94
],
[
302005,
306185,
95
],
[
306185,
307114,
96
],
[
307114,
311458,
97
],
[
311458,
313036,
98
],
[
313036,
314883,
99
],
[
314883,
317366,
100
],
[
317366,
321220,
101
],
[
321220,
325387,
102
],
[
325387,
327073,
103
],
[
327073,
331145,
104
],
[
331145,
335168,
105
],
[
335168,
337629,
106
],
[
337629,
341134,
107
],
[
341134,
344704,
108
],
[
344704,
348728,
109
],
[
348728,
352565,
110
],
[
352565,
356698,
111
],
[
356698,
360044,
112
],
[
360044,
363217,
113
],
[
363217,
367616,
114
],
[
367616,
372143,
115
],
[
372143,
375668,
116
],
[
375668,
379825,
117
],
[
379825,
384074,
118
],
[
384074,
385640,
119
],
[
385640,
387492,
120
],
[
387492,
389265,
121
],
[
389265,
391242,
122
],
[
391242,
393666,
123
],
[
393666,
396731,
124
],
[
396731,
398487,
125
],
[
398487,
401023,
126
],
[
401023,
403824,
127
],
[
403824,
409699,
128
],
[
409699,
412905,
129
],
[
412905,
414581,
130
],
[
414581,
416221,
131
],
[
416221,
418259,
132
],
[
418259,
420346,
133
],
[
420346,
424697,
134
],
[
424697,
426318,
135
],
[
426318,
429857,
136
],
[
429857,
432579,
137
],
[
432579,
435508,
138
],
[
435508,
443424,
139
],
[
443424,
453541,
140
],
[
453541,
458574,
141
],
[
458574,
461181,
142
],
[
461181,
464828,
143
],
[
464828,
468613,
144
],
[
468613,
470228,
145
],
[
470228,
471855,
146
],
[
471855,
473962,
147
],
[
473962,
475845,
148
],
[
475845,
477822,
149
],
[
477822,
482641,
150
],
[
482641,
485682,
151
],
[
485682,
491267,
152
],
[
491267,
493845,
153
],
[
493845,
496440,
154
],
[
496440,
500165,
155
],
[
500165,
503411,
156
],
[
503411,
507319,
157
],
[
507319,
510063,
158
],
[
510063,
513570,
159
],
[
513570,
517873,
160
],
[
517873,
521357,
161
],
[
521357,
524244,
162
],
[
524244,
524885,
163
],
[
524885,
529022,
164
],
[
529022,
531591,
165
],
[
531591,
534031,
166
],
[
534031,
536849,
167
],
[
536849,
538978,
168
],
[
538978,
541626,
169
],
[
541626,
546789,
170
],
[
546789,
548333,
171
],
[
548333,
550905,
172
],
[
550905,
551639,
173
]
]
} |
257e582e76a019db196fd8d17dec5e1d912b8b27 | Calderdale Anti-Poverty Dashboards: User Guide and Glossary
Introduction
This is a short guide and glossary for the Calderdale Anti-Poverty Dashboards. We hope you find it useful. If you have any further questions about the dashboards please contact performance.businessintelligence@calderdale.gov.uk.
The Calderdale Anti-Poverty Dashboards show the latest results for 17 statistics about poverty in Calderdale. Ward and lower layer super output area (LSOA) results are included where available. The dashboards are available at opendata.calderdale.gov.uk/extensions/Poverty-index/Poverty-index.html.
The dashboards accompany the Calderdale Anti-Poverty action plan. The plan has been produced in consultation with local partner agencies. More information on the plan and tackling poverty in Calderdale is available on the Calderdale Council website at www.calderdale.gov.uk/nweb/COUNCIL.minutes_pkg.view_doc?p_Type=AR&p_ID=62433.
Quick links
Click on one of these links to go straight to a topic
User Guide
1. Getting Started
2. Home Page
3. Ward and LSOA Overviews
4. Benefits summary
5. Ward and LSOA maps and charts
6. Calderdale only charts
Glossary
1. Geographical terms
2. Acronyms
3. Statistic data sources
How to download an image User Guide
1 Getting Started
Click on the following link to view the Calderdale Anti-Poverty Dashboards home page opendata.calderdale.gov.uk/extensions/Poverty-index/Poverty-index.html.
2 Home Page
This dashboard shows the latest published results for Calderdale. Sixteen of the statistics have additional dashboards showing results at ward and / or LSOA in map and chart form.
The remaining dashboards show results over time and / or in comparison to other local authorities:
- Click on Ward or LSOA overview to view a snapshot of results by ward / LSOA;
- Click on a number to view charts and maps about that number.
Return to page 1 3 Ward and LSOA overviews
These dashboards show the latest published results for Calderdale or one or more wards or LSOAs.
Use the Ward / LSOA filter to view the latest published results for the areas you have selected:
- Click on a term in a drop down list
- A green tick ✓ will appear
- Click on the green tick to apply the term you have selected as a filter
- The dashboard will update in line with the filter.
To remove filters click on the “Clear all filters” link in the top right of the screen.
Click on a number to view charts and maps showing results by ward and LSOA.
4 Benefits Summary
This dashboard provides an overview of benefit take up by ward and LSOA.
Use the scroll bar at the bottom of the chart to find results for a ward or LSOA not immediately on display. 5 Ward and LSOA maps, charts and tables
There are sixteen statistics which have results by ward and/or LSOA. For each one you can view results by map, chart and/or table by LSOA / ward.
Smart screen and desktop users can zoom in on maps to view areas in more detail. Desktop users can use the central button on the computer mouse to zoom in. 5 Ward and LSOA maps, charts and tables (continued)
Use filters by Ward / LSOA or topic band to create customised tables, charts and maps that reflect your area of interest:
- Click on a term in a drop down list
- A green ✓ will appear
- Click on the green tick to apply the term you have selected as a filter
- The map will update in line with the filter.
The numbers in the “Selected ..” buttons at the top of the screen will update to reflect your selection.
To remove all filters click on the “Clear all filters” link in the top right of the screen. 5 Ward and LSOA maps, charts and tables (continued)
Tables can be sorted by any column. Click on the column heading to sort or filter.
Some tables are grouped using tabs such as in the example below. Click on a tab such as “Unauthorised school absence” in this example to view a different table.
![Table Example]
Data sources: 1) Calderdale School Census 2018 Full Absence Report, accessed February 2020. Next update expected March 2020. 2) Department for Education Local authority Interactive Tool 31 January 2020. Next update expected March 2020.
Return to page 1 6 Calderdale only charts
There are six topical statistics which have Calderdale information but do not have Ward or LSOA results. Three examples are provided in this guide.
The dashboard format varies depending on the statistic.
You can customise charts by selecting time periods or local authority names. Glossary
1 Geographical terms
Many of the statistics can be viewed at either lower layer super output (LSOA) or ward level. Descriptions of Calderdale’s LSOAs, Wards and other sub-district geographies are available from dataworks.calderdale.gov.uk/dataset/lower-super-output-areas-by-postcode.
2 Acronyms
| Acronym | Description | |---------|-------------| | DPP | Deprivation Pupil Premium. Pupils who have been eligible for free school meals within the previous six years are eligible for DPP | | FSM | Free school meals. | | IDACI | Income deprivation affecting children index. Part of the English Indices of Deprivation 2015 | | IDAOCI | Income deprivation affecting older people index. Part of the English Indices of Deprivation 2015 | | IMD | Index of multiple deprivation. Part of the English Indices of Deprivation 2019. Government measure of deprivation at LSOA / neighbourhood level. | | KS2 RWM | Key stage 2 Reading Writing and Mathematics. An acronym included in measures used to assess the number and proportion of pupils sitting key stage 2 tests in reading, writing and mathematics who achieve the expected standard in all three. | | LSOA | Lower Layer Super Output Area. A statistically defined area created by the Office for National Statistics. Each area contains approximately 1700 people. LSOAs are different sizes depending on their population density. LSOAs tend to be larger in rural areas compared with urban areas due to the difference in population density. There are 128 LSOAs in Calderdale. Each LSOA has a label: eg Calderdale 001A and a code eg E01010911 |
## Glossary
### 3 Dashboard Statistic data sources
| Dashboard | Statistic | Data source | Technical note | |--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **Benefits Summary** | People claiming Disability Living Allowance, Personal Independence Payment, Pension Credit or Universal Credit, Households claiming Universal Credit, Housing Benefit claimants, Claimant Count | See individual dashboard statistic data source descriptions below. The Benefits summary dashboard is updated monthly with latest results. The period displayed depends on the benefit. Data on Claimant Count and people claiming universal credit is updated monthly and available within one month of period end. Data for Housing Benefit and Households claiming Universal Credit\* is updated quarterly in February, May, August and November and is available within three months from period end. Data for people claiming Pension Credit or Disability benefits\* is updated quarterly in February, May, August and November and is available within six months of period end. | Calderdale results may differ to total ward or total LSOA results due to DWP internal processes. | | **Child Poverty** | Percentage of Children in Low Income Families (Relative measure, before housing costs) | HM Revenues and Customs (HMRC) and Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), Children in Low Income Families: c/o stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk, updated annually. Updates expected March of following year | Calderdale results may differ to total ward or total LSOA results due to DWP internal processes. | | **Claimant Count** | Number or percentage of people claiming Jobseekers allowance or Universal Credit and looking for work, overall and for selected age groups | NOMIS WEB Office for National Statistics (ONS) Claimant Count nomisweb.co.uk. Results updated monthly | Calderdale results may differ to total ward or total LSOA results due to ONS internal processes. | | Dashboard | Statistic | Data source | Technical note | |-------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Council Tax Debt | Total Council Tax Debt | Calderdale Council Tax system c/o Calderdale Council Qlikview July 2019, accessed September 2019. Next update expected July 2020 | Calderdale results differ to total ward and LSOA results as a small number of payment addresses are outside the district | | Disability Claimants\* | Number of people claiming Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payment | Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), statxplore.dwp.gov.uk, updated quarterly. Updates expected six months after period end in February, May, August and November | | | Employment rate | Percentage of people aged 16 to 64 who are in employment | NOMISWEB, Annual Population Survey, nomisweb.co.uk. Updated quarterly. Updates expected four months after period end in April, July, October and January | | | Employment rate Disabled | % People in Employment aged 16 to 64 who are Employment rate EA (Equality Act) core or work limiting disabled | NOMISWEB, Annual Population Survey, nomisweb.co.uk. Updated quarterly. Updates expected four months after period end in April, July, October and January | | | Free school meals | Number of school pupils eligible and claiming free school meals. | Calderdale School Census January 2019, c/o Calderdale Council Performance and Business Intelligence Team and DFE Schools Pupils and their Characteristics Accompanying Tables, www.gov.uk. January results published in June. | Dashboard results are based on pupils living in Calderdale. Published results include pupils living in neighbouring boroughs | | Dashboard | Statistic | Data source | Technical note | |---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Healthy Life Expectancy Gap | Average in the number of years difference in healthy life expectancy at birth between the most and least deprived Medium Layer Super Output Areas in the local authority area between 2009 and 2013 | Public Health England; c/o Public Health England Fingertips website www.phoutcomes.info. Next update to be confirmed | | | Homelessness Assessments | Number of initial assessments of homeless households, or households at risk of homelessness | Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) Initial Assessments table Assessments_201903 sheet LA Dropdown, www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-homelessness, updated quarterly. Updates expected six months after period end in December, March, June and September. | | | Households claiming Universal Credit\* | Number of Households claiming Universal Credit | Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), stats.explore.dwp.gov.uk, Updates expected six months after period end in February, May, August and November | | | Households in Fuel Poverty | Percentage of households in fuel poverty | Gov.uk (2019) Fuel Poverty sub-regional statistics; www.gov.uk/government/collections/fuel-poverty-sub-regional-statistics, updated annually. Updates expected in June | | | Housing Benefit | Number of Housing Benefit claimants | Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), stats.explore.dwp.gov.uk, updated quarterly. Updates expected three months after period end in February, May, August and November | Calderdale results may differ to total ward or total LSOA results due to DWP internal processes. | | Dashboard | Statistic | Data source | Technical note | |---------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **Insolvencies** | Number of individual insolvencies including individual voluntary arrangements, debt relief orders and bankruptcies | Insolvency Service (2019) Individual Insolvencies by Ward, England and Wales 2013 to 2018. Next update to be confirmed | | | **Key Stage 2 Reading Writing and Mathematics achievement** | Number and percentage of pupils sitting key stage 2 test in reading, writing and mathematics who have achieved the expected standard in all three subjects. | National Consortium of Examination Results (NCER). Calderdale and comparative results from www.gov.uk. Ward and LSOA results from Calderdale Council Performance and Business Intelligence team. Annual results published in November. | Dashboard results are based on pupils living in Calderdale. Published results include pupils living in neighbouring boroughs | | **Living Wage** | Number of employee jobs with hourly pay below the living wage | Office for National Statistics (ONS), "Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) - Estimates of the number and proportion of employee jobs with hourly pay below the living wage, by parliamentary constituency and local authority, UK, April 2016 and April 2017"; www.ons.gov.uk, accessed 2/1/2018. Next update to be confirmed | | | **Older People in Poverty** | Percentage of Older People aged 60+ who are income deprived | Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), English Income deprivation affecting older people index 2019; c/o LG Inform Plus www.lginform.local.gov.uk, updated every three or four years. Next update expected 2023. | Total ward and total LSOA results may differ due to MHCLG / LGINFORM PLUS internal processes | | **Pension Credit** | Number of people claiming Pension Credit | Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), stats-xplore.dwp.gov.uk, updated quarterly. Updates expected six months after period end in February, May, August and November | Calderdale results may differ to total ward or total LSOA results due to DWP data process. | | Dashboard | Statistic | Data source | Technical note | |-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | People claiming Universal Credit\* | Number of People claiming Universal Credit | Department of Work and Pensions (DWP); statxplore.dwp.gov.uk. Results updated monthly | Calderdale results may differ to total ward or total LSOA results due to DWP data process. | | People in Poverty | Percentage of People who are income deprived | Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), English Index of Income Deprivation 2019; c/o LG Inform Plus www.lginform.local.gov.uk, updated every 3 or 4 years. Next update expected 2023 | Total ward and total LSOA results may differ due to MHCLG / LGINFORM PLUS internal processes. | | Repossessions | Number of Mortgage and Landlord Repossessions | Ministry of Justice, Mortgage and Landlord Repossessions Statistics; c/o gov.uk, updated quarterly. Updates expected four months after period end in February, May, August and November | | | School Absence | Number of absence sessions and absence rates for all schools, primary and secondary schools; difference in the absence rates of pupils eligible for Deprivation Pupil Premium and pupils not eligible; results for all absence, unauthorised and authorised absence | 1) Calderdale School Census Annual Full Absence Report. Results updated each March 2) Department for Education Local authority Interactive Tool https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-authority-interactive-tool-lait | Calderdale results may differ to total ward results, as the latter do not include results for pupils who live outside the district. | | Dashboard | Statistic | Data source | Technical note | |-------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **School Readiness** | Percentage of children ready for school | National Consortium of Examination Results (NCER). | Calderdale and comparative results from [www.gov.uk](http://www.gov.uk). Ward and LSOA results from Calderdale Council Performance and Business Intelligence team. Annual results published in November. | | | Also known as Percentage of children achieving a good level of development within the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile. | | |
- Ward level results for Universal Credit and Disability Benefits are based on the Office for National Statistics (ONS) definition of “best fit” between LSOAs and Wards. A list of LSOAs for each ward is available from [dataworks.calderdale.gov.uk/dataset/lower-super-output-areas-by-postcode](http://dataworks.calderdale.gov.uk/dataset/lower-super-output-areas-by-postcode).
Return to page 1 How to download a map as an image
This will vary depending on your web browser.
For Google Chrome
1. Click on the map you wish to export;
2. Right click ‘Save image as…’.
Snipping Tool
- This is a free tool on all Windows PCs.
- It is a great way to take a copy of an image from your screen
If you have not used Snipping Tool before you can find it as follows:
- Click on the “Start Button”
- Type “Snipping Tool” in the search… box
- Snipping tool will appear in your search menu.
- Follow the instructions in the tool to use.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1061-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 15,
"total-input-tokens": 29936,
"total-output-tokens": 4381,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1250,
1
],
[
1250,
1893,
2
],
[
1893,
2680,
3
],
[
2680,
3024,
4
],
[
3024,
3582,
5
],
[
3582,
4153,
6
],
[
4153,
4462,
7
],
[
4462,
6072,
8
],
[
6072,
8520,
9
],
[
8520,
11224,
10
],
[
11224,
14205,
11
],
[
14205,
16992,
12
],
[
16992,
19614,
13
],
[
19614,
21405,
14
],
[
21405,
21937,
15
]
]
} |
56a91a99fae7a1699057dc43bc4eaa8ae4d5a143 | Tackling London’s Gangs
The Metropolitan Police Service yesterday launched a new initiative to tackle the problem of violent gangs in London. At its core is a refocusing of Trident Operational Command Unit to include a central Gang Crime Command and to build on the good prevention and enforcement work already undertaken in partnership with local authorities. This briefing highlights the main features of the new approach and alerts members to the implications for boroughs, who will be core partners at a local level.
Overview
Tackling gang criminality and violence has been a core priority of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe since he came to office September 2011. The newly formed Trident Gang Command is the result of a reorganisation of the MPS internal structures. The new Command is designed to be better placed and better resourced to address the challenges of tackling gang crime. The new initiative builds on previous work delivered by the Metropolitan Police, in partnership with the boroughs, that employs prevention initiatives, diversionary provision and targeted enforcement activity.
This approach draws extensively on the experience of Operation Connect and previous anti-gangs initiatives piloted in a number of London boroughs that involve police officers working alongside colleagues from the local authority and other agencies to:
- jointly identify gang members to prioritise enforcement and diversionary activity
- offer a way out of the gang way of life to gang members who engage and accept assistance
- identify future gang members and influence both them and their families away from gangs
- carry out focused proactive police enforcement on the highest risk gang offenders.
Metropolitan Police statistics on gangs
There are an estimated 250 active criminal gangs in London, comprising nearly 5,000 people. Of these gangs, 62 are considered to be ‘high harm’ and commit two thirds of all gang-related crime. It is estimated that this relatively small number of people are responsible for approximately 22 per cent of serious violence, 17 per cent of robbery, 50 per cent of shootings and 14 per cent of rapes in London.
Analysis
The Trident Gang Command will have one thousand officers dedicated to tackling gangs at its disposal, as well as the introduction of local task forces across London. The new Gang Command will retain Trident’s responsibility for the prevention and investigation of shootings, though this will no longer be specific to black communities. The Gang Command will now work more closely alongside boroughs to proactively tackle gang crime. Nineteen boroughs, where gang crime is more prevalent, will now have a dedicated gang crime task force: Brent, Camden, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth.
The new approach acknowledges, and seeks to build on, the established partnership work with the boroughs and other agencies on prevention and diversion, as well as working with them on identifying gang members in enforcement.
**Borough work on tackling gang crime**
London boroughs have taken a range of approaches to tackling gang crime and some have identified specialist staff to work alongside police colleagues to provide an integrated approach to case managing the most harmful gang members.
In addition to programmes focussed on reducing violence, much of boroughs’ mainstream activity contributes to supporting and protecting communities through safeguarding, youth work, community empowerment, regeneration and housing provision. These include early intervention programmes, work to focus services around families with multiple problems and work to tackle group and gang offending. The net effect of these initiatives is expected to be a reduction of violence in the longer term. Examples of borough work on tackling gangs include:
**The Hackney Gangs Intervention Project** is a partnership that co-locates Hackney police, the council, London Probation Trust and Hackney Homes to share knowledge, skills and information about certain individuals involved in gang activity in the borough and has been instrumental in reducing gun and knife crime in the area.
**London borough of Southwark’s SERVE programme** relocates individuals and families at risk through gang violence. Since 2009, the programme has successfully supported 23 families into more stable housing. The programme also provides support and monitoring and, while supporting the whole family, it also focuses on 14-19 year-olds involved in serious gang violence who have either been victims or offenders. Outcomes include a 20 per cent reduction in violent crime by participants and a reduction in victimisation by 50 per cent while involved in SERVE. The cost of SERVE is around £35,000 per annum. The principles and lessons learned from SERVE have been incorporated into the Safe and Secure scheme.
**Home Visits and Pathways** are two more Southwark projects that enable partner agencies to work strategically together to reduce serious violence and levels of violence associated with gang and group offending in the borough. Pathways has worked with 41 gang members. Of these, 23 have reformed, 12 are currently involved in the Pathways project and six are in custody and will be in the programme upon their release. Southwark’s Home Visits programme goes to the homes of young people identified by police or youth services as being on the fringes of gang activity. It pairs the young person with a mentor and develops a tailored strategy, offering individuals an alternative path back into education and eventually into work. In some instances the programme relocates gang members. The Home Visits programme focuses on 11-17 year-olds. The council has carried out 110 home visits over the last two years.
**Lewisham has a Trilogy + multi-agency team**, which combines enforcement with support for people to exit the gang, and has a close focus on the impact on local communities. Interim analysis suggests that this provision has significantly reduced reoffending of serious violence of the individuals the service has worked with. Lewisham’s work includes Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences for victims of serious youth violence. Their primary aim is to prevent re-victimisation and avoid young victims from becoming perpetrators themselves. Initial evaluation highlights a 25 per cent re-victimisation rate compared to a national figure of 58 per cent.
The target client group for Trilogy+ is 13-25 year-olds. The service has worked with a total of 110 young people since inception. In 2010/11, those young people that fully engaged in the programme reduced their offending by 74 per cent and those that partly engaging reduced by 62 per cent, compared to a reduction in reoffending of just 4 per cent for those not engaged.
**Waltham Forest’s Gang Prevention Programme** uses a similar balance between intelligence-led enforcement and offers of support to exit gang life. The support, which is concentrated on those families of most concern, includes practical and therapeutic interventions and includes work with siblings. The council is projected to spend £1.05 million this year and about half of that will be spent on a subset of known gang members and their families. The budget also covers neighbourhood working with community groups training, capacity building etc and local enforcement capacity too.
**Commentary**
The launch of the Trident Gang Crime Command is a significant and welcome contribution to the fight against gang crime. The deployment of a thousand dedicated officers and the establishment of the local task forces across London demonstrates a significant commitment in this area.
As the partnership work between the MPS and boroughs on gangs develops, there will be a need for dialogue at both a pan-London and local level to identify the particular actions and protocols that will be needed for effective joint working between the MPS, individual boroughs and other partners.
Discussions with individual boroughs are expected to cover the opportunities for co-ordination and alignment of local intervention and diversion services. This may raise questions about the availability of resources within boroughs for gang-related responses, and the balance between local and regional approaches. In the current climate, partners will want to focus their efforts on interventions that have been proven to work.
There are a variety of sources of funding for tackling gang crime, including the Ending Gang and Youth Violence fund and the Communities Against Guns Gangs and Knives fund. There is much that could be gained if the funding for this important area of work is streamlined. It is also important that Londoners have their say regarding how resources are allocated. There also needs to be flexibility at a local level to enable to tailoring of locally appropriate intervention.
London Councils will continue to work with the Metropolitan Police, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the boroughs, both through the London Crime Reduction Board and directly, to ensure that every effort is made to tackle gang crime in London.
**Author:** Rangan Momen, principal project and policy officer (T: 020 7934 9816)
**Click here to send a comment or query to the author**
**Links:**
- Met launches major crackdown on gang crime (MPS website)
**This member briefing has been circulated to:**
Portfolio holders and those members who requested policy briefings in the following categories: Crime and public protection
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1066-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 6533,
"total-output-tokens": 2055,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2624,
1
],
[
2624,
6782,
2
],
[
6782,
9695,
3
]
]
} |
98b1fc03928e8e56df377f28f3b856fabc67d582 | | Name of Official | Mode of travel | Total transport costs | Date of Departure | |-----------------|----------------|-----------------------|-------------------| | Amy Holmes | n/a | n/a | 08/09/2014 | | Amy Holmes | n/a | n/a | 09/09/2014 | | Amy Holmes | Air | 272.31 | 12/10/2014 | | Amy Holmes | Air | 157.18 | 23/10/2014 | | Amy Holmes | Air | 376.40 | 24/10/2014 | | Amy Holmes | Rail | 157.00 | 09/11/2014 | | Amy Holmes | Rail | 82.00 | 10/11/2014 | | Amy Holmes | Rail | 199.00 | 14/12/2014 | | Amy Holmes | Rail | 119.00 | 16/12/2014 | | Colin Church | Air | 484.24 | 09/09/2014 | | John Robbs | Air | 66.94 | 24/11/2014 | | John Robbs | Air | 97.57 | 25/11/2014 | | John Robbs | Rail | 79.00 | 09/12/2014 | | John Robbs | Rail | 311.00 | 14/12/2014 | | John Robbs | n/a | n/a | 03/09/2014 | | Nigel Gibbens | Air | -15.61 | 30/09/2014 | | Nigel Gibbens | n/a | n/a | 30/09/2014 | | Nigel Gibbens | Air | 186.49 | 24/11/2014 | | Nigel Gibbens | Air | 5507.36 | 02/12/2014 | | Nigel Gibbens | Rail | 70.00 | 12/01/2015 | | Nigel Gibbens | Air | 71.26 | 13/01/2015 | | Nigel Gibbens | n/a | n/a | 22/09/2014 | | Nigel Gibbens | n/a | n/a | 29/09/2014 | | Sarah Church | Rail | 129.00 | 19/11/2014 | | Sonia Phippard | Air | 55.94 | 04/11/2014 | | Sonia Phippard | Air | 37.09 | 05/11/2014 | | Sonia Phippard | Air | 330.68 | 23/11/2014 | | Sonia Phippard | Air | 93.60 | 25/11/2014 | | Shirley Trundle | Air | 119.46 | 24/11/2014 | | Duration of stay (Nights) | Destination | |--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | 1 | n/a Luxembourg | | 1 | n/a Berlin Tegel | | n/a | London Heathrow (from Berlin Tegel) | | n/a | Brussels Midi | | n/a | London St Pancras (from Brussels Midi) | | n/a | Brussels Midi | | n/a | London St Pancras (from Brussels Midi) | | 1 | Helsinki | | 1 | Amsterdam | | n/a | London Gatwick (from Amsterdam) | | 1 | Brussels Midi | | 3 | Brussels Midi | | 1 | n/a | | n/a | Milan Malpensa | | 3 | Milan Linate | | 1 | Brussels | | 1 | Beijing Capital | | n/a | Brussels Midi | | n/a | London Gatwick (from Brussels) | | 4 | n/a | | 1 | n/a | | n/a | Brussels Midi | | 1 | Barcelona | | n/a | London Gatwick (from Barcelona) | | 2 | Rome Leonardo | | n/a | London Heathrow (from Rome Leonardo) | | 2 | Rome Leonardo | | City of accommodation (if different to destination) | Class of travel | Accommodation costs | |-----------------------------------------------------|-----------------|---------------------| | Rome Leonardo | n/a | 123.78 | | Riga | n/a | 139.56 | | n/a | Economy | n/a | | n/a | Economy | n/a | | n/a | Economy | n/a | | n/a | Premium Economy | n/a | | n/a | Economy | n/a | | n/a | Premium Economy | n/a | | n/a | Premium Economy | n/a | | Riga | Business | 139.56 | | The Hague | Economy | 74.98 | | n/a | Economy | n/a | | Brussels | Economy | 108.02 | | n/a | Premium Economy | n/a | | Brussels | n/a | 129.14 | | n/a | Economy | n/a | | n/a | n/a | 420.06 | | Brussels | Economy | 121.24 | | Beijing | Business | 173.90 | | n/a | Economy | n/a | | n/a | Economy | n/a | | Berne | n/a | 615.63 | | Amsterdam | n/a | 95.54 | | n/a | Economy | n/a | | Barcelona | Economy | 186.87 | | n/a | Economy | n/a | | Rome | Economy | 222.30 | | n/a | Economy | n/a | | Rome | Economy | 0.00 | Notes
Accomodation charge appears in the Q4 report
Credit from previous period The charge for the flight appeared on the Quarter 2 report
No charge for accomodation
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2159-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 7212,
"total-output-tokens": 1899,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2512,
1
],
[
2512,
4833,
2
],
[
4833,
7809,
3
],
[
7809,
7976,
4
]
]
} |
1d3ac97a19175dc2d4611be6aaa0cbf301deb936 | 1. Purpose
1.1 To establish sub-committees of the Alcohol and Gambling Licensing Committee, approve the delegation of appropriate functions to those sub-committees and to officers, in order to ensure efficient determination of applications made under the legislation concerned, ensuring that this meets the requirements of that legislation.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That Committee establish a number of Sub-committees to discharge the Committee’s functions under the 2003 Act.
2.2 That Committee delegates the discharge of the functions set out in Appendix B to those Sub-committees and Officers.
2.3 That Committee confirms that all other functions are to be discharged by the Committee.
3. Issues and Choices
3.1 Report Background
3.1.1 In September 2018 Full Council appointed a new Taxi and General Licensing Committee in order to ensure that lawful arrangements existed to allow the determination of applications under new legislation relating to animal welfare (which comes into force this month) and also to ensure that the Council’s delegation of other licensing functions were up to date, taking account of certain statutory limitations in relation to such delegations. 3.1.2 At that time Full Council also delegated certain functions to both the Alcohol & Gambling Licensing Committee and the newly appointed Taxi and General Licensing Committee and allowed each committee to further delegate the exercise of those functions to sub-committees and officers as they consider appropriate. Those functions are set out in the tables in Appendix A – Functions delegated to Alcohol and Gambling Licensing Committee and the Taxi and General Licensing Committee.
3.1.3 The functions set out in Table 1 of Appendix A are those which, as a matter of law, are automatically delegated to the committee established under the Licensing Act 2003 (‘the 2003 Act’). Accordingly, those functions were delegated to the Alcohol & Gambling Licensing Committee. Table 2 sets out several exceptions which, as a matter of law, may not be delegated to that committee and accordingly, they were reserved to Full Council. This broadly follows the previous delegations in Part 3 of the Council’s Constitution.
3.1.4 The 2003 Act allows the Council’s Licensing Committee to delegate certain functions to sub-committees and officers, subject to certain limitations contained in the Act in relation to officers. Since the 2003 Act came into force the Council has followed this approach, delegating the processing of unopposed applications for licences to officers since the 2003 Act does not allow such applications to be refused, and delegating determination of contested applications to sub-committees established under the 2003 Act. Sub-committees also consider reviews of premises licences and club premises certificates.
3.1.5 It is now recommended that the process of delegation to sub-committees and officers is continued to allow effective discharge of the functions concerned allowing officers to deal with matters of an administrative nature and only placing matters which are contested before members to determine at sub-committee hearings. It is further proposed that the Alcohol & Gambling Licensing Committee sits as a whole in relation to matters such as development of policy for approval by Full Council. Appendix B contains a list of the proposed delegations to sub-committees and officers.
3.2 Alternative options
3.2.1 If Committee is not minded to delegate matters as specified in Appendix B then the Committee could choose to delegate some of those functions and reserve the remainder to itself. Committee must however have regard to the limitations in the 2003 Act in relation to which matters may not be delegated to officers. In order to assist members to understand the limitations in the 2003 Act and the 2005 Act, the table in Appendix B has been annotated to show those functions may not be delegated to officers.
3.1 Decision details
3.2.1 It is proposed that the Committee establishes sub-committees under the 2003 Act to discharge functions under the Act.
3.2.2 It is proposed that the Committee delegates functions under the 2003 Act and the Gambling Act 2005 to those sub-committee and officers in accordance with Appendix B.
3.2.3 Committee confirms that all other functions are to be exercised by the Committee itself.
4. Implications (including financial implications)
4.1 Policy
4.1.1 The proposals do not impact on any of the Council’s existing policies since any applications determined by Committee of Sub-committees must consider the Council’s existing statements of licensing policy and gambling licensing policy.
4.2 Resources and Risk
4.2.1 There is unlikely to be any change in the number of committee meetings which take place as a result of the proposals.
4.3 Legal
4.3.1 The 2003 Act requires the Council to establish a licensing committee consisting of ten to fifteen members of the authority and automatically delegates most functions under the Act to that committee. Several are reserved to Full Council.
4.3.2 The 2005 Act states that the Council’s functions in relation to gambling under the 2005 Act are also delegated to the licensing committee established under the 2003 Act.
4.3.3 The 2003 Act allows appointment of sub-committees and delegation of certain functions to those sub-committees or officers. As a general principle, officers may only deal with uncontroversial matters, e.g. were the Council is obliged to grant a licence because there have not been any representations made which object to the proposal. The 2003 Act does not allow officers to deal with matters which are in dispute, e.g. where a representation is made objecting to a licence being granted. Similar restrictions are contained in the 2005 Act in relation to gambling premises licences and permits.
4.3.4 The proposals in Appendix B comply with the restrictions in both Acts and replicate the existing arrangements operated by the Council. 4.4 Equality
4.4.1 No implications since this report addresses only the mechanism of making decisions and every decision made under the 2003 and 2005 must comply with the Council’s policies, the criteria in those Acts and the Equalities Act 2010.
4.4.1 Other Implications
4.5.1 None
5. Background Papers
5.1 None
Appendices
A Functions delegated to Alcohol and Gambling Licensing Committee and the Taxi and General Licensing Committee
B List of proposed delegations to sub-committees and officers
Clive Tobin, Licensing & Litigation Solicitor Borough Secretary’s 0300 330 7000
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2160-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 7086,
"total-output-tokens": 1554,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1185,
1
],
[
1185,
3809,
2
],
[
3809,
5978,
3
],
[
5978,
6563,
4
]
]
} |
849dde6517e98e74b1cb7fb0a5e255530d5211ef | Request for Delegation
Amend
- minor
New
- major
New business case
Requestor returns completed application
Business case reviewed by Information Policy (IP) team
- REJECTED
- APPROVED
IP team send requestor draft agreement for signature
Requestor returns signed Delegation for countersignature
Return of final countersigned version
Delegation agreement field, and website updated
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2161-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1513,
"total-output-tokens": 127,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
392,
1
]
]
} |
00fb84e8898a436eb6670745e50be39958aa4497 | Report to the Northampton Borough Council Panel: St. Peter’s Memory Cafe, Weston Favell.
Introduction:
My name is Eileen Fox and I am a Lay Pastoral Minister at St Peter’s Church. I have been a volunteer for the Alzheimer’s Society since 2011 and helped at three of their Dementia Cafes. My husband had suffered from dementia which was what had motivated me to want to support those who were struggling with this disease and their carers. Last January we heard that the funding had been withdrawn, which was devastating news to all who had attended, so after speaking to the Ops Manager & Services Manager at the Alzheimer’s Society, as a church we decided to set up a Memory Cafe in our church hall. Two volunteers who had worked with me at the Dementia Cafes were prepared to assist and we also had six more people volunteer from the congregation who had cared for their own family members with dementia. The Diocese of Peterborough has run two courses on Dementia-Friendly Churches, which I have attended.
What the Cafe provides:
We meet monthly on the third Thursday of each month from 2 – 4 pm (apart from December when we meet on the 2nd Thursday). We set out the tables and chairs in the hall and we provide tea or coffee as the people arrive. Later at about 3 pm we refresh their drinks and bring round cakes and biscuits. They are given name stickers so we can soon learn their names and they ours. The cakes are provided mainly by the congregation and volunteers on a rota system, which works well. There is no charge to those attending although we welcome occasional donations. We invite speakers from a variety of helping organisations to come along for a brief talk (about 15 min) and display the whole range of information provided by them and by the Alzheimer’s Society to be available. We put table games on each of the tables and have some floor games for those interested. (These were donated by the Alzheimer’s Society who also notified all the previous attendees of their Cafe of our new cafe opening) which was much appreciated.
Attendances & Activities:
The first meeting last May had 15 people come and the attendance has risen to 24 (so far) and last month we had six new people (3 with dementia & 3 carers) This is a mixture of people with dementia and their carers and occasionally by some who suspect they have a memory problem. The main activity is of fellowship and informal support in a relaxed atmosphere and the support they get from one another is immense. The volunteers all mingle and encourage friendly chatter and pick up any particular distress, so there is always the opportunity for them to speak to someone quietly about their particular concerns. The Dementia Support Worker from the Alzheimer’s Society calls in each session so can initiate further help to anyone needing it. Many of the people attend the Society’s Singing for the Brain activity weekly too so they particularly enjoyed the carol singing at the Christmas meeting when one of our choir members came to play the keyboard. During the summer we went on a canal trip, which was donated by one of our volunteers and we were taken to the canal in an old Red Northampton bus, driven by an enthusiast who was also a carer.
The St Peter’s Memory Cafe is an open one so anyone who has concerns about dementia can come along. We can provide encouragement to access the Memory Assessment Team regarding a diagnosis if not already obtained, so they then can benefit from the services provided to assist them and their families. Several of our members are now attending the new Memory Matters group which is being run by the Alzheimer’s Society, but funded by Northamptonshire Carers, which enables the carers to go into a support group whilst their relatives with dementia are encouraged to do activities which will stimulate their brains and lead to feelings of well-being. We received some training from an Occupational Therapist on the types of activities which are used by the Memory Assessment Team in their Cognitive Stimulation Therapy groups, which can be offered to those newly diagnosed. I am involved in the Northampton Memory Matters group with another of the volunteers of the Cafe and the response so far, after two monthly meetings, has been encouraging.
At the recent Dementia-Friendly churches training session I learnt that the Diocese hopes to establish a network of at least two or three people who are knowledgeable in dementia to each of the deaneries. We also learned of ways to communicate with dementia sufferers at the various stages of the disease, which I believe would be useful to share with the carers. We are considering holding some Dementia Friends training which we will be discussing with the Management committee. I have already delivered a session for Lay Pastoral Ministers at their training course.
I hope this information is of use and I am happy for anyone from the Panel to visit us at St Peter’s Memory Cafe, should it be thought beneficial. I can be contacted on 01604 469998.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2164-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3673,
"total-output-tokens": 1095,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3511,
1
],
[
3511,
5026,
2
]
]
} |
f75ee54c0599285ab740673ba84b1e45cffa0761 | NORTHAMPTON BOROUGH COUNCIL
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
ACTION PLAN: SCRUTINY PANEL - Dementia Friendly Town
Response and Action Plan in response to the Recommendations from Scrutiny Panel
Proposed dates for monitoring implementation of accepted recommendations
| Report received by Cabinet | Monitoring activity | Monitoring complete | |----------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | March 2018 | February 2019 | Date to be added by O&S Committee when agreed monitoring is completed | | | June 2020 | |
**Recommendation 1:** Northampton Borough Council works towards “Dementia Friendly Status for Northampton” being achieved. A Dementia Friends Champion is nominated to lead on this work.
| Action | Implementation/responsibility by: | Resources required/available | Target date | Achievement/Completed | |--------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------|-----------------------| | A Dementia Friends Champion (DFC) to be nominated to lead on | Marion Goodman | Officers Time | April 2018 | Louise Musson – Call Care Manager appointed to lead on the work for Dementia | | Work towards Northampton being a Dementia Friendly Town (DFT) in liaison with the Northampton DAA, Northamptonshire DAA and University of Northampton. | |---| | NBC have become a member of the Northampton and Northamptonshire Dementia Action Alliance (DAA). Louise Musson (NBC) is Chair of the Northampton DAA and Deputy Chair for the Northamptonshire DAA. The Northampton DAA has now applied for ‘working towards Dementia Friendly Community’ Status. This will be confirmed in January 2019. At which point they will be able to start evidencing the work being carried out throughout Northampton to support the town gaining Dementia Friendly Town. | Northampton Dementia Action Alliance has now been given ‘working towards Dementia Friendly’. This allows NBC to use the logo which demonstrates our commitment to people living with dementia.
Work has been suspended on this until after lockdown. Organisations working with People living with Dementia continue to support their clients during Covid-19 but other work to raise awareness has been put on hold until after lockdown.
**Recommendation 2:** A Dementia Forum is established. Northampton Interfaith Forum (NIFF) is Invited to join the Forum.
| Action | Implementation/responsibility by | Resources required/available | Target date | Achievement/Completed | |--------|----------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------|-----------------------|
TT: Northampton Borough Council Scrutiny Panel Action Plan Northampton Forum (Dementia Action Alliance) to be established.
Interfaith Forum to be invited to join.
| Recommendation 3: Northampton Borough Council registers with the Alzheimer’s Society as part of the Dementia Friendly Recognition Scheme. | |---|---|---|---|---| | Action | Implementation/responsibility by | Resources required/available | Target date | Achievement/Completed | | Internal Dementia Strategic Working Group to be formed from all the key areas of | Louise Musson and Lead Officers for each area | Officers Time | April 2019 | This group has started working in the individual service areas including museum services and |
Completed – Northampton has a DAA which is currently chaired by Louise Musson (NBC).
NIFF has been invited to form part of the Northampton DAA and have since joined.
One of the local churches has held a Dementia Friendly Service and are looking to make this a regular event and open it out to other churches. | NBC. This will enable a review of best practice in the organisation for people living with dementia and their carers and work towards fulfilling the Alzheimer’s criteria for becoming a DF organisation. | January 2019 | community safety and partnership. Further regular meetings of the whole working group have been diarised commencing in February 2019 Group met in April, the following proposals were discussed:-
- NBC to have DF champions in key areas i.e. OSS.
- DF information sessions should be added to the staff induction.
- All existing public facing staff to have DF information session, this could be added as an objective in this year's appraisal.
- LM to look at on line DF information
Northampton Borough Council will register as an organisation ‘working towards DF community/organisation.' | • HR to review carers policy which will include Carers of people living with Dementia.
• Planning will consider people with Dementia when sending out their public engagement letters.
• Museums are considering people with dementia during the design of the new museum.
• Museums will continue running their DF café.
• OSS will consider the environment for people living with dementia and ensure all front facing staff have DF information sessions. They will look at some of their team attending champion training to support this.
- Call Care will have an information table in the OSS during Dementia Awareness Week WB 20th May.
Still awaiting Dementia Champion training for staff. Alzheimer’s society have suspended inductions during covid-19
We are looking forward to working with the museum to look at activities for people living with dementia. As part of the DAA, Northampton Borough Council will be recognised as one of the leads for working towards Dementia Friendly Northampton. This will be confirmed January 2019.
**Recommendation 4:** Dementia Friends information and training is included in both Councillor and staff inductions.
| Action | Implementation/responsibility by | Resources required/available | Target date | Achievement/Completed | |--------|----------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------|-----------------------| | DF Champions training needed for a number of staff, to ensure DF information sessions are provided. DF information sessions to be provided to all new staff and Councillors. | HR, Training & Development, Health and Wellbeing | Officers Time Champion Training for Officers which is Free from the Alzheimer's organisation. | April 2019 | This will form part of the work of the NBC strategy. Still awaiting Dementia Champion training for staff. Alzheimer's society have suspended inductions during covid-19 group. |
**Recommendation 5:** A Councillor Champion for older people, focussing on dementia is appointed. | Action | Implementation/responsibility by | Resources required/available | Target date | Achievement/Completed | |--------|----------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------|-----------------------| | Appoint Councillor for Older People | Marion Goodman | None | April 2018 | Cllr Anna King, Cabinet Member for Community Engagement and safety is the Councillor Champion for Older People |
**Recommendation 6:** The Dementia Friends Champion liaises with the local churches in Northampton to ascertain what Groups are currently available and whether further Groups such as Care and Share could be introduced.
| Action | Implementation/responsibility by | Resources required/available | Target date | Achievement/Completed | |--------|----------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------|-----------------------| | DFC to liaise with NIFF and other church groups to establish a database of Dementia Support Groups within Northampton. | Louise Musson | Officers Time | April 2019 | Stephanie De Vally from Northamptonshire Police is progressing this action as part of her contribution to the Northampton DAA. LM liaising with St Peters | **Recommendation 7:** The Dementia Friends Champion has dialogue with the Transport Manager of UNO and the Head of Vulnerable Persons, Northants Police, regarding training for drivers of UNO around raising awareness of those living with dementia.
| Action | Implementation/responsibility by | Resources required/available | Target date | Achievement/Completed | |--------|----------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------|-----------------------| | The NBC Strategic Working Group will liaise with UNO and other transport providers via the Bus Station User Group to support them with raising awareness of Dementia and their carers. | NBC Strategic Group | Officers Time | September 2019 | This will form part of the work of the NBC strategy group. Both UNO and Northamptonshire Carers are members of the DAA. |
**Recommendation 8:** The Dementia Friends Champion works with the Assistant Chief Executive, Northamptonshire Carers, regarding the introduction of ID cards for carers when travelling with someone living with dementia.
| Action | Implementation/responsibility by | Resources required/available | Target date | Achievement/Completed | |--------|----------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------|-----------------------| The NBC Strategic Working Group will liaise with UNO, other transport providers and Northamptonshire Carers via the Bus Station User Group to discuss the introduction of carer ID cards.
| NBC Strategic Group | Officers Time | September 2019 | This will form part of the work of the NBC strategy group. | |---------------------|---------------|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
TT: Northampton Borough Council Scrutiny Panel Action Plan
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2165-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 11,
"total-input-tokens": 17175,
"total-output-tokens": 2300,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1220,
1
],
[
1220,
1870,
2
],
[
1870,
2710,
3
],
[
2710,
3664,
4
],
[
3664,
4473,
5
],
[
4473,
4870,
6
],
[
4870,
5326,
7
],
[
5326,
6463,
8
],
[
6463,
7656,
9
],
[
7656,
8950,
10
],
[
8950,
9430,
11
]
]
} |
b8b322bc69876bd7bc9238eeb9e32ffde0c0c4e1 | Citizen engagement has become an essential part of modern government. Gone are the days when the best that citizens could expect was to be told what was good for them. Governments around the world are starting to realise that engaging their citizens more in shaping the decisions that affect their everyday lives improves both legitimacy and the quality of public services. In the UK, addressing the democratic deficit is high on the political agenda. But the current model of consultation does not bring in the diversity of voices and perspectives that would make citizen engagement genuinely democratic.
This pamphlet draws on the Institute for Development Studies research project Spaces for Change, examining international attempts to democratise citizen engagement. The case studies show that genuine, inclusive engagement requires investment to create an enabling environment and to support society’s least vocal and least powerful people to find and use their voices. As other countries lead the effort to involve the public in meaningful conversations about policy, the pamphlet argues that the UK has much to learn from their experience.
Andrea Cornwall is a Professorial Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. democratising engagement
Andrea Cornwall Open access. Some rights reserved.
As the publisher of this work, Demos wants to encourage the circulation of our work as widely as possible while retaining the copyright. We therefore have an open access policy which enables anyone to access our content online without charge.
Anyone can download, save, perform or distribute this work in any format, including translation, without written permission. This is subject to the terms of the Demos licence found at the back of this publication. Its main conditions are:
- Demos and the author(s) are credited
- This summary and the address www.demos.co.uk are displayed
- The text is not altered and is used in full
- The work is not resold
- A copy of the work or link to its use online is sent to Demos
You are welcome to ask for permission to use this work for purposes other than those covered by the licence. Demos gratefully acknowledges the work of Creative Commons in inspiring our approach to copyright. To find out more go to www.creativecommons.org Acknowledgements This pamphlet has grown out of the collective work of the Spaces for Change working group of the Citizenship Development Research Centre (DRC), an international programme of research on citizenship, accountability and participation coordinated by the Institute for Development Studies and funded by the UK government’s Department for International Development. It draws substantially on the introduction to a collection jointly edited with Vera Schattan P Coelho, *Spaces for Change? The politics of citizen participation in new democratic arenas*. I’m very grateful to Vera and to all my DRC colleagues. I would particularly like to acknowledge John Gaventa, whose contributions to my thinking have been significant. Many thanks also to Alison Dunn for her help in producing the short versions of the case studies from *Spaces for Change*. For their comments on an earlier draft of this pamphlet, I am grateful to Jamie Bartlett, John Gaventa and Mark Robinson.
Andrea Cornwall April 2008 Over the last few years there has been much discussion of the ‘democratic deficit’ in the UK. We are, on average, less likely to vote, join political parties, or trust our elected representatives than 30 years ago. But, at the same time, the range and size of social movements and campaigns that people are involved with has never been so broad, and over half the population says it is interested in politics. On the whole, we’d like to be involved more in politics, but cannot find easy ways to do so.
For at least a decade, democratic renewal has been a top priority for all the major parties. Since 1997 the Labour government has laid out a series of pronouncements and directives, and between 1998 and 2004 set out the bureaucratic foundations on which to build and regenerate local government, always placing citizens at the heart of their argument. In 2001, the Local Strategic Partnership was born, with requirements for representation from key public services, the business community, and the voluntary and community sector. Both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats have also strongly signalled their desire to create a more dynamic civil society and a deeper culture of involving and engaging local people in democratic decision making.
But while there have certainly been successes, the overall result of these efforts is a curious paradox. A recent survey showed that only one in five Britons are satisfied with the opportunities they have to engage in local decision making, and in practice, probably fewer than 1 per cent actually do. The Power Inquiry, which was completed in 2006, found that citizens are still distant from decision making, are rarely asked to get involved and are rarely listened to.¹
So where do we go from here?
As work like our recent *Everyday Democracy Index* shows, modern, healthy democracies must be ‘everyday democracies’. They must be rooted in a culture in which democratic values and practices shape not just the formal sphere of politics, but the informal spheres of everyday life: families, communities, workplaces, schools and other public services.² Over the past 15 years, Demos has carried out a wealth of participatory projects in the UK designed to engage the public in shared decision making. Time and again, our research has reinforced the importance of engaging people in their everyday lives. From using citizens’ juries to inform science policy to consulting people in their workplaces, it is more important to talk to people in their everyday lives than it is to create new consultative structures and boards.
In short, we need to get beyond the bureaucratic set-up and the rhetoric, and reach beyond the immediate circles of participation into the wider reaches of the community. We need to find the everyday places of democracy that remain hidden from official outreach or consultation. We need to search for new and interesting ways to help citizens and politicians interact in effective, creative and meaningful ways in order to create progressive social change.
That’s why *Democratising Engagement* is so timely. As Cornwall argues, the kind of democratic renewal that the UK so badly needs calls for creative thinking; as she puts it, ‘a push to go beyond the comfort zone of consultation culture’. *Democratising Engagement* shows that there is a lot of creative thinking out there already, beyond our borders, that we can draw on for inspiration. The participatory budget from Porto Alegre, Brazil, is now well known – but there is a lot more out there. From health watch committees in Bangladesh to *panchayats* in rural India, *Democratising Engagement* draws out practical insights about what we could be doing better in the UK. Cornwall’s work is especially valuable because she recognises that there are many different ways to engage people – and none of them are without difficulty. *Democratising Engagement* helps us think about how to overcome these difficulties. Of particular importance, it shows how to find better ways of engaging those who are currently most marginalised from existing consultative processes. Genuine reinvigoration of the public realm also means giving far more attention to questions of difference and enabling the most excluded to find a voice and exercise it.
As we seek to truly reinvigorate our democratic systems, we need to be willing to import ideas and learn from other countries. As we look for practical ways to move forward, this is a valuable attempt to learn from what’s gone right, what’s gone wrong, and how we can move forward.
*Jamie Bartlett is a researcher at Demos.* Citizen engagement has become an essential part of modern government. Gone are the days when the best that citizens could expect was to be told what was good for them. Governments around the world are starting to realise that engaging their citizens more in shaping the decisions that affect their everyday lives improves legitimacy, as well as the quality of public services. From Brazil’s daring experiments in participatory governance, to China’s recent enthusiasm for engaging the masses in deliberative forums, to the expansion of grassroots democracy in India, changes are afoot throughout the world.
Advocacy of greater citizen participation in governance is backed by democratic theorists and social psychologists who show that when participation works, it is not only good for government, it can give people a sense of belonging, a sense of control over their lives and can even be a source of happiness. Yet despite promising so much, being able to reap the rewards of citizen engagement is far from straightforward or easy.
Citizen engagement and the democratic deficit In the UK, getting citizens more involved in different aspects of governance has become an important part of reinvigorating democracy. The UK government has recently put in place legislation that makes public involvement a statutory duty. In doing so, the UK falls in line with a growing number of countries around the world that have established legal frameworks for citizen participation. And in the last decade, we’ve seen growing political commitment at the highest levels to giving citizens more of a voice in the decisions that affect their lives, and to engaging citizens in making government more responsive and accountable. But the UK has a long way still to go in making this promise a reality.
Since Labour came to power ten years ago, democratic renewal has been a top priority. There has been ever more intensive experimentation with methods of consultation and involvement. But what we find in its wake is a curious paradox. The Power Inquiry’s report into the UK’s democratic health found that citizens are rarely asked to get involved, and rarely listened to when they do. The recently published *Audit of Political Participation* suggests levels of political participation and people’s sense of political efficacy are not only low. They are declining. Fewer than a third of people believe ‘when people like me get involved in politics, they can really change the way the country is run’. Only 12 per cent of people are considered politically active; of those, many more had engaged in individual one-off acts like signing a petition than those who had attended political meetings or demonstrations.
Levels of political disengagement are especially marked among youth and black and minority ethnic groups. Younger people are not only less likely to vote, with only 23 per cent expressing a propensity to vote relative to more than double (and rising) for their parents’ generation, but so unlikely to present their views to an elected representative that barely one in 30 report having done so. Of the small fraction of the British public who are willing to get involved, the vast majority are white, middle aged, better off and better educated.
So for all the effort that has been made in recent years to engage citizens, there is clearly something missing. This pamphlet argues that addressing the UK’s democratic deficit calls for more creative ways of deepening democratic engagement in the everyday work of governance. Demos has called for a radical shift in the conduct of democratic governance, one that extends beyond the ballot box to the everyday spaces in which citizens live their lives. If we want to truly reinvigorate the public realm, we need to democratise citizen engagement – to open it up to much more diverse voices, experiences and possibilities. And if the kind of democratic renewal that the UK so badly needs is to happen, the public sector is going to need a push to go beyond the comfort zone of consultation culture.
**Extending democratisation**
Democratising citizen engagement requires a radical shift in the way the state relates to its citizens and in people’s sense of their own power to change their lives and their communities for the better. Political theorist John Dryzek offers a useful way of conceptualising this shift. He argues that democratisation is about extensions in three dimensions:
- ‘franchise, the number of people capable of participating effectively in collective decision…
- scope, bringing more issues and areas of life potentially under democratic control…
- authenticity of the control,… to be real rather than symbolic, involving the effective participation of autonomous and competent actors.’
Franchise has expanded as more and more opportunities are created for citizen engagement. But translating formal participation into substantive democratic engagement is another matter entirely; having a seat at the table is a necessary but not sufficient condition for exercising voice. Nor is presence at the table on the part of public officials the same as a willingness to listen and respond. ‘Expansion of the number of people capable of participating effectively in collective decision’ is about capacity to work collectively. This requires skills and experience – whether in listening, articulating an argument, negotiating and collaborating. Public servants may have few of these skills. People representing marginalised groups may also lack the skills needed to make their case or hold their ground, especially when they are up against the kinds of prejudice that are all too common in our society. Much needs to be done ‘on both sides of the equation’, as John Gaventa puts it, to build those capacities.
Dryzek’s second dimension, scope, focuses attention on the crucial issue of the boundaries of citizen participation – where they are set, where they are contested, and what it takes to expand the scope for citizen engagement beyond being consulted on relatively unimportant matters and excluded from the decisions that count. It urges us to differentiate between different kinds of participation and different degrees of engagement, and to be much clearer about what is at stake. Boundaries may be set by the authorities in such a way that decisions that are ‘technical’ in nature are black-boxed.
The expansion of scope, in many contexts, depends on vigorous citizen action. This may take the shape of contentious politics, where social movements mobilise to put pressure on the state to open up areas of policy making that are closed to citizen participation and scrutiny. It may also take the shape of incremental change from within public institutions, as progressive bureaucrats make use of the discretion that they have to lever open spaces for dialogue and deliberation. Tracing these pathways of change is important if we are to better understand how to support the expansion of this dimension of democratisation.
The last of Dryzek’s three dimensions is real rather than simply symbolic participation of autonomous and competent actors. This dimension demands far-reaching changes in the ways most societies and governments work. First it calls for genuine devolution or sharing of powers by government, to expand what Dryzek calls authentic control. It requires changes in organisational culture, as well as in the attitudes and behaviour of state officials and service providers. It also demands processes and structures through which citizens can claim voice, and gain the means to exercise democratic citizenship, including acquiring the skills to participate effectively. Dryzek’s emphasis on autonomy poses a fundamental challenge for contexts where the intermediary organisations that often assume the role of representatives for marginalised groups are heavily dependent on the state for funding and direction. In many ways, this dimension is more demanding than the other two, as it implies a willingness to cede control and take risks.
To begin to overcome our democratic deficit and expand democracy along all three of Dryzek’s dimensions, the UK would do well to look to international experience. There is much to be learnt.
What can international experience offer the UK? Britain spent much of the last century exporting its institutions to other parts of the world. In the twenty-first century, it is time to reverse the flow. There is much we can learn from what other countries are doing, and doing better. Many of the good ideas for engaging citizens that are currently blossoming in the UK come from beyond our borders.
The best-known example is Brazil’s inspiring experiments in participatory governance, which have caught the imagination of local governments in the UK. Participatory budgeting, Brazil’s ingenious way of engaging citizens in decisions over priorities for public expenditure investment, is catching on fast. Brazilian experience shows that where municipal governments are genuinely committed to radical democracy, participatory budgeting can lead to real gains in terms of equity. And there are other benefits to be had. It can lead to increased involvement in the public arena of people who are under-represented in formal political institutions, such as women. It can bring about greater probity in government. It can also contribute to a greater sense of political efficacy as people see the change that their involvement brings about.
While many of Britain’s former colonies have retained and reformed institutions for public administration that were put in place in the colonial era, some are also streets ahead of local government in the UK when it comes to measures to seek better representation of historically marginalised social groups. Quotas and reserved seats have been used in India and Bangladesh, for example, as a mechanism to make sure that local and national governments are more representative of women. While such measures are no magic bullet, there is a quiet revolution going on at the grassroots in these countries, as women enter politics as never before. Quite what has helped those who have never before entered the political arena to find their voice may well hold lessons for efforts to diversify Britain’s political institutions.
Lessons can be drawn to further improve reforms that have been made. Many efforts at increasing citizen engagement in the UK have revolved around consultations – so much so that consultation fatigue is a symptom of modern government. This is partly because there is often a lot of talk and no follow-up. But it is also partly because conventional consultation methods can be so deathly boring. A wave of innovation in methods for needs assessment and analysis – inspired by the principle that those with direct experience of issues have much more to teach those who design policies and implement services than has ever been sufficiently fully recognised – began in India in the late 1980s and spread to the UK in the 1990s. Visualisation, video and theatre techniques create an art form out of handing over the tools of research and analysis to citizens, to document their own lives and come up with solutions that work for them. Experimentation all over the UK has produced some exciting results; and participatory methodologies have been used to address precisely the challenge of expanding citizen engagement. Lessons from the routinisation of some of these practices in countries where the influence of aid donors, international NGOs and international financial institutions led to the proliferation of claims to be doing ‘participation’ can be just as valuable.
Much of this flow of experience from south to north is already happening. Some of the most innovative experiments in citizen engagement in the UK is the result of people who have worked in international development bringing home the methods and practices they had been using in Africa, Asia and Latin America – and inviting colleagues from these countries to the UK to share their experiences. Most recently, an exciting exchange event brought together local government officials and other advocates of participation from all over the world to share what they had learnt about championing participation in local governance (see box 1). The potential for these kinds of exchanges and other forms of south–north learning is enormous, in helping to inform and inspire the shift that the UK needs to make if it is to live up to the promise of recent commitments to citizen engagement.
Box 1. **Champions of participation**
In May 2007, 45 ‘champions of participation’ from 15 countries met in the UK, convened by the Institute of Development Studies, to compare notes and strategies, and to share experiences, successes and challenges. Site visits to various locations in the UK offered international participants an opportunity to get a sense of some of the most promising experiences that the UK has to offer – and share lessons from their own experiences. It became evident from this exchange that there is a lot that the UK could learn from established and newer democracies in the southern hemisphere.
Across considerable differences of political, historical and social contexts, participants at the Champions of Participation exchange identified a number of core challenges that they faced:
- addressing negative attitudes and mutual distrust between local communities and government
- being more inclusive, and making sure the most disadvantaged have a voice
- building mutual accountability in partnership arrangements
- creating greater mutual understanding of the pressures on bureaucrats and citizens to deliver and engage securing longer-term sustainability of participatory initiatives and institutions
These are issues that are just as much a challenge for the UK as countries with far fewer resources at the disposal of central or local government. The Champions of Participation exchange not only created an opportunity for learning, it also generated energy, enabled people to make contacts and sparked ideas that the champions could take back into their own practice.
From rhetoric to reality To turn policy rhetoric about empowerment into a genuine transformation in the way the UK is governed calls for a new approach to citizen engagement – one that places a concern with inclusion and social justice at its heart. Paul Skidmore and Kirsten Bound highlight the tendency for what they call ‘institutional fixes’ and the inadequacy of ‘institutional re-engineering as the solution’. Former Demos director Tom Bentley argues:
The solution is not simply to create more direct democracy, or to set up an ever-growing array of consultative processes divorced from the exercise of real power, but to embed both these principles – direct and deliberative – in the range of institutions through which people can express their concerns, their needs and their identities.
This pamphlet explores some of the lessons that can be learnt from experiences around the world where these principles have been embedded in institutions. It is written primarily for people who work in or with government in the UK. It draws on findings from a multi-country research project into the dynamics of institutionalised participation in a diverse range of different political, cultural and social contexts, Spaces for Change: The politics of citizen participation in new democratic arenas. The focus of this pamphlet, as of the book, is on the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion, representation and voice in institutions that have become commonplace on the institutional landscape of many countries: citizens’ councils, user groups, and other kinds of co-management institutions. These institutions – spaces into which citizens are invited to participate – form part of an expanded ‘participatory sphere’ that lies between the formal institutions of state bureaucracy and service delivery and the kinds of associations, organisations and informal institutions that exist within society at large. It is with this participatory sphere, and the prospects it offers for democratising citizen engagement, that this pamphlet is primarily concerned.
There is much that can be learnt from ‘success stories’, cases where participatory governance has brought about significant changes in the ways that governments allocate resources, in citizen voice and in state responsiveness. There is a growing literature that does just this, using such cases to illustrate advances and possibilities for participatory governance. The focus in this pamphlet is somewhat different. It draws largely on cases that are much more ordinary, and not particularly successful. These experiences throw up a series of dilemmas from which much can be learnt. Avoiding the tendency to extract models from one context as if they were recipes for ‘best practice’ that could simply be exported wholesale, this focus on the dynamics of institutionalised participation in highly diverse contexts offers a series of common preconditions and principles that are as relevant to contemporary Britain as to any of these countries.
The pamphlet begins by looking at different ways of thinking about engaging citizens in governance. It traces some of the trajectories that have led to the current policy moment, contextualising shifts in policy in Britain in relation to the broader international debate. The sections that follow look more closely at some of the preconditions for inclusive, meaningful citizen engagement through a series of case studies that reveal different dimensions of citizen (dis)engagement. Lessons from these case studies form the basis for the conclusion, which looks at what is needed to make real the democratising promise of citizen engagement in governance. Engaging citizens in governance beyond the use of the ballot box has a long history. Pockets of experimentation as well as more widely institutionalised practices stretch back over a century in the modern state, and over millennia in earlier state formations. Known by a range of different terms – public involvement, citizen participation, popular participation, community participation, citizen engagement – talk of people participating in governance has all the ring of progressive democracy to it. Yet the history and geography of participation reveal that it has as often been used as a technique of rule as a means of giving people more of a role in their own government. Much depends on who participates, what they participate in and what effect their engagement actually has on the outcomes of decisions, policies or programmes.
Like ‘empowerment’, ‘community’ and ‘democracy’, the word ‘participation’ is a normative term. It evokes and embodies ideals of how society and the polity ought to be, and of the role that people can play in government. Because there are so many different ways of thinking about these ideals, and the role and relationships of people and government, ‘participation’ means different things to different people. For some, it is about efficiency and the neoliberal mantra of choice; for others, it is about giving ordinary people the democratic right to contribute to decisions that affect their lives and about voice. Qualified with ‘citizen’, participation has a definitively democratic ring to it; coupled with ‘community’, it evokes a warm, inclusive feeling of people working together for the common good.
One of the hazards of today’s policy language is that it is so vague and euphemistic it is not only difficult to work out what each of the terms actually means, but also what the arguments behind them are. Differences in terminology can capture differences in perspective that are useful and important to explore. At the same time, the terms people use can also simply reflect passing fashions or received usages that are never really called into question. Asking who is supposed to participate – in what, for what and why – helps bring differences in perspective into clearer view, and get beyond the feel-good language into what participation might mean in practice. Getting clearer about these dimensions of participation can help to highlight specific policy measures needed to foster more genuinely inclusive and democratic citizen engagement.20
This section explores different ways of thinking about participation, and what these might mean in practice.
Making the case Advocates have used a variety of different arguments to make the case for engaging citizens in processes of governance. They have needed to do so to convince sceptics. They have also needed to win over those whose agreement is essential to permit those lower down public sector hierarchies to invest time and effort that could be spent elsewhere, and to let the public participate in what would otherwise be closed processes. Arguments in favour of participation often emphasise it as an end in itself, an expression of political participation and what it means to be part of a democracy. But there are also arguments that stress other gains, where participation becomes a means by which to acquire them.
Three principal lines of argument can be distinguished. All appeal to aspects of today’s policy discourse in the UK and in international development policy. But they have distinctive differences in emphasis, and quite different implications for where resources and energy might be best invested.
The first set of arguments turns on a vision of the democratic state in which citizen engagement is part of the very fabric of governance. A democratic state has a duty to involve its citizens in decisions that affect their lives; participation is not a favour or a privilege but a basic right, one that is fundamental to claiming many other rights. By engaging the public in decisions that have a bearing on their everyday lives, in figuring out what services they want and how the services they have might work better for them, participation in governance helps build a polity of and for the people. The roots of this argument lie in centuries-old political philosophy, and the writings of people like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill. Former Secretary for International Development, Hilary Benn, made this argument in his preface to the UK government’s Department for International Development’s white paper of 2006, *Making Governance Work for Poor People*:
*What makes the biggest difference to the quality of governance is active involvement by citizens – the thing we know as politics... It’s the only thing that can in the long term transform the quality of decision making in developing countries and the effectiveness of states.*
A second set of arguments is more concerned with the contribution participation can make to creating ‘better’ citizens: publics that are responsive and responsible. By taking an interest in what citizens have to say and making them feel as if their views matter, by offering them information, by involving them in making sure the services they use work as best as possible and by bringing them into contact with people from the state, the state can reduce feelings of exclusion and marginalisation. This is not only about helping government to govern better. It is about helping citizens to play their part. Public involvement, then, can help address the feelings of alienation, and lack of entitlement or belonging that breeds civic disenchantment. It offers a way of (re)integrating the disenfranchised and socially excluded. And some would go as far as to argue that this work of inclusion can even reach out to those whose discontent takes expression in acts of violence such as domestic terrorism.
A third set of arguments focuses on the more pragmatic business of governing and delivering services effectively – whether by the state, the market or the voluntary and community sector. There are various dimensions to the way participation can contribute to this goal. One is as an extension of market research: a way of matching services with what the public want, of adapting existing services to take better account of expressed needs and of enlisting citizens as consumers of these services. Public involvement is, in this respect, about expressing preferences as consumers. The watchword here is choice. Another dimension of this is direct involvement in service provision, which is also referred to under the rubric of ‘community empowerment’. In some contexts, this amounts to shunting the burden of the management and delivery of services from paid state officials to a vast reserve labour force of unpaid volunteers, willing to spend their time not only discussing what should be done, but actually doing it for themselves as ‘active citizens’.
These three arguments – that participation produces a more democratic government, more responsible and engaged citizens and more efficient and effective programmes and policies – are not mutually exclusive. Although what comes to be emphasised varies, they are often found in some combination or other. It is their complementarity that has given participation such ‘trans-ideological’ appeal. Communitarians and neoliberals alike might share a conviction that communities can be ‘empowered’ to take charge of their own development. Most of those along the left of the political spectrum believe in giving the people a voice, most of those along the right of the spectrum in giving individuals a choice. For all the potential for dissonance, it’s surprising how broad a normative appeal these arguments have come to have.
There is an element of basic common sense to the argument that people who are directly affected by changes in policy and provisioning ought to be in a good position to advise government on what works for them, and what would make their lives more difficult. Direct engagement not only allows a whole range of people to chip in good ideas. It also gives them a stake in the outcome. It builds ownership: a sense of being part of a decision whatever happens in terms of its outcomes. Where these discussions engage people in a process of exchange and debate in which views are qualified, challenged, reframed and explained (and are not simply about people giving their view and walking away, voting, filling in a survey, or sticking a comments slip in a box), then something else happens. This process, termed ‘deliberative’ by political theorists and practitioners of deliberative democracy, lends a different quality to democratic governance. Cohen and Sabel suggest:
Direct participation helps because participants can be assumed to have relevant information about the local contours of the problem, and can relatively easily detect both deception by others and unintended consequences of past decisions. Deliberative participation helps because it encourages the expression of differences in outlook, and the provision of information more generally. The respect expressed through the mutual reason-giving that defines deliberation reinforces a commitment to such conversational norms as sincerity and to solving problems, rather than simply strategically angling for advantage. And, as Tom Bentley argues, ‘deliberative conversation – channelled through institutions that in turn affect the distribution of social, economic and political power – is the form of interaction which does most to generate the forms of trust, mutual respect and understanding that democracy requires’.24
Participation, then, can have positive effects on politics and the polity, as well as on citizens themselves and their relationships with each other, and with the state. But much goes on in the name of participation, for precisely the reason that it sounds like such a good thing for everyone. Getting beyond the normative feel-good language calls for distinguishing a bit more closely what is actually going on when people talk about ‘participation’.
Models of participation Many of those who work in the field of citizen participation are familiar with Sherry Arnstein’s ‘ladder of citizen participation’ (see figure 1).25 Developed in late 1960s urban North America, Arnstein’s ladder neatly captures various forms of what she terms ‘non-participation’ – therapy, manipulation, informing and mere consultation – before ascending to more meaningful and engaged forms of participation: delegated power, partnership and citizen control. Her work remains as pertinent today as it was at the time. It is still the case that much of what is claimed as ‘participation’ hovers somewhere on the lower rungs of the ladder.
Figure 1. Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation
| Citizen control | Delegated power | Partnership | |-----------------|-----------------|-------------| | Placation | Consultation | Informing | | Therapy | Manipulation | | | Citizen power | Tokenism | Non-participation |
Source: Arnstein, ‘A ladder of citizen participation’. Arnstein’s ladder is implicitly normative: the ‘best’ form of participation lies at the top of the ladder, citizen control. But control of what? And which citizens? What kind of power? And what are the limits of citizen control? What is in it for citizens to seek this kind of power, and the state to cede it? Other typologies help address some of these questions.
Who participates? Most instances of citizen participation involve only some citizens, some of the time. Full participation – the participation of everyone in a community, at every step of the way – is rarely possible. This is not to say that direct democracy does not work. Swiss cantonments practise a form of it, and the New England town meeting in the United States is one of its celebrated examples. But in practice, even the most open-ended of participatory exercises will involve only a fraction of potential participants.
A simple axis developed by Farrington and Bebbington offers a useful rule of thumb for thinking about the scope and depth of participation. On one axis is the equivalent of a ladder of participation that might run from simply telling people what is going to be done through to delegating control to them to figure out how best to go about doing it. On the other is breadth of participation: from involving only a small group of people to engaging with every social group within the community. It is hard to do deep and wide participation at the same time. Yet where citizen participation has succeeded in bringing about positive change, it has often been through a combination of broad-based consultation to generate ideas, test the waters and secure legitimacy, and sustained, in-depth collaboration to shape, accompany and evaluate policy alternatives.
Participation – in what? Thinking back to the Dryzek’s three dimensions of scale, scope and authenticity of control, the question arises: what are citizens actually participating in? Assessing the needs of the population or speaking for others? Taking part in the planning process? Debating potential policy solutions or deliberating between policy alternatives? Monitoring the implementation of policies, or evaluating programmes? Different forms of citizen engagement might be more or less suitable for each of these kinds of activities – and more or less inclusive, deliberative and democratic. A combination of mechanisms, techniques or institutions may be needed to democratise citizen engagement, each consisting of wider or deeper participation at different points in the process (see table 1).
Table 1. **Different methods, different modes, different moments**
| Needs assessment | Planning | Policy deliberation | Monitoring / oversight / evaluation | |------------------|----------|---------------------|-------------------------------------| | Rapid and participatory appraisal (RRA, PRA, PA) | Participatory planning | Future search | Citizens’ panels | | Forum theatre | Planning for real | Deliberative polling | Intermediary institutions such as sectoral policy councils (Brazil); health watch committees (Bangladesh); community groups (Bangladesh); health facilities boards (South Africa) | | Participatory poverty / wellbeing assessment | Participatory budgeting | Citizens’ juries | | | Photovoice | Twenty-first-century town meeting | Consensus conferences | | | Rapid ethnographic assessment / rapid assessment procedures (RAP) | Citizens’ panels | | | | | Legislative theatre | | | | | Sectoral policy conferences (Brazil) | | | | | Citizens’ report cards | | | | | Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) | | |
**Why participate?**
Participation may bring longer-term benefits. But in the shorter term it can take a lot of time and energy. While many of the approaches to participation that have been popularised in the last decade cost a fraction of hiring a professional market research company, they do cost time, effort and money.
What is it that convinces those working in government that engaging citizens is worth it? And what is in it for the public? Why bother to participate? Sarah White contrasts four types of participation in terms of what is in it for people on each side of the citizen–state divide (see table 2).
Table 2. **White’s typology of participation**
| Form | What’s in it for the implementing agency? | What’s in it for participants? | What participation is for | |---------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------| | Nominal | Legitimisation | Inclusion | Display | | Instrumental | Efficiency | Costs (time, resources contributed) | As a means, to achieve cost-effectiveness | | Representative| Sustainability | Leverage | To give people a voice | | Transformative| Empowerment | Empowerment | As a means and an end |
Source: White, ‘Depoliticising development’.
White’s analysis is a useful tool for thinking through the question of where, and under which circumstances, each of the forms of participation here can create opportunities for greater citizen engagement. If the purpose of participation is to rubber-stamp already-made decisions and gain legitimacy for having ticked the participation box, then being co-opted as tokens in a situation where there is little prospect of responsiveness may call for citizens to use other tactics to gain voice. Being included even as a token can open political space that can be used to put other agendas on the table. But it can also close political space by compromising those who take part and disable them politically. This is a well-worn tactic used by powerful institutions to absorb criticism; for those who enter on these terms, exit and the use of conventional forms of protest from outside is sometimes a better way of exerting influence.
At the same time, committed bureaucrats can create the most transformative and potentially empowering participatory process – and find that there are few or no takers for it, because people have become cynical or bored, or simply don’t have time to take part. Much comes to depend on the immediate and broader context: on how people feel about the government, what they expect from it, how disgruntled they feel about public service provision, how willing they feel to give up their time, how connected they feel to their communities. These shape people’s expectations and willingness to get involved. If nothing much has come out of taking part in the past, there may be very little incentive to do so again.
**Trends and trajectories**
Modes of participation have shifted over time. Some incremental changes can be observed, as governments and other authorities have come to recognise the limits of more shallow or instrumental forms of participation. But the most decisive factor affecting shifts in public talk and public sector practice of participation is politics. In 1980s and 1990s Britain, there was a lot of talk about efficiency, and not very much at all about social justice. More recently, and most markedly in the last few years, there has been much more attention paid to what participation can do to build citizenship and revitalise democracy.
What we might think of as ‘popular participation’ runs the gamut from engaging in consultation exercises to taking to the streets in protest. It is not only about people responding to invitations from the government to participate. It is also about mobilising and organising to put pressure on government, about taking part in demonstrations and other forms of popular protest, as well as seeking to influence politics by signing petitions and writing letters to elected representatives. Contentious politics continues to play a vital part in democratic governance, and in the exercise of democratic citizenship. But over recent decades, traditional forms of collective action appear to have been on the wane in many parts of the world. In this country, we have seen, on the one hand, a much more individualistic approach to political participation and on the other, a decrease across the board in citizen engagement in any kind of politics at all.
At the same time as a crisis of democratic legitimacy was brewing in the established democracies of the northern hemisphere, the wave of democratisation that swept the southern hemisphere in the 1990s was opening up myriad new democratic spaces. In both, the intersections between what was once merely the work of public administration and that of building – or renewing – democratic vitality were never more evident. Those who began from entirely different starting points and political perspectives converged on one common emphasis: greater participation by civil society in all areas of governance. From the libertarian right’s call for reducing a state they perceived as bloated and inefficient, to the radical democratic left’s call for expanding the engagement of ordinary citizens in the process of governing, participation became everyone’s panacea.
In what Brazilian political scientist Evelina Dagnino describes as a ‘perverse confluence’, participation became a means to achieve both empowerment and efficiency. In the process of being put to use in the new public management, ‘empowerment’ has come to mean something quite different from the intensely political process of mobilisation for social justice that was once associated with the term. The term has now become so elastic that it can be used to refer simultaneously to issues as diverse as employment, creating more civic engagement and improving the accountability of local government. We’ve seen a shrinking away of the original association of the term with the least powerful in society taking power and gaining the capacity to act to change their own lives, through collective action. In its place, we hear more and more about ‘communities’ – as the source, resource and recourse for empowerment.
In the UK, it was in John Major’s Conservative government that we began to see the advent of the citizen-as-consumer shaping what was then known by a term that evokes its limited democratic ambitions: ‘public involvement’. Single regeneration budget programmes began to open up spaces in local governance for greater public involvement. Partnership talk has been part of government ever since. Since 1997, the New Labour government has invested in successive waves of regeneration, neighbourhood renewal and community empowerment programmes. In July 2007, Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave a major speech committing to constitutional changes that would ‘address two fundamental questions: to hold power more accountable and to uphold and enhance the rights and responsibilities of the citizen’. Noting that the current system of representative democracy ‘can be enhanced by devolving more power directly to the people’, Brown went on to signal what this might involve: First, powers of initiative, extending the right of the British people to intervene with their elected local representatives to ensure action – through a new community right to call for action and new duties on public bodies to involve local people.
Second, new rights for the British people to be consulted through mechanisms such as ‘citizens’ juries’ on major decisions affecting their lives.
Third, powers of redress, new rights for the British people to scrutinise and improve the delivery of local services.
And fourth, powers to ballot on spending decisions in areas such as neighbourhood budgets and youth budgets, with decisions on finance made by local people themselves.
At the same time, we must give new life to the very idea of citizenship itself.35
This is an exciting agenda indeed. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, which was passed a few months after this speech, in October 2007, has relatively weak legal provision of the rights Brown promised.36 It is, however, a step forward. The challenge now is to turn this commitment into real changes in the way in which the UK is governed.
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has laid out an Action Plan for Community Empowerment, which furthers the commitment of government to broadening and deepening citizen engagement in decision making.37 There is clear evidence that this is needed. A survey conducted for the DCLG in early 2008 showed that 92 per cent of people surveyed thought that accountability of local councils could be improved; and only 36 per cent of people felt they were given adequate say on how local services are run.38 Yet the forms of citizen engagement that are lauded there as evidence of increasing ‘good practice’ are unlikely to touch the lives of most ordinary people – especially if they are young, female, black or a member of a minority ethnic group.
Things might have improved since the local government survey of 2001 found that 56 per cent of authorities are concerned that participation exercises may simply capture the views of dominant, but unrepresentative groups. Plans to address this included ‘aiming certain participation exercises (eg forum-based initiatives, user management of services and co-option to committees) at specific citizen groups or neighbourhoods’.39 While a more recent review suggests that some progress has been made, it also signals the importance of paying more attention to social exclusion, equality and diversity issues. This calls for greater investment in getting the enabling conditions right for inclusive citizen engagement. To do so, this pamphlet argues, also calls for greater recognition of the limits of targeting particular groups in this way, in the absence of broader strategies to build representation and voice.
New democratic spaces, new democratic practices There is now much better developed thinking about different forms of democracy than there was even a decade ago. The ‘deliberative turn’ in North America and Europe has gained intellectual sustenance from experimentation with a whole array of deliberative techniques and institutions. New communications technologies have fired the imaginations of those interested in new democratic designs; the possibility of virtual mini-publics e-conferencing intensively to arrive at viable policy solutions lends a whole new dimension to ‘consultation’.
Citizen engagement in the twenty-first century is increasingly characterised by these kinds of interchanges, and by other forms of mediation that have opened up with the new communications technologies. Those who once took to the streets to protest against policies or demand their rights may now more commonly be found in forums, consultations and committees. The landscape of democratic citizenship is changing. The expansion of the participatory sphere may have brought many more people into direct contact with government than ever before. But the political implications are somewhat more ambiguous. Citizen engagement is expanding entry into the terrain of politics by people who would probably never join a political party or take part in a demonstration. Yet questions arise about whether participation stimulates more participation, or whether participating in invited spaces absorbs and dissipates social energy.
The intensity of interaction between citizens and public servants in these invited spaces can generate greater mutual understanding, and build relationships with knock-on effects on both voice and responsiveness. But it can also result in the silencing of dissenting voices, the legitimisation of pre-set decisions and the reproduction of relations of power, discrimination and marginalisation that exist in society at large. Much depends on the ways these institutions are set up and run, on who enters them and on the broader nexus of political institutions, cultures and practices within which they are located.
The following section takes a closer look at these invited spaces, and at some of these questions. It explores what experiences of invited participation in different countries can teach us about what enables and disables effective citizen engagement. Governments are opening up. In the past there were few opportunities for citizens to engage directly in decisions relating to public policy, or even to get basic information about public expenditure. These days there is growing transparency: in many countries, we now see the publication of budgets on the internet and in newspapers, the opening of debates within previously closed council and government meetings to the public and other measures aimed at creating more open, accountable government. A wealth of new intermediary institutions have been created in which there is far more direct opportunity than ever before for citizens and their representatives to engage directly with those who set priorities, make plans and commission and deliver services.
These ‘invited spaces’ are different in significant ways from the range of institutional forms that represent civil society at large. They can be as much sites of contention as consensus, but these institutions are designed to promote what a Brazilian bureaucrat termed ‘constructive coexistence’ between social groups representing citizens’ experiences and demands, and those who plan, commission and provide services. Many of these new democratic spaces have social accountability – engaging citizens directly in monitoring and oversight of public policies – as their primary function. Their location at the interface between state and society permits citizen voice to be effectively channelled; the presence of the state at this interface can present a better opportunity for securing state responsiveness.
Taking a closer look at these institutions raises a number of questions about how they contribute towards democratising public involvement – and about what combination of design characteristics, legislation and other factors lend such institutions the possibility of realising their democratising potential. This is the focus of this section.
**Institutionalising participation in invited spaces**
Invited spaces take a great diversity of forms. Some are sites in which citizens engage alongside representatives of the state in shaping policies, evaluating plans and assessing the effectiveness of programmes and projects. Others are institutions empowered to veto spending plans if they feel they will not benefit citizens. Others still are organs through which citizens get to hear about how exactly public expenditure is due to be spent – and to call to account those who do the spending. Despite this diversity they share one key family resemblance. Unlike the closed committee rooms of government, or the meeting rooms where political parties, church groups or neighbourhood associations meet those with whom they have something in common – be it ideology, faith or place – these are spaces that bring together people who might otherwise not have any occasion to be together. They are a meeting place where those who commission and/or deliver services can interact with those who represent the users of those services, or potential beneficiaries of programmes. And they are spaces that hold the potential to change the ways in which citizens engage with government, and government officials and service providers respond to those whom they are supposed to serve.
There are a number of reasons why invited spaces are especially interesting from a policy perspective. Considerable experience exists with their design and implementation. Policy makers can learn from what has gone right, and what has gone wrong. Relatively similar institutional forms exist in vastly different cultural and political contexts. There are some generic lessons that arise, especially in relation to issues of inclusion, representation and voice – the principal focus of this pamphlet. An array of institutional design principles has been developed, which can guide policy choices. While the same institutional design may have very different effects depending on the social, political and cultural context, there are elements of design that do travel.
The diversity of designs also matches with the diversity of purposes to which modern government might put efforts to broaden citizen engagement. What may be needed is a way to get some fresh thinking and ground-truth prevailing policy assumptions in people’s lived experiences. Or to establish a regular feedback mechanism to monitor the quality of service provision. Other design questions follow, such as who to recruit, how to find them, what kinds of procedures and processes best fit the purpose and so on. Very different people may get involved depending on whether they need to make a regular commitment, or whether they can just get involved on an ad-hoc, one-off basis.
While certain institutional designs have become ossified – especially where existing institutions have been adapted for new purposes – opportunities exist for changing the rules, introducing new procedures and strengthening the viability of these institutions through mechanisms such as training, coordination with other institutions and so on. This, again, makes invited spaces interesting to policy makers: precisely because they can be not only spaces for change, but *spaces that can be changed*.
**Spaces for change?**
The expansion of the participatory sphere represents an opportunity for democratising citizen engagement. But to realise the potential of invited spaces, we need to understand better what it is that can make them effective spaces for change. Three facets can be distinguished. The first takes shape around an interest in the *rules, procedures and structures* that facilitate participation. This can be captured broadly under the heading ‘institutional design’, and is about the design principles that can most effectively support inclusive participation – whether in terms of internal regulations or supportive legislation.
The second concerns the *actors* involved. Understanding the mediating and mobilising role of social actors of various kinds – social movements, voluntary and community organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), neighbourhood associations – can lead to greater insight into what can be done to strengthen the capacity of societal actors to engage in governance. Understanding issues of state capacity and responsiveness is equally important, whether in terms of institutional incentives, stimulating innovation or building a sense of shared commitment to inclusive, participatory governance among those who are charged with the daily job of governing.
The third concerns issues of *context, history and culture*. This is the least well developed of the three areas in the literature, but no less important than the others. It has become evident that innovations in participatory governance are not neutral technologies that can simply be exported from one context to another and be expected to generate similar results in each setting. Getting to grips with context is about understanding better the *preconditions* for effective and inclusive participatory governance and how these can be strengthened in different contexts.
The pamphlet goes on to consider each in turn.
**Designs for democracy: new roles, new rules**
According to some, the making of effective participatory institutions lies in getting the design right. Design features include not only aspects such as size, regularity of meetings and mandate but also rules about who participates, what they participate in and how they participate. Rules about who can be a member, and whether that member is appointed or elected, and by whom, have a huge impact on the extent to which these institutions are able to respond to entrenched social injustice effectively. Some institutions have quotas or other mechanisms to make sure particular people are represented – for example, social groups that have suffered persistent discrimination and a lack of representation in public institutions or those suffering from particular diseases or those working for particular kinds of organisations.
Different forms of citizen engagement deal with this question in different ways. Some approaches seek to stimulate direct engagement by and with as wide a variety of people in any given community as possible – welcoming all comers. Others seek to carefully construct a representative cross-section of the population. Contrasts are drawn by some analysts between institutions that rely on self-selection – participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, community policing ‘beat meetings’ in Chicago – and those where people are recruited on the basis of representing the electorate in microcosm. These ‘mini-publics’, as they are known, are increasingly being used to explore difficult policy choices; there have been cases where they have been used to actually make policy.
In contexts where there has been significant experience with popular participation, an array of often informal rules has been developed which helps facilitate the mediation of conflict and the facilitation of inclusive deliberation. Harvard political scientist Archon Fung has produced some of the most systematic work on institutional design for deliberative and participatory governance. In a key article on the principles of deliberative designs, Fung identifies a number of key design features that help to amplify participation and inclusion. He shows how certain institutional designs – involving choices over objectives, themes for the agenda, mechanisms for choosing representatives, for decision making and for the enforcement of decisions – are more or less inclined to promote legitimacy, justice or effectiveness. These dimensions do not always converge, he points out; it is hard to privilege one without sacrificing others.
Brazil has gone further than any other country in experimentation with the design of inclusive, deliberative participatory governance institutions (see box 2). Brazilian political scientist Leonardo Avritzer argues that these institutions provide an important mechanism for channelling otherwise unformed and disorganised public opinion. They can harness social energy and provide a space in which citizens’ diverse experiences can be given form. And they can create a sense of shared commitment to a broader societal project of social transformation in which the public are neither instruments nor beneficiaries, but active, engaged, members of the polity. This more radical democratic vision of participation contrasts with the neoliberal view of the citizen–consumer, or the communitarian view of ‘empowered communities’ doing it for and by themselves.
Box 2. Designs for democracy in Brazil
Brazilian experiences with democratic innovation are some of the most exciting in the world. The contrast between Brazil’s health councils and the UK’s soon-to-be-abolished patient and public involvement forums could not be more marked. As the UK puts the new act into practice, Brazilian experience could prove very useful.
The fruit of mobilisation by the popular health movement, Brazil’s architecture of participatory governance in the health sector is enshrined in the 1988 Constitution – dubbed the ‘Citizens’ Constitution’. This obliges municipal, state and federal governments to create and support health councils, which have a legal mandate of monitoring health policy and spending. They must approve health plans, budgets and accounts before monies are released from the federal purse. Basic health laws at each tier of government formalise the composition and mandate of the councils. Internal regulations, based on federal directives, stipulate rules of representation, the conduct of meetings and other features of design for the smooth running of these institutions.
The design of these institutions includes parity between representatives of the state (split between those who commission services and those who provide them) and of society. The state’s most senior health officials are obliged to attend the monthly meetings of the councils. Representation of health workers runs right across the medical hierarchy and includes doctors, auxiliary nurses and community-based health workers. Representing health service users are people from social movements, such as the popular health movement or disabled people’s movement, the unions, voluntary and community organisations, neighbourhood associations and particular interest groups such as religious groups. The councils are complemented by a system of participatory conferences, taking place every two to four years, at which proposals for national health policy are developed and debated. Several hundred thousand Brazilians thus participate at different levels of government in the process of shaping and exercising oversight over health policy.
Vera Schattan Coelho from the Brazilian Centre of Analysis and Planning in São Paulo and Andrea Cornwall from the Institute of Development Studies looked at how health councils addressed issues of inclusion, representation and voice in two distinctively different parts of the country. Their work revealed that even if the pathway from their creation to the councils functioning as they were intended to do is pitted with obstacles, their very existence – and the struggle to make them work – is in itself an important part of a larger process of the democratisation of public policy. Evident in both sites was the importance of both social and state actors: the effective participation of informed and articulate social actors who could take up the spaces opened up for their participation and of state actors with a personal and political commitment to making participation work. In both cases, institutional design was a key factor in facilitating the inclusion of diverse social groups.
A growing number of countries now have legislation that makes participation an obligation of the state and a right of its citizens. Laws and enabling policy frameworks in place that promote and protect citizen engagement can mean the difference between selective consultation at the convenience of the government and genuine involvement that recognises people’s rights to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. Having a right to participate means being recognised by the state and other authorities as having an entitlement to be informed and involved; making that right real calls for amplifying and channelling citizen voice on the one hand, and strengthening state responsiveness on the other. Recasting the role of the public in this way – ‘from users and choosers to makers and shapers’ – has profound implications for how citizens come to be seen by the state, and come to see themselves.
Where participation becomes a right rather than something that depends on the good will of government, the ground shifts. Those on the receiving end of public services become not just beneficiaries with needs, or consumers with preferences, but citizens with entitlements. Thinking of participation as a right highlights the obligations that the state has to fulfilling not only its own domestic legislation but internationally agreed human rights. These rights and obligations provide a lever for citizens to demand accountability.
**Actors: new spaces, new faces**
Governments can create, institutionalise and resource invited spaces. They can use the principles of institutional design discussed in the previous section to put in place the architecture for inclusive citizen engagement. Care can be taken with rules of representation and recruitment to get the balance exactly right, thought can go into the best places and times for meetings, and expertise in facilitation can inform the way meetings are to be run. But only so much can be orchestrated. For all the designing that can be done to get these institutions right, much depends on the people who bring these designs to life.
Talk of ‘civil society’ and ‘the voluntary and community sector’ has a warm ring about it. It conjures up visions of people volunteering to benefit others. It evokes organisations that are closer to the people and more able to listen to and respond to their needs. But the use of these terms masks the diversity of organisations that lay claim to being part of these categories. Some are indeed the kinds of organisations that have the capacity, legitimacy and reach to build broad-based constituencies for change. But there are others that are far from democratic, accountable or inclusive. Much faith has been placed in the role that civic associations and NGOs can play in democratising governance. But as Neera Chandhoke points out, ‘civil society’ is only as civil as the society that gives rise to it. A number of key questions arise: which kinds of civil society or voluntary and community sector organisations enable democratic citizen engagement and under what conditions do these kinds of organisations flourish and gain influence?
Current policy talk is as much about ‘communities’ as about the role of the so-called third sector, the myriad voluntary and community sector organisations that work with and represent those for whose benefit most social policies are intended. Democratising citizen engagement calls for going beyond feel-good rhetoric about community empowerment to face up to the complex dynamics of power relations and inequality that are inevitably part of ‘communities’. Despite what Raymond Williams memorably described as the ‘warmly persuasive’ qualities of the word ‘community’, it is a fact that the idyll of cohesive, caring, mutually accountable communities who simply need to be stirred and supported into playing a more active part in managing their own affairs may be a long way from reality. This is as true for the UK as anywhere else. There may be some deeply reactionary elements within communities, as there are within civil society more broadly. Those representing the state may find themselves to be the most progressive actors at the table.
This is why a rights-based approach to public policy is so important. Rather than simply calling for ‘communities’ to decide for themselves what their priorities are, using the principles of human rights to guide deliberations provides a way of grounding participation and empowerment in an approach that is consistent with the government’s broader commitment to social justice. It enables government to defend the rights of minorities against the prejudice and discrimination of society at large, and to assert their rights to participate, as well as to support and resources. In a society like that of the UK, with homophobia, racism, prejudice against asylum seekers and Islamophobia evident in many parts of our society, this is increasingly important. Unpacking who exactly ‘the community’ are raises the question of who comes to represent ‘the community’ in participatory initiatives and institutions. Invited spaces are also intermediary institutions; those who enter them become mediators between the worlds of bureaucracy and community. Those who represent ‘the community’ can find themselves in the middle, between the closed institutions of the state machinery and the spaces people make for themselves: privy to knowledge about the complications of the bureaucratic process or constraints on government, but faced with demands from angry people who want to see something shift. Yet this is also a powerful position to be in. Spokespeople for communities may be elected. But they are as often self-selected. The role of intermediary can easily turn into one of gatekeeper.
The wave of experimentation with participatory approaches in the last decade sought to get beyond the ‘usual suspects’ who would turn up to public meetings and take up seats as community representatives. The label ‘the usual suspects’ does a disservice to those whose experience and commitment is often such an important asset to communities. But relying exclusively on those who put themselves forward carries evident dangers of reinforcing existing patterns of inclusion and exclusion. With the expansion of the participatory sphere there are evident tensions and contradictions where elected representatives and those who represent communities speak on behalf of similar constituencies, but have very different relationships of accountability and representation with them. It may well be the case that neither elected nor community representatives effectively represent the interests and concerns of marginalised social groups. As the case study from Bangladesh in box 3 illustrates, where little attention is given to ensuring broad-based representation, the default mode is that those who hold positions of power within any given community become its de facto ‘representatives’.
Box 3. Who participates? ‘Community participation’ in Bangladesh
*Behind the ‘people-centred’ Primary Health Care Declaration made in Alma-Ata in 1978 lies the expectation that if the community participates in making decisions about local health* service provision there will be better health outcomes. In 1998, as part of health sector reforms, the Bangladesh government initiated efforts to enhance community participation in the public health system. Community groups (CGs) were set up in health facilities to involve the community in their management, and health watch committees (HWCs) were established to exercise citizen oversight over the delivery of services.
Simeen Mahmud, from the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, focused her research for the Spaces for Change programme on a comparison between two kinds of institutions: community groups, established by the state as co-management institutions for rural health services, and health watch committees, established and run by a NGO with the mandate of monitoring the delivery of health services.57
Mahmud’s research found that mechanisms to enlist community members in the management of health care delivery in the CGs were driven more by concerns of efficiency than democracy. Representation in these CGs was by nomination or self-selection. Those who became ‘community representatives’ were disproportionately representative of local elites, with little contact with those whom they are supposed to be representing. Mahmud found that many community members have no idea who their representatives are, or indeed that CGs exist at all.
In the area where Mahmud worked, Nijera Kori, a radical NGO with a strong track record in mobilising marginalised citizens, was the implementing agency for the HWCs. A very different story emerges. Selection to the committees appeared to be more transparent, achieved through popular voting at an open workshop attended by a range of social classes. Nijera Kori suggested that half the members should be women. Representatives included people from groups of landless people formed by the NGO, professionals – lawyer, journalist, a non-government doctor, teachers – and representatives of grassroots organisations. Despite their varying socio-economic backgrounds, participants established ways of working together and were able to participate more equally. However, the absence on the committee of representatives from the state limited their ability to effect change in the delivery of health services. What are the lessons for effective community participation?
- It is one thing to create a new space for participation; it is another to ensure that those who fill it genuinely represent their communities.
- Transparent, democratic selection and election processes are important for both legitimacy and inclusion of different groups.
- Communities need to be made aware that institutions exist, who their representatives are, what the roles of both institutions and representatives are, and what they might expect from them.
- Socio-economic or social differences can affect participants’ capacity to participate or be heard; they need to be actively addressed to ensure more equitable representation and participation.
The case of these two very different Bangladeshi institutions demonstrates a number of the points made in the previous section about institutional design. In particular, it underscores the importance of ensuring effective, inclusive representation. A lack of attention to rules of representation meant, in this case, that the people that these institutions are meant to serve are effectively excluded from participation. But there is a twist to the tale. In the kind of institution described in the first case, it is easy enough for collusion between medical staff and local elites to develop, effectively silencing any of the concerns that those who are the primary users of health services might raise. Yet while the second institution was far more inclusionary and participatory, it suffered from a critical limitation when it came to bringing about change: it lacked participation from those who were responsible for commissioning and delivering health services.
This case illustrates a broader point, one that applies as much to urban Britain as rural Bangladesh. To make use of invitations to participate, citizens need to be organised enough to understand what is going on, what is at stake and over what it is possible to press demands. For this, they need information. Recent years have seen huge strides forward in access to information, with the expansion of e-democracy, the use of the media to publish information on public expenditure, and the active use of enabling legislation to demand information. India is perhaps the most exciting place for all this at the moment, with a Right to Information act that is being used to great effect by citizens’ groups to demand information and hold the government to account.58
But in many places, there is a lack of information on the very existence of the institutions that have been set up to enhance accountability and responsiveness. People who live in the communities that are supposed to be served by them simply don’t know that they exist. For those who do, there may be little available or accessible information on what exactly they are for, and what those who represent the community within them are supposed to do. People might be selected or even elected onto such an institution and not have any idea what they are supposed to do. Sometimes they are there as tokens; all that is needed is their signature on the register to say that they are present. One obvious step towards making these institutions viable is to provide much more information about them, in forms that are accessible to all.
A further, essential, step is to provide those who represent their communities with adequate information about their roles, rights and responsibilities as representatives in these institutions so that they can participate effectively. Where rules and roles are not clear, institutions are very vulnerable to domination by professionals and those with vested interests. Those with the least power may find themselves completely sidelined. The semblance of participation can mask deep-seated forms of exclusion: where people direct their eye contact, who gets interrupted, who raises their hand and never catches the eye of the chair, who is chosen to speak first. Addressing the social and political marginalisation that perpetuates societal inequalities depends on more than making available a seat at the table and finding people to fill it, precisely because exclusion is a much more subtle process than this – it requires that we pay far closer attention to cultures of politics and to relations of power.
**Context: cultures of politics, spaces of power**
Democratising citizen engagement calls for recognising that invited spaces are spaces of power in which existing societal inequalities and relations of domination and resistance can come to be reproduced. They are spaces in which styles of interaction may be borrowed from other sites in which participants engage – neighbourhood associations, political party gatherings, local government chambers and committees, protest movements – and that the cultures of politics in these institutions may be far from inclusive and participatory. They are spaces where the dominant institutional culture of government may hold sway in the way meetings are organised and run. For those who are familiar with the way things work in government, the implicit rules that govern these kinds of meetings are second nature. But they have to be acquired by those who enter these spaces if they are to be effective. Invited spaces are also classrooms, then, in which representatives of communities learn to convey community concerns in the language of technocracy.
Spaces for participation are not just management spaces. They are political spaces. They are also spaces of possibility, where those who lack opportunities for political apprenticeship can acquire experience. For some who take their first steps into the public sphere to join community groups or take part in a citizens’ conference, participatory institutions can be a stepping-stone into the formal political arena. For others, these institutions are an arena for political engagement that can be far more enriching than formal politics. Actors within them may share significant political histories, beliefs and commitments, despite sitting on opposite sides of the civil society–state divide. Or they may hold very different political values, even if they occupy the same official positions.
Networks infused with ideological commitment, friendships, alliances and allegiances run through these spaces, complicating any attempt to disentangle the structures that are animated by these agents. Every space has a history, and elements of its past and of those of actors within it, can linger. Even as different people enter the space, these elements can pattern relationships of distrust and familiarity, collusion and contestation. There may be a lot of work that needs to be done to clear old cobwebs, and create a new basis for partnership in contexts where people have experienced round after round of consultation with no apparent results.
For all that the word ‘partnership’ conjures up a relationship of mutuality, where one partner is inviting the other, on their terms and holding the purse strings, the relationship is clearly not equal. Participation in invited spaces is generally on the terms set by those who create and maintain those spaces. What gets on to the agenda, and what remains off limits for discussion, may be implicitly rather than explicitly controlled by those doing the inviting. John Gaventa contrasts ‘visible’ with ‘hidden’ power; overt domination with the capacity to set the agenda before people have even arrived at the table. He signals a further dimension of power, ‘invisible’ power – internalised beliefs and values that mean that people do not even question the way that others treat them, nor see themselves as deserving of better.59
Cultures of citizen engagement that exist within any given society may take very different forms among different social groups. People with experience of dealing with bureaucracy may fail to recognise how uncomfortable it can be to enter a space with such a very different culture from the spaces in which people spend their everyday lives. Simeen Mahmud gives an example from Bangladesh of a landless woman who is a member of one of these institutions: ‘I am poor and ignorant, what will I say? Those who are more knowledgeable speak more.’ But while the culture of invited spaces may be one that is more favourable to middle-class professionals and local elites, who may be more familiar with the language and practices associated with the state, this is not to say that poorer people lack agency in other spaces. Mahmud draws a telling contrast with more ‘traditional’ forms of exercising voice, citing a female grassroots community group member: ‘The educated and well-off members can debate or discuss a point in an organized way but when it comes to protesting they are usually silent and try to stay out of the scene.’60
Invited spaces do not exist in an institutional vacuum. Those who participate in them as citizen or user representatives may well be active participants in other spaces – members of a political party, a religious group, or a neighbourhood association. They may attend meetings on behalf of these institutions, or on behalf of the state. They may work for the state, and bring professional, bureaucratic and technical knowledge acquired in their jobs to their work as a representative. They may have had positive or negative experiences as a service user that affect the way in which they see and relate to state officials.
Whether they represent the state or civil society, people carry experiences and ways of working and interacting from one space to another. All of these experiences in other places shape the ways in which people relate to those they meet in an invited space. Someone who has experienced being talked down to by health workers is not going to suddenly see them as open, responsive and equal partners simply because they are meeting them in a different place. Those who represent the government may also identify with issues as users and citizens – they may be parents or carers themselves, they may be political party or environmental activists in their spare time.
Recognising that interactions within invited spaces are shaped by deeply rooted experiences of privilege and power, exclusion and powerlessness, is critical. Efforts to promote citizen engagement can completely ignore the need to address these dynamics. Those doing the inviting often take their own ways of seeing and doing for granted. Those who enter invited spaces may consciously or unconsciously mimic the kinds of behaviour they have witnessed in these and other spaces, in order to gain voice and influence. Simply creating a space does not mean that the space will not be filled with old ways of working, entrenched hierarchies, disabling assumptions and relations of power that reproduce the generally undemocratic institutions of the family, community and polity. Breaking with these patterns takes intensive investment in processes that restore to people a sense of their own agency as well as enable those in positions of power to recognise the limiting effects of their own beliefs and conduct.
Participatory institutions can have far-reaching effects. They can bring about the kinds of change in the cultures of politics and governance that the UK so badly needs. There is a wealth of inclusive, deliberative, institutional designs that can be used to improve the way in which the UK practises citizen engagement. But it needs to be recognised that democratic designs borrowed from other contexts are not recipes that can be expected to yield the same results with totally different ingredients. Take participatory budgeting. Closer inspection of Brazilian experience reveals some important lessons. The first is that it is critical to understand better the preconditions for the successful practice of participatory budgeting – and these are more than about perfecting the technique, for all the software and other paraphernalia that is now being marketed. It is no coincidence that where participatory budgeting has made a difference, it has been in the context of radical democratic administrations. Studies have found that the democratising effects of participatory budgeting are most likely to be felt where there is a conjunction of strong progressive leadership in the municipal administration and strong social movements that are able to mobilise demands, and hold the state to account for its promises. In some cities, the election of a conservative administration has meant the end of the participatory budget; in others, it has become so embedded in the life of the city that it has become part of the political culture of its citizens and very difficult for any administration to dislodge. Therein lies a second lesson. Effective participation is sustained from below, not imposed from above. Without a demand from citizens, and without a democratising impulse that is driven by their desire for engagement, there is little chance of creating the culture of participation that is needed for genuine citizen engagement.
Realising the potential of invited spaces – whether in the form of regularised institutions or more transient exercises in citizen dialogue – for democratisation along all three of Dryzek’s dimensions depends on challenging and changing deeply held cultural beliefs about the role of authority, of professionals and of ordinary citizens. It calls for changing the culture of formality that patterns government meetings and makes them inaccessible to those who are not familiar with established rituals. It requires changing the culture of conduct between those who may be more used to sharply demarcated hierarchies and command and control management structures and those who may have grown up in awe of professionals and afraid of revealing what they think to be their ignorance. And it means actively addressing all these and other inequalities, stereotypes and prejudices that present such potent barriers to effective participation.
The issue of representation is intimately connected to that of inclusion; and inclusion, in turn, to all three of Dryzek’s dimensions of democratisation. If democratic government is to serve all its people, then strategies are needed to engage those with least access to political elites, resources and power. Questions of representation are fundamentally questions about democracy itself. It is to these questions that I now turn. 4 Who speaks for whom?
Representation, inclusion and voice
The question of who participates – and in whose name – has come to be a growing preoccupation with the expansion of participatory governance. As new spaces for participation have opened up, new representatives have entered the scene, bringing with them a host of different ideas and practices of representation. Some reaffirm group-based forms of representation that predate the institutions of liberal democracy. Others offer entirely new ways of thinking about what a representative does, and what institutions society needs if its members are to be adequately represented in all their diversity and complexity. In the process, what it means to be a ‘representative’ is rapidly changing. Houtzager, Lavalle and Acharya observe:
*Citizen participation is not simply an exercise of political involvement by ordinary citizens in the policy process, but rather includes a diverse set of collective actors. This raises a significant new question in the debate on citizen/civil society participation: what forms of representation are civil society actors constructing in the new participatory institutions, and how do these new forms of representation involve ordinary citizens in policy-making?*
With the creation of new democratic spaces, there has been the emergence of a generation of new stakeholders: intermediary organisations, sponsored and sustained by investment in the so-called third sector. The marketisation of social policy has produced a vast array of voluntary and community organisations that are now dependent on state contracts. While this compromises their potential role in oversight and efforts to get the state to be more accountable to its citizens, as beneficiaries of the money that flows from state coffers into service provision, it lends these organisations a proximity to the everyday needs of those to whom they deliver services.
At the same time, around the world, affiliation to what Pippa Norris calls ‘mobilising agencies’ – traditional mass-membership organisations that were once the principal intermediaries between citizens and the state beyond the elected representatives of the formal political system – is falling. In the UK, political participation has become more individualistic; the combination of the rise of ‘credit card activism’ and extremely low levels of political party membership have left the political landscape denuded of the kinds of institutions that can effectively channel dissent into constructive engagement with the state. For all the designing that can be done to create inclusive institutions, much depends on who enters these newly created spaces – and on what they bring with them. One of the things they bring is a range of different understandings of their role as representative, as the case study in box 4 illustrates.
Box 4. In whose name? Representation in São Paulo, Brazil
How do those who represent organised civil society in Brazil’s numerous participatory institutions see their role as representatives? Peter Houtzager and Adrian Gurza Lavalle’s work – with collaborators Arnab Acharya and Graciella Castello – explores some of the implications of new and emerging forms of representation in participatory governance. A survey conducted in São Paulo among civil society organisations generated six principal justifications:
- electoral: because being elected authorises representation and, simultaneously, secures accountability
- proximity: because the organisation’s degree of closeness, solidarity and empathy with their public, and being sought after by those publics for that reason, legitimises representatives as a demonstration of their genuine interest and role as representatives
- services: because the organisation provides services to people, it knows what people need (in implicit contrast to traditional representatives who neither know nor serve those whom they represent)
- mediation: because the organisation opens up access to public decision-making institutions that otherwise would remain inaccessible, so as to make claims in the interest of its public
- membership: because the organisation has been formed to represent its members
- identity: because the organisation is of members of a particular social group it can speak for them and act in their interest The electoral, membership and identity-based arguments are familiar ones from the literature on political representation, and have the oldest historical roots. But they were the least common among the civic organisations interviewed. The most common argument – the ‘mediation argument’ – was made by over a third of the respondents. It is related to recent democratic reforms to provide citizens greater access to, and control over, the state and to the new roles civil organisations are undertaking. The prominence of the mediation argument, as well as its common rival the proximity and service arguments, suggests that the new role of civil organisations in contemporary polities may be contributing to an important change in the symbolic construction of democratic legitimacy.
Effective participation depends on having effective participants. The considerations raised in the previous section suggest that closer attention needs to be paid to the extent to which these new democratic spaces are transforming or reproducing old undemocratic relations. In contexts where deeply embedded patterns of social inequality exist, there is every possibility that culturally entrenched relations of prejudice and power are simply reproduced in any new spaces that are created – unless active attempts are made to mitigate their effects. Ordinary citizens may find that these are less spaces for change than spaces in which their marginalisation is reaffirmed, as the example from South Africa in box 5 shows.
Box 5. Social change and community participation in South Africa
Today’s possibilities for citizen participation in South Africa are deeply shaped by the country’s apartheid history. There were no legal rights or avenues for black participation and political self-governance until 1994. Since then, there has been ‘transitional governance’ and demands for deep social change. In this context community participation is literally synonymous with legitimate governance.
John Williams, from the University of Western Cape, South Africa, researched the case of citizen representation on health facilities boards (HFBs) in the Western Cape as part of the Spaces for Change programme. HFBs were established to ensure greater community participation in the provision of healthcare services at grassroots level. The Health Facilities Boards Act makes it explicit that community representatives must constitute at least 50 per cent of a HFB. Theoretically this means that communities are able to influence the formulation, implementation, monitoring and revision of hospital business plans, hospital staffing and the quality of hospital services.
One of the most pressing challenges in the HFBs is the dramatic under-representation of black South Africans. Williams’ analysis of two HFBs in the Western Cape shows the racially skewed nature of the HFBs and explains why black people in general do not participate. Historically, whites have dominated governance institutions in South Africa, including hospitals and health clinics. Election procedures of HFBs favour literate and more influential members of a community at the expense of poorer, largely illiterate members. And a culture of deference to professional authority undermines real dialogue and the empowerment of black communities.
What steps can be taken to improve the representation of excluded people?
- Improve communication through the use of more direct forms of communication like rallies, door-to-door visits, street theatre etc.
- Open up the dynamics of these new participatory spaces to engagement – including creating space for discussion of who has authority over the agenda, dynamics of authority and deference, inflexibility and protocols.
- Change rules of representation to ensure that there is representation from all users, including measures such as the reservation of seats for particular excluded groups.
Where institutional design meets analysis of the actors who are involved in participatory institutions, it becomes evident that changing the rules – particularly rules of representation – might well make an immediate difference in creating the basis for more equitable representation. Taking a closer look at the dynamics of participation in practice shows that while design features like quotas or reserved seats may be a necessary step towards getting a critical mass of under-represented social groups into the political arena, this does not directly translate into substantive participation (see box 6). Societal prejudices and assumptions can be compounded by a relative lack of assertiveness, articulateness, consciousness and clout. Tackling these issues becomes a priority if these kinds of institutions are to contribute to democratising decision making over public policies and institutions.
Box 6. **Gendered subjects**
In the last two decades, the Indian state has created a variety of institutional spaces at the village level to encourage lower-caste and tribal groups and women to participate in governance. Ranjita Mohanty from the Society for Participatory Research in Asia carried out research as part of the Spaces for Change programme. Her study illustrates how, in this context, the physical presence of women – made possible by legislation that requires all institutions of local governance, panchayats, to reserve a third of their seats for women – was not matched with opportunities to exercise voice or influence.
Mohanty looked at the presence and absence of women in three institutional spaces: health and watershed development institutions and panchayats – units of local governance at the grassroots level. Panchayats have a constitutional mandate to encourage the political participation of women, and reserve a third of their seats for women. Watershed committees are also obliged to include women representatives. Yet it was only in the mother-and-child-focused health committee that women were able to participate in any meaningful way. Formal participation in the other two arenas did not translate into substantive engagement. Women endured meetings in silence, reduced to mere signatories, or were actively sidelined if they did speak up.
When women are asked to join committees or panchayats, it is often to meet procedural requirements. Women members are seen as decorative; who among women in a community will stand for election is a decision rarely taken by women themselves. Rather than political empowerment or expanding women’s political imagination, these institutional spaces commonly end up reproducing stereotyped identities of women. Women may find themselves overwhelmed by the barriers they face to exercising voice and influence, resigning themselves instead to the tokenistic roles they are given by men. It becomes hard for them to organise on their own to negotiate and claim their rightful stake in local participatory institutions.
What would help women to participate?
- Experience of participation in other spaces, such as those created by local organisations, associations of movement, enables women to gain the skills and confidence to speak in public.
- The state can play a role in supporting women’s participation by not only putting enabling mechanisms in place (such as reserved seats or quotas for women) but ensuring compliance with them, and actively facilitating women’s participation within these spaces.
- Where women have participated in leadership training, consciousness-raising and other processes aimed at enhancing their political agency, they are much more able to make their voices heard.
An enabling legal framework needs to be complemented by other strategies if it is to foster inclusive participation. Securing seats within institutions like councils or committees for traditionally excluded groups through quotas or reservations may be a necessary condition for their inclusion, but is often not sufficient for their substantive participation. Mobilisation can create new leaders who can represent community or group-based interests; this can be one of the most promising routes to exercising voice. But those with least societal power are often the least able to organise, mobilise and put themselves forward as a social group. How, then, can their needs and interests be most effectively represented? What is needed to turn a place at the table into a real opportunity to shape the agenda?
Chaudhuri and Heller argue that a critical shortcoming of the debate on deepening democracy is that it has assumed individuals are equally able to form associations and engage in political activity. This, they argue, ignores fundamental differences in power that exist between social groups:
If this is problematic in any less-than-perfect democracy (and there are no perfect democracies) it is especially problematic in developing democracies where basic rights of association are circumscribed and distorted by pervasive vertical dependencies (clientelistic relationships), routine forms of social exclusion (e.g., the caste system, purdah), the unevenness and at times complete failure of public legality, and the persistence of pre-democratic forms of authority.
If the skills to participate are just that – skills that might need to be acquired by those who have rarely had opportunities to engage in the public arena – is it enough to expect participants to acquire them for themselves? There is clearly a role that intermediary organisations, and indeed the state, can play in that process of learning, and of mobilising people to make use of invitations to participate. But what is that role – and where do its limits lie? And how can governments do better in engaging groups that have historically been excluded from playing any part in determining public policies and service provision? Towards inclusive representation
There are different perspectives in the extensive literature on representation as to how best to ensure the inclusion of less organised and historically marginalised social groups. Some argue for a more direct democratic approach: that participatory institutions should be open to everyone who wants to participate. There are those who point out the risk that self-selection may favour those with the most resources, and who propose methods of random selection that seek to mirror the makeup of the population at large. Others argue for a focus less on methods of selection and more on incentives for participating. And others again believe a process of mobilisation is what is needed to create the basis for marginalised social groups to represent themselves.
Jane Mansbridge argues that in cases where there are no clearly identifiable positions and where there is strong distrust for the state, historically marginalised social groups need to be represented directly. One way of addressing this is to make sure there is someone from these groups at the table; that is, rather than have someone speaking for people with, for example, a particular disability, someone with that disability is asked to represent others like them. Such a ‘politics of presence’, Anne Phillips suggests, provides a number of challenges to existing patterns of exclusion and marginalisation. First, there is a symbolic value in having members of an excluded group present at the decision-making table. Second, it opens the decision-making process and creates the conditions for a more vigorous advocacy of their interests. It can facilitate a politics of transformation by giving previously excluded groups the time and opportunity to construct their political preferences and express their concerns for themselves. But it also runs a number of risks, among them tokenism and the possibility that those who come to speak for a particular social group end up becoming a ‘professional participant’, rather than using a seat at the table to open space for and reach out to others.
Addressing the issues of representation raised in this pamphlet is not only about ensuring better, more inclusive rules of recruitment, election or enlistment. It is also not just about getting a greater diversity of actors around the table. It is also about recognising that the cultural styles of dialogue and forms of representation that are to be found in invited spaces may depart to such a degree from those with which some participants are comfortable, that entirely different structures and processes might be required so as to enable them to participate. But even the best-made designs have their limits, if they assume a monoculture rather than provide for cultural differences in modes of representation, dialogue and deliberation, as the case in box 7 shows.
Box 7. Healthy futures?
The Romanow Commission was established in April 2001 by the Canadian government to engage Canadians in a national dialogue on their health system. An extensive consultation process included expert reports and panels, consultations and deliberative Citizens’ Dialogues with statistically representative groups of ‘unaffiliated’ citizens using a sophisticated deliberative technique, ChoiceWorks. In their study for Spaces for Change, David Kahane and Bettina von Lieres found that while some Aboriginal people were included in the dialogues, the outcomes did not reflect Aboriginal health issues. They explore why this was the case. Their analysis suggests that the design was a perfect fit for a society which prizes the sovereign individual, but not for societies in which forms of group-based representation are culturally dominant. Aboriginal people participated in all sessions, but were typically very quiet. Two localised ad hoc attempts to hear more Aboriginal voices – though creating a small separate group and recruiting additional Aboriginal people to sessions – had little effect.
These experiences point to the difficulty of engaging and empowering members of marginalised groups within invited deliberative spaces and to the limitations of piecemeal innovations in surmounting these difficulties. This was a failure to overtly engage with the complex politics of representation. Who needs to be at the table and in what numbers? How do dynamics of exclusion and marginalisation get managed within the process? Giving Aboriginal people a more influential voice would have required changes to the basic structure of the dialogue, thus challenging the individualistic premises of the method. Design choices are critical in enabling marginalised groups to negotiate the complex politics of recognition and representation.
What would enable marginalised groups to participate?
- Giving participants more scope to define the terms on which they deliberate, the issues they address and the form that the deliberation takes, can foster more genuine participation on people’s own terms.
- Treating participation as a process in which people learn as they go along, rather than one that is oriented at hard and fast conclusions, can favour different modes of making contributions.
- Supporting the creation of separate spaces in which members of these groups can reflect on dynamics of power, negotiate common agendas, strategies and identities, and provide room for the internal complexities of perspectives to be dealt with democratically and deliberatively.
Designing processes of inclusive participation that do not simply impose the terms and cultures of politics of the majority on minorities is a challenge. In the absence of spaces of their own making, marginalised groups may lack the opportunity to recognise their own distinctive needs, create a shared agenda and gain the capacity and confidence to act in the public arena.
What, then, would it take for these groups to gain meaningful opportunities to participate?
Of other spaces Feminists have argued that to be politically effective within the public arena, marginalised groups require their own spaces in which they can construct and consolidate positions, gain confidence to speak and gain access to a broader constituency of support. Nancy Fraser talks of ‘subaltern counter-publics’. Jane Mansbridge argues that ‘laboratories of self-interest’ may be needed to enable historically marginalised groups to build positions as well as to gain greater legitimacy to be able to voice their demands within, and outside, participatory institutions. Social movements play an especially vital role in creating these kinds of spaces. But voluntary and community organisations and the state can also make an important contribution to broadening representation and enabling marginalised groups to find and exercise voice. Such support includes training in public speaking, awareness-raising on entitlements and rights, consciousness-raising work that enables people from marginalised groups to recognise their own issues in their own ways and find the inner and collective power to act in the public arena, and the provision of meeting spaces and other kinds of logistical and financial support for particular groups.
One important lesson from experience is the delicate balance between fostering the creation of autonomous spaces by historically marginalised groups, and what happens when well-intentioned outsiders make and shape those spaces for others. NGOs and voluntary organisations may be anxious to help those they seek to help to represent themselves, but may also end up speaking for them and limiting their opportunities to represent themselves. There are other implications. Creuza Oliveira, leader of the Brazilian national federation of domestic workers, recalls the contrast between the meetings convened by a Catholic priest to mobilise domestic workers and what happened once they succeeded in getting a small grant from an international NGO to get a place of their own to meet. It was not just what they were then able to put on the agenda for discussion – sexuality, contraception, abortion and other issues that simply could not be discussed within the space provided by the church. It was about having a place to be: a place to laugh together, sing together, plot and dream together; a place outside the gaze of officials, where people can be who they are rather than having to adopt a way of relating that belongs to another world. From these spaces of their own making, people can gain the confidence and collective strength to act.
In theory, both direct and deliberative democracy foster processes in which people in all their diversity come together to express their views and seek solutions. In practice, people often arrive in these spaces with preformed agendas that can be very hard to shift. The rub is that for social movements and for certain more issue-oriented organisations, it is these agendas that constitute their platform. Their own legitimacy with their constituencies depends on defending and advancing a position. Social movement theorists suggest that the creation of oppositional consciousness – ‘us’ versus ‘them’ – is often key to effective mobilisation. Political theorist Chantal Mouffe argues:
*The political is from the outset concerned with collective forms of identification; the political always has to do with the formation of an ‘Us’ as opposed to a ‘Them’, with conflict and antagonism.*
This poses challenges when it comes to engagement in invited spaces. These are spaces for consensus, and for compromise; as intermediary spaces, they can also put the intermediaries who enter them in positions whereby their own legitimacy comes to be compromised.
**The paradox of inclusion**
Arguments for the inclusion of socially marginalised groups rest on an assumption that if only these groups were better represented and more able to exercise voice, then their participation would lead to fairer public policies that would better serve their needs. But sceptics would argue that this involves a leap of faith. The cards are stacked against the possibility of such groups gaining much in the way of voice or influence. And, as John Dryzek suggests, inclusion brings risks as well as opportunities: while such groups may be permitted to participate, unless their agendas coincide with those of the state they may stand little chance of influencing outcomes.
If, as Dryzek suggests, there is a price to be paid by such groups for inclusion, what is at stake – and what implications does this have for democratising citizen engagement?
In settings where there are so many participatory initiatives and institutions, organisations need to be very strategic about whom they put forward as representatives and how much energy they devote to invited participation, and how much to stimulating other forms of participation at the grassroots. Taking up a seat at the table may dampen activism, not least because of the time and energy that engagement can take. An evaluation of Neighbourhood Renewal found both an expansion of opportunities to participate, and evidence of emerging fatigue and confusion as a result. People may find themselves spending hours in meetings in which they have little chance to speak, or be heard. Equipping people with the skills to negotiate within a system that continues to disadvantage them may give them some tools but, as Audre Lorde observed, ‘the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house’. Learning the language and styles of argumentation of the white, middle-class men who have traditionally dominated public institutions may give people from other social groups some advantage. But this in itself may do little to change these institutions and make them more inclusive of diverse forms of expression, styles of reasoning and testimony, and forms of dialogue and negotiation. For this, much more far-reaching changes to the political system are needed.
Energies can be absorbed into negotiating around minutiae and seeking small concessions rather than being involved in decisions on the issues that really matter – which might be off the agenda. Activists complain of spending their lives running from one forum to the next meeting. They ask: What are we not doing by spending all this time responding to invitations to participate? Batliwala and Dhanraj raise a wider caution about the extent to which getting drawn into ‘backwater’ minutiae at the community level can defuse political energy that people might otherwise have been putting into mobilising to address the bigger issues affecting their lives. The irony, then, is that while invited participation may stimulate more participation, it may also detract social energy from engagement with issues that are not on the agenda in invited spaces.
Engaging the state More attention has been given to how to stimulate and support citizen participation than to what is needed to do the same for those who represent the state. Yet it is now evident that one of the most decisive variables in making participatory governance work is the engagement of responsive, supportive state actors. It stands to reason. Citizens can mobilise to press their demands, but to get anything to change in the way services are delivered, those who plan and deliver those services have to be not only part of the conversation but committed to following through.
What is it that motivates state officials to participate and to follow through decisions arrived at in these spaces? What makes bureaucrats amenable to long and convoluted deliberative processes that take up inordinate amounts of time, rather than resorting to quicker and more authoritarian decision-making processes? What incentives motivate officials to invest in these spaces and what do they get out of participating in them?
Getting politicians and bureaucrats to back the kind of public involvement that goes beyond the usual ‘we tell–you agree’ variety rests on a number of factors. One factor is public opinion; politicians are more likely to respond if they feel that there is going to be political capital to be made, or where there is pressure from the public and the press. Another factor is what they themselves believe in, their own values and political projects. Where these coincide with political opportunities for expanding citizen participation, politicians and senior civil servants can play an incredibly important role in legitimising as well as lending support to public involvement. In some cases, politicians have gained credibility and improved their electoral prospects by publicising their passion for participation. In others, senior civil servants have advanced their careers by championing innovation in governance, and by being able to show results.
While in the past there was little incentive within public service for participation, these days the watchwords are innovation and empowerment. Times are changing. Public servants who promote an agenda of responsive, accountable government that genuinely seeks to involve citizens can find themselves swimming with rather than against the tide. But they are still in the minority. Visionary leadership and a willingness to take risks and experiment is what it has taken to make change happen in the pockets of innovation that we now see around the UK. But mainstreaming participation calls for nuts and bolts organisational changes across the board that encourage and reward public officials for following through on policy commitments on participation. For this, clear guidance is needed and an appropriate combination of incentives and sanctions.
State support is a vital lifeline for fledgling groups with no resources to sustain themselves. The state has a vital part to play in promoting and protecting the rights of minorities, actively challenging and combating racism, homophobia, sexism and other forms of discrimination and abuse, and guaranteeing to all the right to participate. But well-intentioned but unreflective behaviour on the part of those who work for the state can have quite the opposite of the effect it is intended to produce – disabling citizen engagement. As Marian Barnes’ work suggests (see box 8), enabling marginalised groups to develop their own agenda and the means of communicating it for themselves may call for working with those who are supposed to be doing the listening rather than coaching these groups in the right ways to talk to get heard.
Box 8. Whose spaces? Local action for health in the UK
Marian Barnes from the University of Brighton looked at a community health forum in the UK, set up by residents in an area with a strong tradition of community activism. When residents discovered that the health authority was planning to close their health centre, they mobilised and undertook research to demonstrate that the health centre was needed. The campaign was successful. Residents decided to continue working to improve health services in the area. Six years later, the group decided to bid for funding from the National Lottery for a Healthy Living Centre. To qualify they had to reconstitute themselves as a health forum.
The group had moved from oppositional action to trying to work in partnership with the health service. Their strong sense of ‘we’ became more muted and diffuse; they struggled to retain a committed membership. Their interactions got bogged down in bureaucratic details. This constrained creativity and dampened enthusiasm generated by direct involvement in community-led research. There was considerable expertise and knowledge within the community, but this was not a priority in comparison to the technical knowledge needed to put together a funding bid. Discussions were highly task-focused and technical.
What are the conditions needed to make the most of citizen participation?
- Officials need to develop skills for working creatively with conflict rather than try to deny it or close it down.
- Officials themselves need to be supported and rewarded for these skills.
- There needs to be space for multiple forms of expression – both emotional and rational – and for diverse ways for people to express themselves. This can be achieved through good facilitation, but can also be ‘squeezed out’ when an external agenda is imposed.
- The rules of the game between citizens and government officials need to be negotiated and adhered to in order to develop mutual trust. This is easier to achieve when people have the opportunity to develop collective awareness.
- Autonomous organisation and ‘free spaces’ not affiliated to state institutions are important places to try out new ways of thinking and action before engaging with officials.
If part of what participation is about is what Arnstein calls ‘delegated control’ – that is, the state being willing to delegate control to citizens – then public servants need to get a lot better at trusting in the process and letting go. This can be incredibly difficult, especially when there is a lot at stake. There are trade-offs and interactions between measures that democratise public involvement by including more people in more decisions and those that seek to improve the quality of democratic deliberation and the fairness and viability of the solutions that arise from it. Public policy is a political issue. Unpopular policy measures may be needed to ensure equity. Governments need to balance the difficult issue of boundary setting: determining what can be decided jointly with the public or through delegated authority to citizens themselves. Very real tensions arise between short-term and long-term solutions, between inclusiveness and effectiveness, between struggle and negotiation.
Yet it is vital to recognise that participatory governance is as much about stimulating the democratisation of society and about democratic renewal as about improving service delivery. It is about positioning the state as a supportive partner in social transformation, one that is willing to take the lead in creating a new culture of participation. Care needs to be taken not to erode a sense of ownership and to diminish social energy by simply absorbing citizen-initiated institutions within the bureaucratic apparatus of the state. Such support needs to begin with what would best support citizens to expand and deepen their own engagement. Transforming power
Participatory governance institutions are growing in scope and scale. Citizens have far greater opportunities to get their opinions heard and influence decisions. But a question that recurs throughout this pamphlet is this: Will this contribute to changing the status quo for those who have historically been marginalised politically and economically, and who continue to face potent forms of discrimination – women, black and minority ethnic groups, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people?
Some would argue that it is only when those who are excluded from power have organised themselves to make demands on the state that they get to be heard. There is ample evidence from all around the world that rights are rarely simply handed to people; they are won through struggle. And this is not a once-and-for-all struggle to get a seat at the table, or recognition as a group with specific needs and interests. It is an ongoing process of contestation that is waged anew in each new institutional space, as new people enter and new configurations of power and interests emerge.
Mobilisation creates a sense of identification with an agenda for change, raises people’s consciousness of their rights, and lends them collective strength and representatives who can speak for them. It can also provide avenues for political apprenticeship that are simply not available within the formal political system. Demands for a seat at the table can turn invited spaces into what Marcus Mello has called ‘conquered spaces’, where opportunities to participate are actively claimed from the state rather than simply granted from above. Nancy Fraser usefully frames struggles for rights within the rubric of redistribution, recognition and representation. Struggles for recognition and representation have made substantive contributions to confronting societal prejudice by confronting demeaning and discriminatory representations of women, black people, people with mental illness and other groups that are on the receiving end of prejudice. Struggles for redistribution – the landless people’s Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra in Brazil, the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, the dalit movement in India – have transformed the prospects of some of the most marginalised people in the world. Making use of the media, the internet, the courts, direct action and popular protest, these movements have secured real material gains, and substantive changes in social policies.
Whether these gains could have been negotiated within invited spaces without the possibility of mobilising outside them to put pressure on the state is an open question. A dual strategy may be most effective in relation to invited spaces: taking up places inside them, while continuing to exert pressure from outside.
Creating the preconditions for effective citizen engagement is, then, not simply about getting the rules right, nor only a matter of getting a greater diversity of actors into invited spaces. It is also about redressing entrenched cultures of politics and relations of power. These are unavoidably political issues. The bottom line remains that enabling people to negotiate more effectively in the context of unjust power relations is one thing, and addressing the underlying structural issues that perpetuate inequalities and marginalisation is another. It is no coincidence that where citizen engagement in invited spaces has led to a more equitable distribution of resources or to policies that address issues of inequality and discrimination affecting marginalised social groups, it has been in the context of political administrations run by parties on the left of the political spectrum.
In the UK, we have seen shifts of policy discourse in recent years from an emphasis on the active citizen empowered by choice to communities empowered by collective responsibility. It is perhaps time for a further shift towards a more rights-based vision of citizen engagement, in which citizens and communities empower themselves by exercising their rights to participate in governance. For this we need stronger legislation than the current commitment to inform, involve and consult where the authorities deem necessary. And we need far greater attention to be paid to developing new ways of engaging citizens that bring the democratic process closer to their everyday lives – and to changing the rules of the political game to permit a far more diverse set of possibilities for engagement.91 The old saying that the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy is not apt if it means the evils may be remedied by introducing more machinery of the same kind as that which already exists, or by refining or perfecting that machinery. But the phrase may also indicate the need of returning to the idea itself, of clarifying and deepening our apprehension of it, and of employing our sense of its meaning to criticise and remake its political manifestations.
John Dewey
If we have learnt anything from the efforts that have been made in the UK in recent years to address the democratic deficit, it is the importance of democratising citizen engagement. Much has been vested in finding new ways of engaging citizens, but much still needs to be done to expand democracy along all three of Dryzek’s dimensions – franchise, scope and authentic control.
The Spaces for Change project’s findings suggest that democratising citizen engagement depends on a conjunction of factors, rather than one factor alone:
- strong, active social movements and civil society organisations with broad-based popular support that can effectively take up invitations to participate and make demands ‘from below’
- strong, enabling leadership and committed state officials, backed by enabling legislation that makes citizen engagement a statutory obligation, budgets to provide infrastructure for participatory institutions, capacity development for those who take part in them and resources to finance follow-through actions to demonstrate responsiveness
- institutional designs that optimise participation and representation of society in all its diversity, foster deliberation rather than simply weak forms of consultation, and engage those within the state who have the power to affect outcomes
- social energy, trust and demand for participation and actions that foster a democratising impulse in society at large – whether in terms of new understandings of citizenship that encourage citizens to engage in shaping the polity that they are part of, rather than remaining passive beneficiaries or consumers of services, or new opportunities for political participation that go beyond increasingly individualised forms of engagement.
Looking at some of the factors that enable or disable participation (see table 3), it is clear that there are significant challenges for the UK in making real the commitment that this government is making to participation and empowerment.
Table 3. **Enabling or disabling participation: a summary of factors**
| Enabling factors | Disabling factors | |-------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | Political context | Political context | | Strong social movements able to hold state to its promises | Weak or no social movements | | High levels of political awareness | Political apathy | | Voluntary sector/civil society relatively autonomous from government | Authoritarian regime with minimal investment in consultation | | Political regime committed to social justice | Neoliberal regime with minimal investment in public sector | | Significant public sector provisioning | Significant and increasing reliance on voluntary, community and private sector for service provision | | Trust in the political system and state institutions | Widespread distrust of the state | | Strong sense of citizenship (as entitlement and belonging) | | | Legal framework | Legal framework | | Existence of legal or constitutional rights to participate | Weak or absent provision of rights to participate | | Existence of complementary rights (ie right to information, rights of redress) | Lack of additional supportive legislation or conditionalities that qualify or contradict statutory duty to engage citizens or citizens’ right to participate | | Table 3. continued | |-------------------| | Legal framework continued | Legal framework continued | | Sanctions for non-compliance | Lack of sanctions for non-compliance | | Clearly specified means and mechanisms for redress | Lack of clear means and mechanisms for redress | | Existence of statutory duty to engage citizens in policy processes | | | Bureaucratic context | Bureaucratic context | | Political will at the highest level of the bureaucracy and strong leadership | Lack of political will among senior managers | | Widely shared commitment to citizen engagement | Widespread scepticism about benefits of citizen engagement | | Consistent policy directives, joined-up government | Contradictory policy directives coming from different parts of government | | Incentives and sanctions | Lack of incentives and sanctions | | Dedicated support (information, mentoring, coaching, trouble-shooting) | Lack of information and support for implementation | | Resources to create and maintain infrastructure to support engagement | Lack of resources to support citizen engagement or implement initiatives | | Sufficient room for manoeuvre to take risks, be responsive and experiment | Lack of support or scope for experimentation | | Adaptive, flexible approach to implementation | One size fits all models | | Time to make mistakes and learn from them | Pressure for rapid implementation |
Lessons from international experience emphasise the role that the state can play in stimulating and supporting citizen engagement. Legal frameworks are important. So too are systems of incentives and sanctions. But political will, genuine commitment to democratising governance, and the visionary leadership needed to make the kind of transformations in cultures of politics and bureaucracy are absolutely critical. If governments are serious about involving their citizens in government, then they need to be willing to open up the process of setting policy agendas, prioritisation and policy deliberation, and committed to following through on outcomes of these deliberations. They also need to be willing to set aside resources to establish and maintain these institutions, such as for an administrator to coordinate and keep a record of meetings that can become an institutional memory, money to hire rooms, pay for transport and other associated costs, and so on. And they need to be able to call on flexible, responsive funding that will allow them to act on quick wins, as well as the budget to plan longer-term initiatives, with which to demonstrate to citizens that engagement can lead to tangible actions.
One of the most evident shortcomings of existing attempts to engage citizens is precisely in relation to who gets to participate and whose voices count. Those who have the least material and symbolic resources also have the least opportunity to influence the decisions that can affect their lives. It is critical for the health of our democracy that the lack of diversity in political institutions of all kinds – from parliament to local government to neighbourhood forums – is addressed. Democratising citizen engagement is about recognising this glaring absence, naming it as a failure of our democracy – and doing something about it. Engaging with the already organised citizens’ groups and experienced community, tenants or interest group representatives is key. But efforts to engage participation should not stop with already-existing groups or already-active individuals. Much more effort is needed to stimulate and support the representation of those who lack opportunities to be represented or to represent themselves. This can be a vital, and revitalising, complement to the existing system of representative democracy.
For all these efforts to generate greater democracy to succeed, the state needs to be willing to share or cede control. It needs to actively support capillary processes of democratisation that open up decision making at all levels to public engagement and scrutiny and that offer citizens a genuine chance to become part of the solution – rather than part of the problem. Much has changed... but much needs to change
While much has changed in the UK, there is still much that needs to change. Today we hear growing talk in policy circles of ‘empowerment’. And we know that engaging those with least voice and power in our society needs to begin by providing the enabling conditions and support for them to empower themselves. But this is far more than an individual process of building the capacity to exercise choice, to which the term ‘empowerment’ has been reduced in international development. The more radical origins of this word must not be forgotten as it becomes mainstreamed into government policy.
Empowerment is fundamentally about power. It is about transforming society through collective as well as more individual processes. It is about gaining greater control over our lives. Infusing the empowerment agenda with a strong emphasis on social justice focuses attention on transforming power relations for a more just society for all. This is a process in which state actors play an essential part in guaranteeing and protecting rights and promoting greater social, political and economic equality, at the same time as enabling citizens and communities to have more of a say in the decisions that affect their lives.
Promoting ‘active citizenship’ and ‘empowering communities’ would seem at first glance to be about the state stepping back and letting individuals and communities take more charge of their own affairs. This may call not for less engagement by the state but for a shift in the ways in which the public sector and public authorities engage with citizens. International experience suggests that shortcut approaches to empowerment rarely bring about the kind of deep-rooted changes that really make a difference to the prospects of the poorest and most marginalised people.
‘Empowerment lite’ may be attractive to government as it appears to promise extensive gains for minimal investment – whether in terms of small loans for micro-entrepreneurs or ‘community kitties’. But thinking of empowerment within a framework of social justice and equality goes much deeper. It focuses attention on the changes that need to take place at every level in our society if poverty, social exclusion and other social ills are to be addressed. If government is genuinely committed to the longer, slower, deeper process of genuinely transformative empowerment, this may require more rather than less input from the state. This may come to depend as much on working on, with and from within the state as on efforts to engage civil society and citizens in arms’ length ‘community empowerment’ initiatives. The enabling state still has an enormously important role to play.
Making it real
Can we convert optimistic rhetoric into a meaningful ‘right to participate’ for every citizen? And can we find a vehicle to ensure the promotion, implementation, support and scrutiny that the participation agenda deserves? Together, we believe, we can.
Ed Cox
Around the world, in the most unlikely places, pockets of innovation in governance are starting to expand. New ideas are catching on. Governments are learning that there is actually something very valuable to be gained from investing in creating the conditions for and fostering citizen engagement in governance. Exciting changes are afoot in local governments all over the UK. The political commitment seems to be there. But to make the most of this policy moment and turn the rhetoric about citizen engagement into practice, much more needs to change.
Making real the democratic promise of citizen engagement is about more than getting institutions right and inviting people to participate in them. Lessons from international experience suggest that genuine, inclusive citizen engagement requires investment in creating an enabling environment, and in supporting society’s least vocal and powerful people to gain the means to use their voice. Engaging citizens can make a huge difference in designing policies that really fit with what people need and want, making the most of the knowledge and experience that citizens have of what works, and what does not. But phoney consultation does little to foster this kind of engagement, or build a sense of citizenship, ownership or empowerment. It can do precisely the opposite: put people off participating, and make them feel even more disaffected and disenfranchised.
Getting it right is critical if we are to experience the kind of democratic renewal that Britain so badly needs. In the past, there has been too much packaging pre-designed decisions and presenting them for rubber stamping and too little willingness to allow citizens and their representatives to play a more direct role in shaping and monitoring public policy. This may be the way modern democracies handle demands for public involvement, but it is not a solution to the democratic deficit. By focusing on ‘ordinary’ spaces for citizen engagement rather than success stories, the case studies presented here help us to get a sharper sense of what needs to be done if citizen engagement is to contribute to democracy, social inclusion and community empowerment, as well as to making governments more efficient and accountable. The difficulties and shortcomings that they illustrate provide rich material for thinking through the measures that might be needed to address these dilemmas.
What, then, might be done to democratize citizen engagement and realise its democratising promise?
Make more of what’s known about facilitating participation A vast array of techniques and technologies exist for facilitating participation. These constitute a veritable smorgasbord of possibilities for public engagement. Whether they consist of the use of imaginative visualisation methods or simply inventive ways of running a meeting, these techniques and technologies can make a huge difference to who gets to speak and to listen. There are ways of setting up and running the kind of institutions that this pamphlet has largely focused on that make them more or less democratic and more or less effective. There are ways of doing consultations that are more or less inclusive and informative to decision makers and citizens. It is not rocket science. Why so much bad practice persists is not because not enough is known about how to do things better.
Improve representation, especially of those who are least well represented in existing institutions Democratising citizen engagement calls for bringing a greater diversity of perspectives to the table. More explicit attention needs to be paid to the selection and recruitment mechanisms that enable both state and society to be represented in all their diversity. Descriptive representation remains important for marginalised groups. But it shouldn’t replace efforts to build constituencies. Nor should efforts to involve particular interest groups preclude active attempts to create the possibilities for alliances that are based less on identities than on identifying with a common agenda for social justice and equality for all. It is also about recognising that new democratic spaces are producing an array of new forms of representation, and being open to working with these to strengthen their democratic legitimacy and accountability.
**Bring social justice into the heart of governance**
Deliberate efforts need to be made to make sure that the forms of exclusion that exist in society and in formal political institutions are not just reproduced in participatory institutions. This requires action on several fronts. It calls for support – financial, logistical as well as moral and political – so that marginalised groups can begin to organise, explore common experiences and begin to develop an agenda of their own. Community organising, consciousness-raising and popular education methods, tried and tested over decades, are powerful tools for change. They can be used to build people’s sense of their own agency, and enable them to use it to exercise voice. Such tools need to be complemented by institutional designs that actively promote zero tolerance of sexism, racism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination, and permit space for different cultural forms of expression alongside those patterned by cultures of officialdom.
**Foster deliberation – not just consultation**
Democratising public involvement is not only about the people, but also about the process. Deliberation – the exchange of reasons, views, information, evidence, through which people listen, contribute, shift their views, return to their own positions, and, together, get a broader sense of what is at stake – is a way to get fresh thinking on an issue, rather than people repeating what they have heard or been led to believe. Participatory institutions foster better deliberation if participants are provided with information and access to expertise to inform their deliberations, and encouraged to form positions during the discussions rather than to bring pre-prepared positions and agendas with them. It is where there is animated disagreement that public officials can learn the most about what matters to people. Where that disagreement can be transformed into a working consensus, it can provide the basis for legitimacy – something that is critical for the democratic exercise of authority. For this to happen, the kinds of decisions citizens are invited to participate in shaping need to be decisions that matter and in which they have a stake.
**Invest in building the capacity to participate – for all involved**
Many participatory institutions experience a constant turnover of people, either by design or through attrition. Regular renovation of membership brings in new faces, and potentially expands democracy by releasing those with knowledge and skills acquired in these spaces to engage in others. But skills, experience and institutional memory disappear each time. To function effectively, participatory sphere institutions need infrastructure that guarantees that institutional memory is preserved, to organise and document meetings, to keep and make available documents relating to the institution’s core business and to carry out other vital coordinating functions. They require that each member have a clear understanding of their role, and the role of the institution. And they require a commitment to training representatives, from the state as well as society, to equip them with the skills and knowledge to participate. This applies as much to state officials as to citizens.
**Enable public servants to serve the public better**
Democratising public involvement is not only about making sure more diverse, more informed and more organised citizens are able to make their voices heard. It is also about transforming attitudes and behaviour at all levels within the public sector. This is a huge task. Part of the process of facilitating inclusive participation is to enable managers and other public officials to leave old ways behind. Public sector officials may assume that their training as professionals gives them greater understanding of the issues. They can pick up an epidemiological report or environmental assessment and skim it to pick out relevant information. But what they may be less aware of is how ordinary people see the issues. Much more effort needs to be put into working with bureaucrats and service providers at all levels to help them to generate better information about what people actually need and want. Strengthen the legal framework Lastly, while the 2007 Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act marks an important step forward, there is a need to continue to strengthen both the legal framework and related administrative provisions. There is much that can be learnt from the legislation that has been passed in other countries, including that which contributes towards creating an enabling environment for citizen engagement, such as a right to information. This needs to be backed with the financial and administrative resources needed to make citizen engagement viable. Guidance might be sought in developing the UK’s legal framework from countries that have gone significantly further in putting comprehensive enabling legislation in place, such as Brazil and India.
As the Power Inquiry put it, ‘when participation meets the expectations of today’s citizen, those citizens will get involved’. The challenge for the UK is to meet those expectations, and to create a culture of participation that will genuinely engage its citizens. The UK could gain a lot from looking more closely at what other countries are doing and bringing some of these lessons home. Notes
01. Power Inquiry, *Power to the People*.
02. Skidmore and Bound, *The Everyday Democracy Index*.
03. See, for example, Mansbridge, ‘On the idea that participation makes better citizens’; and www.ratifiersfordemocracy.org/HappinessandDemocracy.html (accessed 11 Apr 2008).
04. McGee with Bazaara et al, *Legal Frameworks for Citizen Participation*.
05. Power Inquiry, *Power to the People*.
06. Hansard Society, *Audit of Political Participation 5*.
07. Bentley, *Everyday Democracy*; Skidmore and Bound, *The Everyday Democracy Index*.
08. Dryzek, *Deliberative Democracy and Beyond*.
09. Gaventa, *Representation, Community Leadership and Participation*.
10. Chambers, *Whose Reality Counts?*
11. Flower et al (eds), *PLA Notes 38: Participatory Processes in the North*.
12. See for example special issues in the *PLA Notes* series: Goldman and Abbott (eds), *PLA Notes 49: Decentralisation and Community-Based Planning*; Inglis and Hesse (eds), *PLA Notes 44: Local Government and Participation*; Clark et al (eds), *PLA Notes 43: Advocacy and Citizen Participation*; and Pimbert and Wakeford (eds), *PLA Notes 40: Deliberative Democracy and Citizen Empowerment*.
13. See Dunn et al, *Champions of Participation* and supporting resources; Zipfel and Gaventa, *Citizen Participation in Local Governance*. 14 Skidmore and Bound, *The Everyday Democracy Index*.
15 Bentley, *Everyday Democracy*.
16 Case studies from this project can be found in Cornwall and Schattan Coelho (eds), ‘New democratic spaces?’; and Cornwall and Schattan Coelho (eds), *Spaces for Change*?
17 See Cornwall and Schattan Coelho (eds), ‘New democratic spaces?’; Gaventa, *Representation, Community Leadership and Participation*; and Cornwall and Schattan Coelho (eds), *Spaces for Change*?
18 See, for example, Goetz and Gaventa, *Bringing Citizen Voice and Client Focus into Service Delivery*; Fung and Wright, *Deepening Democracy*; Hickey and Mohan (eds), *Participation*; see also resources at www.ids.ac.uk/logolink, www.drc-citizenship.org and www.toolkitparticipation.nl (all accessed 11 Apr 2008).
19 Ribot, ‘Participation without representation’; Cornwall, ‘Historical perspectives on participation in development’.
20 This is precisely what Demos’ everyday democracy index seeks to do. See Skidmore and Bound, *The Everyday Democracy Index*.
21 Benn, Preface to *Making Governance Work for Poor People*.
22 Fox, ‘The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability’.
23 Cohen and Sabel, ‘Directly-deliberative polyarchy’.
24 Bentley, *Everyday Democracy*.
25 Arnstein, ‘A ladder of citizen participation’.
26 Skidmore et al, *Community Participation*.
27 Farrington et al, *Reluctant Partners*. There is a wealth of resources on participatory methodologies and techniques for participatory governance. See, for example, www.pnet.ids.ac.uk/prc/index.htm, www.peopleandparticipation.net/display/methods and www.toolkitparticipation.nl (all accessed 13 Apr 2008); Smith, *Beyond the Ballot*; New Economics Foundation and UK Participation Network, *Participation Works!* There are also dedicated websites for some of the methodologies mentioned here, including www.photovoice.com, www.nif.co.uk/planningforreal/, www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk (for UK applications), www.futuresearch.net, www.citizenreportcard.com, www.cardboardcitizens.org.uk/theatre_of_the_oppressed.php and http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/docs/summary/ (all accessed 13 Apr 2008). See also Dungey, *Citizens’ Panels*; Davies et al, *Ordinary Wisdom*.
White, ‘Depoliticising development’.
Gaventa, ‘Triumph, deficit or contestation?’; Fung and Wright, *Deepening Democracy*.
Dagnino, ‘Citizenship’.
Batliwala and Dhanraj, ‘Gender myths that instrumentalise women’.
See, for example, the recent consultation paper produced by the Department of Communities and Local Government, ‘Unlocking the talent of our communities’.
Brown, speech, 3 Jul 2007.
Ibid.
The exact language is as follows: ‘3A Involvement of Local Representatives: (1) Where a best value authority considers it appropriate for representatives of local persons (or of local persons of a particular description) to be involved in the exercise of any of its functions by being – (a) provided with information about the exercise of the function; (b) consulted about the exercise of the function, or (c) involved in another way, it must take such steps as it considers appropriate to secure that such representatives are involved in the exercise of the function in that way.’ Much clearly depends on what is judged appropriate by the local authority.
37 See www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/actionplan (accessed 13 Apr 2008).
38 Public perceptions of empowerment survey data, see www.communities.gov.uk/communities/communityempowerment/unlockingthetalent/ (accessed 31 Mar 2008).
39 Local and Regional Government Research Unit, Public Participation in Local Government.
40 Local and Regional Government Research Unit, New Localism – Citizen Engagement, Neighbourhoods and Public Services.
41 See Goodin and Dryzek, ‘Deliberative impacts’.
42 Cornwall, Beneficiary, Consumer, Citizen; Brock et al, Power, Knowledge and Political Spaces in the Framing of Poverty Policy; Gaventa, ‘Towards participatory local governance’.
43 Goetz and Gaventa, Bringing Citizen Voice and Client Focus into Service Delivery.
44 See Fung, ‘Survey article: Recipes for public spheres’.
45 Ibid.
46 Goodin and Dryzek, ‘Deliberative impacts’.
47 Fung, ‘Survey article: Recipes for public spheres’.
48 Avritzer, Democracy and Public Space in Latin America.
49 Cornwall and Shankland, ‘Engaging citizens’. Schattan Coelho, ‘Brazilian health councils’; Cornwall, ‘Democratizing the governance of health services’.
McGee et al, *Legal Frameworks for Citizen Participation*.
Gaventa, *Representation, Community Leadership and Participation*.
Cornwall and Gaventa, *From Users and Choosers to Makers and Shapers*.
Chandhoke, *The Conceits of Civil Society*.
Williams, *Keywords*.
Taylor et al, ‘A sea-change or a swamp?’; Gaventa, *Representation, Community Leadership and Participation*; Morris, *Removing the Barriers to Community Participation*.
Mahmud, ‘Spaces for participation in health systems in rural Bangladesh’.
Jenkins and Goetz, ‘Accounts and accountability’; Bose et al, ‘Information as power’.
Gaventa, ‘Towards participatory local governance’.
Mahmud, ‘Spaces for participation in health systems in rural Bangladesh’.
There is a growing literature on participatory budgeting in Brazil, including studies that explore some of its political and contextual complexities. For an excellent example of this kind of work, see Baierle, ‘The Porto Alegre thermidor?’.
Wampler, ‘Does participatory democracy actually deepen democracy?’; see also Wampler, *Participatory Budgeting in Brazil*.
Cornwall, ‘Making spaces, changing places’.
Houtzager et al, ‘Who participates?’. Norris, *Democratic Phoenix*.
Power, *Personal Politics*; Hansard Society, *Audit of Political Participation 5*.
Houtzager et al, ‘Who participates?’; Castello et al, ‘Civil organizations and political representation in Brazil’s participatory institutions’.
Williams, ‘Social change and community participation’.
Mohanty, ‘Gendered subjects, the state and participatory spaces’.
Chaudhuri and Heller, *Plasticity of Participation*.
Ibid.
See, for example, Fishkin and Luskin, ‘The quest for deliberative democracy’.
See, for example, Fung, ‘Survey article: Recipes for public spheres’.
Mansbridge, ‘What does a representative do?’.
Phillips, *Politics of Presence*.
Kahane and von Lieres, ‘Inclusion and representation in democratic deliberations’.
Kohn, ‘Language, power and persuasion’; Fraser, ‘Rethinking the public sphere’.
Mansbridge, ‘What does a representative do?’.
Interview, 9 Mar 2007.
Mansbridge and Morris, *Oppositional Consciousness*.
Mouffe, *Politics and Passions*. Dryzek, ‘Political inclusion and the dynamics of democratisation’.
Taylor et al, ‘A sea-change or a swamp?’.
Lorde, *Sister Outsider*.
Batliwala and Dhanraj, ‘Gender myths that instrumentalise women’.
Barnes, ‘Whose space?’.
See Arnstein’s ladder, referred to in chapter 2 of this pamphlet.
Nyamu-Musembi, ‘Towards an actor-orientated perspective on human rights’.
Personal communication, May 2005.
Fraser, ‘Mapping the feminist imagination’.
This point is also strongly made in Demos’ work on everyday democracy, and is one of the conclusions from the Power Inquiry.
Dewey, cited in Power Inquiry, *Power to the People*.
Many of these factors resonate with those identified in various publications associated with the LogoLink programme, especially the work by Rosie McGee, John Gaventa, Rose Marie Nierras and their colleagues; see www.ids.ac.uk/logolink (accessed 11 Apr 2008). Similar points are made by the panel of experts consulted by the National Community Forum, in Morris, *Removing the Barriers to Community Participation*.
Batliwala, ‘Putting power back into empowerment’.
Preface to Morris, *Removing the Barriers to Community Participation*.
Power Inquiry, *Power to the People*. References
Arnstein, SR, ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, *Journal of the American Institute of Planners* 35, no 4 (1969).
Avritzer, L, *Democracy and Public Space in Latin America* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002).
Baierle, S, ‘The Porto Alegre thermidor? Brazil’s “participatory budget” at the crossroads’, *Socialist Register* (2003).
Barnes, M, ‘Whose space? Contestations and negotiations in health and community regeneration fora in the UK’ in Cornwall and Schattan Coelho (eds), *Spaces for Change?*.
Batliwala, S, ‘Putting power back into empowerment’, *Open Democracy*, 2007, available at www.opendemocracy.net/article/putting_power_back_into_empowerment_o (accessed 11 Apr 2008).
Batliwala, S and Dhanraj, D, ‘Gender myths that instrumentalise women: a view from the Indian frontline’, *IDS Bulletin* 35, no 4 (2004).
Benn, H, Preface to *Making Governance Work for Poor People* (London: Department for International Development, 2006).
Bentley, T, *Everyday Democracy: Why we get the politicians we deserve* (London: Demos, 2005).
Bose, S, Lal, P and Saigal, S, ‘Information as power: making best use of India’s Right to Information law’ in Vermeulen (ed), *PLA Notes 53: Tools for Influencing Power and Policy*.
Brock, K, Cornwall, A and Gaventa, J, *Power, Knowledge and Political Spaces in the Framing of Poverty Policy* (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2001). Brown, G, speech, 3 Jul 2007, see ‘Brown on constitution’, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6266526.stm (accessed 31 Mar 2008).
Calhoun, C (ed), Habermas and the Public Sphere (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992).
Castello, G, Lavalle, A and Houtzager, P, ‘Civil organizations and political representation in Brazil’s participatory institutions’ in Cornwall and Schattan Coelho (eds), Spaces for Change?.
Chambers, R, Whose Reality Counts? Putting the first last (London: Intermediate Technology Publications, 1997).
Chandhoke, N, The Conceits of Civil Society (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003).
Chaudhuri, S and Heller, P, The Plasticity of Participation: Evidence from a participatory governance experiment (New York: Columbia University, 2002).
Clark, C et al (eds), PLA Notes 43: Advocacy and Citizen Participation (London: International Institute for Environment and Development, 2002).
Cohen, J and Sabel, C, ‘Directly-deliberative polyarchy’, European Law Journal 3, no 4 (1997).
Cornwall, A, Beneficiary, Consumer, Citizen: Perspectives on participation for poverty reduction (Stockholm: Sida Studies, 2000).
Cornwall, A, ‘Democratizing the governance of health services: the case of Cabo de Santo Agostinho, Brazil’ in Cornwall and Schattan Coelho (eds), Spaces for Change?.
Cornwall, A, ‘Historical perspectives on participation in development’, Journal of Comparative and Commonwealth Politics 44, no 1 (2006). Cornwall, A, ‘Making spaces, changing places: situating participation in development’, IDS Working Paper 170 (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2002).
Cornwall, A, ‘Spaces for transformation? Reflections on issues of power and difference in participation in development’ in Hickey and Mohan (eds), Participation.
Cornwall, A and Gaventa, J, From Users and Choosers to Makers and Shapers: Repositioning participation in social policy (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2001).
Cornwall, A and Schattan Coelho, V (eds), ‘New democratic spaces? The politics of institutionalized participation’, IDS Bulletin 35, no 2 (2004).
Cornwall, A and Schattan Coelho, V (eds), Spaces for Change? The politics of citizen participation in new democratic arenas (London: Zed Books, 2007).
Cornwall, A and Shankland, A, ‘Engaging citizens: lessons from building Brazil’s national health system’, Social Science and Medicine (10 Mar 2008, e-publication ahead of print).
Dagnino, E, ‘Citizenship: a perverse confluence’, Development in Practice 17, no 4&5 (2007).
Davies, S et al, Ordinary Wisdom: Reflections on an experiment in citizenship and health (London: King’s Fund, 1998).
Department of Communities and Local Government, ‘Unlocking the talent of our communities’, Mar 2008, available at www.communities.gov.uk/communities/communityempowerment/unlockingthetalent/ (accessed 13 April 2008).
Dryzek, JS, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
Dryzek, JS, ‘Political inclusion and the dynamics of democratisation’, American Political Science Review 90, no 3 (1996). Duney, J, *Citizens’ Panels* (London: Local Government Information Unit, 1997).
Dunn, A et al, *Champions of Participation: Engaging citizens in local governance* (2007), available at www.ids.ac.uk/logolink (accessed 12 Apr 2008).
Elkin, S and Soltan, KE (eds), *Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions* (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 1999).
Farrington, J and Bebbington, AJ with Wellard, K and Lewis, DI, *Reluctant Partners: Non-governmental organisations, the state and sustainable agricultural development in Latin America* (London: Routledge, 1993).
Fishkin, J and Luskin, R, ‘The quest for deliberative democracy’, *The Good Society* 9, no 1 (1999).
Flower, C, Mincher, P and Rimkus, S (eds), *PLA Notes 38: Participatory Processes in the North* (London: International Institute for Environment and Development, 2000).
Fox, J, ‘The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability’, *Development in Practice* 17, no 4&5 (2007).
Fraser, N, ‘Mapping the feminist imagination: from redistribution to recognition to representation’, *Constellations* 12, no 3 (2005).
Fraser, N, ‘Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy’ in Calhoun (ed), *Habermas and the Public Sphere*.
Fung, A, ‘Survey article: Recipes for public spheres: eight institutional design choices and their consequences’, *Journal of Political Philosophy* 11, no 3 (2003).
Fung, A and Wright, EO, *Deepening Democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance* (London: Verso, 2003). Gaventa, J, *Representation, Community Leadership and Participation: Citizen involvement in neighbourhood renewal and local governance* (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies and Logolink, 2004).
Gaventa, J, ‘Towards participatory local governance: assessing the transformative possibilities’ in Hickey and Mohan (eds), *Participation*.
Gaventa, J, ‘Triumph, deficit or contestation? Deepening the “deepening democracy” debate’, IDS Working Paper 264 (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2006).
Goetz, AM and Gaventa, J, *Bringing Citizen Voice and Client Focus into Service Delivery* (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2001).
Goldman, I and Abbott, J (eds), *PLA Notes 49: Decentralisation and Community-Based Planning* (London: International Institute for Environment and Development, 2004).
Goodin, RE and Dryzek, JS, ‘Deliberative impacts: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics’, *Politics & Society* 34 (2006).
Hansard Society, *Audit of Political Participation 5* (London: Hansard Society and Electoral Commission, March 2008).
Hickey, S and Mohan, G (eds), *Participation: From tyranny to transformation?* (London: Zed Books, 2004).
Houtzager, P, Lavalle, AG and Acharya, A, ‘Who participates? Civil society and the new democratic politics in São Paulo, Brazil’, IDS Working Paper 210 (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2003).
Inglis, A and Hesse, C (eds), *PLA Notes 44: Local Government and Participation* (London: International Institute for Environment and Development, 2002).
Jenkins, R and Goetz, AM, ‘Accounts and accountability: theoretical implications for the right-to-information movement in India’, *Third World Quarterly* 20, no 3 (1999). Kabeer, N (ed), *Inclusive Citizenship: Meanings and expressions* (London: Zed Books, 2005).
Kahane, D and von Lieres, B, ‘Inclusion and representation in democratic deliberations: lessons from Canada’s Romanow Commission’ in Cornwall and Schattan Coelho (eds), *Spaces for Change*.
Kohn, M, ‘Language, power and persuasion: toward a critique of deliberative democracy’, *Constellations* 7, no 3 (2000).
Kymlicka, W and Norman, W (eds), *Citizenship in Diverse Societies* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
Local and Regional Government Research Unit, *New Localism – Citizen Engagement, Neighbourhoods and Public Services: Evidence from local government* (London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005).
Local and Regional Government Research Unit, *Public Participation in Local Government: A survey of local authorities* (London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2002).
Lorde, A, *Sister Outsider* (Trumansburg, NY: The Crossing Press, 1984).
Mahmud, S, ‘Spaces for participation in health systems in rural Bangladesh: the experience of stakeholder community groups’ in Cornwall and Schattan Coelho (eds), *Spaces for Change*.
Mansbridge, J, ‘On the idea that participation makes better citizens’ in Elkin and Soltan (eds), *Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions*.
Mansbridge, J, ‘What does a representative do? Descriptive representation in communicative settings of distrust, uncrystallized interests, and historically denigrated status’ in Kymlicka and Norman (eds), *Citizenship in Diverse Societies*. Mansbridge, J and Morris, A, *Oppositional Consciousness: The subjective roots of social protest* (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001).
McGee, R with Bazaara, N et al, *Legal Frameworks for Citizen Participation: Synthesis report* (Brighton: Logolink and Institute of Development Studies, 2003).
Mohanty, R, ‘Gendered subjects, the state and participatory spaces: the politics of domesticating participation in rural India’ in Cornwall and Schattan Coelho (eds), *Spaces for Change?*.
Morris, J, *Removing the Barriers to Community Participation* (London: National Community Forum, 2006), available at www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/621189 (accessed 11 Apr 2008).
Mouffe, C, *Politics and Passions: The states of democracy* (London: Centre for the Study of Democracy, 2002).
New Economics Foundation and UK Participation Network, *Participation Works! 21 techniques of community participation for the 21st century* (London: New Economics Foundation, 1998).
Norris, P, *Democratic Phoenix* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Nyamu-Musembi, C, ‘Towards an actor-orientated perspective on human rights’ in Kabeer (ed), *Inclusive Citizenship*.
Phillips, A, *The Politics of Presence* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).
Pimbert, M and Wakeford, T (eds), *PLA Notes 40: Deliberative Democracy and Citizen Empowerment* (London: International Institute for Environment and Development, 2001).
Power, G, *Personal Politics: Democracy, participation and collective action* (London: Carnegie Trust, 2006). Power Inquiry, *Power to the People: The report of Power: an independent inquiry into Britain’s democracy* (London: Power Inquiry, 2006), available at www.makeitanissue.org.uk/Power%20to%20the%20People.pdf (accessed 11 Apr 2008).
Ribot, J, ‘Participation without representation: chiefs, councils and forestry law in the West African Sahel’, *Cultural Survival Quarterly* (Fall 1996).
Schattan Coelho, V, ‘Brazilian health councils: including the excluded?’ in Cornwall and Schattan Coelho (eds), *Spaces for Change?*.
Skidmore, P and Bound, K, *The Everyday Democracy Index* (London: Demos, 2008).
Skidmore, P, Bound, K and Lownsbrough, H, *Community Participation: Who benefits?* (York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2006).
Smith, G, *Beyond the Ballot: 57 Democratic innovations from around the world* (London: Power Inquiry, 2005), available at www.makeitanissue.org.uk/Beyond%20the%20Ballot.pdf (accessed 11 Apr 2008).
Taylor, M with Craig, G et al, ‘A sea-change or a swamp? New spaces for voluntary sector engagement in governance in the UK’, *IDS Bulletin* 35, no 2 (2004).
Vermeulen, S (ed), *PLA Notes 53: Tools for Influencing Power and Policy* (London: International Institute for Environment and Development, 2005).
Wampler, B, ‘Does participatory democracy actually deepen democracy? Lessons from Brazil’, 2008, available at www.internationalbudget.org/themes/PB/ParticipatoryInstitutions.pdf (accessed 14 Apr 2008). Wampler, B, *Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, cooperation, and accountability* (University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2007), available at www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-03252-8.html (accessed 15 Apr 2008).
White, S, ‘Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation’, *Development in Practice* 6, no 1 (1996).
Williams, J, ‘Social change and community participation: the case of health facilities boards in the Western Cape of South Africa’ in Cornwall and Schattan Coelho (eds), *Spaces for Change*.
Williams, R, *Keywords* (London: Picador, 1976).
Zipfel, T and Gaventa, J, *Citizen Participation in Local Governance*, policy brief (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2008). Demos – Licence to Publish
The work (as defined below) is provided under the terms of this licence (‘licence’). The work is protected by copyright and/or other applicable law. Any use of the work other than as authorized under this licence is prohibited. By exercising any rights to the work provided here, you accept and agree to be bound by the terms of this licence. Demos grants you the rights contained here in consideration of your acceptance of such terms and conditions.
1 Definitions
A ‘Collective Work’ means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this Licence.
B ‘Derivative Work’ means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work or a translation from English into another language will not be considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this Licence.
C ‘Licensor’ means the individual or entity that offers the Work under the terms of this Licence.
D ‘Original Author’ means the individual or entity who created the Work.
E ‘Work’ means the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of this Licence.
F ‘You’ means an individual or entity exercising rights under this Licence who has not previously violated the terms of this Licence with respect to the Work, or who has received express permission from Demos to exercise rights under this Licence despite a previous violation.
2 Fair Use Rights
Nothing in this licence is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws.
3 Licence Grant
Subject to the terms and conditions of this Licence, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) licence to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:
A to reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collective Works, and to reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collective Works;
B to distribute copies or phonorecords of, display publicly, perform publicly, and perform publicly by means of a digital audio transmission the Work including as incorporated in Collective Works; The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats. All rights not expressly granted by Licensor are hereby reserved.
4 Restrictions
The licence granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:
A You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work only under the terms of this Licence, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this Licence with every copy or phonorecord of the Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this Licence or the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this Licence and to the disclaimer of warranties. You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this Licence Agreement. The above applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collective Work, but this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this Licence. If You create a Collective Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collective Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested.
B You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital filesharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.
C If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Collective Works, you must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means you are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied. Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.
5 Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer
A By offering the Work for public release under this Licence, Licensor represents and warrants that, to the best of Licensor’s knowledge after reasonable inquiry: i Licensor has secured all rights in the Work necessary to grant the licence rights hereunder and to permit the lawful exercise of the rights granted hereunder without you having any obligation to pay any royalties, compulsory licence fees, residuals or any other payments; ii The Work does not infringe the copyright, trademark, publicity rights, common law rights or any other right of any third party or constitute defamation, invasion of privacy or other tortious injury to any third party.
B Except as expressly stated in this licence or otherwise agreed in writing or required by applicable law, the work is licenced on an ‘as is’ basis, without warranties of any kind, either express or implied including, without limitation, any warranties regarding the contents or accuracy of the work.
6 Limitation on Liability
Except to the extent required by applicable law, and except for damages arising from liability to a third party resulting from breach of the warranties in section 5, in no event will licensor be liable to you on any legal theory for any special, incidental, consequential, punitive or exemplary damages arising out of this licence or the use of the work, even if licensor has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
7 Termination
A This Licence and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by you of the terms of this Licence. Individuals or entities who have received Collective Works from you under this Licence, however, will not have their licences terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licences. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this Licence.
B Subject to the above terms and conditions, the licence granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different licence terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this Licence (or any other licence that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this Licence), and this Licence will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.
8 Miscellaneous
A Each time you distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a Collective Work, Demos offers to the recipient a licence to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the licence granted to you under this Licence.
B If any provision of this Licence is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the terms of this Licence, and without further action by the parties to this agreement, such provision shall be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable.
C No term or provision of this Licence shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent.
D This Licence constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from you. This Licence may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of Demos and you. Citizen engagement has become an essential part of modern government. Gone are the days when the best that citizens could expect was to be told what was good for them. Governments around the world are starting to realise that engaging their citizens more in shaping the decisions that affect their everyday lives improves both legitimacy and the quality of public services. In the UK, addressing the democratic deficit is high on the political agenda. But the current model of consultation does not bring in the diversity of voices and perspectives that would make citizen engagement genuinely democratic.
This pamphlet draws on the Institute for Development Studies research project Spaces for Change, examining international attempts to democratise citizen engagement. The case studies show that genuine, inclusive engagement requires investment to create an enabling environment and to support society’s least vocal and least powerful people to find and use their voices. As other countries lead the effort to involve the public in meaningful conversations about policy, the pamphlet argues that the UK has much to learn from their experience.
Andrea Cornwall is a Professorial Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2166-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 102,
"total-input-tokens": 170448,
"total-output-tokens": 39471,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1253,
1
],
[
1253,
1253,
2
],
[
1253,
1253,
3
],
[
1253,
1253,
4
],
[
1253,
1295,
5
],
[
1295,
2306,
6
],
[
2306,
2306,
7
],
[
2306,
3314,
8
],
[
3314,
5430,
9
],
[
5430,
7790,
10
],
[
7790,
7923,
11
],
[
7923,
7923,
12
],
[
7923,
9956,
13
],
[
9956,
12276,
14
],
[
12276,
14548,
15
],
[
14548,
16932,
16
],
[
16932,
19491,
17
],
[
19491,
21614,
18
],
[
21614,
23800,
19
],
[
23800,
25722,
20
],
[
25722,
27695,
21
],
[
27695,
30098,
22
],
[
30098,
32514,
23
],
[
32514,
35065,
24
],
[
35065,
36864,
25
],
[
36864,
39036,
26
],
[
39036,
40972,
27
],
[
40972,
43185,
28
],
[
43185,
45561,
29
],
[
45561,
47918,
30
],
[
47918,
50251,
31
],
[
50251,
52568,
32
],
[
52568,
53112,
33
],
[
53112,
53112,
34
],
[
53112,
55214,
35
],
[
55214,
57686,
36
],
[
57686,
60002,
37
],
[
60002,
62342,
38
],
[
62342,
64611,
39
],
[
64611,
67017,
40
],
[
67017,
69322,
41
],
[
69322,
71786,
42
],
[
71786,
74047,
43
],
[
74047,
76315,
44
],
[
76315,
78579,
45
],
[
78579,
81041,
46
],
[
81041,
83632,
47
],
[
83632,
86137,
48
],
[
86137,
88722,
49
],
[
88722,
90722,
50
],
[
90722,
92961,
51
],
[
92961,
95049,
52
],
[
95049,
97139,
53
],
[
97139,
99199,
54
],
[
99199,
101525,
55
],
[
101525,
103551,
56
],
[
103551,
104823,
57
],
[
104823,
104823,
58
],
[
104823,
107113,
59
],
[
107113,
109425,
60
],
[
109425,
111335,
61
],
[
111335,
113867,
62
],
[
113867,
116060,
63
],
[
116060,
118446,
64
],
[
118446,
120942,
65
],
[
120942,
122950,
66
],
[
122950,
125144,
67
],
[
125144,
127708,
68
],
[
127708,
129663,
69
],
[
129663,
129663,
70
],
[
129663,
131588,
71
],
[
131588,
133910,
72
],
[
133910,
135625,
73
],
[
135625,
138027,
74
],
[
138027,
140548,
75
],
[
140548,
142692,
76
],
[
142692,
144947,
77
],
[
144947,
147258,
78
],
[
147258,
149545,
79
],
[
149545,
150720,
80
],
[
150720,
152038,
81
],
[
152038,
153441,
82
],
[
153441,
155001,
83
],
[
155001,
156389,
84
],
[
156389,
157673,
85
],
[
157673,
158674,
86
],
[
158674,
159883,
87
],
[
159883,
159883,
88
],
[
159883,
161297,
89
],
[
161297,
162753,
90
],
[
162753,
164404,
91
],
[
164404,
165979,
92
],
[
165979,
167686,
93
],
[
167686,
169228,
94
],
[
169228,
170778,
95
],
[
170778,
172214,
96
],
[
172214,
172957,
97
],
[
172957,
177745,
98
],
[
177745,
182361,
99
],
[
182361,
182361,
100
],
[
182361,
182361,
101
],
[
182361,
183613,
102
]
]
} |
51b11da4c8906d6374a4e1b200aad86ac66b47a0 | The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Information Management Assessment Action Plan
### R1
**DCLG must further define the corporate aims and outcomes for information management in the department, ensuring minimum compliance with statutory requirements.** These aims need to continue to explicitly support corporate outcomes set out in the new departmental business plan.
- This must be a corporate priority now that the new business plan has been published and should not wait for the outcome of the IT procurement exercise.
- Prioritisation of outcomes must take into account what can be realistically achieved by the organisation with the resources allocated to it.
- The CIO and SIRO need to assume responsibility for ensuring minimum statutory compliance and support for the implementation of these objectives.
- DCLG needs to review and reissue its statement concerning its appetite for risk in regard to information assurance as a key underpin to its knowledge and information.
| R1 Actions | Priority: High/Low/Medium | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? Yes/No | |------------|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|------------------| | **Action 1.1** Review and refresh the Department’s knowledge management strategy in the light of the new business plan | High | 30/09/13 | DS | | | | **Action 1.2** Agree approach for improving centralised knowledge and control of and access to repositories for electronic records | Medium | 31/03/13 | JK/RW | | | | **Action 1.3** Update our risk appetite, using the template issued by SCARAB | High | 30/04/13 | DS | | |
### R2
**DCLG needs to define the remit and priorities of Corporate Records Management Services (CRMS).** Following recommendation 1, CRMS needs to define a plan, including time-bound milestones to ensure corporate goals for information management are reached. Actions must be clearly defined and the benefit to the business articulated.
- The plan must clearly define and prioritise actions according to business need.
- The plans must identify actions to raise the information management understanding and capability of staff. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Information Management Assessment Action Plan
- The plan must be accompanied by an implementation plan.
- DCLG and CRMS should consider setting up an internal service standard.
- CRMS and IT must ensure that the CRMS plan is integrated with the IT strategy.
- Monitoring of compliance and progress needs to be established and owned at a suitable level within DCLG.
| R2 Actions | Priority: High/Low/Medium | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? Yes/No | |------------|---------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|------------------| | Action 2.1 Prepare IMA Action plan and commence implementation | High | 28/02/13 | DS/JK | | |
R3 DCLG needs to define appropriate metrics and monitor progress against information management outcomes (according to corporate priorities in recommendations 1 and 2) if it is to drive positive change throughout DCLG.
- This should include performance against mailbox and personal drive reduction targets, AFP usage and the application of retention in corporate repositories.
- Monitoring of performance should be the responsibility of the DRO, escalated to the CIO and SIRO when necessary.
| R3 Actions | Priority High/Low/Medium | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? Yes/No | |------------|--------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|------------------| | Action 3.1 Monitor mailboxes on a monthly basis, circulating to CIO and SIRO as necessary | High | 31/01/13 | DS/AP | | Yes | | Action 3.2 Identify ownership of drives across the Department, and data orphaned by structural changes | High | Quarter 1 2013 | JK/RW/AP | | | | Action 3.3 Liaise with IT to ensure that P drive recycle bins are automatically deleted | Medium | 31/03/13 | AP | | | | Action 3.4 Initiate a strategy for P: drives | Medium | Quarter 2 2013 | JK/AP | | |
R4 DCLG needs to ensure that management promotes and monitors compliance with corporate policy for information management.
- DCLG needs to monitor non-compliance with policy and define appropriate sanctions. Where technically possible, CRMS must be given appropriate permissions to access divisional drives to allow oversight of compliance with policy.
The SIRO and CIO need to establish formal lines of communication to ensure that information management risks are visible and easily escalated.
| R4 Actions | Priority | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered ? Yes/No | |------------|----------|-----------|-------|--------------|--------------------| | Action 4.1 See action 3.2 | | | | | | | Action 4.2 Prepare policy on deletion processes and use as springboard to highlight need to follow RM procedures for electronic records | High | Quarter 1 2013 | AP | | | | Action 4.3 Conduct assessment against IAMM | Low | 2013 | AP/DS | | |
CRMS must ensure that policies and guidance are aligned with the corporate priorities for information management (as defined by DCLG in recommendation 1).
- Policies need to be accompanied by an implementation plan based on DCLG prioritisation.
- As a matter of urgency, DCLG should create and distribute easy to use guidance based on the fundamental information management priorities.
- The head of Knowledge and information Access needs to continue to provide specific policy and guidance on:
- FOIA and the application of exemptions as these develop
| R5 Actions | Priority | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered ? Yes/No | |------------|----------|-----------|-------|--------------|--------------------| | Action 5.1 Redesign intranet pages to provide “easy to use guidance” and promote these across Department | High | 28/02/2013 | AP | | | | Action 5.2 KIA to monitor any changes to legislative framework and update guidance accordingly | Medium | Ongoing | MC | | | The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Information Management Assessment Action Plan
### R6
**DCLG needs to understand the information that it holds, where it is stored and how it needs to be used.** This will support the department in identifying how information needs to be managed in order to ensure statutory compliance.
- DCLG needs to agree ownership and responsibility for maintaining the departmental and Divisional Information Asset Registers (IARs) and how they will be used to inform risk and management decisions.
- CRMS, with the support of the CIO and SIRO, needs to ensure that Divisions are actively engaging in the process of recording the information that it creates and holds. DCLG also needs to continue to define what its key information assets are, where they are stored and how they need to be managed.
- DCLG should work with The National Archives to ensure that maximum benefit can be gained from its IAR ahead of the forthcoming ICT re-let. This includes increasing understanding of technological dependencies and usability requirements.
- DCLG needs to develop a clear strategy for aligning its current Information Asset Register into wider Government data and information reviews, such as the forthcoming Data Inventory, ensuring all information assets are accounted for.
| R6 Actions | Priority | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered | |------------|----------|-----------|-------|--------------|-----------| | Action 6.1 Embed annual updates to the information asset register into the sign-off of the annual governance statement | High | 31/01/13 | DS/AP | | | | Action 6.2 Liaise with Open Data colleagues and Cabinet Office to feed into development of data inventory if appropriate | Low | Cabinet Office to advise | AP | | | | Action 6.3 Refresh Information Asset Register in light of new Government Classification Scheme and identify any concerns arising from the IT re-let | Medium | 30/06/2013 | AP | | |
### R7
**CRMS must implement its action plan to ensure compliance with the 20 year rule change.**
- DCLG needs to ensure it has comprehensively planned its resource allocation to cope with the increased volume of review required for both
### R7 Actions
| Action | Priority | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? | |--------|----------|-----------|-------|--------------|------------| | **Action 7.1** Produce implementation plan and review quarterly | High | Every quarter | DD | | | | **Action 7.2** Review progress on quarterly basis and report to DRO/TNA | Medium | Every quarter | DD | | | | **Action 7.3** Highlight challenges and risks and update quarterly | Medium | Every quarter | DD | | | | **Action 7.4** Identify key events likely to be of significant historical importance and target resources accordingly | Medium | Every quarter | DD | | |
### R8
**CRMS needs to ensure compliance with What To Keep and retention schedules in conjunction with Divisions** to ensure that DCLG is capturing the records that it requires and that these are retained and destroyed in line with statutory obligations.
- Senior level ownership for specific legislative compliance should be defined.
- DCLG must evaluate the full range of its legislative obligations and define minimum measures for compliance with these.
- DCLG needs to ensure that staff are aware of available guidance. Managers need to be aware of their responsibilities to promote and ensure compliance with policy and legislation.
- DCLG would benefit from using a reinvigorated Business Records Officer (BRO) network to champion and encourage good practice in this regard.
| Action | Priority | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? | |--------|----------|-----------|-------|--------------|------------| | **Action 8.1** Refresh and re-circulate the ‘What to keep’ guidance to the BRO network once re-established | Medium | Quarter 2 2013 | AP | | | | **Action 8.2** Launch new intranet pages with communications to all BROs highlighting | High | 31/03/13 | AP | | |
### Action 8.3
Develop a deletion policy to sit alongside retention policy, outlining when information should be considered ‘destroyed’
| Priority | Timescale | Owner | |----------|-----------|-------| | High | 31/03/13 | AP/JK/DS |
### Action 8.4
Develop a plan for the introduction of new ASDs across the Department, incorporating any requirements arising from the IT re-let
| Priority | Timescale | Owner | |----------|-----------|-------| | High | Quarter 1 2013 | JK/RW |
### R9
DCLG must reduce the personal size limit for email to levels congruent with other government departments. Use of personal drives must also be addressed.
- A phased reduction is required with individual targets linked to the migration to the new IT re-let schedule.
- Corporate targets must be decided and monitored by CIO, SIRO and DRO.
| R9 Actions | Priority | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? | |------------|----------|-----------|-------|--------------|------------| | Action 9.1 Agree targets for reduction of mailboxes with CIO | High | 31/12/12 | DS | | Yes | | Action 9.2 Plan and instigate communications regarding mailbox reduction | High | 31/03/13 | AP/JK/DS | | | | Action 9.3 Reduce mailboxes across the Department to 500MB | High | Commence by 31/03/13 | AP/JK/DS | | | | Action 9.4 Provide Livelink to ministerial teams to enable them to reduce their mailboxes to more manageable levels | Medium | 31/03/13 | AP | | |
### R10
DCLG needs to ensure that the action taken to review and dispose of digital information is fully risk-assessed against compliance with legislative and business requirements. This is because retrospective application of retention raises the risk that of deleting records and information that retain value to the organisation or as a public record.
| R10 Actions | Priority | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? | |-------------|----------|-----------|-------|--------------|------------| | Action 10.1 Develop a policy on the lifecycle management of electronic records and how that policy | High | Quarter 1 2013 | JK/RW | | | The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Information Management Assessment Action Plan
**Action 10.2** Review the above policy before completion to ensure it meets legislative and business requirements.
______________________________________________________________________
**R11** DCLG must ensure that all technology change projects meet its information requirements.
- DCLG needs to develop a strategy for managing Digital Continuity.
- DCLG needs to ensure that information requirements are central to all technology change planning and projects, through the adoption of formal structures such as a technology change board. The National Archives Digital continuity guidance will support the department as it embeds good practice in to policies and processes.
- CRMS and IT must continue to run the digital continuity self assessment tool based on future electronic records held in Nearline Network Attached Storage and those held by TNT storage, and take appropriate mitigating action where risk is identified.
| R11 Actions | Priority | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? Yes/No | |-------------|----------|-----------|-------|--------------|-------------------| | Action 11.1 Establish liaison role with IT team | High | 31/03/13 | AP/JK | | | | Action 11.2 Ensure that RM requirements are embedded in IT re-let project plans | High | 31/01/13 | DS | | Yes |
______________________________________________________________________
**R12** DCLG should take the opportunity to consider information security requirements ahead of the IT re-let with particular regard to striking the right balance between protecting and sharing information.
| R12 Actions | Priority | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? Yes/No | |-------------|----------|-----------|-------|--------------|-------------------| | Action 12.1 See 1.3 – risk appetite | | | | | | | Action 12.2 Embed new Government Classification Scheme across Department | Medium | 30/06/13 or as set by Cabinet | DS/AP | | | DCLG should re-invigorate the network of effective Business Records Officers (BROs) with sufficient coverage, appropriate delegation of authority, training and monitoring. This will enable DCLG to disseminate best practice and drive compliance, to ensure a minimum standard of consistent good practice in order to meet minimum statutory requirements, including compliance with the Public Record Act, Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act.
- CRMS need to engage with BROs to create local What to Keep schedules for Divisions. These must be reviewed regularly.
- DCLG must ensure that the BRO network is maintained. CRMS needs to provide leadership and direction and coordinate activities.
- CRMS must provide updated guidance and training for the role. CRMS should also take a lead in sharing and disseminating good practice.
| Actions | Priority | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? | |---------|----------|-----------|-------|--------------|------------| | Action 13.1 Establish single up-to-date list of current BROs, filling in gaps resulting from restructure | High | 28/02/13 | AP | | | | Action 13.2 Refresh guidance documents available to BROs to reflect the current needs for their role | Medium | 31/03/13 | AP | | | | Action 13.3 Build BRO responsibilities into any new technology and into the managed service under the new IT contractor | High | 30/09/13 | AP/JK | | |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2167-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 17951,
"total-output-tokens": 3859,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2161,
1
],
[
2161,
4259,
2
],
[
4259,
5985,
3
],
[
5985,
8199,
4
],
[
8199,
10014,
5
],
[
10014,
12106,
6
],
[
12106,
13996,
7
],
[
13996,
15405,
8
]
]
} |
73376d6dfdccf64f9bb5eea4a48247fc9cba403e | Information Management Assessment Action Plan Review
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport
December 2012 Background The Information Management Assessment (IMA) programme is the best-practice model for government bodies wishing to demonstrate commitment to the principles of good information management.
An IMA of The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) was conducted at the department’s offices in Whitehall in February 2010. The department’s IMA report was agreed in August 2010 and published in spring 2012 on The National Archives’ website. Progress against the department’s IMA action plan was reviewed in December 2012 and is summarised below. Work required to address outstanding recommendations is detailed at the end of this document under ‘Next Steps’.
Key findings of the 2010 IMA The IMA report gave DCMS a ‘Good’ rating for re-use on the IMA performance framework risk matrix. Performance under a further four headings was rated as ‘Acceptable’. The report identified nine ‘Development needed’ performance areas and six ‘Priority Attention’ areas.
The IMA report made a total of 54 recommendations for improvement, giving particular attention to the following:
- DCMS had no strategy, vision or plan for information management. The role of information management in supporting business objectives was not defined or communicated corporately.
- DCMS had no nominated board champion with corporate responsibility for information management. The department had not defined performance measures for information management and there was no evidence that key information management related risks and issues were regularly reported at board level.
- DCMS had defined the risks associated with the information it held to a limited degree. Understanding of information risk was focussed narrowly on the security of personal information and there was no evidence that risks beyond this were being identified and reported. • DCMS had no defined structure for Information Management. No compliance checking with policy was undertaken.
• While DCMS recognised the need for a Departmental Records Officer, it had not defined ongoing resourcing requirements. At times the role had fallen vacant leaving DCMS with no identifiable strategic policy lead. The department had minimal oversight of records transfer and appraisal.
• The department had made a start in defining business critical information but had not fully defined the value of its information or what information it needed to keep.
• Staff did not consistently recognise in practice the sensitivity of the information the department held. Standards of information management were found to be inconsistent.
Progress against recommendations DCMS has undergone a period of realignment and restructuring following agreement of the department’s 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review settlement. DCMS is consequently a smaller department today than it was at the time of the IMA, with a growing emphasis on flexible project-based working.
Future provisions for information management are currently being reviewed by the Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) project established as a component of the overall DCMS Change Programme. This aims to establish a proportionate approach to information management within the department. The project was on hold for the period of the 2012 London Olympic Games, restarting in September of that year.
Work to address recommendations made in the 2010 IMA report remains at an early stage. However, the assessment team notes the following developments:
• DCMS has now identified its requirements for the role of Departmental Records Officer, which fell vacant in early 2012. DCMS is currently in the process of recruiting for that role.
- The KIM project, reporting to the Corporate Committee, has raised the profile of information management and related risks. It has sought to define and gain agreement on ownership of information management at a senior and operational level.
- The KIM project has identified and communicated the need for behavioural rather than systems change and emphasised the need for a strong mandate and leadership from the senior management team.
- The KIM project has also sought to agree the future approach to storage of digital information and records. DCMS aims to streamline its EDRMS, Livelink; planned work is to include the establishment of standardised project filing structures, and may extend to consideration of restrictions on the use of personal repositories.
- DCMS has recognised the need for better retention and sharing of corporate knowledge. Work in this area includes development of a handover report process to capture key role specific information. It includes a section on file and records management. This document has been built into the Leaver’s checklist for development managers.
**Next Steps**
Implementation must be the next step now that priorities have been identified, and the department must ensure ongoing support to effect necessary levels of change. At the same time, DCMS should liaise with The National Archives to ensure it can take advantage of available support, networks and other opportunities. The outcomes of the KIM project have the potential to provide a solid base for information management within the department. Work in the areas below would address key concerns highlighted in the DCMS IMA report and help ensure DCMS has the right foundations in place:
- DCMS must ensure that the role of DRO is positioned to enable oversight and control of paper and digital records, to perform decisions regarding the appraisal, selection and review of records due for transfer to The National Archives. • DCMS should also ensure that the DRO role is positioned to exert strategic influence on the direction of digital information management within the department.
• DCMS must clearly communicate the role of good information management in tackling information risk and enabling transparency. As a key component of this, the department must ensure senior sponsorship for knowledge and information management, to champion the agenda and demonstrate its ongoing importance.
• DCMS should produce a documented high-level strategy or plan for information management with milestones to provide continuity and draw key goals together. This will enable overlapping and parallel work streams to be drawn together and viewed in context as coherent components of a single programme.
• DCMS recognises the need to produce clear guidance for information management that is adopted by staff. DCMS should fully review and revise existing policy to ensure it addresses key information risks and establishes necessary standards in line with legal and business requirements. To support this work, DCMS should ensure that information’s value in supporting strategic and day to day outcomes is clearly stated at a high level for staff, and actively promoted.
• DCMS has recognised the need to develop performance measures. As a first step, it is important to gain an understanding of where information is being stored and in what quantities. To gain full assurance it is necessary to assess the quality as well as the volume of information stored. DCMS should consider how these measures will be reported and used to target key risk areas, driving adherence to policy.
• Although the KIM project has raised at a senior level information risks beyond the security of personal information, information risk is not currently represented on the departmental risk register. In order to effectively address such risks, DCMS should ensure that they are defined and documented at a strategic level.
• DCMS does not have a plan to consistently address risks to the completeness and availability of digital information. The National Archives offers Digital Continuity training, advice and guidance that would help DCMS build its capability in this regard.
- This would have particular benefit in enabling development of the department’s Information Asset Register, which does not currently support consistent description of risks, value or usage requirements. By expanding its Information Asset Register in line with The National Archives guidance and as laid out in the Knowledge Council’s Information Principles, DCMS would be more able to effectively protect, manage and exploit the information assets it holds.
The assessment team will continue to working closely with DCMS through the action plan monitoring process and standard meetings with the departmental Information Management Consultant. Further progress review meetings will be scheduled to measure progress against outstanding recommendations.
Following agreed closure of the action plan, progress against any outstanding recommendations will be reviewed at the time of the next formal IMA in 2015.
**Risk Matrix** The table recognises progress made by DCMS since the original assessment.
| Governance and Leadership | Assessed 2010 | Reviewed 2012 | |---------------------------|--------------|--------------| | Strategic management | | | | Business objectives | | | | Management controls | | | | Resourcing | | | | Risk management | | | | Records Management | | | |------------------------------------|---|---| | Creation | | | | Storage | | | | Appraisal, disposal and transfer | | | | Sustainability of digital records | | | | Management | | | | Access to Information | | | | FOI/Data Protection | | | | Re-Use | | | | Security | | | | Compliance | | | | Staff responsibilities and delegations | | | | Policies and guidance | | | | Training | | | | Change management | | | | Culture | Commitment | Staff Understanding | Knowledge Management | |------------------|------------|---------------------|----------------------| | | | | |
| Key to colour coding | |----------------------| |  | Best Practice | |  | Good | |  | Satisfactory | |  | Development Needed | |  | Priority Attention Area |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2168-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 15586,
"total-output-tokens": 2306,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
113,
1
],
[
113,
1947,
2
],
[
1947,
3717,
3
],
[
3717,
5701,
4
],
[
5701,
7807,
5
],
[
7807,
9354,
6
],
[
9354,
10081,
7
],
[
10081,
10614,
8
]
]
} |
8ada91c59c371b440577c16b1368d8af7e6198e6 | | Recommendation | Actions | Priority | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? | Progress on implementation | |----------------|---------|----------|-----------|-------|--------------|------------|---------------------------| | 1. The Management Committee needs to monitor and champion Knowledge and Information Management within Defra. | The Management Committee has endorsed Defra’s response to the Information Management Assessment. The Chief Operating Officer will oversee further work on this. The Management Committee has agreed to support a programme of work to ensure that staff have access to the right tools to support effective information management and collaboration. | High | On-going | Chief Operating Officer | Information Management is to be reported annually to the Permanent Secretary and Management Committee; next report due June 2013. | In part | Will need to take opportunities to engage Ian Trenholm and use him for communications to DGs and Directors. Possibly report progress to him during 2013. Update 7/11/12: COO engaged & on board, as is Exec C’tee & P/Sec. | | 2. Knowledge Transparency and Resilience Team (KTR) to develop a Knowledge and Information Management Strategy and revised Plan for Core Defra | Develop a Knowledge Strategy for Core Defra and the Defra network. | High | January 2013 | Head of Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Strategy and Portfolio | | No | In hand Update 7/11/12: Devt of a cross-Network Knowledge Strategy in hand & aim to deliver end Mar 2013 | | 3. Knowledge Services Team to continue to develop a process to appraise the legacy of electronic information. | Implement plans to harmonise appraisal of physical and electronic material as a single process, making use of appropriate project management techniques. | Medium | On-going | Head of Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Services | Investment already completed in identifying legacy electronic information. Process developed and agreed with TNA to flag up key records as well as low value material. Deletion script developed and tested. | In part | Update 26/09/12 (KA): Orphaned info on 3 Defra servers has been appraised & results are being assessed ahead of TNA progress meeting on 28 Nov. Overlap with ICT work on overburdened Defra servers recognised & will feed into appraisal programme (i.e. removal of low value/very old material). Planning to discuss revised policy re jpeg issues with Standards + revisit proposal to remove pre-2001 information from all servers. A | | Recommendation | Actions | Priority High/Low/Medium | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? Yes/No | Progress on implementation | |----------------|---------|--------------------------|-----------|-------|--------------|------------------|--------------------------| | | | | | | | | new procedure to remove info older than 3 years from a problem server into a new large storage server is to be tested & results analysed with a view to a rolling programme on other problem servers. | | | | | | | | | **Update 6/11/12 (KA):** Action in hand to delete orphaned & old data from one server (request to run deletion script with IBM). Info older than 5yrs has been removed from problem servers by ICT & placed in new holding server. Planning to raise issue of where to prioritise limited e-appraisal resource once overlap servers i.e. servers with orphaned info that are also near capacity, have been checked. DRO has approved deletion of pre2001 info. Planning to update policies idc. | | | | | | | | | **Update 7/11/12:** In hand – info analysed & deletion programme progressing as detailed above | | | | | | | | | **Update 30/11/2012 (KA):** Agreed with Strategy to bring KS/KP/ICT interests together as a major project. TNA comments (meeting on 28): wherever possible a macro-appraisal approach to servers should be adopted but accept that this is difficult if important info is buried in sub-structures. Will compare server | | Recommendation | Actions | Priority | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? | Progress on implementation | |----------------|---------|----------|-----------|-------|--------------|------------|-----------------------------| | 4. KTR Team to expand the scope of the Information Asset Register (IAR) for Core Defra to create a management tool which captures the business requirements of the organisation. | Review and develop the IAR as part of the project to implement Defra’s Open Data Strategy and implement. | Medium | July 2013 | Head of Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Strategy and Portfolio | No | In hand | | | | | | | | | size to equivalent paper file size in order to help understand the breadth of a server macro-appraisal. TNA not accepting e-info for preservation until at least 2014 as already overwhelmed. | | 5. KTR Team to put in place a digital continuity plan to ensure that Defra maintains its ability to use its digital information over time and through change | Build on work already done to develop a Digital Continuity Plan in conjunction with Defra / Group ICT and IT delivery partners. | Medium | March 2013 | Head of Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Strategy and Portfolio | No | Need to take stock of work done and discuss with key stakeholders in KTR and Defra / Group ICT before developing a plan. | | | | | | | | | Update 7/11/12: Project progressing – PMgr appointed, established contact with TNA to identify solutions | | 6. KTR Team to ensure that individual elements of the ICT Strategy are developed collaboratively | A revised Core Defra Information Services Strategy will be developed covering both Knowledge and Information Management and ICT. | Medium | March 2013 | Head of Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Strategy and Portfolio | No | Have agreed with Nick Teall that the IS Strategy will be a very high level document underpinned by a Defra Network Knowledge Strategy (to be developed under action 2) and an updated ICT | | Recommendation | Actions | Priority | Timescale | Owner | Observations | Delivered? | Progress on implementation | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------| | with IS colleagues and embed knowledge management. | | | | | | | | | 7. KTR Team to ensure that every technical change project includes formal representation from a skilled Knowledge and Information Management representative. Defra NOW Programme need to ensure that information and records management, information assurance and Data Protection requirements and concerns are fully represented on the Programme Board. | Improve technical change process to ensure that Knowledge and Information Management issues are fully considered. The Departmental Records Officer represents the Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Team on the Defra NOW Programme Board. | Medium | On-going | Head of Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Strategy and Portfolio | Defra NOW Programme expects to start actively working with business areas within the next three months and to complete the full rollout of a single electronic information repository within two years. | In part | |
Strategy. Regular meetings with Nick arranged to progress this.
Update 7/11/12: Regular mtings with NT to progress
Update 7/11/12: KPs now attending meeting with DNOW team to ensure KIM principles raised in discussions.
Update 7/11/12: DRO engaged with DNOW Prog to ensure compliance with IMR standards, etc.
Update 4/12/12: Programme Team have worked with the Business Relationship Team (BRT) and Knowledge Transparency and Resilience (KTR) Team within Information Services to determine the most suitable candidates for the early initiatives. From a potential list of twenty five, three have been selected to take forward. | No | Update 25/9/12 (SL): Other networks (e.g. Transparency contacts) also need considering. A high level map is needed of the various networks to help plan actions. MKi will initially pull this together and work with SL. Liaison and communication with the Network can be done under the banner of the Knowledge Strategy development. | | Update 6/11/12 (MKi): For core-Defra, Table listing current IM roles, responsibilities & options regarding possible future IM roles, has been drawn up for review within KTR. Once agreed, this will be shared with core-Defra Business to seek their views. | | Update 4/1/212 (MKi): As a result of listing current roles & responsibilities, opportunities to rationalise identified. Feedback from core-Defra Business indicates high level of satisfaction with support received from KTR & willingness to support review of roles – proposals will be shared with Business at workshop to be scheduled for Jan 2013. |
| 8. KTR Team to raise capability by retraining staff with Information Management responsibility, this must include Information Asset Owners (IAOs), Local Information Managers (LIMs) and Information Management Representatives (IMRs). | Review Knowledge and Information Management roles across Defra to ensure they are able to support the business and meet legislative requirements effectively under the new Defra organisational structure. | Medium | March 2013 | Head of Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Services | | Head of Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Strategy and Portfolio | No | | 9. Using its understanding about its information requirements, KTR Team to introduce and enforce policies about the structure and use of corporate digital repositories, including Accredited Shared Drives, Shared Drives and SharePoint 2007. | Revise information policies to improve advice to business areas. Provide support to help business areas manage their information during the Defra organisational restructuring. Develop ongoing information management support to business areas through new Knowledge Partner roles. | High | July 2012 Throughout 2012 March 2013 | Head of Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Standards Head of Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Services | Revision of policies to improve advice to business areas is complete. Knowledge Services Team are supporting business areas in management their information through the organisational restructuring. Further support will be provided as the new Knowledge Partner posts are filled. | In part | Update 7/11/12 (KW): Policies revised & updated & avail on intranet. Plan to rationalise across Delivery network. Approach is to improve IM culture rather than enforce. New team established to engage with the business to encourage best practice. Initial engagements are going well. Team still carrying vacancies. Update 4/12/12 (MKi): Support to Bus Areas going well. KPs engaging with teams. Engaged with 60% of business areas so far to solution IM issues and promote best practice. | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 10. The KTR Team, with support from senior management, needs to maintain the Information Audit Programme and develop a plan to increase the use of what to keep within business areas. | While maintaining the baseline information generated from the Information Audit, KTR will refocus on providing direct support to business areas through the new Knowledge Partners to help make improvements. | Medium | March 2013 | Head of Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Services | The Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Services Team will incorporate information audit as a technique to be used where appropriate in understanding information management in business areas. This will help provide more effective support in managing information and applying What to Keep guidance. | In part | Update 7/11/12 (KW): KPs working directly with teams to help solve IM issues raised in Information Audit programme. Aim to achieve better understanding of information holdings as more teams operating in structured environments. WTK to be updated if appropriate. Update 4/12/12 (MKi): Revised approach is to conduct initial risk-based Diagnostic Health Checks | | 11. The KTR Team to provide adequate induction training, educational work | Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Services team to provide front line support through the new Knowledge Partner roles. Assess scope to make better use of induction | Medium | March 2013 | Head of Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Services | No | Update 25/9/12 (SL): MKi to kick off work on this and to liaise with SL. Update 6/11/12 (MKi): development of KTR | | 12. Evaluate the appropriateness of the use of a separate email archive system. | Evaluate future requirement for the Vault Email archive under the Defra NOW Programme. | Low | March 2013 | Head of Knowledge, Transparency and Resilience Standards | It is currently intended that that Vault, the current email archive system will be removed once a formal EDRM system with proper lifecycle management of emails | In part | In hand. Mike Kaye to ensure that the need for Vault is removed by Defra NOW. | Update 7/11/12: work progressing in line with corporate policy until DNOW completes |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2169-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 18945,
"total-output-tokens": 3092,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2513,
1
],
[
2513,
4323,
2
],
[
4323,
6317,
3
],
[
6317,
8995,
4
],
[
8995,
10540,
5
],
[
10540,
13638,
6
],
[
13638,
14226,
7
]
]
} |
0326578a7bfe7412dbb298b86a6894cfc58f1c30 | Information Management Assessment
Action plan progress review
Department of Health
Reviewed June 2016
Published April 2017
Working with government to raise standards in information management Background to this report
The Information Management Assessment (IMA) programme is the best-practice model for government bodies wishing to demonstrate commitment to the principles of good information management.
The Department of Health IMA took place in 2014. We conducted interviews at the department’s London and Leeds offices between 13 and 24 October 2014. The IMA report is published on The National Archives’ website.¹
This progress review summarises key developments since the IMA. It is based on a high-level summary of developments since the IMA provided to us shortly before the progress review meeting in June 2016, together with evidence supplied by the department.
Commentary on engagement
Following the IMA, the Department of Health established an information governance group with a view to taking forward work to address the report. The then permanent secretary published a statement committing to developing and implementing an IMA action plan, however none was produced.
At the time of review, we saw limited evidence of concerted joined-up action by key stakeholders to address the risks highlighted. As a consequence a number of key aspects of our recommendations had not been addressed, as highlighted in the body of this report.
Areas where continued attention is still needed are listed below under ‘Next Steps.’
¹ http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/ima/ima-reports-action-plans/ Progress to address recommendations and risk areas
1 The value of information
| Performance rating | IMA 2014 | Review 2016 | |--------------------|----------------|---------------------------| | Communicating and realising value | Satisfactory | Progress not maintained | | Managing information as an asset | Development area | Development area |
Situation at the time of the IMA
The Department of Health’s Information Management Policy clearly conveyed the importance of information to the organisation. It was linked to the business strategy and endorsed by the Permanent Secretary.
The ICT Strategy had an information management component around the rollout of the department’s SharePoint system, Information Workspace (IWS). There was also a draft IWS strategy, though this had not been officially adopted. The Department of Health needed to ensure that an information strategy and vision for 2015 onwards was signed off at Board level with an agreed schedule for reporting so that progress in delivering benefits could be monitored and challenged. It needed to prioritise improving and embedding Information Workspace (IWS) and enabling routine records creation and disposal. We wanted the strategy to provide impetus for effective lifecycle management, protection and exploitation of information across all repositories. It needed to cover culture and governance as well as technical considerations.
The Department of Health required its Divisional Heads, as Information Asset Owners (IAOs), to record any significant information assets on the Information Asset Register (IAR) and conduct risk assessments on them. There was no single definition of an information asset or clearly expressed criteria to support their identification. Only a basic level of detail about each information asset was recorded on the Information Asset Register. We recommended that the Department of Health reviews how information assets were defined and logged, and how owners were allocated. This needed to be done to increase understanding of the information for which the department has responsibility and to help the department to manage, protect and exploit it more effectively. Existing structures did not give coverage to the broad groupings of unstructured information within key corporate repositories such as IWS and the shared drives.
We were given verbal assurance that the strategy was signed off following the IMA. Limited progress has been made in achieving the strategy’s overall aim of establishing IWS as the sole repository for current digital information. The Department of Health has not embedded relevant strategic goals within a broader information management vision as we recommended.
The DH 2020 vision and supporting DH Way Task & Finish Group (TFG) have enabled a corporate focus on knowledge-related issues. However, in the absence of an agreed overarching set of information-focused objectives, the Department of Health has lacked the impetus to address core issues such as information management culture. This includes the specific risk areas of email-related behaviours and continued reliance on shared drives.
An Information Asset Owner handbook has now been produced. This is based on the template adopted by many IMA programme members. It has been tailored to reflect the department’s own processes and provides the standard open and inclusive definition of an information asset, as promoted by Cabinet Office and The National Archives.
While this in itself is positive, the new definition does not yet appear to be referenced in other documentation such as the information management policy and guidance on managing information risks. As such, it does not yet appear to be consistently promoted to the organisation, raising the risk that it will be interpreted differently in different areas of the business. While the IAO Handbook notes the need to have retention and disposal schedules in place, key considerations such as disposal are still not covered by the Information Asset Register, which has not been amended or developed since the IMA. An opportunity has been missed to reference the Departmental Records Officer (DRO) and the central information management team among the key roles that IAOs need to be aware of.
2 Digital information and supporting technology
| Performance rating | IMA 2014 | Review 2016 | |-------------------------------------|-------------------|------------------------------| | Supporting information through technology | Development area | Development area | | Digital continuity and IT change | Development area | Progressing towards satisfactory |
Situation at the time of the IMA
IWS had the potential to provide a supportive environment for information and records management. Records were not yet routinely being declared within IWS and disposal had not yet been enabled within the main shared resources area where records of short, medium and long-term value should be stored.
The shared drives held more information and were growing more rapidly than IWS. These were not subject to central oversight or control and did not support disposal. There were also longstanding issues relating to the management of email. It was felt that size limits on email inboxes were driving staff to delete emails in bulk or transfer them in bulk to IWS without considering their value. We highlighted a number of potential risks relating to the email archive that the Department of Health planned to introduce to help improve the situation. We recommended that guidance on how systems need to be used should be refreshed and promoted, noting that encouraging adherence to core principles should be a key component of the department’s overall strategic approach for its information. The Department of Health held a significant amount of legacy digital information, but was not planning to ensure its digital continuity. The department lacked understanding of the digital information stored across all repositories. We emphasised the need for a plan for migration from the legacy Electronic Records and Document Management system (EDRMs) MEDS and highlighted that plans should also encompass information held in the shared drives and Primary Care Trust (PCT) and Strategic Health Authority (SHA) records.
The status of IWS was described as fragile at the time of the formal progress review and it is clear that a number of technical problems with the system remain. It has still not been mandated and the shared drives are still in use. This remains a significant concern and one that the department has not defined the impact of (see below).
A project to replace IWS with SharePoint online is due to start and the aim is to maintain the system until the change takes place. The Department of Health will need to manage the risk that staff will continue to lose faith in IWS in the interim and increasingly use alternative areas such as shared drives and Outlook to store their information. A further consideration is that take-up of SharePoint online may be undermined by the fact that its look and feel will not be substantially different to IWS.
The department has sought to ensure that access restrictions are applied in a more proportionate way within IWS. A new policy has been written on the application of access restrictions within IWS with the aim of ensuring a more open approach. Management Committee approval was sought for this. Local Folder Managers (LFMs) were due to be engaged to help identify necessary exceptions. We were told that LFMs have now been given the power to reject unnecessary requests to restrict access.
As noted above, email remains a significant issue for the Department of Health and staff are reportedly still dumping significant volumes of email into the IWS file plan to free up their inboxes. One folder in IWS was recently identified that contained 56,000 emails. Email archiving is still being considered as a possible solution, but in the short term, the department is hoping to mitigate the situation by temporarily extending mailbox capacity to 1GB. While this has the potential to relieve the pressure on staff, we emphasise that doing this without an accompanying focus on improving the way staff use and work with email may simply defer the problem until inbox size limits are reached again.
The Department of Health has encountered a loss of digital continuity in relation to digital PCT and SHA records, the metadata of which has been found to show the date of saving or scanning rather than the date of creation. However, we note that a more active approach is now in place for the mitigation of digital continuity risk. A project has been set up to consider the future of the bespoke and customised MEDS system. A key driver for this is the need to decommission the Lotus Notes based infrastructure before the move to a new IT contract in 2018. A number of potential solutions have been identified in discussions with the department’s current supplier.
The Department of Health has now used The National Archives’ free file profiling tool, Digital Record Object IDentification (DROID), which it has run on sample collections. One member of staff in the records management team has also now been given access to all of the department’s shared drives. In a recent exercise to analyse content, records were found dating back to 1989. Under the 20 year rule, any such information with historic value selected for permanent preservation would be due for transfer in 2016.
3 Information risk, governance and oversight
| Performance rating | IMA 2014 | Review 2016 | |--------------------|----------|-------------| | Recognising information risk | Development area | Development area | | Establishing control | Satisfactory | Satisfactory | |----------------------|--------------|--------------| | Providing guidance | Development area | Progressing to satisfactory | | Measuring impact | Good practice | Progress not maintained |
**Situation at the time of the IMA**
Despite some positive work around information risk, the department had not yet fully defined the potential impact of poor performance in information and records management. Its overall approach to information risk prioritised information security with a focus on the potential loss of personal data. It also prioritised risks within Arm’s Length Bodies.
We recommended that the department should formally articulate the risk at all levels of a failure to capture or keep the information it needs, in line with its value. We emphasised that the Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO) should be sighted on this risk and that the department needed to know in what ways, and how successfully, it was being mitigated. To help support this, we recommended that the relationship between the SIRO and the DRO should be defined.
To help deliver better governance, the Department of Health needed to review current provision of information-focused boards. This was needed to help support long-term planning and increase oversight at an operational level.
The well-established network of LFMs was playing a key role in ensuring the effective operation of IWS. We recommended that the draft LFM performance objective should be made mandatory and built into the performance evaluation framework. The means by which LFMs supported IAOs needed to be clarified.
No mandate was provided on the use of IWS and there was no clear policy line on the purpose of the shared drives. We identified a gap in terms of provision of guidance to staff to help them understand in practice what information has value and how it needs to be managed as a consequence. Promotion of the principles of good information management needed to be a key component of the department’s new information strategy.
An internal programme of assessments provided a helpful means of measuring compliance with information management policy and of encouraging good practice. We recommended that results were more widely publicised so that directors, in their capacity as IAOs, could see how their teams were performing. There was no link to separate information risk assessments and the scope needed to be expanded to cover the use of shared drives with greater focus on the practical application of ‘What to Keep’ principles.
The department’s guidance on information risk makes no reference to the role of the DRO or to the information management team. The relationship between the DRO and SIRO has still not been formally defined. Risks relating to the management of information have still not been fully defined. As a consequence, the department continues to lack understanding of the level of risk that information management culture, legacy holdings and current IT environment exposes it to.
The formation of the Knowledge Management Information Governance board offers significant potential benefit to the department. However, we note that it currently has no data, digital or technology representation.
Since the IMA, the LFM objective has been published and promoted. The LFM network continues to be supported by the central information management team. The department has also published its retention and destruction policy on Gov.UK in line with recommendations made in Sir Alex Allan’s 2014 Records Review report. Knowledge capture guidance has also been
______________________________________________________________________
2 [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/records-review-by-sir-alex-allan](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/records-review-by-sir-alex-allan) reviewed and refreshed along with guidance on naming and labelling records. A ‘what to keep’ flowchart has been produced which goes some way towards addressing our concerns about the lack of guidance to help staff understand the value of information. A revised top-line endorsement from the previous permanent secretary has been reissued under the Director of Workplace and Transformation. It now explicitly states that information management is integral to DH 2020. Information policy remains centred on the five key principles and now states ‘what to do’ and ‘how to do it’ for each of these.
However, while policy and guidance provision has been improved in a number of areas, we are concerned to note that the Department of Health continues to provide no meaningful steer or enforceable mandate on the use of shared drives. This must be addressed as a priority.
The Department of Health’s internal programme of assessments on information management has been suspended due to departmental restructuring. We were given verbal assurance that the programme will be restarted in April 2017 and that the possibility of aligning this and the risk assessment process has been discussed. There has reportedly been agreement that the results of assessments can be published in the future.
We were told that assessments are still being offered if business areas ask for them; two have been conducted since the programme was put on hold. We have seen no evidence that any wider reporting on information management performance to teams or senior management is taking place.
4 Records, review and transfer
| Performance rating | IMA 2014 | Review 2016 | |--------------------|----------|-------------| | Oversight of records and selection | Satisfactory | Progress not maintained | Implementing disposal decisions
| Satisfactory | Satisfactory | |--------------|--------------|
**Situation at the time of the IMA**
The Department of Health had a good track record in the appraisal, preparation and transfer of paper records. Although not due to transfer digital records until 2020, it needed to develop a plan and approach for the appraisal, selection and sensitivity review of digital information.
In addition to the 19 million digital records inherited from PCTs and SHAs, the Department of Health had also inherited almost 475,000 boxes of paper records. These were managed alongside the department’s own records under the NHS Code of Practice and were thought unlikely to be transferred to The National Archives. However, they still needed to be factored into the department’s plans for records in all formats in view of their potential impact on its continued ability to meet the transition timeline for the 20-Year Rule.
Records were being disposed of from MEDS but disposal was not enabled within the shared drives or shared resources area of IWS. The Department of Health needed to enable disposal within IWS and define how it would be applied to information within its shared drives.
The Penrose Evidence Inquiry records were one of The National Archives’ first business as usual digital transfers, and the first involving redacted records. Although these were not born-digital records, the central information management team told us that it has gained useful experience in developing a process of appraisal, selection, sensitivity review and transfer for digital records.
There is recognition that existing manual processes of appraisal will not work in a digital context and we were told that the DRO is seeking to upskill the review team accordingly. Retention periods have now been identified and applied to IWS and closure dates will act as the trigger point for disposal. These have still not been activated, partly due to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) and partly due to a lack of confidence that staff are saving information in the right place within IWS. While progress has been made in understanding the age of information, the department still lacks understanding of their value or the amount of time they need to be retained for.
The Retention and destruction policy still states that the records management team has no responsibility in relation to the disposal of information assets and for disposal within shared drives. This does not reflect the fact that:
- all information created in government is managed through the provisions of the Public Records Act and related legislation
- the DRO leads on departmental compliance with the Public Records Act
While disposal may be conducted by teams or members of staff, the DRO assumes overall responsibility and must ensure that appropriate measures are in place.
The Department of Health has engaged with the Archive Sector Development department at The National Archives on the potential impact of the 20-year rule on material inherited from PCTs and SHAs. Some paper legacy has already been sent to local archives, although plans for the remainder are as yet unclear.
The Department of Health identified an backlog of 6338 pre 1988 records in the autumn 2016 RTR that were still to be reviewed. These have now been placed under a retention instrument in order to be compliant with the Public Records Act. The department states that it intends to discuss how best to
______________________________________________________________________
3 [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/planning/departmental-record-officer/role-departmental-record-officer/](http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/planning/departmental-record-officer/)
12 review legacy digital records held in MEDS with its Information Management Consultant. It also plans to identify how best to weed out low value material in order to make sensitivity review easier. Next Steps
The National Archives will continue to work closely with the Department of Health so that it is supported as it continues its work on information and records management. A plan needs to be established to take forward the following points relating to key recommendations and risks that have not yet been addressed.
Priority issues:
- To support and enable DH2020 and the DH Way, and the forthcoming expected move to SharePoint online, establish an information management strategy that sets goals for current and legacy information in all locations.
- As originally recommended this should provide direction for improvements to information and records management culture. The Welsh Government’s work in improving records management and email handling is a good practice model.
- Establish a plan for information held in the shared drives, including migration of information, disposal of information and decommissioning of the drives. The importance of doing so is underlined by the age of the information and its vulnerability to accidental or unauthorised alteration, copying, movement or deletion
- As a first step, it must define for staff the purpose of the shared drives and provide an enforceable mandate on their use.
- Define and communicate the risk of not capturing or keeping information in accordance with its value so that it can be addressed at all levels of the department – the role of the DRO must be established within governance arrangements
- Devise a plan and approach for the appraisal, selection and sensitivity review of digital information.
- It must ensure that adequate plans are in place that balance the demands of appraisal and sensitivity review work with other pressures. The DRO’s responsibilities should be extended to encompass the shared drives and disposal of information assets.
- Review how information assets are defined and logged, and how owners are allocated.
- It should also ensure that the definition of an information asset is consistently applied in practice and established consistently in linked documentation
- Engage with The National Archives train the trainer programme for IAOs
The Department of Health must also:
- Ensure data, digital and technology representation on the Knowledge Management Information Governance board to enable joined up planning
- Formally establish how compliance with policy will be monitored and ensure that monitoring extends to management of digital information in all locations and application of what to keep schedules as recommended in our original 2014 report.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2171-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 16,
"total-input-tokens": 28888,
"total-output-tokens": 5070,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
197,
1
],
[
197,
197,
2
],
[
197,
1652,
3
],
[
1652,
3548,
4
],
[
3548,
5677,
5
],
[
5677,
7474,
6
],
[
7474,
9484,
7
],
[
9484,
11430,
8
],
[
11430,
13140,
9
],
[
13140,
15204,
10
],
[
15204,
16981,
11
],
[
16981,
18770,
12
],
[
18770,
20754,
13
],
[
20754,
20951,
14
],
[
20951,
22673,
15
],
[
22673,
23524,
16
]
]
} |
7d2c5ea32a061ef55a727ddbc3e9b3ca12adda13 | Autumn 2012 survey report for:
ORR
Returns: 223 Response rate: 78%
Your engagement index
52%
| Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------| | -1 | -6 | -11 |
The three elements of engagement and their component questions are:
Say: speaks positively of the organisation...
B50. I am proud when I tell others I am part of ORR
% Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------| | 43% | +2 | -10 | |
B51. I would recommend ORR as a great place to work
% Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------| | 37% | -4 | -9 | |
Stay: emotionally attached and committed to the organisation...
B52. I feel a strong personal attachment to ORR
% Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------| | 34% | -3 | -10 | |
Strive: motivated to do the best for the organisation...
B53. ORR inspires me to do the best in my job
% Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------| | 36% | -1 | -5 | |
B54. ORR motivates me to help it achieve its objectives
% Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------| | 34% | -1 | -4 | |
Drivers of engagement
Employee engagement is shaped by experiences at work, as measured by nine themes in the survey. The table below shows how you performed on each of these themes, ranked by the strength of association with engagement. The themes which have the strongest association with engagement should be the focus for action. See the appendix for further details.
| Theme score % positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------| | Leadership and managing change | 35% | -1 | -6 | -15 | | My work | 78% | +1 | +6 | +2 | | Resources and workload | 73% | 0 | -1 | -4 | | Pay and benefits | 40% | -6 | +10 | +5 | | My line manager | 67% | 0 | +1 | -2 | | Learning and development | 47% | -1 | +3 | -5 | | Organisational objectives and purpose | 71% | -2 | -11 | -16 | | My team | 83% | +2 | +5 | +2 | | Inclusion and fair treatment | 74% | +4 | -1 | -3 |
= Statistically significant difference from comparison
## Top three key driver themes in more detail
The three themes which have the strongest association with engagement are shown below. Questions are ranked by difference from CS2012.
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
◊ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
| Leadership and managing change | Strength of association with engagement: | |--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------| | B48. I have the opportunity to contribute my views before decisions are made that affect me | 41% | -2 | +5 ◊ | | B44. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by ORR's Directors and deputies | 38% | +2 | -1 | | B41. Directors and deputies in ORR are sufficiently visible | 46% | -8 ◊ | -2 | | B49. I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in ORR | 38% | +4 ◊ | -2 | | B46. When changes are made in ORR they are usually for the better | 21% | -4 ◊ | -4 ◊ | | B47. ORR keeps me informed about matters that affect me | 52% | -7 ◊ | -5 ◊ | | B42. I believe the actions of Directors and deputies are consistent with ORR's values | 36% | +1 | -6 ◊ | | B43. I believe that the Board has a clear vision for the future of ORR | 30% | +6 ◊ | -9 ◊ | | B45. I feel that change is managed well in ORR | 16% | -4 ◊ | -13 ◊ | | B40. I feel that ORR as a whole is managed well | 29% | 0 | -14 ◊ |
| My work | Strength of association with engagement: | |---------|-----------------------------------------| | B05. I have a choice in deciding how I do my work | 85% | +4 ◊ | +13 ◊ | | B04. I feel involved in the decisions that affect my work | 59% | -1 | +6 ◊ | | B02. I am sufficiently challenged by my work | 82% | +1 | +6 ◊ | | B03. My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment | 77% | 0 | +4 ◊ | | B01. I am interested in my work | 90% | +1 | 0 |
| Resources and workload | Strength of association with engagement: | |------------------------|-----------------------------------------| | B33. I have the skills I need to do my job effectively | 93% | +3 ◊ | +4 ◊ | | B30. In my job, I am clear what is expected of me | 86% | +5 ◊ | +2 ◊ | | B35. I have an acceptable workload | 62% | -1 | +2 | | B36. I achieve a good balance between my work life and my private life | 67% | 0 | -1 | | B34. I have the tools I need to do my job effectively | 68% | +1 | -3 ◊ | | B31. I get the information I need to do my job well | 64% | +5 ◊ | -4 ◊ | | B32. I have clear work objectives | 68% | -10 ◊ | -7 ◊ |
### My work
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B01. I am interested in my work | 44 | 46 | 6 | 4 | | 90% | +1 | 0 | -2 | | B02. I am sufficiently challenged by my work | 37 | 45 | 8 | 8 | | 82% | +1 | +6 | +2 | | B03. My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment | 32 | 45 | 11 | 9 | | 77% | 0 | +4 | -1 | | B04. I feel involved in the decisions that affect my work | 14 | 45 | 19 | 18 | 5 | 59% | -1 | +6 | -1 | | B05. I have a choice in deciding how I do my work | 27 | 58 | 7 | 6 | | 85% | +4 | +13 | +8 |
### Organisational objectives and purpose
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B06. I have a clear understanding of ORR's purpose | 24 | 52 | 13 | 8 | | 76% | -4 | -8 | -14 | | B07. I have a clear understanding of ORR's objectives | 16 | 50 | 19 | 12 | 4 | 66% | 0 | -13 | -19 | | B08. I understand how my work contributes to ORR's objectives | 19 | 53 | 18 | 7 | | 72% | -2 | -9 | -14 |
### All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.
- ^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
- ◊ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
| My line manager | :Strength of association with engagement | |-----------------|------------------------------------------| | B09. My manager motivates me to be more effective in my job |  | | B10. My manager is considerate of my life outside work |  | | B11. My manager is open to my ideas |  | | B12. My manager helps me to understand how I contribute to ORR's objectives |  | | B13. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by my manager |  | | B14. My manager recognises when I have done my job well |  | | B15. I receive regular feedback on my performance |  | | B16. The feedback I receive helps me to improve my performance |  | | B17. I think that my performance is evaluated fairly |  | | B18. Poor performance is dealt with effectively in my team |  |
| My team | :Strength of association with engagement | |---------|------------------------------------------| | B19. The people in my team can be relied upon to help when things get difficult in my job |  | | B20. The people in my team work together to find ways to improve the service we provide |  | | B21. The people in my team are encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things |  |
### Learning and development
**B22. I am able to access the right learning and development opportunities when I need to**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 12 | 49 | 26 | 11 | | 61% | -1 | +3 | -4 |
**B23. Learning and development activities I have completed in the past 12 months have helped to improve my performance**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 10 | 46 | 31 | 11 | | 56% | -5 | +10 | +4 |
**B24. There are opportunities for me to develop my career in ORR**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 6 | 26 | 30 | 24 | 14 | 32% | +1 | -4 | -11 |
**B25. Learning and development activities I have completed while working for ORR are helping me to develop my career**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 7 | 33 | 38 | 16 | 6 | 40% | -1 | +1 | -6 |
### Inclusion and fair treatment
**B26. I am treated fairly at work**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 24 | 55 | 13 | 6 | | 78% | +7 | 0 | -3 |
**B27. I am treated with respect by the people I work with**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 28 | 60 | 8 | | | 88% | +2 | +4 | +2 |
**B28. I feel valued for the work I do**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 15 | 49 | 22 | 8 | 6 | 64% | -2 | +2 | -3 |
**B29. I think that ORR respects individual differences (e.g. cultures, working styles, backgrounds, ideas, etc)**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 16 | 50 | 21 | 9 | 5 | 65% | +9 | -6 | -13 |
## All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.
- ^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
- ◊ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
### Resources and workload
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B30. In my job, I am clear what is expected of me | 19 | 67 | 8 | 4 | | 86% | +5 ◊ | +2 ◊ | -1 ◊ | | B31. I get the information I need to do my job well | 10 | 54 | 20 | 12 | | 64% | +5 ◊ | -4 ◊ | -8 ◊ | | B32. I have clear work objectives | 13 | 55 | 20 | 10 | | 68% | -10 ◊ | -7 ◊ | -11 ◊ | | B33. I have the skills I need to do my job effectively | 32 | 61 | 5 | | | 93% | +3 ◊ | +4 ◊ | +2 ◊ | | B34. I have the tools I need to do my job effectively | 17 | 52 | 20 | 10 | | 68% | +1 ◊ | -3 ◊ | -7 ◊ | | B35. I have an acceptable workload | 9 | 53 | 16 | 17 | 5 | 62% | -1 ◊ | +2 ◊ | -4 ◊ | | B36. I achieve a good balance between my work life and my private life | 13 | 54 | 18 | 12 | | 67% | 0 | -1 ◊ | -6 ◊ |
### Pay and benefits
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B37. I feel that my pay adequately reflects my performance | 41 | 26 | 20 | 11 | | 44% | -3 ◊ | +13 ◊ | +7 ◊ | | B38. I am satisfied with the total benefits package | 35 | 27 | 26 | 9 | | 38% | -10 ◊ | +5 ◊ | -1 ◊ | | B39. Compared to people doing a similar job in other organisations I feel my pay is reasonable | 5 | 35 | 29 | 19 | 13 | 39% | -5 ◊ | +14 ◊ | +7 ◊ |
### Leadership and managing change
#### Strength of association with engagement
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B40. I feel that ORR as a whole is managed well | 4 | 25 | 30 | 30 | 10 | 29% | 0 | -14 | -28 | | B41. Directors and deputies in ORR are sufficiently visible | 6 | 41 | 27 | 22 | 5 | 46% | -8 | -2 | -14 | | B42. I believe the actions of Directors and deputies are consistent with ORR's values | 5 | 31 | 40 | 17 | 7 | 36% | +1 | -6 | -18 | | B43. I believe that the Board has a clear vision for the future of ORR | 28 | 36 | 22 | 12 | | 30% | +6 | -9 | -21 | | B44. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by ORR's Directors and deputies | 5 | 33 | 36 | 19 | 6 | 38% | +2 | -1 | -13 | | B45. I feel that change is managed well in ORR | 15 | 36 | 33 | 14 | | 16% | -4 | -13 | -23 | | B46. When changes are made in ORR they are usually for the better | 19 | 42 | 29 | 8 | | 21% | -4 | -4 | -15 | | B47. ORR keeps me informed about matters that affect me | 4 | 48 | 28 | 15 | 6 | 52% | -7 | -5 | -12 | | B48. I have the opportunity to contribute my views before decisions are made that affect me | 4 | 38 | 31 | 21 | 8 | 41% | -2 | +5 | -1 | | B49. I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in ORR | 4 | 35 | 26 | 24 | 11 | 38% | +4 | -2 | -8 |
## All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.
- ^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
- ◊ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
| Engagement | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B50. I am proud when I tell others I am part of ORR | 43% | +2 | -10 ◊ | -21 ◊ | | B51. I would recommend ORR as a great place to work | 37% | -4 | -9 ◊ | -21 ◊ | | B52. I feel a strong personal attachment to ORR | 34% | -3 | -10 ◊ | -18 ◊ | | B53. ORR inspires me to do the best in my job | 36% | -1 | -5 ◊ | -14 ◊ | | B54. ORR motivates me to help it achieve its objectives | 34% | -1 | -4 ◊ | -13 ◊ |
| Taking action | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B55. I believe that Directors and deputies in ORR will take action on the | 51% | +6 | +8 ◊ | -3 | | results from this survey | | | | | | B56. I believe that managers where I work will take action on the results | 59% | 0 | +7 ◊ | -1 | | from this survey | | | | | | B57. Where I work, I think effective action has been taken on the results | 26% | -8 | -5 ◊ | -13 ◊ | | of the last survey | | | | |
### Your plans for the future
C01. Which of the following statements most reflects your current thoughts about working for ORR?
| Statement | % Yes | % No | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |------------------------------------------------|-------|------|----------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | I want to leave ORR as soon as possible | 10% | | 0 | +2 | 0 | | I want to leave ORR within the next 12 months | 17% | | -1 | +5 | 0 | | I want to stay working for ORR for at least the next year | 43% | | +5 | +14 | +9 | | I want to stay working for ORR for at least the next three years | 31% | | -4 | -21 | -29 |
### The Civil Service Code
Differences are based on '% Yes' score
| Question | % Yes | % No | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2012 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|------|----------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | D01. Are you aware of the Civil Service Code? | 88% | 12% | -2 | 0 | -5 | | D02. Are you aware of how to raise a concern under the Civil Service Code? | 67% | 33% | +5 | +4 | -3 | | D03. Are you confident that if you raised a concern under the Civil Service Code in ORR it would be investigated properly? | 66% | 34% | +7 | -1 | -5 |
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
♦ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
### Discrimination, harassment and bullying
**E01. During the past 12 months, have you personally experienced discrimination at work?**
| Year | Yes | No | Prefer not to say | |--------|-----|----|-------------------| | 2012 | 9% | 81%| 9% | | 2011 | 13% | 80%| 7% | | CS2012 | 10% | 81%| 9% |
**E03. During the past 12 months, have you personally experienced bullying or harassment at work?**
| Year | Yes | No | Prefer not to say | |--------|-----|----|-------------------| | 2012 | 10% | 80%| 9% | | 2011 | 12% | 82%| 5% | | CS2012 | 10% | 83%| 7% |
For respondents who selected 'Yes' to question E01.
**E02. On which of the following grounds have you personally experienced discrimination in the past 12 months? (multiple selection)**
| Ground | Response count | |---------------------------------------------|----------------| | Age | -- | | Caring responsibilities | -- | | Disability | -- | | Ethnic background | -- | | Gender | -- | | Gender reassignment or perceived gender | -- | | Grade, pay band or responsibility level | 10 | | Main spoken/written language or language ability | -- | | Religion or belief | -- | | Sexual orientation | -- | | Social or educational background | -- | | Working location | -- | | Working pattern | -- | | Any other grounds | -- | | Prefer not to say | -- |
*Please note: Counts of fewer than ten responses are suppressed and replaced with '--'.*
For respondents who selected 'Yes' to question E03.
**E04. Who were you bullied or harassed by at work in the past 12 months? (multiple selection)**
| Person | Response count | |---------------------------------------------|----------------| | A colleague | -- | | Your manager | -- | | Another manager in my part of ORR | -- | | Someone you manage | -- | | Someone who works for another part of ORR | -- | | A member of the public | -- | | Someone else | -- | | Prefer not to say | -- |
*Please note: Counts of fewer than ten responses are suppressed and replaced with '--'.* Appendix
Glossary of key terms
| Term | Definition | |-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | % positive | The proportion who selected either "agree" or "strongly agree" for a question (or all questions within a theme in the case of Theme score % positive). | | Previous survey | Comparisons to the previous survey relate to the results from the 2011 Civil Service People Survey. Where a question is flagged as changed since the last survey comparisons should be treated with caution as changes to wording may affect how people respond to the question. | | CS2012 | The CS2012 benchmark is the median percent positive across all organisations that participated in the 2012 Civil Service People Survey. | | CS High Performers | For each question, this is the upper quartile score across all organisations that have taken part in the 2012 Civil Service People Survey. |
Rounding
Results are presented as whole numbers for ease of reading, with rounding performed at the last stage of calculation for maximum accuracy.
Statistical significance: 🌟
Statistical testing has been carried out on the comparisons between this year’s results and your previous survey, CS2012 results and CS High Performers results to identify differences that are statistically significant. You can therefore be confident that the difference represents a real difference in opinion between the results.
The employee engagement index
The survey includes five questions that make up the engagement index (B50-B54). The index score represents the average level of engagement in that unit and ranges from 0 to 100. An index score of 0 represents all respondents in that unit saying they strongly disagree to all five engagement questions and a score of 100 represents all respondents saying they strongly agree to all five engagement questions.
The drivers of engagement
While the engagement index shows the average level of engagement, it does not show what you can do to improve engagement. Nine themes have been included in the survey to measure employees' experiences at work. A statistical technique, stepwise regression, is used to identify the extent to which each of these themes has an association with engagement. The themes identified as having an association are called the 'Drivers of engagement'. The strength of association with engagement varies by theme and is illustrated by a 4-bar icon, as show below. Themes with a full 4-bar icon have the strongest association with engagement.
Confidentiality
This survey was carried out as part of the 2012 Civil Service People Survey, which is managed by the Cabinet Office on behalf of all the participating organisations. The Cabinet Office commissioned ORC International to carry out the survey. ORC International is a member of the Market Research Society, and is bound by their strict code of conduct and confidentiality rules. These rules do not allow for the breakdown of the results to the extent where the anonymity of individuals may be compromised. Groups of less than 10 respondents will not be reported on, however their responses do contribute to the overall scores for the unit and organisation they belong to and the overall Civil Service results.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2029-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 11,
"total-input-tokens": 34068,
"total-output-tokens": 7937,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3624,
1
],
[
3624,
6116,
2
],
[
6116,
9184,
3
],
[
9184,
10915,
4
],
[
10915,
15867,
5
],
[
15867,
19695,
6
],
[
19695,
22822,
7
],
[
22822,
25861,
8
],
[
25861,
28189,
9
],
[
28189,
31126,
10
],
[
31126,
34652,
11
]
]
} |
f129b7eedf3db4a5dd034e8dc32df6eb34223982 | Autumn 2013 survey report for:
ORR
Returns: 239\
Response rate: 84%
Your engagement index
56%
| Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------| | +4 ◇ | -2 ◇ | -6 ◇ |
The three elements of engagement and their component questions are:
Say: speaks positively of the organisation...
B50. I am proud when I tell others I am part of ORR\
47%\
+3\
-9 ◇
B51. I would recommend ORR as a great place to work\
45%\
+8 ◇\
0
Stay: emotionally attached and committed to the organisation...
B52. I feel a strong personal attachment to ORR\
36%\
+2\
-9 ◇
Strive: motivated to do the best for the organisation...
B53. ORR inspires me to do the best in my job\
36%\
+1\
-7 ◇
B54. ORR motivates me to help it achieve its objectives\
36%\
+2\
-4 ◇
See the appendix for further details
Drivers of engagement
Employee engagement is shaped by experiences at work, as measured by nine themes in the survey. The table below shows how you performed on each of these themes, ranked by the strength of association with engagement. The themes which have the strongest association with engagement should be the focus for action. See the appendix for further details.
| Strength of association with engagement | Theme score % positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------------------------------|------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------| | Leadership and managing change | 44% | +9 ◇ | +2 | -7 ◇ | | Learning and development | 48% | 0 | 0 | -7 ◇ | | My manager | 69% | +2 | +3 ◇ | 0 | | My work | 84% | +5 ◇ | +10 ◇ | +6 ◇ | | Pay and benefits | 34% | -6 ◇ | +5 ◇ | 0 | | Resources and workload | 77% | +5 ◇ | +4 ◇ | 0 | | Organisational objectives and purpose | 81% | +10 ◇ | -1 | -6 ◇ | | My team | 81% | -2 | +2 ◇ | 0 | | Inclusion and fair treatment | 77% | +3 | +2 ◇ | -1 |
◇ = Statistically significant difference from comparison
The results for the engagement questions are shown in detail on page 8
## Top three key driver themes in more detail
The three themes which have the strongest association with engagement are shown below. Questions are ranked by difference from CS2013.
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
♦ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
| Leadership and managing change | Strength of association with engagement: | |--------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | **B49.** I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in ORR | 48% | +10 ♦ | +10 ♦ | | **B48.** I have the opportunity to contribute my views before decisions are made that affect me | 45% | +4 ♦ | +9 ♦ | | **B47.** ORR keeps me informed about matters that affect me | 66% | +14 ♦ | +8 ♦ | | **B44.** Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by ORR's Directors and deputies | 45% | +7 ♦ | +5 ♦ | | **B46.** When changes are made in ORR they are usually for the better | 29% | +8 ♦ | +2 | | **B40.** I feel that ORR as a whole is managed well | 45% | +16 ♦ | +2 | | **B42.** I believe the actions of Directors and deputies are consistent with ORR's values | 44% | +8 ♦ | +1 | | **B45.** I feel that change is managed well in ORR | 29% | +12 ♦ | 0 | | **B41.** Directors and deputies in ORR are sufficiently visible | 50% | +4 | -1 | | **B43.** I believe that the Board has a clear vision for the future of ORR | 39% | +9 ♦ | -3 ♦ |
| Learning and development | Strength of association with engagement: | |--------------------------|----------------------------------------| | **B23.** Learning and development activities I have completed in the past 12 months have helped to improve my performance | 54% | -2 | +6 ♦ | | **B22.** I am able to access the right learning and development opportunities when I need to | 63% | +2 | +2 | | **B25.** Learning and development activities I have completed while working for ORR are helping me to develop my career | 43% | +3 | +1 | | **B24.** There are opportunities for me to develop my career in ORR | 32% | 0 | -6 ♦ |
| My manager | Strength of association with engagement: | |------------|----------------------------------------| | **B13.** Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by my manager | 79% | +6 ♦ | +8 ♦ | | **B11.** My manager is open to my ideas | 86% | +2 | +7 ♦ | | **B09.** My manager motivates me to be more effective in my job | 72% | +6 ♦ | +6 ♦ | | **B10.** My manager is considerate of my life outside work | 85% | -1 | +5 ♦ | | **B15.** I receive regular feedback on my performance | 68% | +2 | +4 ♦ | | **B18.** Poor performance is dealt with effectively in my team | 40% | +3 | +2 | | **B14.** My manager recognises when I have done my job well | 79% | -1 | +2 | | **B16.** The feedback I receive helps me to improve my performance | 61% | +3 | +2 | | **B12.** My manager helps me to understand how I contribute to ORR's objectives | 63% | +3 | +1 | | **B17.** I think that my performance is evaluated fairly | 60% | +3 | -3 ♦ |
## All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.
- ^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
- ◊ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
### My work
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B01. I am interested in my work | 44 | 51 | 4 | | | 95% | +5 ◊ | +5 | +3 ◊ | | B02. I am sufficiently challenged by my work | 34 | 51 | 8 | 6 | | 86% | +4 ◊ | +8 | +4 ◊ | | B03. My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment | 31 | 51 | 13 | 4 | | 82% | +5 ◊ | +7 | +3 ◊ | | B04. I feel involved in the decisions that affect my work | 18 | 53 | 16 | 11 | | 71% | +12 ◊ | +17 | +10 ◊ | | B05. I have a choice in deciding how I do my work | 33 | 53 | 10 | | | 87% | +2 ◊ | +14 | +10 ◊ |
### Organisational objectives and purpose
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B06. I have a clear understanding of ORR's purpose | 26 | 60 | 10 | | | 86% | +10 ◊ | +1 | -3 ◊ | | B07. I have a clear understanding of ORR's objectives | 20 | 58 | 17 | 5 | | 77% | +11 ◊ | -3 | -8 ◊ | | B08. I understand how my work contributes to ORR's objectives | 20 | 60 | 17 | | | 80% | +8 ◊ | -3 | -7 ◊ |
### All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.\
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey\
▽ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
| My manager | Strength of association with engagement | |------------|----------------------------------------| | B09. My manager motivates me to be more effective in my job |  | | B10. My manager is considerate of my life outside work |  | | B11. My manager is open to my ideas |  | | B12. My manager helps me to understand how I contribute to ORR's objectives |  | | B13. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by my manager |  | | B14. My manager recognises when I have done my job well |  | | B15. I receive regular feedback on my performance |  | | B16. The feedback I receive helps me to improve my performance |  | | B17. I think that my performance is evaluated fairly |  | | B18. Poor performance is dealt with effectively in my team |  |
| My team | Strength of association with engagement | |---------|----------------------------------------| | B19. The people in my team can be relied upon to help when things get difficult in my job |  | | B20. The people in my team work together to find ways to improve the service we provide |  | | B21. The people in my team are encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things |  |
### Learning and development
**B22. I am able to access the right learning and development opportunities when I need to**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 12 | 50 | 24 | 10 | 4 | 63% | +2 | +2 | -2 |
**B23. Learning and development activities I have completed in the past 12 months have helped to improve my performance**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 12 | 42 | 35 | 8 | | 54% | -2 | +6 | 0 |
**B24. There are opportunities for me to develop my career in ORR**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 6 | 26 | 30 | 27 | 11 | 32% | 0 | -6 | -16 |
**B25. Learning and development activities I have completed while working for ORR are helping me to develop my career**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 9 | 34 | 38 | 13 | 6 | 43% | +3 | +1 | -6 |
### Inclusion and fair treatment
**B26. I am treated fairly at work**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 29 | 49 | 13 | 5 | | 79% | 0 | 0 | -3 |
**B27. I am treated with respect by the people I work with**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 34 | 54 | 8 | 4 | | 88% | 0 | +4 | +2 |
**B28. I feel valued for the work I do**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 22 | 47 | 19 | 8 | 4 | 69% | +5 | +6 | +2 |
**B29. I think that ORR respects individual differences (e.g. cultures, working styles, backgrounds, ideas, etc)**
| Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------| | 24 | 47 | 22 | 5 | | 71% | +6 | -1 | -7 |
## All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.\
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey\
▽ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
### Resources and workload
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B30. In my job, I am clear what is expected of me | 23 | 64 | 10 | | | 87% | 0 | +3 | 0 | | B31. I get the information I need to do my job well | 15 | 59 | 17 | 8 | | 74% | +10 | +5 | +1 | | B32. I have clear work objectives | 18 | 63 | 10 | 7 | | 82% | +13 | +6 | +2 | | B33. I have the skills I need to do my job effectively | 31 | 59 | 9 | | | 90% | -2 | +2 | 0 | | B34. I have the tools I need to do my job effectively | 20 | 56 | 15 | 8 | | 77% | +8 | +5 | +1 | | B35. I have an acceptable workload | 12 | 50 | 14 | 19 | 5 | 62% | 0 | +2 | -4 | | B36. I achieve a good balance between my work life and my private life | 16 | 53 | 15 | 11 | 5 | 70% | +3 | +2 | -3 |
### Pay and benefits
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B37. I feel that my pay adequately reflects my performance | 4 | 30 | 21 | 30 | 15 | 34% | -10 | +5 | -1 | | B38. I am satisfied with the total benefits package | 4 | 28 | 26 | 28 | 13 | 32% | -6 | 0 | -6 | | B39. Compared to people doing a similar job in other organisations I feel my pay is reasonable | 4 | 32 | 25 | 25 | 15 | 36% | -3 | +11 | +4 |
## Leadership and managing change
### Strength of association with engagement
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B40. I feel that ORR as a whole is managed well | 5 | 40 | 31 | 19 | 5 | 45% | +16 | +2 | -12 | | B41. Directors and deputies in ORR are sufficiently visible | 10 | 40 | 27 | 17 | 6 | 50% | +4 | -1 | -12 | | B42. I believe the actions of Directors and deputies are consistent with ORR's values | 7 | 37 | 35 | 13 | 7 | 44% | +8 | +1 | -11 | | B43. I believe that the Board has a clear vision for the future of ORR | 6 | 33 | 37 | 19 | 5 | 39% | +9 | -3 | -16 | | B44. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by ORR's Directors and deputies | 8 | 37 | 37 | 14 | 4 | 45% | +7 | +5 | -5 | | B45. I feel that change is managed well in ORR | 4 | 25 | 34 | 26 | 12 | 29% | +12 | 0 | -10 | | B46. When changes are made in ORR they are usually for the better | 6 | 23 | 43 | 23 | 6 | 29% | +8 | +2 | -6 | | B47. ORR keeps me informed about matters that affect me | 9 | 57 | 23 | 9 | | 66% | +14 | +8 | +1 | | B48. I have the opportunity to contribute my views before decisions are made that affect me | 6 | 39 | 28 | 22 | 5 | 45% | +4 | +9 | +1 | | B49. I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in ORR | 11 | 38 | 28 | 17 | 7 | 48% | +10 | +10 | 0 |
## All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.
- ^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
- ◊ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
| Engagement | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B50. I am proud when I tell others I am part of ORR | 47% | +3 | -9 ◊ | -18 ◊ | | B51. I would recommend ORR as a great place to work | 45% | +8 ◊ | 0 | -11 ◊ | | B52. I feel a strong personal attachment to ORR | 36% | +2 | -9 ◊ | -16 ◊ | | B53. ORR inspires me to do the best in my job | 36% | +1 | -7 ◊ | -14 ◊ | | B54. ORR motivates me to help it achieve its objectives | 36% | +2 | -4 ◊ | -12 ◊ |
| Taking action | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |---------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B55. I believe that Directors and deputies in ORR will take action on the results from this survey | 52% | +1 | +9 ◊ | 0 | | B56. I believe that managers where I work will take action on the results from this survey | 64% | +6 ◊ | +11 ◊ | +5 ◊ | | B57. Where I work, I think effective action has been taken on the results of the last survey | 36% | +9 ◊ | +3 ◊ | -4 ◊ |
## Organisational Culture
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B58. I am trusted to carry out my job effectively | 35 | 58 | 4 | | | 93% | +6 ◊ | +5 ◊ | +3 ◊ | | B59. I believe I would be supported if I try a new idea, even if it may not work | 22 | 56 | 18 | | | 78% | +8 ◊ | +10 ◊ | +7 ◊ | | B60. My performance is evaluated based on whether I get things done, rather than solely follow processes | 14 | 54 | 23 | 7 | | 68% | +7 ◊ | +4 ◊ | -1 ◊ | | B61. When I talk about ORR I say "we" rather than "they" | 22 | 53 | 19 | 4 | | 75% | +2 ◊ | +8 ◊ | -1 ◊ | | B62. I have some really good friendships at work | 22 | 43 | 25 | 8 | | 66% | +5 ◊ | -10 ◊ | -13 ◊ |
Please note these questions were not asked on paper surveys in 2012. This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
△ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
| % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | 0-4 | | | | | 5-6 | | | | | 7-8 | | | | | 9-10 | | | |
### Wellbeing
Unlike the questions B01-B62 which ask people to rate their agreement from strongly agree to strongly disagree, the four wellbeing questions use a 11-point scale. This scale ranges from 0 to 10 for each question, where 0 is equivalent to 'not at all' (e.g. 'not at all satisfied' or 'not at all worthwhile') and where 10 is equivalent to 'completely' (e.g. 'completely satisfied' or 'completely anxious').
For questions W01, W02 and W03 the percent positive is the proportion answering 7, 8, 9 or 10 to each question. For question W04 the percent positive is the proportion answering 0, 1, 2 or 3 to the question.
| Question | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | W01. Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays? | 10% | +7 △ | +7 △ | +4 △ | | W02. Overall, to what extent do you feel that the things you do in your life are worthwhile? | 8% | +7 △ | +7 △ | +3 △ | | W03. Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday? | 17% | +5 △ | +7 △ | +4 △ | | W04. Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday? | 27% | -2 | 0 | -3 △ |
### All questions by theme
#### Your plans for the future
**C01. Which of the following statements most reflects your current thoughts about working for ORR?**
| Statement | % Yes | % No | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |------------------------------------------------|-------|------|----------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | I want to leave ORR as soon as possible | 6% | 94% | -4 | -2 | -5 | | I want to leave ORR within the next 12 months | 21% | 79% | +4 | +8 | +4 | | I want to stay working for ORR for at least the next year | 42% | 58% | -1 | +11 | +7 | | I want to stay working for ORR for at least the next three years | 32% | 68% | +2 | -16 | -26 |
#### The Civil Service Code
Differences are based on '% Yes' score
| Question | % Yes | % No | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2013 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|------|----------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | D01. Are you aware of the Civil Service Code? | 91% | 9% | +3 | +1 | -3 | | D02. Are you aware of how to raise a concern under the Civil Service Code? | 64% | 36% | -2 | 0 | -5 | | D03. Are you confident that if you raised a concern under the Civil Service Code in ORR it would be investigated properly? | 67% | 33% | +1 | 0 | -5 |
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
♦ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
### Discrimination, harassment and bullying
#### E01. During the past 12 months, have you personally experienced discrimination at work?
| Year | Yes | No | Prefer not to say | |--------|-----|----|-------------------| | 2013 | 9 | 83 | 8 | | 2012 | 9 | 81 | 9 | | CS2013 | 10 | 81 | 8 |
#### E03. During the past 12 months, have you personally experienced bullying or harassment at work?
| Year | Yes | No | Prefer not to say | |--------|-----|----|-------------------| | 2013 | 6 | 89 | 5 | | 2012 | 10 | 80 | 9 | | CS2013 | 10 | 83 | 7 |
For respondents who selected 'Yes' to question E01.
#### E02. On which of the following grounds have you personally experienced discrimination in the past 12 months? (multiple selection)
| Ground | Response count | |---------------------------------------------|----------------| | Age | -- | | Caring responsibilities | -- | | Disability | -- | | Ethnic background | -- | | Gender | -- | | Gender reassignment or perceived gender | -- | | Grade, pay band or responsibility level | -- | | Main spoken/written language or language ability | -- | | Religion or belief | -- | | Sexual orientation | -- | | Social or educational background | -- | | Working location | -- | | Working pattern | -- | | Any other grounds | -- | | Prefer not to say | -- |
*Please note: Counts of fewer than ten responses are suppressed and replaced with '--'.*
For respondents who selected 'Yes' to question E03.
#### E04. Who were you bullied or harassed by at work in the past 12 months? (multiple selection)
| Person | Response count | |---------------------------------------------|----------------| | A colleague | -- | | Your manager | -- | | Another manager in my part of ORR | -- | | Someone you manage | -- | | Someone who works for another part of ORR | -- | | A member of the public | -- | | Someone else | -- | | Prefer not to say | -- |
*Please note: Counts of fewer than ten responses are suppressed and replaced with '--'.* Appendix
Glossary of key terms
| Term | Description | |-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | % positive | The proportion who selected either "agree" or "strongly agree" for a question (or all questions within a theme in the case of Theme score % positive). | | Previous survey | Comparisons to the previous survey relate to the results from the 2012 Civil Service People Survey. Where a question is flagged as changed since the last survey comparisons should be treated with caution as changes to wording may affect how people respond to the question. | | CS2013 | The CS2013 benchmark is the median percent positive across all organisations that participated in the 2013 Civil Service People Survey. | | CS High Performers | For each question, this is the upper quartile score across all organisations that have taken part in the 2013 Civil Service People Survey. |
Rounding
Results are presented as whole numbers for ease of reading, with rounding performed at the last stage of calculation for maximum accuracy.
Statistical significance: 🌟
Statistical testing has been carried out on the comparisons between this year’s results and your previous survey, CS2013 results and CS High Performers results to identify differences that are statistically significant. You can therefore be confident that the difference represents a real difference in opinion between the results.
The employee engagement index
The survey includes five questions that make up the engagement index (B50-B54). The index score represents the average level of engagement in that unit and ranges from 0 to 100. An index score of 0 represents all respondents in that unit saying they strongly disagree to all five engagement questions and a score of 100 represents all respondents saying they strongly agree to all five engagement questions.
The drivers of engagement
While the engagement index shows the average level of engagement, it does not show what you can do to improve engagement. Nine themes have been included in the survey to measure employees' experiences at work. A statistical technique, stepwise regression, is used to identify the extent to which each of these themes has an association with engagement. The themes identified as having an association are called the 'Drivers of engagement'. The strength of association with engagement varies by theme and is illustrated by a 4-bar icon, as show below. Themes with a full 4-bar icon have the strongest association with engagement.
Confidentiality
This survey was carried out as part of the 2013 Civil Service People Survey, which is managed by the Cabinet Office on behalf of all the participating organisations. The Cabinet Office commissioned ORC International to carry out the survey. ORC International is a member of the Market Research Society, and is bound by their strict code of conduct and confidentiality rules. These rules do not allow for the breakdown of the results to the extent where the anonymity of individuals may be compromised. Groups of less than 10 respondents will not be reported on, however their responses do contribute to the overall scores for the unit and organisation they belong to and the overall Civil Service results.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2030-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 13,
"total-input-tokens": 39493,
"total-output-tokens": 8937,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3304,
1
],
[
3304,
6306,
2
],
[
6306,
9616,
3
],
[
9616,
11213,
4
],
[
11213,
16166,
5
],
[
16166,
19995,
6
],
[
19995,
23121,
7
],
[
23121,
24639,
8
],
[
24639,
26536,
9
],
[
26536,
29172,
10
],
[
29172,
31534,
11
],
[
31534,
34475,
12
],
[
34475,
38005,
13
]
]
} |
0bb7c339e1421574842e691e70a1d976a9110579 | Employee engagement is shaped by experience at work, as measured by nine themes in the survey shown below.
| Engagement Index | My work | Organisational objectives and purpose | My manager | My team | |------------------|---------|--------------------------------------|------------|---------| | 61% | 87% | 88% | 73% | 86% | | Difference from previous survey | +4 | +3 | +4 | +5 | | Difference from CS2014 | +2 | +12 | +6 | +7 | | Difference from CS High Performers | -3 | +9 | 0 | +4 |
| Learning and development | Inclusion and fair treatment | Resources and workload | Pay and benefits | Leadership and Managing Change | |--------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------| | 57% | 79% | 79% | 28% | 52% | | Difference from previous survey | +10 | +3 | +2 | +8 | | Difference from CS2014 | +8 | +4 | +5 | +9 | | Difference from CS High Performers | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | The table below shows how you performed on each of the nine themes ranked by the strength of association with engagement. The themes which have the strongest association with engagement should be the focus for action. See the appendix for further details.
| Drivers of Engagement | Strength of association with engagement | Theme score % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |-----------------------|----------------------------------------|------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------| | Leadership and Managing Change | 52% | +8 △ | +9 △ | +2 | | My work | 87% | +3 △ | +12 △ | +9 △ | | My manager | 73% | +4 △ | +6 △ | +2 | | Learning and development | 57% | +10 △ | +8 △ | +2 | | Resources and workload | 79% | +2 | +5 △ | +2 | | Pay and benefits | 28% | -6 △ | 0 | -7 △ | | Organisational objectives and purpose | 88% | +6 △ | +4 △ | 0 | | My team | 86% | +5 △ | +7 △ | +4 △ | | Inclusion and fair treatment | 79% | +3 | +4 △ | +1 |
Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays? 73% Overall, to what extent do you feel that the things you do in your life are worthwhile? 77% Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday? 70% No or low anxiety yesterday 58%
During the past 12 months have you personally experienced discrimination at work? 6% During the past 12 months have you personally experienced bullying or harassment at work? 6%
Your plans for the future:
- I want to leave ORR as soon as possible: 6%
- I want to leave ORR within the next 12 months: 20%
- I want to stay working for ORR for at least the next year: 39%
- I want to stay working for ORR for at least the next three years: 35%
## All questions by theme
### My work
| Question | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B01 I am interested in my work | 96% | +2 | +7 | +4 | | B02 I am sufficiently challenged by my work | 87% | +1 | +8 | +4 | | B03 My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment | 87% | +5 | +12 | +9 | | B04 I feel involved in the decisions that affect my work | 74% | +3 | +17 | +12 | | B05 I have a choice in deciding how I do my work | 92% | +5 | +17 | +12 |
### Organisational objectives and purpose
| Question | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B06 I have a clear understanding of ORR's purpose | 88% | +2 | +2 | -3 | | B07 I have a clear understanding of ORR's objectives | 86% | +8 | +5 | 0 | | B08 I understand how my work contributes to ORR's objectives | 89% | +9 | +6 | +1 |
### My manager
| Question | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B09 My manager motivates me to be more effective in my job | 73% | +1 | +5 | +1 | | B10 My manager is considerate of my life outside work | 87% | +2 | +6 | +2 | | B11 My manager is open to my ideas | 90% | +4 | +10 | +2 | | B12 My manager helps me to understand how I contribute to ORR's objectives | 70% | +7 | +6 | +1 | | B13 Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by my manager | 79% | 0 | +6 | +2 | | B14 My manager recognises when I have done my job well | 86% | +7 | +8 | +5 | | B15 I receive regular feedback on my performance | 75% | +6 | +10 | +6 | | B16 The feedback I receive helps me to improve my performance | 66% | +5 | +5 | +1 | | B17 I think that my performance is evaluated fairly | 65% | +5 | +2 | -2 | | B18 Poor performance is dealt with effectively in my team | 43% | +2 | +4 | 0 |
### My team
| Question | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B19 The people in my team can be relied upon to help when things get difficult in my job | 90% | +4 | +6 | +3 | | B20 The people in my team work together to find ways to improve the service we provide | 87% | +5 | +6 | +3 | | B21 The people in my team are encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things | 83% | +6 | +9 | +5 |
## Learning and development
| Question | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B22 I am able to access the right learning and development opportunities when I need to | 69% | +7 | +7 | +2 | | B23 Learning and development activities I have completed in the past 12 months have helped to improve my performance | 65% | +11 | +14 | +8 | | B24 There are opportunities for me to develop my career in ORR | 42% | +11 | +1 | -7 | | B25 Learning and development activities I have completed while working for ORR are helping me to develop my career | 52% | +10 | +9 | +3 |
## Inclusion and fair treatment
| Question | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B26 I am treated fairly at work | 79% | +1 | 0 | -3 | | B27 I am treated with respect by the people I work with | 91% | +3 | +7 | +5 | | B28 I feel valued for the work I do | 71% | +2 | +7 | +2 | | B29 I think that ORR respects individual differences (e.g. cultures, working styles, backgrounds, ideas, etc) | 76% | +5 | +2 | -2 |
## Resources and workload
| Question | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B30 In my job, I am clear what is expected of me | 88% | +1 | +4 | +1 | | B31 I get the information I need to do my job well | 73% | -1 | +3 | -1 | | B32 I have clear work objectives | 82% | +1 | +7 | +3 | | B33 I have the skills I need to do my job effectively | 92% | +1 | +3 | 0 | | B34 I have the tools I need to do my job effectively | 78% | +2 | +7 | +3 | | B35 I have an acceptable workload | 67% | +5 | +8 | +1 | | B36 I achieve a good balance between my work life and my private life | 73% | +3 | +7 | -1 |
## Pay and benefits
| Question | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B37 I feel that my pay adequately reflects my performance | 31% | -3 | +2 | -5 | | B38 I am satisfied with the total benefits package | 27% | -6 | -5 | -13 | | B39 Compared to people doing a similar job in other organisations I feel my pay is reasonable | 26% | -10 | +2 | -5 |
### Leadership and Managing Change
| Question | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B40 I feel that ORR as a whole is managed well | 57% | +13 | +12 | +1 | | B41 Directors and deputies in ORR are sufficiently visible | 66% | +15 | +13 | +3 | | B42 I believe the actions of Directors and deputies are consistent with ORR's values | 56% | +12 | +9 | 0 | | B43 I believe that the Board has a clear vision for the future of ORR | 44% | +5 | -1 | -9 | | B44 Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by ORR's Directors and deputies | 57% | +11 | +13 | +5 | | B45 I feel that change is managed well in ORR | 37% | +8 | +5 | -2 | | B46 When changes are made in ORR they are usually for the better | 35% | +6 | +5 | -2 | | B47 ORR keeps me informed about matters that affect me | 71% | +5 | +13 | +7 | | B48 I have the opportunity to contribute my views before decisions are made that affect me | 48% | +2 | +12 | +5 | | B49 I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in ORR | 53% | +5 | +12 | +5 |
## Engagement
| Question | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B50 I am proud when I tell others I am part of ORR | 50% | +4 | -8 | -15 | | B51 I would recommend ORR as a great place to work | 56% | +11 | +7 | -4 | | B52 I feel a strong personal attachment to ORR | 42% | +6 | -6 | -12 | | B53 ORR inspires me to do the best in my job | 50% | +13 | +5 | -1 | | B54 ORR motivates me to help it achieve its objectives | 45% | +9 | +3 | -4 |
## Taking action
| Question | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B55 I believe that Directors and deputies in ORR will take action on the results from this survey | 53% | +1 | +8 | 0 | | B56 I believe that managers where I work will take action on the results from this survey | 61% | -3 | +6 | 0 | | B57 Where I work, I think effective action has been taken on the results of the last survey | 40% | +4 | +5 | 0 |
## Organisational Culture
| Question | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B58 I am trusted to carry out my job effectively | 94% | +1 | +6 | +4 | | B59 I believe I would be supported if I try a new idea, even if it may not work | 79% | +1 | +10 | +7 | | B60 My performance is evaluated based on whether I get things done, rather than solely follow processes | 69% | +1 | +4 | -1 | | B61 When I talk about ORR I say "we" rather than "they" | 81% | +6 | +13 | +3 | | B62 I have some really good friendships at work | 71% | +5 | -4 | -8 | Unlike the questions B01-B62 which ask people to rate their agreement from strongly agree to strongly disagree, the four wellbeing questions use a 11-point scale. The scale ranges from 0 to 10 for each question, where 0 is equivalent to ‘not at all’ (e.g. ‘not at all satisfied’ or ‘not at all worthwhile’) and where 10 is equivalent to ‘completely’ (e.g. ‘completely satisfied’ or ‘completely anxious’).
For questions W01, W02 and W03 the percent positive is the proportion answering 7, 8, 9 or 10 to each question. For question W04 the percent positive is the proportion answering 0, 1, 2 or 3 to the question.
| Question | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | W01 Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays? | 73% | +3 | +10 | +7 | | W02 Overall, to what extent do you feel that the things you do in your life are worthwhile? | 77% | +1 | +7 | +4 | | W03 Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday? | 70% | +3 | +10 | +7 | | W04 Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday? | 58% | +8 | +7 | +5 |
### Your plans for the future
C01. Which of the following statements most reflects your current thoughts about working for ORR?
| Statement | % Yes | % No | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |------------------------------------------------|-------|------|----------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | I want to leave ORR as soon as possible | 6% | 94% | 0 | -2 | -4 | | I want to leave ORR within the next 12 months | 20% | 80% | 0 | +7 | +3 | | I want to stay working for ORR for at least the next year | 39% | 61% | -2 | +8 | +2 | | I want to stay working for ORR for at least the next three years | 35% | 65% | +3 | -12 | -19 |
### The Civil Service Code
Differences are based on '% Yes' score
| Question | % Yes | % No | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2014 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|------|----------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | D01. Are you aware of the Civil Service Code? | 90% | 10% | -1 | 0 | -4 | | D02. Are you aware of how to raise a concern under the Civil Service Code? | 61% | 39% | -4 | -3 | -10 | | D03. Are you confident that if you raised a concern under the Civil Service Code in ORR it would be investigated properly? | 77% | 23% | +10 | +9 | +4 |
### Discrimination, harassment and bullying
**E01. During the past 12 months, have you personally experienced discrimination at work?**
| Year | Yes | No | Prefer not to say | |------|-----|----|------------------| | 2014 | 6 | 86 | 8 | | 2013 | 9 | 83 | 8 | | CS2014 | 10 | 82 | 9 |
For respondents who selected 'Yes' to question E01.
**E02. On which of the following grounds have you personally experienced discrimination in the past 12 months? (multiple selection)**
| Ground | Count | |---------------------------------------------|-------| | Age | -- | | Caring responsibilities | -- | | Disability | -- | | Ethnic background | -- | | Gender | -- | | Gender reassignment or perceived gender | -- | | Grade, pay band or responsibility level | -- | | Main spoken/written language or language ability | -- | | Religion or belief | -- | | Sexual orientation | -- | | Social or educational background | -- | | Working location | -- | | Working pattern | -- | | Any other grounds | -- | | Prefer not to say | -- |
*Please note: Counts of fewer than ten responses are suppressed and replaced with ‘--’*
**E03. During the past 12 months, have you personally experienced bullying or harassment at work?**
| Year | Yes | No | Prefer not to say | |------|-----|----|------------------| | 2014 | 6 | 89 | 5 | | 2013 | 6 | 89 | 5 | | CS2014 | 10 | 83 | 7 |
For respondents who selected 'Yes' to question E03.
**E04. Who were you bullied or harassed by at work in the past 12 months? (multiple selection)**
| Response | Count | |-----------------------------------------------|-------| | A colleague | -- | | Your manager | -- | | Another manager in my part of ORR | -- | | Someone you manage | -- | | Someone who works for another part of ORR | -- | | A member of the public | -- | | Someone else | -- | | Prefer not to say | -- |
*Please note: Counts of fewer than ten responses are suppressed and replaced with ‘--’* Appendix
Glossary of key terms
% positive The proportion who selected either "agree" or "strongly agree" for a question (or all questions within a theme in the case of Theme score % positive).
Previous survey Comparisons to the previous survey relate to the results from the 2013 Civil Service People Survey. Where a question is flagged as changed since the last survey comparisons should be treated with caution as changes to wording may affect how people respond to the question.
CS2014 The CS2014 benchmark is the median percent positive across all organisations that participated in the 2014 Civil Service People Survey.
CS High Performers For each question, this is the upper quartile score across all organisations that have taken part in the 2014 Civil Service People Survey.
Rounding
Results are presented as whole numbers for ease of reading, with rounding performed at the last stage of calculation for maximum accuracy.
Statistical significance:
Statistical testing has been carried out on the comparisons between this year's results and your previous survey, CS2014 results and CS High Performers results to identify differences that are statistically significant. You can therefore be confident that the difference represents a real difference in opinion between the results.
The employee engagement index
The survey includes five questions that make up the engagement index (B50-B54). The index score represents the average level of engagement in that unit and ranges from 0 to 100. An index score of 0 represents all respondents in that unit saying they strongly disagree to all five engagement questions and a score of 100 represents all respondents saying they strongly agree to all five engagement questions.
The drivers of engagement
While the engagement index shows the average level of engagement, it does not show what you can do to improve engagement. Nine themes have been included in the survey to measure employees' experiences at work. A statistical technique, stepwise regression, is used to identify the extent to which each of these themes has an association with engagement. The themes identified as having an association are called the 'Drivers of engagement'. The strength of association with engagement varies by theme and is illustrated by a 4-bar icon, as shown below. Themes with a full 4-bar icon have the strongest association with engagement.
Confidentiality
The survey was carried out as part of the 2014 Civil Service People Survey, which is managed by the Cabinet Office on behalf of all participating organisations. The Cabinet Office commissioned ORC International to carry out the survey. ORC International is a member of the Market Research Society, and is bound by their strict code of conduct and confidentiality rules. These rules do not allow for the breakdown of the results to the extent where the anonymity of individuals may be compromised. Groups of less than 10 respondents will not be reported on, however their responses do contribute to the overall scores for the unit and organisation they belong to and the overall Civil Service results.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2031-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 13,
"total-input-tokens": 30289,
"total-output-tokens": 6255,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1512,
1
],
[
1512,
3270,
2
],
[
3270,
5566,
3
],
[
5566,
8786,
4
],
[
8786,
11209,
5
],
[
11209,
13864,
6
],
[
13864,
16169,
7
],
[
16169,
18479,
8
],
[
18479,
19841,
9
],
[
19841,
21586,
10
],
[
21586,
23777,
11
],
[
23777,
26480,
12
],
[
26480,
29598,
13
]
]
} |
156f02c21166fd13e443ef66b64217401d84aa93 | 2009 Main data report for:
ORR
Returns: 277 Response rate: 87%
Your Engagement Index
Employee Engagement Index: 51%
Difference from Civil Service 2009\*: -7 Difference from High Performance benchmark\*: -12
- See Appendix 2 for definition/description
The three elements of engagement and their component questions are:
| Say: speaks positively of the organisation... | % Positive | |---------------------------------------------|------------| | J50. I am proud when I tell others I am part of ORR | 36% | | J51. I would recommend ORR as a great place to work | 41% |
| Stay: emotionally attached and committed to the organisation... | % Positive | |---------------------------------------------------------------|------------| | J52. I feel a strong personal attachment to ORR | 30% |
| Strive: motivated to do the best for the organisation... | % Positive | |--------------------------------------------------------|------------| | J53. ORR inspires me to do the best in my job | 33% | | J54. ORR motivates me to help it achieve its objectives | 33% |
Key Drivers of Engagement
The chart below shows the themes which drive engagement in ORR in order of importance. The top three drivers are the most important and should be the focus for action. Please see Appendix 2 for more details.
| Impact on engagement | |----------------------| | B: Leadership and managing change | 53% | | H: Learning and development | 25% | | C: My work | 21% | | F: Pay and benefits | 11% | Using this report
This report details the survey results for ORR and is designed to help you clearly identify your strengths and opportunities for improvement. This survey is part of the 2009 Civil Service People Survey, a coordinated approach across the Civil Service to measure employee engagement and its drivers.
Note your engagement index and how it compares to benchmarks
Focus on the key drivers of engagement
See how your key driver results compare to others
Consider the results of all questions
Discuss results and take action
Theme results
The table below presents the summary results for the engagement driver themes. The key drivers are highlighted and shown in order of their impact on engagement, the other engagement driver themes are shown in questionnaire order.
| Theme score (% positive) | Difference from Civil Service 2009 | Your position out of 96 organisations | |--------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | B: Leadership and managing change | Key theme: top 3 | 34% | -4 | 59 | | H: Learning and development | Key theme: top 3 | 45% | -5 | 67 | | C: My work | Key theme: top 3 | 77% | +3 | 29 | | F: Pay and benefits | Key theme | 56% | +19 | 6 | | A: Line management | | 67% | +3 | 29 | | D: Resources and workload | | 70% | -2 | 63 | | E: Organisational objectives and purpose | | 72% | -9 | 75 | | G: My team | | 79% | +3 | 32 | | I: Inclusion and fair treatment | | 69% | -5 | 71 |
### Top three key driver themes in more detail
Themes are presented in order of impact on engagement, where the theme with the largest impact is listed first.
| Theme | % Positive | Difference from Civil Service 2009 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------| | B17. When changes are made in ORR they are usually for the better | 27% | +1 | | B12. Directors and deputies in ORR are sufficiently visible | 45% | 0 | | B19. I have the opportunity to contribute my views before decisions are made that affect me | 34% | 0 | | B14. I believe the board has a clear vision for the future of ORR | 37% | 0 | | B15. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by ORR's directors and deputies | 35% | 0 | | B16. I feel that change is managed well in ORR | 22% | -5 | | B11. I feel ORR as a whole is managed well | 34% | -7 | | B13. I believe the actions of directors and deputies are consistent with ORR's values | 30% | -9 | | B18. ORR keeps me informed about matters that affect me | 46% | -9 | | B20. I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in ORR | 29% | -11 | | H43. Learning and development activities I have completed in the past 12 months have helped to improve my performance | 52% | 0 | | H42. I am able to access the right learning and development opportunities when I need to | 61% | -1 | | H45. Learning and development activities I have completed while working for ORR are helping me to develop my career | 37% | -7 | | H44. There are opportunities for me to develop my career in ORR | 30% | -9 | | C25. I have a choice in deciding how I do my work | 84% | +12 | | C23. My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment | 79% | +5 | | C22. I am sufficiently challenged by my work | 79% | +3 | | C21. I am interested in my work | 91% | +1 | | C24. I feel involved in decisions that affect my work | 53% | -3 | All questions by theme
This section gives the breakdown of results for all questions in the survey by theme. Where applicable, comparisons to benchmarks are included. Please see Appendix 2 for more details.
Please note that the key themes driving employee engagement are flagged throughout this section and the engagement questions for Say, Stay and Strive can be located on page 10.
| A: Line management | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Diff. from Civil Service 2009 | Diff. from High Performance Benchmark | |--------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|---------------------|------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | A01. My manager motivates me to be more effective in my job | 19 | 48 | 22 | 6 | 5 | 67 | +6 | +1 | | A02. My manager is considerate of my life outside work | 39 | 41 | 13 | 5 | 80 | +3 | -1 | | A03. My manager is open to my ideas | 33 | 53 | 9 | 86 | +8 | +4 | | A04. My manager helps me to understand how I contribute to ORR's objectives | 15 | 44 | 30 | 9 | 60 | +1 | -3 | | A05. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by my manager | 22 | 55 | 15 | 4 | 77 | +7 | +2 | | A06. My manager recognises when I have done my job well | 25 | 55 | 14 | 5 | 80 | +4 | +1 | | A07. I receive regular feedback on my performance | 16 | 48 | 20 | 13 | 64 | +4 | 0 | | A08. The feedback I receive helps me to improve my performance | 12 | 44 | 32 | 9 | 56 | -1 | -5 | | A09. I think that my performance is evaluated fairly | 16 | 50 | 24 | 7 | 65 | +3 | -1 | | A10. Poor performance is dealt with effectively in my team | 5 | 26 | 52 | 13 | 31 | -7 | -11 |
### B: Leadership and managing change (Key theme: top 3)
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Diff. from Civil Service 2009 | Diff. from High Performance Benchmark | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|---------------------|------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | B11. I feel ORR as a whole is managed well | 31 | 27 | 20 | 19 | | 34 | -7 | -20 | | B12. Directors and deputies in ORR are sufficiently visible | 5 | 40 | 27 | 17 | 10 | 45 | 0 | -13 | | B13. I believe the actions of directors and deputies are consistent with ORR's values | 5 | 25 | 40 | 17 | 13 | 30 | -9 | -20 | | B14. I believe the board has a clear vision for the future of ORR | 4 | 32 | 40 | 15 | 9 | 37 | 0 | -13 | | B15. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by ORR's directors and deputies | 7 | 29 | 31 | 20 | 14 | 35 | 0 | -17 | | B16. I feel that change is managed well in ORR | 21 | 21 | 27 | 30 | | 22 | -5 | -15 | | B17. When changes are made in ORR they are usually for the better | 24 | 32 | 24 | 18 | | 27 | +1 | -10 | | B18. ORR keeps me informed about matters that affect me | 7 | 39 | 32 | 14 | 8 | 46 | -9 | -18 | | B19. I have the opportunity to contribute my views before decisions are made that affect me | 5 | 30 | 30 | 20 | 15 | 34 | 0 | -6 | | B20. I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in ORR | 5 | 24 | 27 | 27 | 17 | 29 | -11 | -18 |
## All questions by theme
### C: My work (Key theme: top 3)
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Diff. from Civil Service 2009 | Diff. from High Performance Benchmark | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|---------------------|------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | C21. I am interested in my work | 48 | 44 | 5 | | | 91 | +1 | -2 | | C22. I am sufficiently challenged by my work | 35 | 44 | 10 | 7 | | 79 | +3 | 0 | | C23. My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment | 28 | 51 | 11 | 7 | | 79 | +5 | +1 | | C24. I feel involved in decisions that affect my work | 14 | 39 | 25 | 18 | 4 | 53 | -3 | -10 | | C25. I have a choice in deciding how I do my work | 23 | 61 | 11 | 5 | | 84 | +12 | +5 |
## All questions by theme
### D: Resources and workload
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Diff. from Civil Service 2009 | Diff. from High Performance Benchmark | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|---------------------|------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | D26. In my job, I am clear what is expected of me | 19 | 57 | 11 | 11 | | 76 | -5 | -8 | | D27. I get the information I need to do my job well | 9 | 46 | 25 | 14 | 5 | 56 | -8 | -12 | | D28. I have clear work objectives | 13 | 59 | 16 | 8 | | 72 | 0 | -5 | | D29. I have the skills I need to do my job effectively | 24 | 62 | 9 | 4 | | 86 | -1 | -3 | | D30. I have the tools I need to do my job effectively | 7 | 59 | 17 | 13 | | 66 | -6 | -10 | | D31. I have an acceptable workload | 8 | 57 | 19 | 13 | | 65 | +5 | 0 | | D32. I achieve a good balance between my work life and my private life | 12 | 58 | 20 | 9 | | 70 | +2 | -3 |
### E: Organisational objectives and purpose
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Diff. from Civil Service 2009 | Diff. from High Performance Benchmark | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|---------------------|------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | E33. I have a clear understanding of ORR's purpose | 20 | 55 | 13 | 10 | | 75 | -10 | -15 | | E34. I have a clear understanding of ORR's objectives | 16 | 52 | 20 | 8 | 4 | 68 | -10 | -16 | | E35. I understand how my work contributes to ORR's objectives | 21 | 53 | 17 | 5 | 4 | 74 | -8 | -12 |
## All questions by theme
### F: Pay and benefits (Key theme)
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Diff. from Civil Service 2009 | Diff. from High Performance Benchmark | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|---------------------|------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | F36. I feel that my pay adequately reflects my performance | 8 | 48 | 25 | 14 | 5 | 56 | +20 | +10 | | F37. I am satisfied with the total benefits package | 12 | 47 | 24 | 13 | 4 | 60 | +16 | +9 | | F38. Compared to people doing a similar job in other organisations I feel my pay is reasonable | 13 | 39 | 27 | 14 | 7 | 52 | +19 | +12 |
### G: My team
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Diff. from Civil Service 2009 | Diff. from High Performance Benchmark | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|---------------------|------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | G39. The people in my team can be relied upon to help when things get difficult in my job | 29 | 55 | 12 | 12 | | 84 | +2 | -1 | | G40. The people in my team work together to find ways to improve the service we provide | 25 | 54 | 15 | 5 | | 79 | +1 | -3 | | G41. The people in my team are encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things | 21 | 54 | 18 | 6 | | 75 | +7 | 0 |
## All questions by theme
### H: Learning and development (Key theme: top 3)
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Diff. from Civil Service 2009 | Diff. from High Performance Benchmark | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|---------------------|------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | H42. I am able to access the right learning and development opportunities when I need to | 14 | 48 | 17 | 17 | 5 | 61 | -1 | -8 | | H43. Learning and development activities I have completed in the past 12 months have helped to improve my performance | 9 | 43 | 36 | 9 | 4 | 52 | 0 | -6 | | H44. There are opportunities for me to develop my career in ORR | 6 | 24 | 33 | 22 | 14 | 30 | -9 | -17 | | H45. Learning and development activities I have completed while working for ORR are helping me to develop my career | 7 | 30 | 43 | 12 | 8 | 37 | -7 | -14 |
### I: Inclusion and fair treatment
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Diff. from Civil Service 2009 | Diff. from High Performance Benchmark | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|---------------------|------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | I46. I am treated fairly at work | 19 | 55 | 17 | 6 | | 74 | -5 | -9 | | I47. I am treated with respect by the people I work with | 26 | 59 | 11 | | | 85 | 0 | -3 | | I48. I feel valued for the work I do | 16 | 48 | 19 | 11 | 5 | 65 | +2 | -4 | | I49. I think that ORR respects individual differences (e.g. cultures, working styles, backgrounds, ideas etc) | 16 | 36 | 24 | 11 | 12 | 53 | -18 | -24 |
## All questions by theme
### J: Engagement
| Say | J50. I am proud when I tell others I am part of ORR | 4 | 32 | 45 | 15 | 4 | 36 | -19 | -30 | |-----|---------------------------------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|-----|------|------| | Say | J51. I would recommend ORR as a great place to work | 8 | 33 | 34 | 22 | 4 | 41 | -8 | -17 | | Stay| J52. I feel a strong personal attachment to ORR | 6 | 24 | 35 | 25 | 9 | 30 | -16 | -24 | | Strive| J53. ORR inspires me to do the best in my job | 6 | 27 | 37 | 20 | 9 | 33 | -7 | -17 | | Strive| J54. ORR motivates me to help it achieve its objectives | 4 | 28 | 36 | 21 | 11 | 33 | -6 | -15 |
### K: Taking action
| K55. I believe that directors and deputies in ORR will take action on the results from this survey | 7 | 26 | 31 | 21 | 15 | 33 | -4 | -16 | | K56. I believe that managers where I work will take action on the results from this survey | 7 | 43 | 35 | 10 | 5 | 50 | +6 | -4 |
### All questions by theme
#### L: Discrimination, harassment and bullying
**L01. During the past 12 months, have you personally experienced discrimination at work?**
| % Yes | % No | % Prefer not to say | |-------|------|---------------------| | 13 | 80 | 8 |
For respondents who selected 'Yes' to question L01.
**L02. On which of the following grounds have you personally experienced discrimination in the past 12 months? (multiple selection)**
| Ground | Response count | |---------------------------------------------|----------------| | Age | - | | Disability | - | | Ethnic background | - | | Gender | - | | Gender reassignment or perceived gender | 0 | | Religion or belief | - | | Sexual orientation | 0 | | Any other grounds | 27 |
*Please note: where responses are replaced with '*', this is to protect respondent(s) anonymity.\*
**L03. During the past 12 months, have you personally experienced bullying or harassment at work?**
| % Yes | % No | % Prefer not to say | |-------|------|---------------------| | 9 | 85 | 6 |
For respondents who selected 'Yes' to question L03.
**L04. Who were you bullied or harassed by at work in the past 12 months? (multiple selection)**
| Person | Response count | |---------------------------------------------|----------------| | A colleague | 5 | | Your manager | 6 | | Another manager in your part of ORR | 6 | | Someone you manage | - | | Someone who works for another part of ORR | 9 | | A member of the public | 0 | | Someone else | - | | Prefer not to say | 6 |
*Please note: where responses are replaced with '*', this is to protect respondent(s) anonymity.\*
## All questions by theme
### M: Data Security
**M05.** I know where to go to find out about how to handle personal and sensitive information
| % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | |------------------|---------|-----------|------------|---------------------|------------| | 19 | 70 | 9 | | | 88% |
Difference from Civil Service 2009: +7
**M06.** In the past 12 months, have you received training on handling data and procedures to protect personal and sensitive information?
| % Yes | % No | |-------|------| | 92 | 8 |
Difference from Civil Service 2009: +5
### N: The Civil Service Code
Differences from Civil Service 2009 are shown. Differences are based on % Yes’ score.
**N07.** Are you aware of the Civil Service Code?
| % Yes | % No | |-------|------| | 84 | 16 |
Difference from Civil Service 2009: +9
**N08.** Are you aware of how to raise a concern under the Civil Service Code?
| % Yes | % No | |-------|------| | 47 | 53 |
Difference from Civil Service 2009: +2
**N09.** Are you confident that if you raised a concern under the Civil Service Code in ORR it would be investigated properly?
| % Yes | % No | |-------|------| | 56 | 44 |
Difference from Civil Service 2009: -2
### O: Your plans for the future
**O10.** Which of the following statements most reflects your current thoughts about working for ORR?
Differences from Civil Service 2009 are shown.
- I want to leave ORR as soon as possible: 10% (Civil Service 2009: 7%)
- I want to leave ORR within the next 12 months: 15% (Civil Service 2009: 11%)
- I want to stay working for ORR for at least the next year: 36% (Civil Service 2009: 27%)
- I want to stay working for ORR for at least the next three years: 39% (Civil Service 2009: 56%) Comparison against other organisations
This section shows how ORR compares to other organisations participating in the 2009 Civil Service People Survey for all questions from sections A to K of the survey. Questions are in order of most positive to least positive comparison against the Civil Service 2009 benchmark.
| Questions | ORR 2009 % Positive | Civil Service 2009 % Positive | Difference from Civil Service 2009 | Your position out of 96 orgs | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | F36 I feel that my pay adequately reflects my performance | 56 | 36 | +20 | 9 | | F38 Compared to people doing a similar job in other organisations I feel my pay is reasonable | 52 | 33 | +19 | 4 | | F37 I am satisfied with the total benefits package | 60 | 44 | +16 | 9 | | C25 I have a choice in deciding how I do my work | 84 | 72 | +12 | 8 | | A03 My manager is open to my ideas | 86 | 78 | +8 | 5 | | A05 Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by my manager | 77 | 70 | +7 | 14 | | G41 The people in my team are encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things | 75 | 68 | +7 | 25 | | A01 My manager motivates me to be more effective in my job | 67 | 61 | +6 | 20 | | K56 I believe that managers where I work will take action on the results from this survey | 50 | 45 | +6 | 38 | | C23 My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment | 79 | 74 | +5 | 21 | | D31 I have an acceptable workload | 65 | 60 | +5 | 25 | | A07 I receive regular feedback on my performance | 64 | 60 | +4 | 21 | | A06 My manager recognises when I have done my job well | 80 | 76 | +4 | 20 | | C22 I am sufficiently challenged by my work | 79 | 76 | +3 | 26 | | A09 I think that my performance is evaluated fairly | 65 | 63 | +3 | 30 | | A02 My manager is considerate of my life outside work | 80 | 77 | +3 | 33 | | I48 I feel valued for the work I do | 65 | 62 | +2 | 39 | | G39 The people in my team can be relied upon to help when things get difficult in my job | 84 | 83 | +2 | 29 | | D32 I achieve a good balance between my work life and my private life | 70 | 68 | +2 | 37 |
## Comparison against other organisations
| Questions | ORR 2009 % Positive | Civil Service 2009 % Positive | Difference from Civil Service 2009 | Your position out of 96 orgs | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | C21 I am interested in my work | 91 | 90 | +1 | 37 | | A04 My manager helps me to understand how I contribute to ORR's objectives| 60 | 59 | +1 | 37 | | B17 When changes are made in ORR they are usually for the better | 27 | 25 | +1 | 46 | | G40 The people in my team work together to find ways to improve the service we provide | 79 | 79 | +1 | 43 | | B12 Directors and deputies in ORR are sufficiently visible | 45 | 45 | 0 | 46 | | H43 Learning and development activities I have completed in the past 12 months have helped to improve my performance | 52 | 51 | 0 | 45 | | B19 I have the opportunity to contribute my views before decisions are made that affect me | 34 | 34 | 0 | 46 | | I47 I am treated with respect by the people I work with | 85 | 85 | 0 | 45 | | B14 I believe the board has a clear vision for the future of ORR | 37 | 36 | 0 | 48 | | B15 Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by ORR's directors and deputies | 35 | 36 | 0 | 49 | | D28 I have clear work objectives | 72 | 72 | 0 | 52 | | A08 The feedback I receive helps me to improve my performance | 56 | 57 | -1 | 54 | | D29 I have the skills I need to do my job effectively | 86 | 87 | -1 | 64 | | H42 I am able to access the right learning and development opportunities when I need to | 61 | 63 | -1 | 55 | | C24 I feel involved in decisions that affect my work | 53 | 56 | -3 | 54 | | K55 I believe that directors and deputies in ORR will take action on the results from this survey | 33 | 37 | -4 | 57 | | I46 I am treated fairly at work | 74 | 79 | -5 | 74 | | B16 I feel that change is managed well in ORR | 22 | 27 | -5 | 68 | | D26 In my job, I am clear what is expected of me | 76 | 81 | -5 | 79 |
## Comparison against other organisations
| Questions | ORR 2009 % Positive | Civil Service 2009 % Positive | Difference from Civil Service 2009 | Your position out of 96 orgs | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | J54 ORR motivates me to help it achieve its objectives | 33 | 38 | -6 | 62 | | D30 I have the tools I need to do my job effectively | 66 | 72 | -6 | 72 | | B11 I feel ORR as a whole is managed well | 34 | 40 | -7 | 66 | | A10 Poor performance is dealt with effectively in my team | 31 | 38 | -7 | 83 | | J53 ORR inspires me to do the best in my job | 33 | 40 | -7 | 73 | | H45 Learning and development activities I have completed while working for ORR are helping me to develop my career | 37 | 44 | -7 | 72 | | J51 I would recommend ORR as a great place to work | 41 | 48 | -8 | 66 | | D27 I get the information I need to do my job well | 56 | 63 | -8 | 73 | | E35 I understand how my work contributes to ORR's objectives | 74 | 82 | -8 | 78 | | B13 I believe the actions of directors and deputies are consistent with ORR's values | 30 | 39 | -9 | 68 | | H44 There are opportunities for me to develop my career in ORR | 30 | 39 | -9 | 75 | | B18 ORR keeps me informed about matters that affect me | 46 | 56 | -9 | 68 | | E34 I have a clear understanding of ORR's objectives | 68 | 78 | -10 | 76 | | E33 I have a clear understanding of ORR's purpose | 75 | 84 | -10 | 76 | | B20 I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in ORR | 29 | 39 | -11 | 78 | | J52 I feel a strong personal attachment to ORR | 30 | 45 | -16 | 88 | | I49 I think that ORR respects individual differences (e.g. cultures, working styles, backgrounds, ideas etc) | 53 | 71 | -18 | 91 | | J50 I am proud when I tell others I am part of ORR | 36 | 56 | -19 | 84 | Appendix 1: participating organisations
The organisations that have taken part in the survey are:
Accountant in Bankruptcy Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service Animal Health Attorney General's Office Buying Solutions Cabinet Office Central Office of Information Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission Communities and Local Government Companies House Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority Criminal Records Bureau Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Crown Prosecution Service Debt Management Office Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Department for Children, Schools and Families Department for Culture, Media and Sport Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for International Development Department for Transport Department for Work and Pensions Department of Energy and Climate Change Department of Health Disclosure Scotland Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Driving Standards Agency Export Credits Guarantee Department FCO Services Fire Service College Food and Environment Research Agency Food Standards Agency Foreign and Commonwealth Office General Register Office for Scotland Government Car and Despatch Agency Government Equalities Office Government Office Network Highways Agency Historic Scotland HM Courts Service HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate HM Inspectorate of Education HM Revenue & Customs HM Treasury Home Office Identity and Passport Service Intellectual Property Office Jobcentre Plus Land Registry Marine and Fisheries Agency Maritime and Coastguard Agency Meat Hygiene Service Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Ministry of Defence Ministry of Justice National Measurement Office National Offender Management Service National Savings & Investments National School of Government Office for National Statistics Office of Fair Trading Office of Government Commerce Office of Rail Regulation Office of the Public Guardian Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator Ordnance Survey Pension, Disability and Carers Service Registers of Scotland Rural Payments Agency Scotland Office Scottish Housing Regulator Scottish Public Pensions Agency Serious Fraud Office Social Work Inspection Agency Student Awards Agency for Scotland The Health and Safety Executive The Insolvency Service The National Archives of Scotland The Planning Inspectorate The Royal Parks The Scottish Government The UK Hydrographic Office Transport Scotland Treasury Solicitor's Department Tribunals Service UK Border Agency Valuation Office Agency Vehicle and Operator Services Agency Vehicle Certification Agency Veterinary Laboratories Agency Veterinary Medicines Directorate Wales Office Wilton Park Executive Agency Appendix 2: technical information
% Positive This represents the proportion of respondents who ticked ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ combined.
Anonymity ORC International belongs to the Market Research Society and is bound by their strict code of conduct and confidentiality rules, and therefore cannot allow the breakdown of groups to the extent where the anonymity of individuals may be compromised. Groups where less than 10 people responded will not be analysed or receive a report. However, their data will contribute to the scores for parent units they belong to and ORR scores overall.
Rounding Percentages are presented as whole numbers for ease of reading. To give maximum accuracy, rounding is performed at the last stage of calculation. Values from .00 to .49 are rounded down and values from .50 to .99 are rounded up. If you perform calculations using rounded figures, these may differ slightly from our calculations. For example, if you add together the % Strongly agree, % Agree, % Neither, % Disagree and % Strongly disagree these may not total exactly 100%.
Worked Example Percentage scores
| Number of responses | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree | Strongly disagree | Total | |---------------------|----------------|-------|---------------------------|----------|------------------|-------| | 151 | 166 | 176 | 96 | 24 | 613 | | Percentage | 24.63% | 27.08%| 28.71% | 15.66% | 3.92% | 100.00%| | Displayed rounded percentages | 25% | 27% | 29% | 16% | 4% | 101% |
Number of positive responses = (151+166) = 317 % Positive score = 317/613 = 52%
Civil Service 2009 The Civil Service 2009 benchmark score is the median score across all organisations that have taken part in the 2009 Civil Service People Survey (see Appendix 1 for a list of these organisations).
High Performance Benchmark (BM) This is the top 24 scoring organisations that have taken part in the 2009 Civil Service People Survey (see Appendix 1). Appendix 2: technical information
The “Employee Engagement Index”
The survey includes five questions that make up the engagement index (J50-J54). The index score represents the average level of engagement in the unit such that 0 on the index represents all respondents saying they strongly disagree to all five engagement index questions and 100 represents all respondents saying they strongly agree to all five engagement index questions.
The 9 Driver Themes
Many questions asked in the survey are related to each other and arranged into themes accordingly. The nine driver themes are labelled A to I throughout the report. Questions outside the engagement model and therefore not included in the driver themes include your organisation’s local questions; as well as question groups K (Taking action), L (Discrimination, harassment and bullying), M (Data Security), N (The Civil Service Code) and O (Your plans for the future).
The “Key drivers of engagement”
While the engagement index shows the average level of engagement, it does not show what you can do to improve engagement. A statistical technique, stepwise regression, is used to identify which of the engagement driver themes (themes A to I) influence the engagement levels of your staff. The themes which are identified as having an impact on engagement levels are called key themes; the top three themes are the most important and should be the focus for action. All levels of engagement are measured (low through to high), and key driver themes can have both positive and negative impacts on engagement. Therefore, improvements in perceptions of the key driver themes will improve average engagement levels, likewise, a worsening of perceptions of the key driver themes will have a negative effect on average engagement levels.
"Impact on engagement"
The bar chart on the front page shows the impact on engagement for the key driver themes. The percentages give an idea of the relative importance of the individual themes. For example, a theme with a 40% impact rating is twice as important as a theme with a 20% impact rating. Note, percentages are not intended to sum to 100.
"Theme score (% positive)"
This percentage represents the number of positive responses (agree/strongly agree) to questions in the theme as a proportion of all responses to questions in the theme.
Further information
For further details about the statistical analysis presented in this report please refer to your organisation’s survey project team.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2032-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 18,
"total-input-tokens": 42104,
"total-output-tokens": 10904,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1517,
1
],
[
1517,
2997,
2
],
[
2997,
5893,
3
],
[
5893,
7603,
4
],
[
7603,
10552,
5
],
[
10552,
12280,
6
],
[
12280,
15710,
7
],
[
15710,
18238,
8
],
[
18238,
21343,
9
],
[
21343,
22308,
10
],
[
22308,
24653,
11
],
[
24653,
26521,
12
],
[
26521,
31083,
13
],
[
31083,
35418,
14
],
[
35418,
39514,
15
],
[
39514,
42268,
16
],
[
42268,
44355,
17
],
[
44355,
46857,
18
]
]
} |
6e5a846056198643f88c7294daaaea6d2b383bcd | Civil Service People Survey 2014
Civil Service benchmark scores
November 2014 This report shows the benchmark scores from the Civil Service People Survey (CSPS) from 2009 to 2014.
The benchmark for a survey measure is the median (mid-point) score of all participating organisations.
The questions are used to generate 10 headline indicators, one to measure the levels of employee engagement and nine to measure the factors which influence engagement.
The table below shows the benchmark score for each of these 10 headline indicators.
Pages 3-8 show the benchmark score for each of the individual core questions.
Page 9 provides a brief technical overview of the survey and endnotes, including information on the response rate.
Page 10 lists the organisations that participated in the 2014 survey.
| Civil Service benchmark score | Change in benchmark between | Direction of travel | |------------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------| | | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2009 to '10 | '10 to '11 | '11 to '12 | '12 to '13 | '13 to '14 | | Employee engagement index | 58% | 56% | 56% | 58% | 58% | 59% | -2 | 0 | +2 | 0 | +1 | | My work | 75% | 71% | 71% | 73% | 74% | 75% | -4 | 0 | +2 | +1 | +1 | | Organisational objectives and purpose | 81% | 81% | 81% | 82% | 82% | 83% | 0 | 0 | +1 | 0 | +1 | | My manager | 64% | 64% | 64% | 66% | 67% | 67% | 0 | 0 | +2 | +1 | 0 | | My team | 76% | 77% | 77% | 78% | 79% | 79% | +1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | 0 | | Learning and development | 50% | 43% | 43% | 44% | 47% | 49% | -7 | 0 | +1 | +3 | +2 | | Inclusion and fair treatment | 74% | 73% | 73% | 75% | 74% | 75% | -1 | 0 | +2 | -1 | +1 | | Resources and workload | 72% | 73% | 73% | 74% | 74% | 74% | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | | Pay and benefits | 37% | 37% | 31% | 30% | 29% | 28% | 0 | -6 | -1 | -1 | -1 | | Leadership and managing change | 38% | 37% | 38% | 41% | 42% | 43% | -1 | +1 | +3 | +1 | +1 |
## Civil Service People Survey 2014: results by question
### My work
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------|---------------------| | B01. I am interested in my work | 90% | 89% | 89% | 89% | 89% | 89% | -1 | - | | B02. I am sufficiently challenged by my work | 76% | 73% | 75% | 76% | 78% | 79% | -3 | ↓ | | B03. My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment | 74% | 72% | 72% | 73% | 75% | 76% | -2 | ↓ | | B04. I feel involved in the decisions that affect my work | 56% | 49% | 49% | 53% | 54% | 56% | -7 | ↓ | | B05. I have a choice in deciding how I do my work | 72% | 70% | 71% | 72% | 72% | 74% | -2 | ↓ |
### Organisational objectives and purpose
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------|---------------------| | B06. I have a clear understanding of [my organisation’s] purpose | 84% | 84% | 84% | 84% | 85% | 86% | 0 | +1 | | B07. I have a clear understanding of [my organisation’s] objectives | 78% | 78% | 79% | 79% | 80% | 81% | 0 | +1 | | B08. I understand how my work contributes to [my organisation’s] objectives | 82% | 80% | 81% | 82% | 83% | 83% | -2 | ↓ |
### My manager
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------|---------------------| | B09. My manager motivates me to be more effective in my job | 61% | 62% | 63% | 66% | 65% | 68% | +1 | +3 | | B10. My manager is considerate of my life outside work | 77% | 78% | 79% | 81% | 80% | 81% | +1 | +2 | | B11. My manager is open to my ideas | 78% | 77% | 79% | 79% | 79% | 80% | -1 | 0 | | B12. My manager helps me to understand how I contribute to [my organisation’s] objectives | 59% | 58% | 58% | 61% | 62% | 64% | -1 | 0 | | B13. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by my manager | 70% | 69% | 71% | 71% | 71% | 73% | -1 | 0 | | B14. My manager recognises when I have done my job well | 76% | 77% | 76% | 77% | 77% | 77% | +1 | -1 | | B15. I receive regular feedback on my performance | 60% | 60% | 60% | 63% | 64% | 65% | 0 | +3 | | B16. The feedback I receive helps me to improve my performance | 57% | 57% | 58% | 60% | 60% | 61% | 0 | +1 | | B17. I think that my performance is evaluated fairly | 63% | 62% | 62% | 62% | 63% | 63% | -1 | 0 | | B18. Poor performance is dealt with effectively in my team | 38% | 37% | 37% | 37% | 38% | 39% | -1 | 0 |
## Civil Service People Survey 2014: results by question
### My team
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------|---------------------| | B19. The people in my team can be relied upon to help when things get | 83% | 83% | 82% | 83% | 84% | 84% | 0 | - | | difficult in my job | | | | | | | -1 | - | | B20. The people in my team work together to find ways to improve the | 79% | 78% | 78% | 79% | 80% | 80% | -1 | - | | service we provide | | | | | | | 0 | - | | B21. The people in my team are encouraged to come up with new and better | 68% | 70% | 69% | 71% | 73% | 74% | +2 | +1 | | ways of doing things | | | | | | | -1 | - |
### Learning and development
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------|---------------------| | B22. I am able to access the right learning and development opportunities | 63% | 55% | 54% | 58% | 61% | 62% | -8 | - | | when I need to | | | | | | | +4 | + | | B23. Learning and development activities I have completed in the past | 51% | 48% | 45% | 46% | 48% | 51% | -3 | - | | 12 months have helped to improve my performance | | | | | | | +1 | + | | B24. There are opportunities for me to develop my career in [my | 39% | 28% | 31% | 35% | 38% | 42% | -11 | - | | organisation] | | | | | | | +3 | + | | B25. Learning and development activities I have completed while working | 44% | 41% | 40% | 40% | 42% | 43% | -3 | - | | for [my organisation] are helping me to develop my career | | | | | | | 0 | + |
### Inclusion and fair treatment
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------|---------------------| | B26. I am treated fairly at work | 79% | 78% | 78% | 78% | 78% | 79% | -1 | 0 | | B27. I am treated with respect by the people I work with | 85% | 84% | 84% | 84% | 84% | 84% | -1 | 0 | | B28. I feel valued for the work I do | 62% | 60% | 59% | 62% | 63% | 65% | -2 | +3 | | B29. I think that [my organisation] respects individual differences | 71% | 71% | 70% | 71% | 72% | 74% | 0 | +1 | | (e.g. cultures, working styles, backgrounds, ideas, etc) | | | | | | | | |
### Resources and workload
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------|---------------------| | B30. In my job, I am clear what is expected of me | 81% | 82% | 82% | 84% | 83% | 84% | +1 | 0 | | B31. I get the information I need to do my job well | 63% | 67% | 67% | 68% | 69% | 70% | +4 | 0 | | B32. I have clear work objectives | 72% | 74% | 74% | 75% | 75% | 76% | +2 | 0 | | B33. I have the skills I need to do my job effectively | 87% | 88% | 88% | 88% | 88% | 89% | +1 | 0 | | B34. I have the tools I need to do my job effectively | 72% | 72% | 70% | 72% | 71% | 72% | 0 | -2 | | B35. I have an acceptable workload | 60% | 62% | 61% | 60% | 60% | 59% | +2 | -1 | | B36. I achieve a good balance between my work life and my private life | 68% | 70% | 67% | 68% | 68% | 66% | +2 | -3 |
## Civil Service People Survey 2014: results by question
### Pay and benefits
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------|---------------------| | B37. I feel that my pay adequately reflects my performance | 36% | 38% | 32% | 31% | 29% | 29% | +2 | - | | B38. I am satisfied with the total benefits package | 44% | 39% | 34% | 33% | 32% | 32% | -5 | - | | B39. Compared to people doing a similar job in other organisations I feel my pay is reasonable | 33% | 31% | 27% | 26% | 25% | 24% | -2 | - |
### Leadership and managing change
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------|---------------------| | B40. I feel that [my organisation] as a whole is managed well | 40% | 41% | 40% | 43% | 43% | 45% | +1 | - | | B41. [Senior managers] in [my organisation] are sufficiently visible | 45% | 45% | 46% | 48% | 51% | 53% | 0 | +1 | | B42. I believe the actions of [senior managers] are consistent with [my organisation’s] values | 39% | 39% | 39% | 42% | 43% | 47% | 0 | +3 | | B43. I believe that [the board has] a clear vision for the future of [my organisation] | 36% | 35% | 39% | 40% | 42% | 45% | -1 | +4 | | B44. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by [my organisation’s senior managers] | 36% | 36% | 36% | 39% | 41% | 44% | 0 | +3 | | B45. I feel that change is managed well in [my organisation] | 27% | 27% | 27% | 29% | 29% | 31% | 0 | +2 | | B46. When changes are made in [my organisation] they are usually for the better | 25% | 23% | 23% | 25% | 27% | 30% | -2 | 0 | | B47. [My organisation] keeps me informed about matters that affect me | 56% | 54% | 55% | 56% | 58% | 58% | -2 | +1 | | B48. I have the opportunity to contribute my views before decisions are made that affect me | 34% | 32% | 36% | 36% | 36% | 36% | -2 | 0 | | B49. I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in [my organisation] | 39% | 39% | 38% | 40% | 38% | 41% | 0 | - |
## Civil Service People Survey 2014: results by question
### Employee engagement
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------|---------------------| | B50. I am proud when I tell others I am part of [my organisation] | 56% | 55% | 52% | 53% | 56% | 59% | -1 | - | | B51. I would recommend [my organisation] as a great place to work | 48% | 42% | 43% | 46% | 45% | 49% | -6 | - | | B52. I feel a strong personal attachment to [my organisation] | 45% | 46% | 46% | 44% | 46% | 48% | +1 | +3 | | B53. [My organisation] inspires me to do the best in my job | 40% | 39% | 38% | 41% | 43% | 45% | -1 | - | | B54. [My organisation] motivates me to help it achieve its objectives | 38% | 36% | 36% | 38% | 40% | 43% | -2 | 0 |
### Taking action
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------|---------------------| | B55. I believe that [senior managers] in [my organisation] will take action on the results from this survey | 37% | 38% | 39% | 43% | 43% | 45% | +1 | +4 | | B56. I believe that managers where I work will take action on the results from this survey | 45% | 46% | 49% | 52% | 54% | 55% | +1 | +3 | | B57. Where I work, I think effective action has been taken on the results of the last survey | n/a | n/a | 29% | 32% | 33% | 35% | n/a | n/a |
### Organisational culture
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------|---------------------| | B58. I am trusted to carry out my job effectively | n/a | n/a | n/a | 86% | 88% | 89% | n/a | n/a | | B59. I believe I would be supported if I try a new idea, even if it may not work | n/a | n/a | n/a | 63% | 67% | 68% | n/a | n/a | | B60. My performance is evaluated based on whether I get things done, rather than solely follow process | n/a | n/a | n/a | 63% | 65% | 65% | n/a | n/a | | B61. When I talk about [my organisation] I say "we" rather than "they" | n/a | n/a | n/a | 69% | 67% | 68% | n/a | n/a | | B62. I have some really good friendships at work | n/a | n/a | n/a | 73% | 76% | 76% | n/a | n/a |
### Civil Service People Survey 2014: results by question
#### Future intentions
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in index score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------------|---------------------| | I want to leave [my organisation] as soon as possible | 6% | 8% | 7% | 8% | 8% | 7% | +2 | - | | I want to leave [my organisation] within the next 12 months | 11% | 11% | 11% | 12% | 13% | 14% | 0 | 0 | | I want to stay working for [my organisation] for at least the next year | 28% | 26% | 27% | 29% | 30% | 31% | -2 | +1 | | I want to stay working for [my organisation] for at least the next three years | 55% | 55% | 54% | 52% | 48% | 47% | 0 | -1 |
#### Civil Service Code
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in index score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------------|---------------------| | D01. Are you aware of the Civil Service Code? | 75% | 81% | 86% | 88% | 89% | 90% | +6 | + | | D02. Are you aware of how to raise a concern under the Civil Service Code? | 44% | 53% | 59% | 63% | 64% | 64% | +9 | + | | D03. Are you confident that if you raise a concern under the Civil Service Code in [your organisation] it would be investigated properly? | 58% | 62% | 64% | 67% | 67% | 69% | +4 | + |
#### Wellbeing
| Question | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Change in index score | Direction of travel | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------------|---------------------| | W01. Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays? (% 7-10) (0=not at all satisfied, 10=completely satisfied) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 62% | 63% | 64% | n/a | n/a | | W02. Overall, to what extent do you think the things you do in your life are worthwhile? (% 7-10) (0=not at all worthwhile, 10=completely worthwhile) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 68% | 69% | 70% | n/a | n/a | | W03. Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday? (% 7-10) (0=not at all happy, 10=completely happy) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 59% | 60% | 60% | n/a | n/a | | W04. Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday? (% 0-3) (0=not at all anxious, 10=completely anxious) | n/a | n/a | n/a | 51% | 50% | 50% | n/a | n/a |
### Civil Service People Survey 2014: results by question
#### Discrimination
**E01.** During the past 12 months have you personally experienced discrimination at work?
| Year | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | % | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% |
#### Bullying and harassment
**E03.** During the past 12 months have you personally experienced bullying or harassment at work?
| Year | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | % | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% | 10% |
**E04.** Who were you bullied or harassed by at work in the past 12 months? (Asked only of those that said "yes" to question E03, multiple selection was allowed therefore the result is shown as a proportion of those who said yes to E03 and may sum to more than 100%) 11,12
| Category | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | |----------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | A colleague | 26% | 28% | 29% | 29% | 30% | 30% | | Your manager | 31% | 28% | 28% | 27% | 29% | 30% | | Another manager in your part of [your organisation] | 24% | 23% | 23% | 24% | 25% | 25% | | Someone you manage | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | | Someone who works for another part of [your organisation] | 11% | 12% | 11% | 11% | 11% | 10% | | A member of the public | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 2% | | Someone else | 3% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 4% | 4% | | Prefer not to say | 14% | 16% | 17% | 16% | 14% | 14% | The 2014 Civil Service People Survey was conducted across 101 Civil Service organisations (Government Departments, Executive Agencies and Crown NDPBs). A list of participating organisations is provided on the following page.
The fieldwork for the survey ran from 1st-31st October, with 96% participating online and 4% completing paper questionnaires.
274,080 participated in the survey, an overall response rate of 60%. Across the 101 participating organisations the median response rate was 77%.
End notes
01. Except for the engagement index (see note 4) the result for each of the headline themes is calculated as the percentage of “strongly agree” or “agree” responses to all questions in that theme.
02. The change in the benchmark score is calculated simply as the later year’s benchmark score minus the preceding year’s benchmark score. This calculation is based on the rounded figures published in this report.
03. It is not possible to test whether changes in the benchmark are statistically significant because the calculations are based on median scores. The ‘direction of travel’ is therefore a qualitative assessment of the changes in score. An increase of 2 or more percentage points is presented as an arrow pointing to the top-right, a decrease of 2 or more percentage points is presented as an arrow pointing to the bottom-right.
04. The employee engagement index is calculated as a weighted average of the responses to the five employee engagement questions (B50-B54) and ranges from 0% to 100%. A score of 0% represents all respondents giving a rating of “strongly disagree” to all five questions. A score of 100% represents all respondents giving a rating of “strongly agree” to all five questions.
05. The scores for questions B01-B62 are based on the proportion responding “strongly agree” or “agree”. For questions D01-D02, E01 and E03 the score is based on the proportion responding “yes”.
06. Phrases in square brackets (e.g. [my organisation]) are used in the core questionnaire to indicate where participating organisations use the relevant local terms (e.g. ‘the Cabinet Office’ in place of [my/your organisation] or ‘Senior Civil Servants’ in place of [senior managers]).
07. Question B57 was added to the core questionnaire in 2011 and therefore no benchmark score for 2009 or 2010 is available.
08. In 2012 five new questions were added to the Civil Service People Survey to measure further aspects of the culture of our organisations that were not already covered by the questionnaire.
09. Question C01 has four response options and respondents can only select one of the four options. The benchmark score is the median proportion of responses to each option.
10. Following a pilot in 2011, the 2012 Civil Service People Survey questionnaire also included the four subjective wellbeing questions asked by the ONS in the Annual Population Survey as part of their Measuring National Wellbeing programme.
11. Question E02 was only asked to those who had responded "yes" to question E01, similarly question E04 was only asked to those who had responded "yes" to question E03. The scores for questions E02 and E04 are the number of responses to that category as a percentage of those who had said "yes" to the previous question. As respondents were able to select more than one category the scores may sum to more than 100% and the proportions for individual categories cannot be combined.
12. In CSPS 2010 an additional seven response options were added to question E02, therefore there is no data for these categories for 2009. The addition of these categories also means that the results for "Any other grounds" cannot be compared between 2009 and 2010. Participating organisations
Attorney General’s departments Attorney General’s Office Crown Prosecution Service HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Serious Fraud Office TSol
Business, Innovation & Skills Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (excluding agencies) Acas Companies House Competition and Markets Authority Intellectual Property Office Land Registry Met Office National Measurement Office Ordnance Survey National Records of Scotland Historic Scotland and RCAHMS Education Scotland Disclosure Scotland Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Accountant in Bankruptcy HM Prison Service HM Courts and Tribunals Service HM Revenue & Customs HM Inspectorate of Constabulary HM Revenue & Customs HM Treasury HM Treasury and Chancellor’s departments HM Treasury Debt Management Office Government Actuary’s Department National Savings and Investments
Defence Ministry of Defence Defence Equipment & Support Defence Support Group Dstl UK Hydrographic Office
Department for Education Department of Energy and Climate Change Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (excluding agencies) Animal and Plant Health Agency Centre for Environment, Food and Aquaculture Science Food and Environment Research Agency Rural Payments Agency Veterinary Medicines Directorate
Food Standards Agency Foreign & Commonwealth Office Foreign & Commonwealth Office (excluding agencies) FCO Services Wilton Park
Health Department of Health (excluding agencies) Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Public Health England
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary HM Revenue & Customs HM Revenue & Customs Valuation Office Agency
HM Treasury and Chancellor’s departments HM Treasury Debt Management Office Government Actuary’s Department National Savings and Investments
Home Office Home Office: Policy and Enablers Home Office: Border Force Home Office: Immigration Enforcement Home Office: UK Visas and Immigration HM Passport Office
Department for International Development Justice Ministry of Justice (excluding agencies) Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority HM Courts and Tribunals Service HM Prison Service Legal Aid Agency MoJ Arms Length Bodies National Offender Management Service (HQ) National Probation Service Office of the Public Guardian The National Archives
National Crime Agency Ofsted
Scottish Government Scottish Government (excluding agencies) Accountant in Bankruptcy Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Disclosure Scotland Education Scotland Historic Scotland and RCAHMS National Records of Scotland Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator Registers of Scotland Scottish Court Service Scottish Housing Regulator Scottish Prison Service Scottish Public Pensions Agency Scottish Tribunals Service Student Awards Agency for Scotland Transport Scotland
Scotland Office, Office of the Advocate General, Wales Office and Northern Ireland Office
Transport Department for Transport (excluding agencies) Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency Highways Agency Maritime and Coastguard Agency Office of Rail Regulation Vehicle Certification Agency
UK Export Finance
UK Statistics Authority UK Statistics Authority Office for National Statistics
Welsh Government Welsh Government Estyn
Work and Pensions Department for Work and Pensions Health and Safety Executive
Notes
1. The following sets of organisations participate in a ‘joint-survey’, that is where all the organisations take part in the same version of the Civil Service People Survey and therefore are treated as one organisation for analysis and reporting of the survey results.
- The Department for Education and its executive agencies
- The Scotland Office and Office of the Advocate General, the Wales Office, and the Northern Ireland Office
2. The Home Office’s operational directorates undertake their own versions of the Civil Service People Survey and therefore are treated as separate organisations for analysis and reporting of the survey results.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2033-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 12,
"total-input-tokens": 43740,
"total-output-tokens": 9909,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
80,
1
],
[
80,
2568,
2
],
[
2568,
6528,
3
],
[
6528,
12103,
4
],
[
12103,
15034,
5
],
[
15034,
18300,
6
],
[
18300,
21485,
7
],
[
21485,
23055,
8
],
[
23055,
26744,
9
],
[
26744,
30782,
10
],
[
30782,
30782,
11
],
[
30782,
30782,
12
]
]
} |
9118d355b87b67c893d4c5f94642bc6f1921e77b | IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
Appeal No: CTC/899/2013
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before: Upper Tribunal Judge Wright
DECISION
The Upper Tribunal allows the appeal of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Manchester on 1 November 2012 under reference SC946/12/01073 involved an error on a material point of law and is set aside.
The Upper Tribunal gives the decision the First-tier Tribunal ought to have given. The decision is to uphold the decisions made by HMRC on 30 November 2010.
This decision is made under section 12(1), 12 (2)(a) and 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
Representation: Mr Tim Buley of counsel represented Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (the appellant).
The claimant (the respondent) neither appeared nor was represented at the Upper Tribunal hearing.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1. This appeal concerns the right to reside test for what is sometimes termed ‘A2 nationals’; that is, nationals of Bulgaria and Romania. The claimant (the respondent to this appeal, but the appellant before the First-tier Tribunal) and his wife are both Romanian nationals. I will refer to him from now on as ‘the claimant’, and the appellant before the Upper Tribunal as ‘HMRC’.
2. More particularly, the appeal concerns whether, and if so the extent to which, the derogations made by the UK Government for Romanian (and Bulgarian) nationals between 1 January 2007 and 1 January 2011 in respect of their EU law rights as employed ‘workers’ in the UK extended to what was article 12 of EC Regulation 1612/68.
Factual background
03. The claimant made a claim to HMRC for working and child tax credit in May 2009. In so far as is relevant to this appeal, awards were then made to him of child and working tax credit for the periods 10 May 2009 to 5 April 2010 and then from 6 April 2010 to 5 April 2011. The claim and awards were based on the claimant being self-employed. Awards of child benefit were also made. Whether the child benefit awards were made to the claimant or his wife is now immaterial.
04. The tax credit awards were selected for what was a called ‘a check’ by HMRC in July 2010. It is perhaps important to note that the legislative basis for this selection differed between the 2009/2010 award and the 2010/2011 award. As this was not in any sense fully and properly set out in HMRC’s appeal response to the First-tier Tribunal, I devote some attention this issue here. It is not, however, germane to the main issue on which this appeal turns. Some of the facts set out below have come from a submission made by HMRC after the hearing before me.
05. The claim for tax credits made in May 2009 had led to a decision on 25 September 2009 to make an award of both tax credits under section 14 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 (TCA). As is the case with the structure of the tax credits scheme, that was an award ending at the end of the tax credits year on 5 April 2010. A final notice was issued under section 17 of the TCA in respect of this award on 28 April 2010 and a response made to that notice by the claimant and his wife on 25 June 2010. An entitlement “decision after final notice” was than made by HMRC on 8 July 2010, and notified on 12 July 2010, under section 18 of the TCA. This decided that the claimant and his wife were entitled to both tax credits for the period 10 May 2009 to 5 April
06. For reasons which are unclear, the very next day however HMRC issued a letter to the claimant and his under section 19 of the TCA of its intention to enquire into the entitlement decision for 2009/2010. This section 19 enquiry was made in time, falling as it did within one year of the section 17 notice of 28 April 2010: see section 19(4)(b) of the TCA. It was HMRC’s decision on this enquiry, made pursuant to section 19(3) of the TCA, which led to the decision under appeal to the First-tier Tribunal that the claimant and his wife were not entitled to either working or child tax credit for the period 10 May 2009 to 5 April 2010.
07. In the meantime, however, a decision had been made for the following tax credits year. This again, as understand it, was a section 14 decision. The claimant and his wife were awarded child and working tax credits from 6 April 2010 to 5 April 2011. Quite when that awarding decision was made is not clear from the appeal papers. No explanation for this award or the legislative basis for its removal was provided by HMRC in its appeal response to the First-tier Tribunal. It is reasonably apparent from the appeal response, however, that the appeal was taken as being against both the section 19(3) TCA decision removing entitlement for the 2009/2010 year and the decision removing the award for the tax credit year 2010/2011. Moreover, HMRC’s decision letter of 30 November 2010 did, if the reader ignores its misleading subject heading in bold on the first page and hunts through it to the very end, include a decision that for the tax credits award for the year 2010/2011 was being “terminated”. Allied to this, HMRC had in fact issued a separate ‘enquiry’ letter, also dated 13 July 2010, to the claimant and his wife about the tax credits year 2010/2011. This said “Your claim has been selected for review”.
08. Piecing all of this together, and in the absence of any explanation from HMRC, it seems that this ‘review’ into the 2010/2011 award and the ‘termination’ decision which followed it must have been a revision decision under section 16 of the TCA on the basis that HMRC had “reasonable grounds for believing” that the claimant and his wife ought never to have been awarded tax credits for that tax credits year (on right to reside grounds), and deciding to “terminate the award” under section 16(1) of the TCA.
09. What is (at least tolerably) clear is that what was under appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was both the section 19(3) non-entitlement decision for May 2009 to April 2010 and the section 14(1) decision terminating the award for 2010/2011.
10. The initial basis for the enquiry and review seemed to focus on the claimant’s self-employed work as a ‘Big Issue’ seller and any other work he did. The same sorts of questions were asked of his wife. This then led to HMRC’s decisions of 30 November 2010. The decisions were to the effect that the claimant did not have a right to reside in the UK because his self-employed work as a “Big Issue” seller was not “genuine and effective” and therefore did not give him ‘worker’ status under EU law. Further, the claimant’s work as a cleaner for Paragon Limited was as an employee and as that work had not been authorised under the “Worker Authorisation Scheme” for Romanian (and Bulgarian) nationals employed in Great Britain, this work did not confer on him ‘worker’ status either. A virtually identical decision letter was issued to the claimant’s wife. She too had relied on working as a self-employed cleaner through Paragon Ltd, but she had not worked as a Big Issue seller.
11. HMRC’s decision letters of 30 November 2010 also covered child benefit. The letters said that child benefit also had the ‘right to reside’ test as a condition of entitlement and as neither the claimant nor his wife had a right to reside, there could be no entitlement to child
______________________________________________________________________
1 Quite what this may mean about any subsequent section 18 TCA decision required to be made for the tax credits year 2010/2011 (e.g. whether any such decision was made or is still to be made, and whether it was or may still be open to appeal), may need to be worked out but does not need to be addressed on this appeal. benefit. The letter continued “I will be asking my colleagues in the Child Benefit Office to amend your Child benefit awards to zero from the date the award began”. That, however, was the sum total of the information before the First-tier Tribunal on child benefit. As is set out below the child benefit decision was also appealed but despite this HMRC’s appeal response to the First-tier Tribunal said nothing whatsoever about child benefit and proceeded as if the only matters in issue were child tax credit and working tax credit.
11. The decisions (including the decision on child benefit) were appealed by the claimant. It is not clear if his wife made any separate appeal. His grounds of appeal were: (i) that his work as a “Big Issue” seller was genuine and effective; (ii) that he was not an employee of Paragon Limited; and (iii) therefore he was lawfully working in Great Britain (as a self-employed person) and so had a right to reside. The appeal letter refers to the decision letters raising overpayments in respect of both of the tax credits awards and the child benefit award, however no separate overpayment decision in respect of child benefit under section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is in the appeal bundle or was before the First-tier Tribunal. (Overpayments of working and child tax credits are automatically recoverable and not subject to any section 71 ‘defence’ for claimants.)
12. The appeal came before the First-tier Tribunal in Manchester. The first hearing was adjourned as the First-tier Tribunal wanted written argument from the parties (the claimant now being represented) on whether the claimant at the material times had “a right to reside as the primary carer (or spouse of the primary carer) of a child who entered into full-time education during a period when the [claimant] was in self-employment” based on article 12 of EC Regulation 1612/68. Arguments were submitted on both sides. HMRC argued that regulation 12 of EC Regulation 1612/68 could not assist the claimant as it only covered the employed and did not cover the self-employed. The claimant’s representative ‘parked’ his submissions on this issue. on the basis that whether regulation 12 of EC Regulation 1612/68 covered the self-employed was to be decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in a case called Czop (Case C-147/11). He argued in any event that the self-employed work which the claimant had carried out as a Big Issue seller was ‘genuine and effective’.
13. The First-tier Tribunal then decided the appeal after another hearing. It “allowed the appeal in part” and set aside HMRC’s decision of 30 November 2010. It found in its Decision Notice that for the period prior to 24 March 2010 the claimant’s work was self-employed work but there was insufficient evidence upon which this could be treated as qualifying remunerative work. From 24 March 2010 it found that the claimant was an employee of a cleaning company (as was his wife) and his normal working hours were 16 hours a week. The First-tier Tribunal then said:
“HMRC must make a new decision on the basis of the findings of fact [about the self-employment before 24 March 2010 and employment after that date]. That decision will carry a new right of appeal.”
14. A statement of reasons for the decision was sought, perhaps surprisingly by the claimant’s representative rather than by HMRC notwithstanding the odd form of the decision the First-tier Tribunal had made. The statement of reason provided did not add materially to the Decision Notice. HMRC then sought permission to appeal, It did so on the basis that it was unclear:
(i) which part of the appeal had been upheld – and what part(s) of the decision under appeal had been left undisturbed?; (ii) what had actually been decided?; (iii) why no reference was made at all to EU law on rights of residence or to the employment restrictions on Romanian nationals?; (iv) why the decision was silent on entitlement to child tax credit and child benefit?; and (v) how HRMC was to implement the directions given to it?
The First-tier Tribunal gave permission to appeal without giving any reasons for why it had given permission to appeal.
15. In the initial directions on the appeal I said:
"On a preliminary view, it seems to me strongly arguable that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law in the ways contended for by HMRC. In particular it is very arguable that the tribunal failed to marry up its findings on self-employment (as a Big Issue seller) and employment (with Paragon) to the critical issue of whether [the claimant], as what is termed an “A2” national, had a “right to reside” in...Great Britain for tax credit purposes. In failing to decide that issue it is very arguable that the tribunal erred in law."
16. Matters were then somewhat held up as the Upper Tribunal (AAC) Office sought to obtain a response to HMRC’s appeal from the claimant. None was forthcoming and he had ceased to have a representative. That led me to further consider the appeal and issue further directions on it. Those directions cover what this appeal is now about and therefore repay setting out in full.
"In [my earlier] directions I sought the views of the parties as to my setting aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision for error of law and remitting the appeal to another First-tier Tribunal to be re-decided. HMRC provided a late consent to this course of action. Nothing, however, has been heard from [the claimant]. Mr Best from HMRC had helpfully provided details of a new address for [the claimant] in Manchester, to which a fresh appeal bundle together with the directions of 7 May 2013 were issued on 9 January 2014, but that has not elicited a reply from [the claimant] either. I have noted however that it would seem that at no stage has [the claimant’s] representative........been notified of the appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and I return to this further below.
In the light of the lack of any input from [the claimant] and therefore the likelihood of his not attending any hearing of his appeal were it to be remitted for rehearing before a freshly constituted First-tier Tribunal, in coming to write up my decision on this appeal I have had to consider the utility of remitting the appeal to another First-tier Tribunal, that has led me to focus more on closely than I otherwise might have done on the issues that need to be determined on the substantive appeals below, and that in turn has brought the following new issues into focus. The purpose of these directions is therefore to seek the views of parties (including hopefully the [representative] if it is still acting for [the claimant]), on these issues and how generally this appeal ought to be disposed of.
The first new issue arises in the context of the tribunal’s findings of fact in relation to [the claimant’s] self-employment as a Big Issue seller and then employment as an employed earner with Paragon Limited as a cleaner. Subject to argument not so far made to me, it seems to me well arguable that the First-tier Tribunal’s findings and conclusions on these two periods of economic activity were properly based on the evidence before the tribunal: the fault lay in the tribunal failing to fully work those findings through in terms of the “right to reside” test and entitlement to tax credits and child benefit. In other words, it seems to me very arguable that the tribunal was entitled to find (i) that [the claimant] was self-employed as a Big Issue seller but that even if they were genuine and effective earnings no Baumbast type right to reside could arise from such work (following Czop and Punakova); and (ii) that he was employed as an employed earner by Paragon and that work was ‘genuine and effective’.
Based on those findings it seems to me, at least at present, that the self-employed work could give rise to no right to reside sufficient to invalidate the decisions of HMRC under appeal. Likewise, the finding of the work for Paragon being employed earner’s employment as it was not “authorised” pursuant to the Accession (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations 2006 could not give rise to any right to reside in terms of [the claimant] being a “worker” under Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC or the Immigration (EEA) Regs 2006.
Pausing at this point, if the above is correct (and no other issues arise), then it may be that the appropriate course of action would be for the Upper Tribunal to set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision but dismiss [the claimant’s] appeals from HMRC’s decisions concerning tax credits and child benefit.
However, two issues arise which may benefit [the claimant]. The first may be stated as follows. The findings of the tribunal provide that [the claimant] was engaging in genuine and effective work as an employed earner (i.e. as an employee) from 24 March 2010. Absent the worker’s authorisation scheme that employed work on its face would have made him a person who at the relevant time was ‘employed in the territory of the [UK]’ under article 12 of Regulation (EEC) 1612/68. However, do the terms of the agreement between Romania and the European Union for the former’s accession to the EU allow for the UK to derogate from article 12 of Regulation (EEC) 1612/68?
Put another way, does any derogation in respect of articles 1-6 of Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 and a “worker” thereunder (assuming that the Treaty of Accession between Romania and the EU followed the same drafting course as Treaty between what is termed the “A8 countries” and the EU did earlier) affect a person who is or has been “employed” under article 12 of 1612/68?
In Collins - v- SSWP (C-138/02) (RJ SA)3/06) the ECJ stated at paragraph [32] that: “[t]he concept of “worker” is thus not used in Regulation No 1612/68 in a uniform manner. While in Title II of Part I of the Regulation this term covers only persons who have already entered the employment market, in other parts of the same Regulation the concept of “worker” must be understood in a broader sense”.
Article 12 of 1612/68 appeared in Title III Workers’ families whereas Article 7 appeared in Title II Employment and Equality of Treatment and Articles 1-6 appeared in Title I Eligibility for Employment.
Moreover in SSWP – v- JS [2010] (IS) UKUT 347 (AAC) Upper Tribunal Jacobs said (at paragraphs 15-18):
“Ms Rhee’s case was set out in paragraph 6.2 of her skeleton argument. In essence, she argued that the child’s right under Article 12 only arises when the parent has completed 12 months’ work. Until then, the parent’s rights are qualified. The key passage reads: “the fact alone that the dependent child may have availed himself of his right to access education under Article 12 cannot serve to transform what may have been only a qualified right on the part of his parent to rely on Article 12 … into a qualified right to rely on Article 12.” That passage shows the flaws in the argument. The Article 12 right is conferred on the child, not on the parent. The parent’s status as a worker serves only to trigger the child’s right. The parent does not take advantage of the right as worker but only at most as primary carer. And the Baumbast right does not depend on the parent having any continuing status as worker.
If I understood Ms Rhee’s oral presentation correctly, she argued that Article 12 was covered by the derogation in Poland’s Treaty of Accession. I reject that argument. It is a right for the child, not the worker. It is not linked to any of the provisions in Articles 1 to 6, either on their wording or on their substance. It is a right with continuing effect independent of the future status of the person whose work gave rise to the child’s right.
Even if there were an argument that Articles 1 to 6 formed (as Ms Rhee put it) a gateway to Article 12, I would still reject her argument. The derogation must be interpreted narrowly and the omission of any reference to Article 12 in the Annex is sufficient to prevent it being covered.
The simple answer to the Secretary of State’s case is this. The Treaty of Accession allowed member States to derogate from a person’s rights as a worker. The United Kingdom has implemented that derogation partially. It could have deprived persons from the A8 countries of any rights until they had completed 12 months’ work. It did not do so and the claimant is entitled to the benefit of the limited rights that it conferred on her.”
Taken together these two authorities may provide the basis for an argument that the child’s educational right conferred under article 12 of 1612/68 (and the contingent right of his or her primary carer) is not dependent – in the case of A2 nationals – on his or her parent having been employed in authorised employment. It may be noteworthy that JS was decided after the House of Lord’s decision in Zalewska [2008] UKHL 67 (R 1/09 (IS)). On the other hand, Collins was not concerned with what I will term Accession State nationals and in JS the claimant had been in registered employment when her child entered education.
These issues are of sufficient importance, and potential relevance to [the claimant’s] case, to merit seeking submissions on them.
The second issue concerns child benefit. HMRC has criticised the First-tier Tribunal for not making any decision on the appeal against the child benefit decision. I think that aspect of its criticism of tribunal may be a little unfair. HMRC’s appeal response to the First-tier Tribunal makes no mention of any child benefit decision and the decision itself only appears on pages 140-143.
Of more importance, however, is the effect of the decision of Chief Commissioner Mullen in Northern Ireland in AS – v- HMRC (CB) [2013] NICom 15. In AS the Chief Commissioner has held, distinguishing Patmalniece [2011] UKSC 11; [2011] AACR 34, that the right to reside test in Northern Ireland child benefit regulations is directly discriminatory contrary to article 3 of Regulation (EC) 1408/71 and therefore unlawful. The decision in AS may be under appeal to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.
Ought I to follow AS; if not, why not; and does its reasoning not extend to child tax credit?
These issues, too, merit further submissions.”
17. These directions led to a reply from the claimant’s representative but only to the extent of it saying it no longer acted for the claimant. The claimant has continued to take no part in these proceedings.
18. For reasons which are no longer relevant, unfortunately it then took HMRC a considerable period of time to file its response to the issues raised in the directions set out in paragraph 15 above. On the two issues raised it argued as follows.
(i) Romania had joined the EU on 1 January 2007 under the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania of 24 April 2005. Article 1.2 of Annex VII to the Protocol to the Treaty provided for derogations from articles 1 to 6 of Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 to be adopted in, inter alia, the UK for a transitional period of two years from the date of accession extendable to five years. Articles 1 to 6 of Regulation 1612/68 appeared under Title I Eligibility for Employment, whereas article 12 appeared under Title III Workers’ Families. Articles 1 to 6 of Regulation 1612/68 were concerned with matters such as access to, here, the UK's labour market and availability in finding employment, and did not deal with the rights of a person who is or has been employed. Article 12 of the same Regulation also did not deal with the rights of persons who are or have been employed in the UK but rather with the educational rights of a child of such a person, and that educational right was not found in articles 1-6. The distinction between article 12 rights of a child in education and those of those seeking work under articles 1-6 of Regulation 1612/68 was central to the Upper Tribunal's reasoning SSWP – v- J S [2010] (IS) UKUT 347 (AAC). The terms of Romania's accession to the EU did not enable the UK to derogate from article 12 of Regulation 1612/68 nor did the derogations from articles 1-6 of the same Regulation affect a person “who is or had been employed” within the meaning of article 12. However the claimant had at all times described himself as “self-employed” and as such he could not benefit from article 12 of Regulation 1612/68: per the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Czop and Punakova – v- SSWP (Cases C-147/11 and C-148/11). As for any work the claimant had done as an employee, this work had to be covered by authorisation under the “Worker Authorisation Scheme”, which the claimant did not have, and this meant that he at no stage had acquired the status of “worker” under EU law. In order for him to have acquired such status he had to secure employment. This, however, took the enquiry back to articles 1-6 of Regulation 1612/68 and the claimant had not secured access to the UK's employment market in the manner dictated by the permitted derogations from those articles agreed in the Protocol to the Treaty of Accession. As such he was not a “worker” and so had to be seen for the purposes of article 12 of Regulation 1612/68 as not having been employed in the UK.
(ii) As for child benefit and the decision in AS - v- HMRC (CB) [2013] NICom 15, this had been overturned by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in HMRC – v- Aiga Spiridonova [2014] NICA 63; [2015] 1 CMLR 26. The court there held that any discrimination in the right to reside test in child benefit was indirect but was objectively justified, and the Upper Tribunal should follow or be persuaded by that decision.
19. As I was not entirely clear as to the correctness of HMRC's argument as summarised in paragraph 18(i) above, I directed an oral hearing of the appeal. The focus of that hearing was on whether the claimant had a right to reside under article 12 of Regulation 1612/68 at the date of the decision under appeal based on the First-tier Tribunal's finding that he was an employee of Paragon Advanced Cleaning (“Paragon”) from 24 March 2010 working 16 hours per week. I asked why the claimant was not “employed in the [UK]” under article 12 of 1612/68 based on this employment. If he had such a right to reside then on the face of it that would have meant that he and his wife were entitled to child tax credit (and child benefit) from 6 April 2010 at least, and perhaps working tax credit as well; or at least they would not be ‘disentitled’ on the basis of not having a right to reside. The hearing was focused in this way because I was satisfied on the basis of the evidence before the First-tier Tribunal and the lack of any argument from the claimant thereafter that the self-employed work as a Big Issue seller was not ‘effective and genuine” and so was satisfied that that work could not lead to the claimant having a right to reside.
Discussion and conclusion
20. Having heard from Mr Buley on behalf of HMRC at the hearing before me and reflected further on the arguments, I am now satisfied that HMRC’s arguments are correct and that the claimant did not have a right to reside in the UK at any time relevant to the decisions under appeal.
21. Before explaining why the claimant did not have a right to reside based on his employment with Paragon I need, however, to deal with the First-tier Tribunal’s decision and whether it can stand as a legally correct decision. The answer to that has to be “No”. Even putting to one side the issue of the child benefit decision, which for the reasons given above the First-tier Tribunal cannot rationally be criticised for missing, the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was fundamentally in legal error for not giving an outcome decision in respect of the decisions on tax credits which it did understand were under appeal to it.
22. I accept that HMRC’s appeal response to the First-tier Tribunal was not a model of clarity. The decision, however, given in Section 3 of
______________________________________________________________________
2 It is not, nor has it ever been, disputed that at least one of the claimant’s children was in school education at the relevant time and would otherwise have come within article 12 of Regulation 1612/68. the HMRC’s appeal response to the First-tier Tribunal was that the award of tax credits had been disallowed and the First-tier Tribunal was therefore required to decide on the appeal against that decision, having set aside HMRC’s decision of 30 November 2010, whether the claimants’ awards of tax credit should be allowed or disallowed; and that if failed to do. Its decision must therefore be set aside.
23. Having set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision I have two options open to me as provided for under section 12(2)(b) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. I can either remit the appeal to be re-decided afresh by another First-tier Tribunal or I can remake the decision myself. There is in my judgment no sensible purpose in my taking the first option. The decision under appeal is now very old and the appeal against it ought to be decided as soon as is practicable; remitting the appeal to be re-decided by the First-tier Tribunal would simply add to the time it takes for the appeal to be decided. Moreover, remission as far as I can see would serve no useful purpose as the claimant’s lack of any engagement with the Upper Tribunal on this appeal does not suggest he would involve himself, and attend before, the First-tier Tribunal on any new hearing of the appeal. I therefore consider I am in as good a position as the First-tier Tribunal would likely to find itself in in terms of deciding the appeal.
Spiridonova
24. I deal firstly with the separate argument for child benefit (and, on HMRC’s concession, child tax credit) based on Spiridonova. I can deal with this very briefly as I accept that I ought to follow the decision of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in Spiridonova, even though strictly speaking it is not binding on me: see R(SB) 1/90, paragraphs 26-27 of SSWP – v- Deane [2010] EWCA Civ 699; [2011] 1 WLR 743; [2010] AACR 42, and paragraph 29 of EC-v-SSWP (ESA) [2015] UKUT 618 (AAC). No argument has been made to me providing any basis for me not to follow Spiridonova nor can I identify any strong argument to enable me conscientiously not to follow it.
Big Issue
25. Turning then to the self-employed work as a Big Issue seller, even though I have set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision, I accept and adopt its finding that there was insufficient evidence showing the remuneration received by the claimant for this work and, based on this, I conclude that the claimant’s self-employment as a Big Issue seller was not “effective and genuine” and was on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary: per Levin [1982] ECR 1035.
26. The Big Issue work took place in the tax credits year 2009/2010 and was said by the claimant to have occurred between May 2009 and the middle of March 2010. He said that he worked as a seller of the Big Issue for 16 hours over five days a week. There is, however, little to corroborate the extent of this work. The claimant in a letter of 22 July 2010 to HMRC said that he had included receipts for Big Issues purchased from him for the period from 19 November 2009. These are set out elsewhere in the appeal bundle and show between 10 and 59 magazines sold by him on various days between 19 November 2009 and 7 March 2010. He was, however, unable to provide receipts for the period from May 2009 to 18 November 2009 as he said he had had his bag stolen at the end of 2009 and he had kept his records in this bag. HMRC’s appeal response sought further evidence as to this theft (e.g. a police report) but this was not provided by the claimant.
27. The basis for self-employed work as a Big Issue seller was that the claimant paid £1 for each copy of the magazine he sold at £2 a magazine. He thus made a gross profit of £1 per magazine sold. For the period for which invoices had been supplied, the gross profit was £1066. Once travel expenses are deducted this become a net profit of £890, which translates to £37.83 per week or £2.36 per hour. This leaves out of account the period from May 2009 to 18 November 2009. I do not consider this was “effective and genuine” self-employment given the lack of corroboration of the hours worked each week and the very low level of earnings if spread over 16 hours each week. I note that this was the sole work during this period and was being done to support the claimant, his wife and their seven children.
28. This finding is sufficient to dispose of any argument relying on the self-employed work as a Big Issue seller. I therefore decline to further delay deciding this appeal on the basis of any challenge in the Court of Appeal in the case of Hrabkova -v- SSWP to the decision of the Upper Tribunal in RM -v- SSWP (IS) [2014] UKUT 0401 (AAC); [2015] AACR 11. The decision in RM holds, in effect, that being “employed” for the purposes of article 12 of EC Regulation 1612/68 or article 10 of Regulation (EU) 492/2011 does not extend to the self-employed. Here, however, on the above finding the claimant’s work does not get him past first base of showing him as having been engaged in effective and genuine self-employment, so even if the view in RM was to be overruled by the Court of Appeal in Hrabkova (which in my judgment is unlikely in the light of how the CJEU decided Czop and Punakova) this would not benefit the claimant as he still would not be able to satisfy article 12 of Regulation 1612/68 based on his time selling the Big Issue.
Article 12 of 1612/68
29. The basis of the argument here is foreshadowed in the directions set out in paragraph 16 above. In short the argument is that article 12 of Regulation 1612/68 sits outside and is not affected by the derogations made by the Treaty of Accession to articles 1-6 of Regulation 1612/68 and so the claimant’s employed work for Paragon, which it is accepted was “effective and genuine”, was sufficient to bring him within article 12 and the word “employed” used within that article even though that employment was not authorised under the Worker Authorisation scheme.
30. The argument does not succeed in my view because in order to be “employed” for the purposes of article 12 of Regulation 1612/68 a person has to have been admitted to the UK employment market in the first place under article 1.1 of Regulation 1612/68 and in order to do that the claimant had to meet the conditions of the UK’s derogations from articles 1-6 of Regulation 1612/68 as set out in the Worker Authorisation scheme. As it is accepted that the claimant did not meet those conditions, the legal effect was that he had not been admitted to employment in the UK and so had not been “employed” in the UK under article 12 of Regulation 1612/68. Furthermore, properly understood this result is not inconsistent with SSWP – v- JS [2010] (IS) UKUT 347.
31. The legislative starting point is section 3(3) of the TCA. This is in Part 1 of the TCA and provides that claims for tax credits may only be made by persons who are over the age 16 and are “in the United Kingdom”. Section 3(7) of the TCA then provides that “[c]ircumstances may be prescribed in which a person is to be treated... as being, or as not being, in the United Kingdom”. Those circumstances are prescribed in regulation 3 of the Tax Credits (Residence) Regulations 2003, which provided so far as is material at the relevant time as follows:
“Circumstances in which a person is treated as not being in the United Kingdom
3.—(1) A person shall be treated as not being in the United Kingdom for the purposes of Part 1 of the Act if he is not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.
(4) For the purposes of working tax credit, a person shall be treated as being ordinarily resident if he is exercising in the United Kingdom his rights as a worker pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No.1612/68..... or he is a person with a right to reside in the United Kingdom pursuant to Council Directive No. 2004/38/EC. (5) A person shall be treated as not being in the United Kingdom for the purposes of Part 1 of the [TCA] where he (a) makes a claim for child tax credit...on or after 1st May 2004; and (b) does not have a right to reside in the United Kingdom.”
The effect of these provisions is that the claimant had to be exercising his rights as a ‘worker’ under Regulation EC 1612/68 or otherwise exercising a right of residence in the UK. For the purposes of this appeal it is only necessary to address the first of these criteria as there is no suggestion that at the material time he had a right to reside arising outside of Regulation 1612/68.
32. Part I of Regulation 1612/68 is titled Employment and Workers’ Families. Articles 1-6 and article 12 fall under Part I. Articles 1-6 fall under a sub-heading Title I Eligibility for employment. Article 1 provides that:
“1.1 Any national of a Member State shall, irrespective of his place of residence, have the right to take up an activity as an employed person, and to pursue such activity, within the territory of another Member State in accordance with the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action governing the employment of nationals of that State.
1.2 He shall, in particular, have the right to take up available employment in the territory of another Member State with the same priority as nationals of that State.”
Article 3(1) then provided, inter alia, that:
“3.1 Under this Regulation, provisions laid down by law, regulations or administrative action or administrative practices of a Member State shall not apply:- where they limit application for and offers of employment, or the right of foreign nationals to take up and pursues employment or subject these to conditions not applicable in respect of their own nationals.”
And Article 5 provided:
“5. A national of a Member State who seeks employment in the territory of another Member State shall receive the same assistance there as that afforded by the employment offices in that State to their own nationals seeking employment.”
33. Article 12 in Regulation 1612/68 appeared under the sub-heading Title III Workers’ Families and provided:
“The children of a national of a Member State who is or has been employed in the territory of another Member State shall be admitted to that State’s general educational, apprenticeship and vocational training courses under the same conditions as the nationals of that State, if such children are residing in its territory.”
34. The next piece of the legislative jigsaw is paragraphs one and two of Annex VII to the Treaty of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania of 24 April 2005. Paragraph one sets the starting point. It is:
“Article 39 and the first paragraph of Article 49 of the EC Treaty shall fully apply only, in relation to the freedom of movement of workers and the freedom to provide services involving the temporary movement of workers as defined in Article 1 of Directive 96/71/EC between Romania on the one hand, and each of the present Member States on the other hand, subject to the transitional provisions laid down in paragraphs 2 to 14.”
Paragraph two in Annex VII then sets out:
"By way of derogation from Articles 1 to 6 of the Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and until the end of the two year period following the date of accession, the present Member States will apply national measures, or those resulting from bilateral agreements, regulating access to their labour markets by Romanian nationals. The present Member States may continue to apply such measures until the end of the five year period following the date of the accession.
Romanian nationals legally working in a present Member State at the date of accession and admitted to the labour market of that member state for an uninterrupted period of 12 months or longer will enjoy access to the labour market of that Member State but not to the labour market of other Member States applying national measures.
Romanian nationals admitted to the labour market of a present Member State following accession for an uninterrupted period of 12 months or longer shall also enjoy the same rights. The Romanian nationals mentioned in the second and third subparagraphs above shall cease to enjoy the rights contained in those subparagraphs if they voluntarily leave the labour market of the present Member State in question.
Romanian nationals legally working in a present Member State at the date of accession, or during a period when national measures are applied, and who were admitted to the labour market of that Member State for a period of less than 12 months shall not enjoy these rights.
And Paragraph 12 in the same Annex VII goes on to provide:
“Any present Member State applying national measures in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 5 and 7 to 9, may introduce, under national law, greater freedom of movement than that existing at the date of accession, including full labour market access. From the third year following the date of accession, any present member State applying national measures may at any time decide to apply articles 1 to 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 instead. The Commission shall be informed of any such decision.”
35. The “national measures” adopted by the UK in respect of Great Britain are set out in the Accession (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations 2006 (the “Worker Authorisation Regs”). These provide, so far as is material, as follows.
36. First, subject to exceptions that do not apply to the claimant in this appeal, an “accession State national subject to worker authorisation” means a national of Bulgaria or Romania: per regulation 2(1) of the Worker Authorisation Regs.
37. Second, regulation 5 of the Worker Authorisation Regs provided at the material time that:
“Derogation from provisions of Community law relating to workers 5. Regulations 6, 7 and 9 derogate during the accession period from Article 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities, Articles 1 to 6 of Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community and Council Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.” 38. Regulation 6 of the Worker Authorisation Regs provided at the material time as follows:
"Right of residence of an accession State national subject to worker authorisation
6.—(1) An accession State national subject to worker authorisation shall, during the accession period, only be entitled to reside in the United Kingdom in accordance with the 2006 Regulations, as modified by this regulation.
(2) An accession State national subject to worker authorisation who is seeking employment in the United Kingdom shall not be treated as a jobseeker for the purpose of the definition of "qualified person" in regulation 6(1) of the 2006 Regulations and such a person shall be treated as a worker for the purpose of that definition only during a period in which he holds an accession worker authorisation document and is working in accordance with the conditions set out in that document.
(3) Regulation 6(2) of the 2006 Regulations shall not apply to an accession State national subject to worker authorisation who ceases to work."
39. The last piece in the statutory jigsaw is regulation 6(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (the “EEA Regs”), which provides as follows:
""Qualified person"
6.—(1) In these Regulations, “qualified person” means a person who is an EEA national and in the United Kingdom as—
(a) a jobseeker; (b) a worker; (c) a self-employed person; (d) a self-sufficient person; or (e) a student.”.
40. The basis on which these provisions fit together was explained by Lord Hope in Zalewska -v- Department for Social Development [2008] UKHL 67; [2008] 1 WLR 2602; R 1/09(IS). In my judgment Lord Hope’s speech in Zalewska gives a clear and complete answer to the argument raised earlier and it is therefore worth repeating parts of that speech here. The appellant in Zalewska was a Polish national but as the material legal provisions are identical in their wording I have replaced (in [square brackets]) for ease of understanding the references to ‘Poland’ and ‘Polish’ with references to ‘Romania’ and ‘Romanian’.
41. Ms Zalewska’s facts were different from the claimant’s in this case because she had ‘registered’ her first employment under the UK Worker Registration scheme but when she moved to a different job after less than a year she did not register the new employment, with the result that although she had been employed in the UK for more than 12 months only part of that period had been in registered employment as required under UK law.
42. The important parts of Lord Hope’s speech are in paragraphs 25-27, 29 and 40, where he said:
“25. The first question is whether the appellant can rely directly on article 39EC and article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68 to qualify for income support, despite the fact that she was not authorised to work for an authorised employer under reg 7 of the 2004 Regulations for the whole of the 12 month period. In my opinion the answer to it is to be found in paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Annex XII to the Act of Accession.
26. Absent the derogation provisions in that paragraph, a worker who is a national of any member state has the same rights of access to the labour market and to the social advantages that go with it as those of any other member state. That is the effect of article 39EC read together with article 7 of the Regulation. It is not open to the United Kingdom to impose restrictions on workers who are nationals of other member states that are incompatible with the fundamental rules of Community law. But, as paragraph 1 of Annex XII makes clear in the case of [Romania], article 39EC is subject to derogation in the case of the freedom of movement of workers from nationals of [Romania]. Paragraph 2 of Part 2 states, by way of derogation, that for the two year period from the date of accession the member states will apply national measures……..The effect of that paragraph was to enable the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the fundamental rules of Community law as to freedom of movement of persons, to lay down its own rules for access to its labour market by [Romanian] state nationals.
27. It is true that paragraph 2 does not mention article 7 of Regulation 1612/68. It states that the liberty that is given to the member states to apply national measures is by way of derogation from articles 1 to 6 of the Regulation. But I think that there are two reasons for the fact that article 7 is not mentioned in this paragraph. The first is that mention of it was unnecessary. Access to labour markets is treated in Title I of the Regulation as a question of eligibility. The fundamental rules about the eligibility for employment of any national of a member state are set out in articles 1 to 6. A national of a member state who takes up employment in another member state under those rules is a worker for the purposes of article 7, but not otherwise. Taking [Romania] as the example, displacement of articles 1 to 6 by national measures was all that the derogation provision in paragraph 2 of part 2 of Annex XII needed to do to ensure that access to employment in the 15 existing member states by workers from [Romania] was controlled by national measures during the five year period. The second is that its exclusion from derogation ensured that any workers from [Romania] who did obtain access to the labour market in an existing member state under its national measures enjoyed the same guarantees against discrimination as regards conditions of employment and social and tax advantages as national workers. But the rights conferred on [Romanian] workers by article 7 were to depend on their compliance with the national measures. It is those measures that determine their eligibility to obtain access to the national labour market on which the rights given by article 7 in their turn depend. The reference to [Romanian] nationals "admitted to the labour market of a present member state" in the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Annex XII is a reference to [Romanian] nationals who have been admitted to it under the national measures regulating access.
28. The next question is whether, as [counsel for the Secretary of State] submitted, the United Kingdom has a complete discretion to determine the conditions on which nationals from the A8 states may obtain access to its labour market, or whether Community law requires that the measures that it selects must have a legitimate aim and be proportionate. He took as his starting point a series of propositions which I would regard as impeccable. The word "worker" in article 7 of Regulation 1612/68 refers to a national of one member state who is admitted to the labour market in another member state. A national of an A8 state is a "worker" in the United Kingdom for the purposes of article 7 only if he complies with the national measures that regulate access to the labour market in this country. This is because articles 1 to 6 of the Regulation have been suspended during the accession period and the national measures as to eligibility have taken their place......So long as the requirements of the national rules are satisfied an A8 state national is entitled to the benefit of article 7(2) of the Regulation because he is a person who is admitted to the labour market, but not otherwise. Conversely an A8 state national is not admitted to the labour market if he does not comply with the national measures. So he is not in a position to acquire the rights that Community law gives to workers. In other words, access by an A8 state national to the Community rights in an existing Member state that the EC Treaty gives to workers there depends on his satisfying the national measures that give access to its labour market. So long as those measures are satisfied the United Kingdom is under a Community law obligation to give him the benefit of article 7(2), but not otherwise.
29. Then there is the important question of access to social security benefits. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said in paragraph 4 of his introduction to the Report on the 2004 Social Security Regulations that their underlying purpose was to safeguard the United Kingdom's social security system from exploitation by people who wished to come to the UK not to work but to live off benefits. The terms on which A8 state nationals are to have access to the labour market are critical to achieving that purpose. Access to that market confers on them the status of workers. So they become entitled immediately, under article 7 of Regulation 1612/68, to the same social advantages as nationals. And the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Annex XII provides that A8 state nationals admitted to the labour market of an existing member state following accession for an uninterrupted period of 12 months or longer are to enjoy access to the labour market of that state. This is a right that is given to them by Community law, with all the other rights that go with it, at the end of that period. But it is given only to those who are, as the subparagraph puts it, "admitted" to that labour market during that period. The proportionality of the formalities of registration and re-registration and of the consequences of a failure to comply with these requirements must be judged in that context.” (my underlining added for emphasis).
30. Given the facts on this appeal, I need not concern myself with the difficult and potentially elusive distinction (if it is such) between being “admitted” to the UK employment or labour market and having “access” to that market, and whether rights under EU law may apply during the period where an A8 (e.g. Polish) national or A2 (e.g. Romanian) national has been admitted to the UK employment market (by meeting the registration or authorisation conditions for that employment) but before that national has completed 12 months in such employment: see obiter discussion in VP – v- SSWP (JSA) [2014] UKUT 32 (AAC); [2014] AACR 25.
31. I do not need to traverse this area because the undisputed fact in this case is that the claimant’s employment with Paragon (and the First-tier Tribunal in my judgment was plainly right in its view that this was employed work rather than self-employed work) was never authorised under the Worker Authorisation Regs. The consequence of this failure in my judgment, following the above cited passages from Zalewska, is that the claimant was never admitted to the UK employment market because he failed to meet the “national measures” set out in the Worker Authorisations Regs; he therefore failed to meet, per Lord Hope, the “fundamental rules about eligibility for employment” in articles 1-6 of Regulation 1612/68; and as a result he was and had not been “employed” in the UK for the purposes of article 12 of Regulation 1612/68.
32. I appreciate that Zalewska was not concerned with article 12 of Regulation 1612/68. In my judgment however the force of Lord Hope’s reference to articles 1-6 containing the “fundamental rules about eligibility for employment” carry forward as much to article 12 as they do to article 7(2). Indeed they must do so because if the eligibility criteria for employment were not met, as is the case here, I cannot see the basis on which it can be said that the claimant nevertheless had been “employed” in the UK for the purposes of article 12 of Regulation 1612/68.
33. Put another way, and using the language of article 1.1 in Regulation 1612/68, the failure of the claimant to meet the UK’s “national measures” in respect of his employment with Paragon meant that he had no “right [under Regulation 1612/68] to take up an activity as an employed person, and to pursue such an activity, within the [UK]”; and if he had no such right then he cannot in my judgment be said to be, or be treated as having been, “employed” in the UK under article 12 of the same Regulation. To hold otherwise would be to reduce the fundamental rules of eligibility for the very thing article 12 speaks of (“employment”) to mere bystanders.
34. Further, I do not consider that anything said by the Court of Justice in Collins –v- SSWP (Case C-138/02) [2005] QB 145; R(JSA)3/06, and paragraph 32 in particular, materially affects this conclusion. Putting matters very briefly, the facts were that Mr Collins had previously worked in the UK for 10 months in 1981. In 1998 he returned to the UK to look for work. It is in that context that the Court of Justice said, in paragraphs 29-33:
“29. In the absence of a sufficiently close connection with the United Kingdom employment market, Mr Collins’ position in 1998 must therefore be compared with that of any national of a Member State looking for his first job in another Member State.
30. In this connection, it is to be remembered that the Court’s case-law draws a distinction between Member State nationals who have not yet entered into an employment relationship in the host Member State where they are looking for work and those who are already working in that State or who, having worked there but no longer being in an employment relationship, are nevertheless considered to be workers (see Case 39/86 Lair [1988] ECR 3161, paragraphs 32 and 33).
31. While Member State nationals who move in search for work benefit from the principle of equal treatment only as regards access to employment, those who have already entered the employment market may, on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68, claim the same social and tax advantages as national workers (see in particular, Lebon, cited above, paragraph 26, and Case C-278/94 Commission v Belgium [1996] ECR I-4307, paragraphs 39 and 40).
32. The concept of “worker” is thus not used in Regulation No 1612/68 in a uniform manner. While in Title II of Part I of the Regulation this term covers only persons who have already entered the employment market, in other parts of the same Regulation the concept of “worker” must be understood in a broader sense.
33. Accordingly, the answer to the first question must be that a person in the circumstances of the appellant in the main proceedings is not a worker for the purposes of Title II of Part I of Regulation No 1612/68. It is, however, for the national court or tribunal to establish whether the term “worker” as referred to by the national legislation at issue is to be understood in that sense.”
34. It is important to note, however, that the decision in Collins was not concerned with a situation, as here, where the person had not (even) entered or been admitted to the UK’s employment market under articles 1-6 of Regulation 1612/68 as modified by the relevant of the Treaty of Accession concerning Romanian and Bulgarian nationals. The distinction the Court of Justice was drawing in Collins was between the rights of a person who had worked or was in work under article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68 and the person who in effect had never worked in, here, the UK before but was eligible to look for work in the UK under article 1-6 of Regulation 1612/68. Both according to Collins could be said to be “workers” under Regulation 1612/68, but in the latter category the term “worker” was being used in a broader sense.
35. In the case of the claimant in this appeal, however, to use the language of Collins he did not even meet that broader meaning of “worker” under Regulation 1612/68 as the employment with Paragon was not employment he had a right to pursue under article 1.1 of Regulation 1612/68 as it was not authorised.
36. I need, lastly, to address the decision in SSWP – v- J S [2010] (IS) UKUT 347 and why it is not inconsistent with the decision I have arrived at on this appeal. The key reason why it is not inconsistent is because the claimant in JS had been in employment in the UK in accordance with UK national measures derogating from and modifying articles 1-6 of Regulation 1612/68 and therefore she had been “employed” in the UK for the purposes of article 12 of Regulation 1612/68. The decision in JS, however, does not mandate that any and all employment in the UK will count for the purposes of article 12 of regulation 1612/68, nor did it need to do so. It is consistent with the view set out above, following Zalewska, that the employment must be employment which it is eligible for a claimant to take up and pursue. That was the case in JS (at least for part of the period); it is not the case here.
37. I was troubled at one stage with how the decision in JS may be reconciled with the third and fifth sub-paragraphs in paragraph 2 of Annex VII to the relevant Treaty of Accession, given that on the facts JS, who was Polish, had not completed 12 months or registered work in the UK. Those sub-paragraphs in her case read:
“Polish nationals admitted to the labour market of a present Member State following accession for an uninterrupted period of 12 months or longer shall also enjoy the same rights [access to the UK labour markets].
Polish nationals legally working in a present Member State at the date of accession, or during a period when national measures are applied, and who were admitted to the labour market of that Member State for a period of less than 12 months shall not enjoy these rights [access to the UK labour market]. Combined with this, as I have already set out, in Zalewska Lord Hope said at paragraph 40:
And the third subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Annex XII provides that A8 state nationals admitted to the labour market of an existing member state following accession for an uninterrupted period of 12 months or longer are to enjoy access to the labour market of that state. This is a right that is given to them by Community law, with all the other rights that go with it, at the end of that period. But it is given only to those who are, as the subparagraph puts it, "admitted" to that labour market during that period" (my underlining added for emphasis).
It may be open to argument therefore that it is only at the end of 12 months of registered or authorised employment that the relevant EU national may be said to be “employed” in the UK for the purposes of article 12 of Regulation 1612/68: see paragraph 42 of VP.
52. This is an issue that does not arise for determination on this appeal and so does not call for any decision from me. However it seems to me that there may be two potential answers to the argument.
53. First, on the terms of the relevant sub paragraphs in Annexe VII to Treaties it may be said that the 12 months of registered or authorised work was only needed to give the EU national legally unfettered access to the UK’s employment market and say nothing, and do nothing to limit, the rights flowing from properly registered or authorised employment during the 12 months. This answer may, however, sit uneasily with the view of Lord Hope in paragraph 40 of Zalewska, though I note the argument against this suggested in paragraph 47 of VP.
54. Second, and the better potential answer, is to consider the provisions of UK domestic law. This it seems to me was the basis for the decision in J.S. The crucial domestic law provision is regulation 6(2) of the Worker Authorisations Regs, and its provision that: “An accession State national subject to worker authorisation.... shall be treated as a worker for the purpose of the definition of “qualified person” in regulation 6(1) of the [EEA Regs] only during a period in which he holds an accession worker authorisation document and is working in accordance with the conditions set out in that document.”
Thus even within the 12 month period a Romania national would have been a “worker” at the time(s) when he or she was in authorised employment. Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EEA Regs provides that a qualified person is a person in the UK as a ‘worker’ and, as JS points out, regulation 4(1)(a) of the EEA Regs as it stood at the time relevant to this appeal defined “worker” as meaning “a worker within the meaning of Article 39 of the Treaty...”.
55. An EU national who was working in employment which was authorised under the Worker Authorisation Regs was therefore treated under UK domestic law as a ‘worker’ for the purposes of Article 39 of the Treaty of the European Union (now Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), whatever the position may be in terms of his or her “worker” status under Annex VII to the Treaty of Accession. Such more favourable treatment in domestic law is empowered, in my view, by paragraph 12 in Annex VII to the Treaty of Accession (see paragraph 34 above). In the result, a Romanian or Bulgarian national working in authorised employment under the Worker Authorisation Regs is a “worker”, and if that is so that employment very arguably must amount to being “employed” for the purposes of what was article 12 of EC Regulation article 1612/68, given that regulation was concerned with freedom of movement for workers within the Community.
Signed (on the original) Stewart Wright Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Dated 24th May 2016
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2035-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 28,
"total-input-tokens": 70479,
"total-output-tokens": 16082,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1417,
1
],
[
1417,
3415,
2
],
[
3415,
5483,
3
],
[
5483,
7616,
4
],
[
7616,
9788,
5
],
[
9788,
11647,
6
],
[
11647,
14186,
7
],
[
14186,
17361,
8
],
[
17361,
20516,
9
],
[
20516,
22930,
10
],
[
22930,
25658,
11
],
[
25658,
27781,
12
],
[
27781,
29817,
13
],
[
29817,
31689,
14
],
[
31689,
33719,
15
],
[
33719,
35672,
16
],
[
35672,
37632,
17
],
[
37632,
39820,
18
],
[
39820,
41926,
19
],
[
41926,
43914,
20
],
[
43914,
46611,
21
],
[
46611,
50136,
22
],
[
50136,
52625,
23
],
[
52625,
54518,
24
],
[
54518,
57099,
25
],
[
57099,
59151,
26
],
[
59151,
61090,
27
],
[
61090,
62921,
28
]
]
} |
a79739a8d318d1c5d69ed2e94e53d447b0401841 | Example
A Limited directly owns 90% of the ordinary share capital of B Limited, and 60% of the ordinary share capital of C Limited. B Limited directly owns 40% of the ordinary share capital of C Limited. For the purposes of S151(4) assume all entitlements follow share capital.
Without the inclusion of indirect ownership A and B are in the same group (because B is a 75%+ subsidiary of A), but C would not be part of the group (because it does not form the relationship of a 75% subsidiary nor the common 75% subsidiary of a third company). To remedy this the legislation looks at indirect ownership and combining multiple chains of ownership.
Ss1155 and 1156 treat A as indirectly owning the ordinary share capital owned (directly or indirectly) by B, including its shares in C. Here, the formula would be;
Fraction of share capital owned by A in B x Fraction of share capital owned by B in C, or
90% x 40% = 36%
So A directly owns 60% of C, and indirectly owns 36% of C (through B). S1157 then require that these fractions be added together to give A’s total holding of C: 96%.
96% is sufficient to create a group relationship, so A, B, and C are all in a group for group relief purposes.
Registered industrial and provident societies can be subsidiaries for the purpose of group relief, as well as owners of subsidiaries.
In deciding whether a company is a ‘75% subsidiary’, shareholdings owned directly or indirectly in companies whose shares are held on trading account, for example by a dealer, cannot be taken into account (CTA10/S151(3)).
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2036-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2305,
"total-output-tokens": 433,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1556,
1
]
]
} |
632d7a7c6b2ecc5bc89ad521f40e5b3b1aa03d89 | Example 1
The English general partnership owns 100% of the share capital in E Limited. A, B, C, and D Limited are members of the partnership and each own a proportion of the partnership assets as shown in the diagram.
The beneficial ownership of the partnership assets is considered to belong to the members in proportion to their partnership shares. Hence A Limited will own (80% x 100% =) 80% of the ordinary share capital in E Limited. B and D Limited will each own 5%, and C will own 10%. This means that A and E will be in a group relationship because E is a 75% subsidiary of A (CTM80151). Example 2
X Limited and Y Limited are, respectively 26% and 74% partners in the English limited partnership and entitlement to assets follows the partnership share. The partnership holds 90% of the ordinary share capital in Z Limited. The other 10% of the share capital in Z Limited is owned directly by Y Limited.
X Limited is the direct beneficial owner of (26% x 90% =) 23% of the ordinary share capital in Z Limited because of its partnership share (see CTA10/S1155(1): shareholdings are only indirect if held through a body corporate).
Y Limited is the direct beneficial owner of (74% x 90% =) 67% of the ordinary share capital in Z Limited through its partnership share and a further 10% from its own holding. Therefore 77% of Z Limited’s ordinary share capital is beneficially owned directly by Y Limited. This is enough to create a group relationship for group relief between Y and Z.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2037-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 3793,
"total-output-tokens": 445,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
598,
1
],
[
598,
1493,
2
]
]
} |
bea5009e22ec4b3db40698e16f97ffbf1501b011 | Appendix A
Northampton Borough Council’s Council Tax Reduction Scheme
Northampton Borough Council’s current Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS) provides for a means-tested reduction. This reduction takes the form of a discount and reduces the amount of Council Tax the person remains liable to pay.
This document provides an explanation of how the means-testing process incorporates specific protection for working age customers who may be considered vulnerable.
Applicable Amounts:
The means-testing process for our CTRS begins with an applicable amount, which specifies the amount of income that someone needs to have before their discount decreases – prior to the application of any reduction. An applicable amount is made up of a personal allowance with additional premiums and is individual to the applicant and their family. Applicable amounts are more generous for disabled people, carers and couples or lone parents with children, in order to recognise the additional costs incurred with raising children, managing a disability or health problem.
Dependants’ Allowance
A customer’s applicable amount is increased by a dependant’s allowance for each dependent child. This ensures that the applicable amount reflects the additional costs of raising children.
Family Premium
This is awarded in the applicable amount if the applicant or their partner has at least one dependent child or young person.
Disability Premium
This premium is awarded in the applicable amount if the applicant or their partner is in receipt of either:
- Attendance Allowance
- Disability Living Allowance
- Personal Independence Payment
- The disability element or the severe disability element of working tax credit,
- Incapacity Benefit Severe Disability Premium
This is awarded in the applicable amount if the applicant or their partner has no non-dependents aged 18 or over and no-one receives Carer’s Allowance for looking after them. Either the applicant and/or the partner also have to be in receipt of either:
- Attendance Allowance
- Disability Living Allowance - care component at the middle or higher rate
- Personal Independence Payment – daily living component
Enhanced Disability Premium
This premium is awarded in the applicable amount if the applicant, partner or dependent child is receiving:
- Disability Living Allowance - care component at the highest rate
- Personal Independence Payments – daily living component at the enhanced rate.
Disabled Child Premium
This premium is awarded in the applicable amount for each dependent child receiving:
- Disability Living Allowance
- Personal Independence Payments
- Or is registered blind.
Carer premium
This premium is awarded in the applicable amount where the applicant or his partner is entitled to Carer’s Allowance.
Council Tax Reduction Scheme – Weekly Applicable Amount Rates
These are based on the 2015/16 figures, although the Department of Work and Pensions may increase these figures in-line with the Housing Benefit annual up-rating due by the end of January 2016. We also expect the applicable amounts for pensioners to be increased by the Department of Communities and Local Government. | Applicable Amount Rates (Working Age) | April 2015 Rates | |--------------------------------------|------------------| | **Personal Allowances** | | | **Single** | | | 16 to 24 | £57.90 | | 25 or over | £73.10 | | Any age – entitled to main phase Employment & Support Allowance | £73.10 | | **Lone Parent** | | | Under 18 | £57.90 | | 18 or over | £73.10 | | Any age – entitled to main phase Employment & Support Allowance | £73.10 | | **Couple** | | | Both under 18 | £87.50 | | One or both over 18 | £114.85 | | Any age – entitled to main phase Employment & Support Allowance | £114.85 | | Dependent Children (for each child) | £66.90 | | **Premiums** | | | Family Premium | £17.45 | | Disability Premium | | | Single | £32.25 | | Couple | £45.95 | | Severe Disability Premium | | | Single Rate | £61.85 | | Couple Rate – One member qualifies | £61.85 | | Couple Rate – Both members qualify | £123.70 | | Enhanced Disability Premium | | | Single Rate | £15.75 | | Disabled Child Rate | £24.43 | | Couple Rate | £22.60 | | Disabled Child Premium | £60.06 | | Carer Premium | £34.60 | Treatment of Income:
Increased Earnings Disregards
Net income from part-time or full-time work is taken into account when CTRS discount is calculated. However, a small amount of earned income is then disregarded, which helps incentivise people to move into work.
A higher earnings disregard applies for those who qualify for the disability premium or severe disability premium (or either component of the Employment and Support Allowance) in the CTRS. This means that less of the disabled customer’s net earnings are taken into account when calculating the amount of discount they receive. This is also the case for lone parents and carers.
| Earnings Disregards | April 2015 Weekly Rates | |--------------------------------------------|-------------------------| | Single person | £5.00 | | Couple | £10.00 | | Disability or Severe Disability Premium | £20.00 | | Carer Premium | £20.00 | | Lone parent | £25.00 |
A further £17.10 a week is also disregarded for:
- Lone parents working 16 hours or more a week; or
- Couples where either/or member are working 24 hours a week, with at least one member working at least 16 hours a week
- Their applicable amount includes a disability premium and they work 16 hours or more a week.
Disregard of Disability Benefits
The following income is ignored in the means-test of the CTRS:
- Disability Living Allowance
- Personal Independence Payments
- Attendance Allowance
- Severe Disablement Allowance
- War Disablement Pension
- War Widows Payment Non-Dependant Deductions:
For certain disabled customers non-dependant deductions are not applied to the means test of their discount, regardless of the number of non-dependants that they may be living with them. This applies if the applicant or their partner is registered blind or if either of them are receiving:
- Attendance Allowance; or
- Disability Living Allowance – care component; or
- Personal Independence Payments – daily living component
| Non-Dependent Deductions | April 2015 Weekly Rates | |--------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------| | In receipt of state Pension Credit or in receipt of IS, JSA(IB), or ESA(IR) | Nil | | Aged 18 or over and in remunerative work | | | - gross income greater than £406.00 | £11.36 | | - gross income not less than £328.00 but less than £407.99 | £9.49 | | - gross income not less than £189.00 but less than £327.99 | £7.52 | | - gross income less than £189.00 | £3.74 | | Others aged 18 or over | £3.74 |
Childcare:
The cost of eligible childcare (for a child up to the age of 15, or 16 (if they are disabled) can be disregarded up to £175 a week for one child or £300 a week for two or more children. This is providing that the applicant and/or their partner are:
- A lone parent working 16 hours or more a week; or
- A couple where both of them are working 16 hours or more a week; or
- A couple where one of them is working 16 hours or more and the other is incapacitated
This provision is also aimed at incentivising people to move into work.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2039-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 11676,
"total-output-tokens": 2075,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1731,
1
],
[
1731,
3170,
2
],
[
3170,
5083,
3
],
[
5083,
6819,
4
],
[
6819,
8652,
5
]
]
} |
ddf94bbd47ba4fe4b9aa79b55c086eded42acb02 | Council Tax Support and Housing Benefits City of York Council Internal Audit Report 2017/18
Business Unit: Customer and Corporate Services Responsible Officer: Director, Customer & Corporate Services Service Manager: Head of Customer, Resident & Exchequer Services Date Issued: 13/6/2018 Status: Final Reference: 10320/013
| | P1 | P2 | P3 | |---|----|----|----| | Actions | 0 | 0 | 4 | | Overall Audit Opinion | Substantial Assurance | Summary and Overall Conclusions
Introduction York's Council Tax Support (CTS) scheme currently provides eligible working-age applicants with a discount up to 77.5% off their council tax bill, while pension-age applicants receive a 100% discount. Housing Benefit (HB) provides eligible applicants with a financial contribution towards payment of their rent. Currently, this is paid directly to the rent account of council tenants. Private or housing association tenants can receive it via BACS or have it paid directly to their landlords.
Residents who receive HB but still struggle to pay their rent may also apply for Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs). The council has a total budget of £256K for DHPs. The 2016/17 audit reviewed management controls for DHPs, but did not carry out detailed analysis. Therefore, this audit will consider them in more detail.
The council aims to reduce fraud and error in CTS and HB applications and awards through a number of processes and mechanisms, such as real-time salary information from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). At the time of the 2016/17 audit, these were being brought in to replace the structured interventions strategy. This audit will also consider the effectiveness of these new measures.
Objectives and Scope of the Audit The purpose of this audit was to provide assurance to management that procedures and controls within the system will ensure that:
- Discretionary Housing Payments are prioritised and awarded using consistently applied criteria and with sufficient authorisation.
- The Discretionary Housing Payments budget is monitored effectively.
- Processes and mechanisms are in place to reduce fraud and error in council tax support and housing benefit claims.
- Sufficient information is available to management to assess the effectiveness of these fraud and error reduction processes and mechanisms.
Key Findings DHPs As a discretionary scheme, the council's policy and guidance for awarding DHPs need to be flexible and the criteria broad enough so as not to unreasonably restrict the decision making process. Nevertheless, there are certain criteria that applicants must meet to be eligible for financial assistance. It was found that DHPs had been awarded using the correct criteria as required by the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) and by appropriate council officers. However, the council's policy and guidance document was last updated in September 2013. The DWP’s DHP manual has been updated several times since then, with the most recent update in March 2018, Officers stated they are aware of the recent changes and are planning to review their policy and guidance. There is currently no formal quality assurance process in place to ensure that applications and reviews are handled consistently and appropriately by officers. Implementing quality assurance would make the process more robust should there be a legal challenge or complaint to the council or Local Government Ombudsman. The DWP and the council require that disputed decisions on DHPs are reviewed by an independent officer. However, these cases are not identified in the monitoring information, and therefore it was not possible to confirm that the process was being followed.
**Fraud and Error**
A well established quality assurance process is in place to minimise processing error and the council employs a range of mechanisms which provide an effective means of identifying fraud and error in housing benefit and council tax support claims. As well as receiving and making use of real time data on earnings, pensions and benefit entitlement from the HMRC and from the DWP (i.e. RTI, ATLAS, HBMS, CIS and WURTI) a suite of operational reports is available, with reports being run on a daily, weekly and monthly basis to further assist in fraud and error reduction. Regular and comprehensive management information is produced for the purposes of monitoring customer contact, workload and claims processing but there is a lack of management information on the effectiveness of the fraud and error detection mechanisms currently in operation.
**Overall Conclusions**
The arrangements for managing risk were good with few weaknesses identified. An effective control environment is in operation, but there is scope for further improvement in the areas identified. Our overall opinion of the controls within the system at the time of the audit was that they provided Substantial Assurance.
## 1 DHP policy and guidance
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |------------------------|------| | The council's DHP policy and guidance document is out of date. | The council's policy and processes are not consistent with the DWP's guidance. |
### Findings
Although the council has a DHP policy and guidance document, it has not been reviewed since September 2013. Since then, the DWP has made several updates to its DHP manual to reflect welfare reforms and include guidance on best practice. The most recent update was completed in March 2018. Officers stated that they are aware of the latest update and are planning to conduct a review.
### Agreed Action 1.1
The DHP policy and guidance will be reviewed and updated to ensure it is consistent with the DWP’s DHP manual.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 3 | Housing Benefits Manager | September 2018 |
## 2 Quality assurance and appeals processes
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |------------------------|------| | There is no formal quality assurance process to ensure consistency in decision making and monitoring information does not allow the identification of review cases. | Decisions on DHPs are made inconsistently or not following the council’s policy and guidance. |
### Findings
Discussion with officers found that there is no spot-checking or formal quality assurance (QA) process, although officers stated they will discuss applications with each other if they are unsure of how to proceed. Without a QA process, however, management cannot gain the necessary assurance that policy and procedures are being applied appropriately and consistently, and that decisions are being made correctly. A new online form for DHP applications, introduced in May 2018, will enable a QA process to be more easily conducted.
The DWP requires that disputed decisions are reviewed by an independent officer. The council’s guidance and processes meet this requirement. However, the DHP Record maintained by the Technical Officers does not distinguish between review cases and standard applications, nor does it state the names of the officers involved. Therefore, it was not possible to confirm whether or not disputes were reviewed by an independent officer.
### Agreed Action 2.1
A quality assurance process will be implemented for DHPs. This will include determining a set percentage of applications to review, checks to conduct, recording results and taking actions to address errors. It will be undertaken by an officer more senior than the Technical Officers who carry out the assessments.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 3 | Housing Benefits Manager | September 2018 |
### Agreed Action 2.2
The annual DHP Record maintained by the Technical Officers will be amended to distinguish between review cases and standard applications and to show who assessed the original application and who reviewed the decision.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 3 | Housing Benefits Manager | September 2018 | 3 Management information on fraud and error reduction mechanisms
| Issue/Control Weakness | Risk | |------------------------|------| | There is limited management information on the effectiveness of the fraud and error reduction mechanisms in operation. | Ineffective use of resources or decisions made without reliable information. |
Findings
The Benefits service employs a range mechanisms and makes use of available services (i.e. CIS and WURTI) to assist in the reduction of fraud and error in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support claims. As well as routinely reviewing RTI and ATLAS notifications and assessing HBMS referrals, the service also produces a suite of operational reports which are designed to assist in the identification of errant and potentially fraudulent claims. In addition, online forms for customers to self-report changes in circumstances have been recently developed.
Some management information is already being produced on the outcome of RTI notifications, HBMS referrals and on the volume of self-reported changes in circumstances but this information is not recorded and reported in a consistent and coordinated way. In the case of operational reports, these are simply worked through by officers and no record exists on which to note the outcome of the assessment performed. This lack of consistent and consolidated management information means that there is no clear means by which to analyse how effectively resources are being deployed on these mechanisms.
Agreed Action 3.1
A report will be generated on a monthly basis from Northgate, based on change source values held on the system that records the number of claims reviewed and the outcome of these reviews. This data will be monitored by the Housing Benefits Manager. The report was implemented prior to finalisation of the audit.
| Priority | Responsible Officer | Timescale | |----------|---------------------|-----------| | 3 | Housing Benefits Manager | Implemented | Audit Opinions and Priorities for Actions
Audit Opinions
Audit work is based on sampling transactions to test the operation of systems. It cannot guarantee the elimination of fraud or error. Our opinion is based on the risks we identify at the time of the audit.
Our overall audit opinion is based on 5 grades of opinion, as set out below.
| Opinion | Assessment of internal control | |--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | High Assurance | Overall, very good management of risk. An effective control environment appears to be in operation. | | Substantial Assurance | Overall, good management of risk with few weaknesses identified. An effective control environment is in operation but there is scope for further improvement in the areas identified. | | Reasonable Assurance | Overall, satisfactory management of risk with a number of weaknesses identified. An acceptable control environment is in operation but there are a number of improvements that could be made. | | Limited Assurance | Overall, poor management of risk with significant control weaknesses in key areas and major improvements required before an effective control environment will be in operation. | | No Assurance | Overall, there is a fundamental failure in control and risks are not being effectively managed. A number of key areas require substantial improvement to protect the system from error and abuse. |
Priorities for Actions
| Priority | Description | |----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Priority 1 | A fundamental system weakness, which presents unacceptable risk to the system objectives and requires urgent attention by management. | | Priority 2 | A significant system weakness, whose impact or frequency presents risks to the system objectives, which needs to be addressed by management. | | Priority 3 | The system objectives are not exposed to significant risk, but the issue merits attention by management. | Where information resulting from audit work is made public or is provided to a third party by the client or by Veritau then this must be done on the understanding that any third party will rely on the information at its own risk. Veritau will not owe a duty of care or assume any responsibility towards anyone other than the client in relation to the information supplied. Equally, no third party may assert any rights or bring any claims against Veritau in connection with the information. Where information is provided to a named third party, the third party will keep the information confidential.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2040-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 14963,
"total-output-tokens": 2818,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
444,
1
],
[
444,
3099,
2
],
[
3099,
4889,
3
],
[
4889,
5821,
4
],
[
5821,
8063,
5
],
[
8063,
10043,
6
],
[
10043,
12238,
7
],
[
12238,
12838,
8
]
]
} |
b51bb984ac21978e72a0f971175098b6a230d633 | ## Portfolio - Culture, Leisure and Tourism 2017/2018
No of Indicators = 32 | Direction of Travel (DoT) shows the trend of how an indicator is performing against its Polarity over time.
Produced by the Strategic Business Intelligence Hub August 2017
| Previous Years | 2017/2018 | |----------------|-----------| | | Collection Frequency | 2014/2015 | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | | TOU01 Room Occupancy | Monthly | 74.76% | 66.50% | 79.24% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | TOU04 Average Room Rate | Monthly | £69.66 | £74.18 | £95.09 | - | - | - | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | TOU08 Visits to Attractions: Big Attractions | Monthly | 2,866,401 | 2,597,009 | 2,376,573 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Red | | TOU09 Visits to Attractions: Small Attractions | Monthly | 276,399 | 247,538 | 232,501 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Red | | TOU11 Sessions on visityork.org | Monthly | 2,121,529 | 1,828,226 | 1,718,744 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Red | | TOU14 Parliament Street Footfall | Monthly | 9,616,941 | 8,356,697 | 8,044,607 | 2,058,005 | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | TOU15 Visitor Information Centre Footfall | Monthly | 488,643 | 431,346 | 401,206 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Red | | TOU24 Average expenditure per domestic day visit | Annual | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | TOU25 % of jobs which are tourism based | Annual | 18.20% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Neutral | Neutral | | LIB01 Library Visits - All Libraries | Monthly | 799,083 | 997,606 | 1,025,480 | 255,626 | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Green | | LIB02 Books Borrowed - All Libraries | Monthly | 778,615 | 819,179 | 800,300 | 192,356 | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | TAP13 % of panel who give unpaid help to any group, club or organisation | Quarterly | NC | NC | 64.30% | 66.44% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Green | | Benchmark - Community Life Survey | Annual | 69.00% | 70.00% | 62.68% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Green | | TAP13 % of panel who do not give unpaid help to any group, club or organisation | Quarterly | NC | NC | 32.66% | 30.65% | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Green | | APSE088 Parks and Open Spaces: Maintenance cost per household (including CEC) (PI 43) | Annual | £21.54 | £18.7 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Green | | Benchmark - National Data | Annual | £46.08 | £44.21 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Green | | Benchmark - APSE Family | Annual | £52.63 | £47.43 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Green |
## Portfolio - Culture, Leisure and Tourism 2017/2018
No of Indicators = 32 | Direction of Travel (DoT) shows the trend of how an indicator is performing against its Polarity over time.
Produced by the Strategic Business Intelligence Hub August 2017
### Previous Years vs 2017/2018
| Collection Frequency | 2014/2015 | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |----------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----|----|----|----|--------|----------|-----| | **3. Public Realm** | | | | | | | | | | | | APSE091 | | | | | | | | | | | | Parks and Open Spaces: Cost of service per household (including CEC) (PI 21) | Annual | £24.01 | £20.88 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Green | | Benchmark - National Data | Annual | £48.66 | £47.83 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Benchmark - APSE Family | Annual | £54.22 | £51.73 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | TAP31 | | | | | | | | | | | | % of panel who think that the council and partners are doing well conserving York's heritage | Quarterly | NC | NC | 76.41% | 76.40% | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | % of panel who think that the council and partners are not doing well conserving York's heritage | Quarterly | NC | NC | 15.32% | 15.96% | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | **4. Learning** | | | | | | | | | | | | CJGE17 | | | | | | | | | | | | % of working age population qualified - No qualifications | Annual | 4.80% | 4.60% | 6.20% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | Benchmark - National Data | Annual | 8.80% | 8.60% | 8.00% | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Benchmark - Regional Data | Annual | 9.80% | 9.80% | 9.50% | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Regional Rank (Rank out of 15) | Annual | 2 | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | CJGE17a | | | | | | | | | | | | % of working age population qualified - to at least L1 and above\* | Annual | 91.80% | 91.00% | 90.60% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | Benchmark - National Data | Annual | 85.00% | 84.90% | 85.30% | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Benchmark - Regional Data | Annual | 83.40% | 83.10% | 83.40% | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Regional Rank (Rank out of 15) | Annual | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | CJGE20 | | | | | | | | | | | | % of working age population qualified - to at least L4 and above\* | Annual | 40.30% | 40.60% | 42.70% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | Benchmark - National Data | Annual | 36.00% | 37.10% | 38.20% | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Benchmark - Regional Data | Annual | 29.70% | 30.50% | 31.30% | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Regional Rank (Rank out of 15) | Annual | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | | No. | Indicator Description | Collection Frequency | 2014/2015 | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----|----|----|----|--------|----------|-----| | 5. | Hate Crimes or Incidents as Recorded by NYP | Monthly | 108 | 141 | 189 | 69 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Red | | | IQUANTA Family Grouping (Rank out of 15) | Quarterly | 3 | 5 | 6 | 6 | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | 6. | Number of Incidents of Violent Crime Within the ARZ | Quarterly | 561 | 720 | 662 | 224| - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | | Number of Incidents of Violent crime within the CIZ | Quarterly | 465 | 587 | 514 | 175| - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | | Median earnings of residents - Gross Weekly Pay (€) - Gender Pay Gap | Annual | 98.9 | 85.1 | 120.2 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | | Benchmark - National Data | Annual | 99.6 | 99.7 | 100.1 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | | Benchmark - Regional Data | Annual | 101.3 | 99.3 | 108 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | | Regional Rank (Rank out of 15) | Annual | 6 | 5 | 10 | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Bad | Neutral | | 7. | % of businesses reporting that contact with officers was helpful | Annual | 97.28% | 98.00% | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | | % of businesses reporting that they were treated fairly | Annual | 98.56% | 95.50% | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | | % of businesses reporting that the information provided was useful | Annual | 98.14% | 98.10% | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | | % of customers who were satisfied with the action taken to resolve their complaint | Quarterly | 95.57% | 79.10% | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | | % of food premises that are classified as broadly compliant | Quarterly | 93.00% | 94.00% | 94.25% | 95.00%| - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | | % of businesses that were compliant with legislation concerning the illegal use and sale of alcohol and tobacco | Annual | 100.00% | 63.20% | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Red | | | % of births registered within 42 days | Monthly | 98.00% | 98.00% | 98.00% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | | Benchmark - National Data | Monthly | - | 97.00% | 96.00% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | | Benchmark - Regional Data | Monthly | - | 98.00% | 98.00% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | 7. Public Protection | Collection Frequency | 2014/2015 | 2015/2016 | 2016/2017 | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Target | Polarity | DOT | |---------------------|---------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|----|----|----|----|--------|----------|-----| | PP09 % of still births registered within 42 days | Monthly | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral | | Benchmark - National Data | Monthly | - | 99.00% | 99.00% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Benchmark - Regional Data | Monthly | - | 99.00% | 99.00% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | PP10 % of deaths registered within 5 days | Monthly | 93.00% | 90.00% | 85.00% | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Red | | Benchmark - National Data | Monthly | - | 76.00% | 78.00% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Benchmark - Regional Data | Monthly | - | 85.00% | 84.00% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | PP11 % certificate applications dealt with within 5 days of receipt | Monthly | 100.00% | NC | - | - | - | - | - | - | Up is Good | Neutral |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2041-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 14631,
"total-output-tokens": 3927,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2557,
1
],
[
2557,
5686,
2
],
[
5686,
9611,
3
],
[
9611,
10630,
4
]
]
} |
5b9b62185a121482af8b821125d31bacd88934c0 | the national archives In the name of God Amen
Ferdinando Purcell of the City of Westminster, being of sound and disposing mind and memory, do make and ordain this my last Will and Testament in manner following.
First, I will that my Executor be my brother Robert, as may be in case what estate I have after my debts are paid shall be sufficient to do.
Secondly, I make my brother Robert my Executor and direct him in the first place to pay all my just debts and funeral expenses and as to the remainder of what God hath blessed me with, first I give to my said Executor for his pains herein, for his diligence for aiding and the rest I give and bequeath to and amongst my...
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4759-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 2177,
"total-output-tokens": 219,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
22,
1
],
[
22,
677,
2
]
]
} |
67aa22dcc8a3a036cff622910b2ed0cb3936b6c8 | Avon & Somerset Probation Trust
Total staff in Trust = 477.7 FTE Total staff salaries = £13,541,622
Sally Lewis Chief Executive £80,000 - £84,999
1 x Band D 7.9 x Band B 1 x Band A 7 x Band 6 50.1 x Band 5 157 x Band 4 168.4 x Band 3 76.9 x Band 2 7.4 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Bedfordshire Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 169.8 FTE Total staff salaries = £4,927,836
Linda Hennigan Chief Executive £70,000 - £74,999
4 x Band B 2 x Band 6 17 x Band 5 53.4 x Band 4 66.5 x Band 3 21.4 x Band 2 4.5 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Probation Trust
Total staff in Trust = 228.6 FTE Total staff salaries = £6,055,462
John Budd Chief Executive £75,000 - £79,999
4.5 x Band B 3 x Band 6 19.5 x Band 5 59.5 x Band 4 97.3 x Band 3 39.8 x Band 2 4 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Cheshire Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 345.3 FTE Total staff salaries = £9,207,505
Stephen Collett Chief Executive £75,000 - £79,999
1 x Band D 6.8 x Band B 4 x Band 6 29.7 x Band 5 115.5 x Band 4 129.4 x Band 3 56.6 x Band 2 1.3 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Cumbria Probation Trust Total staff in Trust= 172.3 FTE Total staff salaries = £4,701,181
Annette Hennessy Chief Executive £60,000 - £64,999
1 x Band B 1 x Band A 4 x Band 6 16 x Band 5 61.5 x Band 4 53.5 x Band 3 25.8 x Band 2 8.5 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Derbyshire Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 334.3 Total staff salaries = £10,058,579
Denise White Chief Executive £80,000 - £84,999
7x Band B 5 x Band 6 37 x Band 5 96.4 x Band 4 117.2 x Band 3 63.4 x Band 2 7.3 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Devon & Cornwall Probation Trust
Total staff in Trust = 414 FTE Total staff salaries = £11,549,619
Robert Menary Chief Executive £70,000 - £74,999
1 x Band D 1 x Band C 3.8 x Band B 5.6 x Band 6 39.5 x Band 5 148.5 x Band 4 130.1 x Band 3 79.2 x Band 2 4.3 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Dorset Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 215.3 FTE Total staff salaries = £5,853,732
John Wiseman Chief Executive £70,000 – 74,999
5 x Band A 3 x Band 6 15.5 x Band 5 76.2 x Band 4 92.5 x Band 3 22.1 x Band 2
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Durham Tees Valley Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 562.8 FTE Total staff salaries = £16,116,278
James Bruce Chief Executive £75,000 - £79,999
7.4 x Band B 9 x Band 6 44.4 x Band 5 215.2 x Band 4 200.3 x Band 3 72.8 x Band 2 12.7 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Essex Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 459.5 FTE Total staff salaries = £11,877,431
Mary Archer Chief Executive £85,000 - £89,999
10 x Band B 1 x Band A 2 x Band 6 47.9 x Band 5 87.8 x Band 4 208.9 x Band 3 90.9 x Band 2 10 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Gloucestershire Probation Trust
Total staff in Trust = 163.6 FTE Total staff salaries = £4,470,769
John Bensted Chief Executive £60,000 - £64,999
1.1 x Band D 2.9 x Band B 0.6 x Band A 3.7 x Band 6 12.8 x Band 5 45.9 x Band 4 48.8 x Band 3 46.1 x Band 2 0.7 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Greater Manchester Probation Trust
Total staff in Trust = 1135.2 FTE Total staff salaries = £32,702,700
John Crawforth Chief Executive £95,000 - £99,999
3 x Band D 14 x Band B 1 x Band A 10.6 x Band 6 99 x Band 5 347.9 x Band 4 392.2 x Band 3 244.6 x Band 2 21.9 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Hampshire Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 557.8 FTE Total staff salaries = £15,844,014
Barrie Crook Chief Executive £85,000 - £89,999
7.6 x Band B 0.4 x Band A 11 x Band 6 57.5 x Band 5 184.3 x Band 4 176 x Band 3 119.2 x Band 2 0.8 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Hertfordshire Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 237.8 FTE Total staff salaries = £6,421,658
Tessa Webb Chief Executive £75,000 - £79,999
1 x Band D 4 x Band B 1 x Band 6 23.4 x Band 5 66 x Band 4 105.2 x Band 3 31.8 x Band 2 4.4 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Humberside Probation Trust
Total staff in Trust = 401.7 FTE Total staff salaries = £11,036,421
Steve Hemming Chief Executive £80,000 - £84,999
3.8 x Band B 4.6 x Band 6 36.4 x Band 5 127.3 x Band 4 177.0 x Band 3 50.2 x Band 2 2.4 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Kent Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 418 FTE Total staff salaries = £11,858,158
Helen West Chief Executive £70,000 - £74,999
2 x Band C 6 x Band B 1 x Band A 6 x Band 6 39.1 x Band 5 138 x Band 4 153.6 x Band 3 59.6 x Band 2 11.7 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Lancashire Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 516.6 FTE Total staff salaries = £14,599,839
Robert Mathers Chief Executive £85,000 - £89,999
1 x Band C 5 x Band B 1 x Band A 4 x Band 6 41.8 x Band 5 198 x Band 4 159 x Band 3 98.6 x Band 2 7.2 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Leicestershire & Rutland Probation Trust
Total staff in Trust = 460.7 FTE Total staff salaries = £13,014,155
Trevor Worsfold Chief Executive £60,000 - £64,999
7 x Band B 3 x Band 6 28.9 x Band 5 160.9 x Band 4 182.6 x Band 3 76.3 x Band 2 1 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Lincolnshire Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 215.6 FTE Total staff salaries = £5,987,723
Graham Nicholls Chief Executive £70,000 - £74,999
5 x Band B 4 x Band 6 25.4 x Band 5 55.8 x Band 4 90 x Band 3 33.4 x Band 2 1 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 London Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 2664 FTE Total staff salaries = £75,279,673
Heather Munro Chief Executive £130,000 - £134,999
6 x Band D 1 x Band C 48 x Band B 1 x Band A 21 x Band 6 251 x Band 5 979.5 x Band 4 875 x Band 3 434 x Band 2 46.5 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Merseyside Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 702.2 FTE Total staff salaries = £19,185,681
John Stafford Chief Executive £85,000 - £89,999
3.5 x Band D 9 x Band B 1 x Band A 4 x Band 6 56.6 x Band 5 257 x Band 4 211.4 x Band 3 129.4 x Band 2 29.3 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Norfolk & Suffolk Probation Trust
Total staff in Trust = 302 FTE Total staff salaries = £13,129,929
Martin Graham Chief Executive £80,000 - £84,999
3 x Band B 2 x Band 6 37 x Band 5 93 x Band 4 103 x Band 3 59 x Band 2 4 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Northamptonshire Probation Trust
Total staff in Trust = 268.9 FTE Total staff salaries = £6,681,661
Bill McHugh Chief Executive £70,000 - £74,999
2 x Band B 1.8 x Band A 30.4 x Band 5 82.9 x Band 4 110.1 x Band 3 32.1 x Band 2 8.6 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Northumbria Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 579.7 FTE Total staff salaries = £17,057,178
Pauline Williamson Chief Executive £90,000 - £94,999
1 x Band C 10.9 x Band B 6.6 x Band 6 44.9 x Band 5 216.9 x Band 4 212.6 x Band 3 79.6 x Band 2 6.2 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Nottinghamshire Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 534.8 FTE Total staff salaries = £14,109,757
Jane Geraghty Chief Executive £85,000 - £89,999
3 x Band C 4 x Band B 2.9 x Band A 3 x Band 6 39.9 x Band 5 160 x Band 4 213.4 x Band 3 92 x Band 2 15.6 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 South Yorkshire Probation Trust
Total staff in Trust = 564.6 FTE
Total staff salaries = £ 16,014,335
Rosalind Brown Chief Executive £80,000 - £84,999
2.0 x Band C 6.0 x Band B 5.0 x Band A 10.5 x Band 6 41.2 x Band 5 178.3 x Band 4 222.3 x Band 3 98.2 x Band 2 1.1 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Staffordshire & West Midlands Probation Trust
Total staff in Trust = 1,765.6 FTE Total staff salaries = £47,529,263
Mike Maiden Chief Executive £90,000 - £94,999
3.7 x Band D 1.0 x Band C 14.7 x Band B 5.9 x Band A 26.4 x Band 6 140.4 x Band 5 537.7 x Band 4 645.3 x Band 3 336.2 x Band 2 54.3 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Surrey & Sussex Probation Trust
Total staff in Trust = 560.3 FTE Total staff salaries = £16,746,121
Sonia Crozier Chief Executive £75,000 – £79,999
1 x Band C 7.8 x Band B 0.6 x Band A 27.5 x Band 6 30.2 x Band 5 213.1 x Band 4 167.1 x Band 3 111 x Band 2 1 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Thames Valley Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 643.4 FTE Total staff salaries = £16,779,317
Gerry Marshall Chief Executive £90,000 - £94,999
1.4 x Band D 2 x Band C 7.4 x Band B 1.4 x Band A 5 x Band 6 71.3 x Band 5 162.8 x Band 4 263.4 x Band 3 110.3 x Band 2 17.4 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Wales Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 1,096.8 FTE Total staff salaries = £30,672,961
Margaret Edwards Chief Executive £90,000 – £94,999
2.0 x Band D 1.0 x Band C 12.0 x Band B 3.7 x Band A 21.4 x Band 6 114.6 x Band 5 340.1 x Band 4 448.6 x Band 3 123.9 x Band 2 29.5 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Warwickshire Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 165.7 FTE Total staff salaries = £5,031,028
Elizabeth Stafford Chief Executive £65,000 – £69,999
6.0 x Band B 5.0 x Band 6 13.2 x Band 5 54.5 x Band 4 60.0 x Band 3 25.9 x Band 2 1.1 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 West Mercia Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 364 FTE Total staff salaries = £9,758,429
David Chantler Chief Executive £90,000 - £94,999
1.0 x Band C 3.0 x Band B 8.0 x Band 6 47.0 x Band 5 108.0 x Band 4 120.0 x Band 3 67.0 x Band 2 10.0 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 West Yorkshire Probation Trust
Total staff in Trust = 1,014.4 FTE Total staff salaries = £30,175,634
Sue Hall Chief Executive £95,000 - £99,999
2.0 x Band D 3.0 x Band C 9.0 x Band B 2.0 x Band A 12.5 x Band 6 107.5 x Band 5 282.8 x Band 4 362.1 x Band 3 221.6 x Band 2 11.9 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Wiltshire Probation Trust Total staff in Trust = 179.1 FTE Total staff salaries = £4,501,337
Diana Fulbrook Chief Executive £65,000 - £69,999
3.9 x Band B 0.8 x Band A 3 x Band 6 16.6 x Band 5 45.6 x Band 4 73.3 x Band 3 34.9 x Band 2
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 York & North Yorkshire Probation Trust
Total staff in Trust = 202.6 FTE Total staff salaries = £7,799,240
Peter Brown Chief Executive £70,000 - £74,999
2.0 x Band B 4.0 x Band A 1.0 x Band 6 6.0 x Band 5 18.8 x Band 4 69.4 x Band 3 64.5 x Band 2 36.9 x Band 1
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010 Probation staff - pay bands and ranges as at June 2010
Key to pay bands and ranges in the organograms:
Band D = Assistant Chief Officer; £66,427 - £86,914; Band C = Assistant Chief Officer; £56,096 - £71,227; Band B = Assistant Chief Officer; £49,294 - £62,588; Band A = Assistant Chief Officer; £42,435 - £52,323;
Band 6 = Area Manager; £39,037 - £46,650; Band 5 = Senior Probation Officer; £34,677 - £39,424; Band 4 = Probation Officer; £28,185 - £35,727; Band 3 = Probation Services Officer; £21,391 - £27,102; Band 2 = Case Administrator; £16,905 - £20,566; Band 1 = Administrative Staff; £14,182 - £16,420.
This represents the organisation as at 30 June 2010
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4761-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 36,
"total-input-tokens": 48692,
"total-output-tokens": 6499,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
317,
1
],
[
317,
606,
2
],
[
606,
910,
3
],
[
910,
1213,
4
],
[
1213,
1509,
5
],
[
1509,
1791,
6
],
[
1791,
2113,
7
],
[
2113,
2382,
8
],
[
2382,
2682,
9
],
[
2682,
2976,
10
],
[
2976,
3299,
11
],
[
3299,
3627,
12
],
[
3627,
3931,
13
],
[
3931,
4229,
14
],
[
4229,
4525,
15
],
[
4525,
4826,
16
],
[
4826,
5136,
17
],
[
5136,
5442,
18
],
[
5442,
5730,
19
],
[
5730,
6050,
20
],
[
6050,
6365,
21
],
[
6365,
6651,
22
],
[
6651,
6947,
23
],
[
6947,
7260,
24
],
[
7260,
7577,
25
],
[
7577,
7908,
26
],
[
7908,
8267,
27
],
[
8267,
8590,
28
],
[
8590,
8926,
29
],
[
8926,
9265,
30
],
[
9265,
9564,
31
],
[
9564,
9872,
32
],
[
9872,
10212,
33
],
[
10212,
10502,
34
],
[
10502,
10818,
35
],
[
10818,
11485,
36
]
]
} |
e2597a03bd19ec534a64e48117cd47be0a151c52 | Tackling Crime Through Problem-Oriented Partnerships
Problem-oriented partnerships (POPs) are a way of local groups coming together to address specific clusters of disorder or crime in an area. There are a number of successful POP initiatives operating across London to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, and their achievements will be recognised at the Safer London Problem-Orientated Partnership Awards on 8 July at City Hall.
Overview
Problem-oriented partnerships are a way of local groups - including councils, the police and communities - coming together to address specific local issues. Problem-oriented policing uses this approach to tackle clusters of disorder or crime in an area, such as anti-social behaviour, burglary or criminal damage. It focuses on the underlying causes of this disorder and develops responses that are specific to the identified problems and areas, so that officers do not have to keep returning to the same issue.
In London, the Metropolitan Police Service Safer Neighborhoods Teams, supported by local authorities, agencies and communities, deliver problem-oriented policing. Local authorities play a key role and contribute a substantial amount of their community safety budgets towards supporting local policing in their areas; a large proportion of this contribution goes towards the cost of Police Community Safety Officers (PCSOs), who work together with the police to address localised clusters of crime.
The Problem-Oriented Partnership Awards¹, funded by London Councils, were set up to celebrate the success of local partnerships in using problem-solving to reduce crime and disorder. Now in their sixth year, projects entered for the awards must clearly illustrate that they have used problem-oriented policing² and, when evaluated, can demonstrate that the solutions put in place worked.
This year’s projects, as discussed in this briefing, illustrate that crime and disorder can be tackled not just by dealing with the harmful consequences of particular problems, but by understanding the underlying causes. By designing solutions that are unique and specific to particular areas, these projects have helped to reduce crime and disorder for all those affected. To do this, these projects have developed key partnerships with a range of local stakeholders.
¹ The awards are a collaboration between London Councils, Transport for London (TFL), Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and the Safer London Foundation (SLF). ² http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hopolicers/fcdps75.pdf The 2011 POP Awards finalists
Local partnerships were invited to apply for two separate categories for the 2011 awards: the Safer Communities Award or the Safer Transport Award.
- **Safer Communities POP Award** - This focuses on any aspect of community safety partnership initiatives that tackle disorder and crime locally using problem-solving techniques.
- **Safer Travel POP Award** - This focuses on any aspect of community safety partnership work that has led to significant reductions in crime, disorder or the fear of crime among people using the public transport network.
Six POP Award finalists were selected from across London, each successful in addressing crime affecting people in their local areas. These projects illustrate strong local partnership-working and have responded to the specific concerns of local communities.
**Safer Communities Awards finalists**
**Queen Mary University – Tower Hamlets**
Mile End and Globe Town Safer Neighborhood Teams in Tower Hamlets found that burglaries were increasing every year and coinciding with the annual influx of students at the local university every September. They also found that the fear of crime within the campus was increasing and impacting on the surrounding community.
The team carried out a comprehensive environmental assessment of the campus, which provided them with a greater understanding of some of the underlying causes for the increase in crime. The team then identified a range of partnership resources required to reduce the risk of burglaries occurring. The teams pulled together the resources and, through partnership-working, reduced notifiable offences by 65 per cent and bike thefts from seven over a three-month period in 2009, to zero over the same period in 2010.
**Safe as Houses – Enfield**
After a steady increase in burglaries, Enfield was facing London’s second highest burglary rate and eighth highest nationally. Previous responses to local burglaries had been reactive, addressing the symptoms of the problem rather than the underlying causes. A partnership was developed between the police, the local authority and other key agencies to address this problem. Problem-solving principles were applied, beginning with an in-depth study showing annual patterns of burglary and identification of chronic problem areas.
The strong intelligence gathered regarding victims and locations enabled the partnership to target these problem areas. More than 3,000 households in the most problematic areas were targeted and 88 alley gates were installed. The resulting 46.7 per cent reduction in burglaries surpassed the project’s initial target of achieving a 7.5 per cent reduction.
**Focus E15 building – Newham**
The UK Foyer initiative attempts to help vulnerable young people to find work, accommodation and support. The Focus E15 building in Newham is the largest foyer in the UK, accommodating 210 local people aged 16-24. The size of the premises, coupled with the vulnerability and offending potential of the residents, generated a hotspot for crime and anti-social behaviour, which affected local residents in the area.
A partnership approach between the police, local authority and other key agencies using problem-solving principles was set up to consider how to address the problems at Focus E15. Several steps were taken:
- ‘Suitability to reside’ - a scheme that vets applicants to Focus E15 was set up, rejecting those young people with a conviction history deemed to have a negative influence on other residents.
- A new visitor management system prevents anonymity of visitors to the Focus building.
- A dispersal zone and the introduction of a police room in the reception area have improved the perception of police presence and general safety of the building.
These measures have resulted in a 92 per cent reduction in complaints made to the local authority; Focus building residents and visitor arrests reduced by 63 per cent; crime incidents fell by 43 per cent; burglary fell by 89 per cent; and criminal damage reduced by 75 per cent.
**Safer Transport Awards finalists**
**Improving safety on Orpington’s buses - Bromley**
Orpington College is a large community college situated in Orpington town centre. Seventy-five per cent of the college’s students do not live within the borough and have to travel in from inner city boroughs to get to college. For several years, Orpington town centre and local public transport networks were marred by incidents of violence and disorder caused by a small minority of students from the college.
The Safer Transport Team in Orpington formed a partnership with key agencies to combat the escalating levels of crime and anti-social behaviour. They implemented a series of immediate short-term solutions, such as high visibility policing; rigorous use of stop and search powers; engagement days with new students; weapon sweeps; and a very proactive approach to the investigation of offences and the arrest of those responsible. So far, the 2010/11 college term has seen no reported incidents of serious violence or disorder associated with students from the college.
**Reducing bike theft - Safer Transport Command**
The focus of this London-wide project was to encourage more people in London to take up cycling. However, the high number of bike thefts was found to be a barrier to cycling for many. Metropolitan Police figures show that 18,216 bikes were stolen during 2008/9. A number of factors for this were identified, including cyclists not using good locking practice; cyclists not keeping records of their bikes; websites offering avenues for resale of stolen bikes; and low detection rates and sentences making bike theft a low-risk offence.
A co-ordinated multi-agency approach was set up to better understand and tackle the causes of bike theft. This included a task force of 30 officers from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), funded by Transport for London (TfL). Through working with websites to share information around suspicious activity, targeting hotspots for bike theft and widespread campaigning, bike theft has decreased by 6 per cent from April 2010 to February 2011.
**Tackling illegal cabs - Wandsworth**
Clapham Junction and Battersea Rise had a problem with unlicensed, illegal mini cabs touting for business. Illegal, unlicensed mini-cabs are linked to sexual assaults on vulnerable women, and illegal touts often target women travelling home after frequenting bars or night clubs.
Through multi-agency working, intelligence was gathered to identify local repeat offenders in the area. Availability of licensed mini cabs, which could be booked through licensed mini cab operators, was also increased and a publicity campaign was launched to educate the public on the dangers of taking illegal, unlicensed mini cabs. This work has helped stop many of the illegal cabs previously identified as repeat offenders, with a dramatic drop of 90 per cent in the numbers of illegal taxi touts in the Battersea area. A long-term strategy has also been developed for tackling illegal mini cab touts in the area. Commentary
Tackling crime and anti-social behaviour has traditionally been seen as the responsibility of the police. However, the success of POPs between local agencies and local communities has highlighted and embedded the importance of developing partnerships for the purpose of tackling crime and anti-social behaviour.
Partnership-working is key for the success of POP projects; together with the police, communities and councils are in touch with local problems and should be the driving force in the identification and development of POP projects and local solutions. POP projects are an effective way of addressing key local community safety concerns, because they are locally driven and are responsive to local priorities.
Furthermore, partnership-working to address community safety also offers opportunities for local authorities and police to pool their resources for the purpose of addressing crime.
Whichever project wins the 2011 Safer London POP Awards, all the projects highlighted in this briefing have demonstrated that by using problem-solving, local partnerships and local engagement techniques, pockets of crime affecting particular areas can be effectively tackled.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4762-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 8177,
"total-output-tokens": 2291,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2573,
1
],
[
2573,
5884,
2
],
[
5884,
9681,
3
],
[
9681,
10872,
4
]
]
} |
93ebcc27699874d51b8831ccce445048c6228d31 | | Department | Contract Title | Status | Procurement Route | Sell2Wales / OJEU advert planned | Contact Details for Further Information | |-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|------------------------------------|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Silviculture | Framework agreement for procuring tree guards, shelters and stakes | In progress - to be advertised | Formal Tender (non OJEU) | Dec-16 | procurement.ns@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Silviculture | Framework agreement for procuring chemicals | In progress - to be advertised | Formal Tender (OJEU) | Dec-16 | procurement.ns@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Permitting, SSSI and Species| Framework agreement for expert advice to support marine permitting work | In progress - to be advertised | Formal Tender (OJEU) | Dec-16 | procurement.ns@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | North West Woodland | Low Value Forest Maintenance | Business Need | Formal Tender (non OJEU) | Jan-17 | procurement.ops@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | ASM & Ops Delivery | Minor Works, vegetation management, NNR maintenance and assets maintenance | Business Need | Formal Tender (OJEU) | Jan-18 | procurement.ops@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Operations Delivery | Chemical Spraying | Business Need | Formal Tender (OJEU) | Jan-18 | procurement.ops@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Silviculture | Framework Agreement for Ground Preparation following Tree Harvesting | New | Formal Tender (OJEU) | TBC | procurement.ns@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Silviculture | Supply of Plants & Seeds | New | Formal Tender (OJEU) | TBC | procurement.ns@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Estates Services | Land Agent Services Framework | New | Formal Tender (OJEU) | TBC | procurement.ns@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Analytical Services | Laboratory Consumables Framework | In progress | Formal Tender (OJEU) | TBC | procurement.ns@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Analytical Services | Purchase of ICPMS for Saline Metals Analysis | in progress | Formal Tender (non OJEU) | TBC | procurement.ns@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Analytical Services | Specialist Analysis Services for NRW | in progress | TBC | TBC | procurement.ns@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Harvesting | Over Head Power Lines | New | TBC | TBC | procurement.ns@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Analytical Services | WR Consultancy support for the Permitting team | New | TBC | TBC | procurement.ns@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Analytical Services | Framework for Analytical equipment purchases | New | TBC | TBC | procurement.ns@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | EDT | Specialist financial consultancy support for Windfarm development projects | New | TBC | TBC | procurement.ns@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Marine | North Wales Grey Seal Survey - Seal Pupping abundance and site use | New | Confirmed upon completion of Strategy | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Marine | Common Scoter - Aerial and shore counts, Common Scoter, Carmarthen Bay SPA | New | Confirmed upon completion of Strategy | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Marine | Coastal Breeding Seabirds - Storm Petrels breeding abundance, Skomer SPA (MSFD) | New | Confirmed upon completion of Strategy | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Marine | Dolphins (Mike to conform description) | New | Confirmed upon completion of Strategy | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Marine | Inter tidal contract | New | Confirmed upon completion of Strategy | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Sustainabile Communities | Renewables on NRW Estate (contract to be let) | New | Confirmed upon completion of Strategy | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Sustainabile Communities | Demonstration Projects (numerous, detail TBC). Could be delivering carbon saving initiatives / costs associated with further development of carbon man. work to show best practice. | New | Confirmed upon completion of Strategy | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Waste and Resources | Consultants to produce Waste Crime Report | New | TBC | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Facilities | Provision of LED Lighting | New | Confirmed upon completion of Strategy | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Category | Description | Status | Procurement Type | TBC | Contact Email | |--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|---------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------------------------| | Recreation | National Trails Materials | New | TBC | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Monitoring | Lidar and Airborne Survey Data | New | TBC | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Facilities | Provision of Postal Services | New | TBC | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Transformation | Timber Sales Finance System | In progress | Unknown | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Land Contamination | Metal Mine Land Contamination | New | Formal Tender (OJEU) | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | BAU | Software Development Partners | New | TBC | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | External Relations | Media Monitoring | In progress | Formal Tender (non-OJEU) | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Silviculture | Flail and Operator for Silviculture vegetation management | New | Formal Tender (OJEU) | TBC | procurement.ns@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Evidence, Knowledge & Advice | Repairs to Boat (Pedryn) | In Progress | Tender non - OJEU | TBC | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Asset Systems Management | Pont y Cerbyd Resevoir Section 10 | Business Need| Formal Tender (non OJEU) | TBC | procurement.ops@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Operations Delivery | Newborough Boardwalk | Business Need| Formal Tender (non OJEU) | TBC | procurement.ops@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Asset Systems Management | Northern Area Pumping Stations Review | Business Need| Formal Tender (non OJEU) | TBC 17/18 | procurement.ops@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Ops Delivery - South | Inspection of Tips | Business Need| Formal Tender (OJEU) | TBC 17/18 | procurement.ops@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk | | Records and Information | Books and Publications incl. on-line subscription | New | STA / Competition | Various dates | procurement.ksp@naturalresourceswales.gov.uk |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4763-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 5181,
"total-output-tokens": 1816,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
7259,
1
],
[
7259,
10768,
2
]
]
} |
55ddda1830caf28a912526b4c318b630478c2841 | Procedures for closure on transfer
First published: May 2016
Reviewed: March 2019
© Crown copyright 2019
You may re-use this publication (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence; or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at governmentaudience@nationalarchives.gov.uk. Contents Sensitivity review .................................................................................................................. 3 Opening of records .............................................................................................................. 5 Closed descriptions ............................................................................................................ 5 Statute bars .......................................................................................................................... 6 Sensitivity review
Departments should consider sensitivity review as an integral part of the transfer process, along with the appropriate policies and procedures for identifying exempt information and consulting with other bodies.
Before records are transferred to The National Archives or an approved place of deposit, the transferring department must determine their access status (the sensitivity review).
The purpose of the sensitivity review is to:
- consider whether any information should be retained in the department instead of transferred to an archives service
- consider whether any information should be closed on transfer because one or more Freedom of Information (FOI) exemptions apply
- consider whether any exempt information should be released in the public interest regardless
- confirm remaining information can also be released as no FOI exemptions apply
If the sensitivity review identifies information which should not to be released to the public because one or more FOI exemptions apply, the department should prepare an application schedule identifying this information precisely, citing the relevant exemption(s), explaining why the information should not be released and identifying a date at which either release would be appropriate or the case for release should be reconsidered. Departments should consider whether parts of records might be released if the sensitive information were redacted.
The process includes the following steps:
- consulting internally to determine whether the record is likely to contain sensitive information
- making an interim decision
- consulting externally, as appropriate, including with The National Archives if closure is proposed
- confirming or amending the closure decision and adding to the closure application When dealing with environmental information, the application should cite the appropriate exception in the Environmental Information Regulations. If section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is cited the relevant statute bar that prohibits disclosure should be cited.
When making access decisions it is important to:
- consider what security levels or classifications are on the record and whether these have short or long term implications
- consider what personal information is contained within the record and whether it still should be closed given the passage of time
- discuss closure with staff who are familiar with the records and any related sensitivity issues or legislative requirements
- consider the access status of similar records in archives services
The National Archives' closure application form is available online in both Word and Excel format and contains guidance notes and examples on completing the form. The closure application must be submitted to The National Archives for review and advice early in the process, as closure must be approved before records are transferred. The Advisory Council on National Records and Archives (known as the Advisory Council) will consider the case for withholding the records for a longer period.
The Advisory Council will respond as follows:
- by accepting that the information may be withheld and earmarking the records for release or re-review at the date identified by the department
- by accepting that the information may be withheld but asking the department to reconsider the date designated for release or re-review
- by questioning the basis on which it is deemed the information may be withheld and asking the department to reconsider the case
Where records are being transferred to The National Archives or a place of deposit ahead of the statutory deadline, and the intention is that they remain closed until they become historical records, or they are not public records, a similar application should be submitted prior to transfer explaining which exemption(s) apply and why. However, there is no formal review of these by the Advisory Council as it is not involved in the process. Agreement of one of the Directors at The National Archives is needed. Opening of records
When an exemption has ceased to apply under section 63 of the FOIA, the records will automatically become available to members of the public on the day specified in the finalised schedule (this is the schedule reviewed by the Advisory Council and closure has been agreed).
In other cases, if the department concerned wishes to extend the period during which the information is to be withheld in accordance with the FOIA, it should submit a further application explaining the continued sensitivity of the information. This should be done before the expiry of the period stated in the earlier schedule. The Advisory Council will then review the application in accordance with the process described above.
Access restrictions can be withdrawn at any time if it becomes clear that the restriction is no longer appropriate. The relevant department should inform The National Archives if this is the case, but be aware that other bodies involved in the sensitivity review process for transferred records should also be consulted.
Closed descriptions
It is recognised that on rare occasions a catalogue description may be considered exempt under FOI and should be withheld from the public until the record becomes open (for example, the names of victims of sexual assault). In such cases, the records involved should be catalogued in the ordinary way and departments should then indicate clearly on the transfer form the numbers of the records which are to have their descriptions withheld. The scope/content will not be added to the catalogue at The National Archives (although the archival reference will). The records will be held in secure conditions until the record(s) become open, at which point the full description will be added to the catalogue. It is preferable in the interim if some form of alternative to the full description can be displayed rather than leaving it completely blank, for example ‘Mental Health hospital patient case paper, not full description, name withheld’. However, the record will still be displayed as a closed record with closed description until the full description is released. Statute bars
The release of certain information is prohibited by provisions contained in legislation (such as acts, rules, regulations, orders) known as statute bars. Usually such prohibitions apply to the collectors of information and cease to apply when they transfer the custody of the records to The National Archives, although the records may still be closed under other FOI exemptions. Some bars have time limits (sunset clauses) so that they do not apply to information over a specified age e.g. for the lifetimes of individuals concerned. When FOI was implemented the Department for Constitutional Affairs (now the Ministry of Justice) conducted a review of statute bars to see which statute bars were no longer required or whether their terms should be varied. Section 75 of the FOIA contains a power to repeal or amend statutory bars to access that existed before November 2000 by Order. Specifically, section 75 allows the Secretary of State to relax or remove aspects of laws that have a section 44 prohibition via a Statutory Instrument (SI). There has been one such SI to-date (SI 2004/3363). There remain some pieces of legislation that currently contain a permanent statute bar on the disclosure of information, even following a transfer of custody of the records to The National Archives. The existence of such prohibitions does not exempt those organisations responsible for public records from statutory obligations under the Public Records Act 1958 (PRA). Under the PRA arrangements must still be made for the selection of those records which should be permanently preserved, and for the safe-keeping of records until they are disposed of through a transfer of custody or destruction.
The National Archives does not collect public records to which there is no defined timeframe for public access. Those records deemed worthy of permanent preservation should be retained by the responsible organisation with the agreement of the Secretary of State if required until such time as a transfer can occur. This would be facilitated by the addition of a sunset clause by the legislative owners. It is the responsibility of those retaining such records to initiate this contact with the support of The National Archives.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4764-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 6,
"total-input-tokens": 11054,
"total-output-tokens": 1916,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
581,
1
],
[
581,
1127,
2
],
[
1127,
2916,
3
],
[
2916,
5167,
4
],
[
5167,
7303,
5
],
[
7303,
9537,
6
]
]
} |
204ee54bccc254172c2672cf441a991e0243252c | | Post Date | Vendor Name | Description | Amount | |------------|----------------------|----------------------|----------| | 04/05/2016 | Haymarket Hotel | Meeting | £583.31 | | 19/05/2016 | Opus Restaurant | Meeting | £1,214.66| | 10/06/2016 | John Lewis | ICT Hardware | £942.94 | | 10/06/2016 | John Lewis | ICT Hardware | £1,885.88| | 29/06/2016 | ICT | Subscription | £806.23 | | 10/06/2016 | British Airways | Flights | £644.02 | | 30/06/2016 | IAGR | Conference Fees | £648.59 | | 01/07/2016 | IAGR | Conference Fees | £656.18 | | 08/07/2016 | IAGR | Conference Fees | £632.91 | | 30/08/2016 | Helpmego To Ltd | Conference fees | £900.22 | | 09/09/2016 | Henry VIII Hotels | Accommodation | £630.00 | | 09/08/2016 | ICO.Gov.UK | IT Software Service Contracts | £500.00 | | 06/09/2016 | Shelbourne Hotel | Accommodation | £667.49 | | 08/09/2016 | Doubletree Hotels | Board meetings and functions | £825.50 | | 14/10/2016 | Active Networking Online | Conference fees | £2,130.65 | | | Park Royal Darling Sydney | Accommodation | £1,312.94 | | 27/07/2016 | International Master Legal | Conference fees | £948.85 | | 31/01/2017 | Birmingham City Football Club | Hospitality External C-KCOOS | £1,248.00 | | 28/02/2017 | The Wesley | Conference fees | £995.00 | | 28/02/2017 | Changeboard Futuretalent Conference | Conference fees | £600.00 | | 28/02/2017 | Hilton Garden Inn | Board meetings and functions | £827.35 | | 31/03/2017 | Clarion Events | Conference fees | £2,445.55| | 31/03/2017 | Clarion Events | Conference fees | £1,100.38| | 31/03/2017 | ICSA London | HR-Training courses external | £565.00 | | 31/05/2017 | ICSA London | HR-Training courses external | £565.00 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4765-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2382,
"total-output-tokens": 850,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2006,
1
]
]
} |
504c0b8fd406f89d4a8e98433355daee371059c2 | ## Procurement Card Transactions Over £500 2018-19
| Date | Supplier Name | Description | Transaction Amount £ | |------------|------------------------|------------------------------------|----------------------| | 04/04/2018 | RICHMOND EVENTS | CONFERENCE FEES | 600.00 | | 10/04/2018 | FROSTS PHOTOCENTRE | EQUIPMENT PURCHASES < £2,500 | 1,272.49 | | 13/04/2018 | HOOTSUITE INC | TRADE SUBSCRIPTIONS | 1,152.00 | | 28/04/2018 | MSFT AZURE IRL | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 517.30 | | 09/04/2018 | THINKTANK.COM | HOSPITALITY - EXTERNAL CLIENTS | 700.00 | | 17/04/2018 | RADISSON BLU HOTEL EDI | HOSPITALITY - GC STAFF | 707.00 | | 27/04/2018 | RADISSON BLU HOTEL EDI | HOSPITALITY - GC STAFF | 923.00 | | 24/05/2018 | IAGR | CONFERENCE FEES | 655.88 | | 21/05/2018 | BRITISH AIRWAYS | AIRLINE FLIGHT TRAVEL | 505.06 | | 28/05/2018 | MSFT AZURE IRL | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 502.57 | | 25/05/2018 | COMMS EXPRESS | IT HARDWARE PURCHASES < £2,500 | 510.58 | | 12/06/2018 | BRITISH AIRWAYS | AIRLINE FLIGHT TRAVEL | 635.35 | | 26/06/2018 | BRITISH AIRWAYS | AIRLINE FLIGHT TRAVEL | 518.19 | | 28/06/2018 | MSFT AZURE | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 519.71 | | 29/06/2018 | JETBRAINS | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 686.40 | | 05/06/2018 | SONIC COMS INT LTD | EQUIPMENT PURCHASES < £2,500 | 900.00 | | 04/07/2018 | W BARCELONA HOTEL | TRADE SUBSCRIPTIONS | 717.04 | | 12/07/2018 | MSFT | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 518.40 | | 28/07/2018 | MSFT AZURE | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 502.82 | | 23/08/2018 | IAGR | CONFERENCE FEES | 683.61 | | 28/08/2018 | MSFT AZURE | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 518.17 | | 07/08/2018 | VONAGE VMB | IT COMMUNICATIONS CHARGES | 1,056.00 | | 19/09/2018 | EXPEDIA | DETACHED DUTIES - ACCOMMODATION | 582.00 | | 20/09/2018 | PMG LTD | CONFERENCE FEES | 720.00 | | 24/09/2018 | BRITISH AIRWAYS | AIRLINE FLIGHT TRAVEL | 500.83 | | 07/09/2018 | ICO | MEMBERSHIP FEES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS | 2,900.00 | | 01/10/2018 | MSFT AZURE | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 517.96 | | Date | Vendor | Description | Amount | |------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|----------| | 18/10/2018 | HOTEL IBIS | CONFERENCE FEES | 551.00 | | 12/10/2018 | JUNIPER RESEARCH | OTHER CONSULTANCY FEES | 2,700.00 | | 24/10/2018 | PANEL SCREENS UK | EQUIPMENT PURCHASES < £2,500 | 1,786.64 | | 28/10/2018 | MSFT AZURE | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 504.13 | | 23/10/2018 | HILTON GARDEN INN | DETACHED DUTIES - ACCOMMODATION | 935.00 | | 28/11/2018 | MSFT | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 520.40 | | 04/12/2018 | MARCO PIERRE WHITE | CONFERENCE FEES | 681.00 | | 28/12/2018 | MSFT | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 509.33 | | 22/01/2019 | I.O.P.C. EVENTS | CONFERENCE FEES | 999.00 | | 11/01/2019 | EVENTBRITE | TRADE SUBSCRIPTIONS | 506.18 | | 28/01/2019 | MSFT | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 520.95 | | 04/02/2019 | IBIS | CONFERENCE FEES | 814.50 | | 04/02/2019 | IBIS | CONFERENCE FEES | 813.00 | | 19/02/2019 | AMOMA RESERVATION | DETACHED DUTIES - ACCOMMODATION | 528.16 | | 28/02/2019 | MSFT | IT SOFTWARE HOSTING | 519.71 | | 07/03/2019 | IW GROUP SERVICES (UK) | CONFERENCE FEES | 533.52 | | 28/03/2019 | AMAZON | EQUIPMENT PURCHASES < £2,500 | 579.00 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4766-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 4545,
"total-output-tokens": 1798,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2952,
1
],
[
2952,
4908,
2
]
]
} |
dc666f6ad79fc1665d28452540b10abf811916e4 | | Date | Vendor Name | Description | Transaction Amount | |------------|-------------------|------------------------------------|--------------------| | 31/05/2017 | John Lewis | ICT Hardware | £1,098.05 | | 31/05/2017 | MSFT | ICT Software | £517.69 | | 31/05/2017 | Marston Book Ltd | Reference texts and material | £524.65 | | 31/05/2017 | Sainsburys | Conference Fees | £503.20 | | 31/05/2017 | Institute of Licensing | Membership fees and subscriptions | £600.00 | | 31/05/2017 | MSFT | ICT Hardware | £573.00 | | 31/05/2017 | Regus Meeting Rooms | Conference Fees | £611.64 | | 29/06/2017 | MSFT | ICT Software | £502.42 | | 29/06/2017 | Jury Inn | Training | £1,296.00 | | 26/07/2017 | IAGR | Conference Fees | £638.56 | | 26/07/2017 | Holiday Inn Taunton | Conference Fees | £601.25 | | 27/07/2017 | John Lewis | ICT Hardware | £533.00 | | 27/07/2017 | PPM Talent | Conference Fees | £600.00 | | 21/08/2017 | IAGA | Conference Fees | £676.53 | | 21/08/2017 | Partnership Media Group | Meetings | £888.00 | | 21/08/2017 | MSFT | ICT Software | £521.33 | | 28/09/2017 | Peermont Global | Accommodation | £565.34 | | 31/10/2017 | ICO.GOV.UK | ICT Software | £500.00 | | 31/10/2017 | JetBrains | ICT Software | £733.27 | | 31/10/2017 | MSFT | ICT Software | £529.63 | | 31/10/2017 | MSFT | ICT Software | £501.40 | | 24/11/2017 | AML Forum | Conference Fees | £1,689.12 | | 24/11/2017 | MSFT | ICT Software | £512.48 | | 28/11/2017 | E-Commerce Law | Legal Services | £624.00 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4767-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2321,
"total-output-tokens": 827,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2418,
1
]
]
} |
53fd5f1b51722e2bb3eeba2c7bf67562e2435c23 | ## Procurement Card Transactions Over £500 2019-20 Q1 + Q2
| Date | Supplier Name | Description | Transaction Amount £ | |------------|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------| | 03/05/2019 | ZH*ZHOTELS | DETACHED DUTIES - ACCOMMODATION | 643.00 | | 03/05/2019 | ZH*ZHOTELS | DETACHED DUTIES - ACCOMMODATION | 643.00 | | 01/06/2019 | MSFT | IT SOFTWARE HOSTING | 507.08 | | 05/06/2019 | IAGR | CONFERENCE FEES | 650.02 | | 25/06/2019 | WWW.THE-SRA.ORG.UK | TRAINING | 607.50 | | 28/06/2019 | MSFT | IT SOFTWARE HOSTING | 521.69 | | 18/07/2019 | TUI | AIRLINE FLIGHT TRAVEL | 945.00 | | 09/07/2019 | RADISSON BLU | CONFERENCE FEES | 598.00 | | 28/08/2019 | MSFT | IT SOFTWARE HOSTING | 520.04 | | 17/09/2019 | BRAVONEXT | DETACHED DUTIES - ACCOMMODATION | 525.31 | | 29/09/2019 | IAGR | CONFERENCE FEES | 1,216.21 | | 27/09/2019 | WEST COAST TRAINS | SEASON TICKET LOANS | 1,200.00 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4768-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1753,
"total-output-tokens": 530,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1613,
1
]
]
} |
b62840ba241a3f206a429b6734282170cf3c3e79 | ## Procurement Card Transactions Over £500 2019-20 Q3 + Q4
| Date | Supplier Name | Description | Transaction Amount £ | |------------|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------| | 12/10/2019 | JETBRAINS | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 883.30 | | 16/10/2019 | LEGNA RESTAURANT | HOSPITALITY | 970.70 | | 23/10/2019 | CENTAUR MAGAZINE | MEMBERSHIP FEES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS | 1,194.00 | | 01/11/2019 | TRAVEL REPUBLIC LTD | DETACHED DUTIES - ACCOMMODATION | 528.00 | | 27/11/2019 | AMAZON | OFFICE STATIONERY & CONSUMABLE | 542.50 | | 26/12/2019 | DIGICERT INC | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 3,410.00 | | 27/01/2020 | DOUBLETREE BY HILTON| CONFERENCE FEES | 800.00 | | 30/01/2020 | WWW.FREEMANUK.COM | CONFERENCE FEES | 1,350.00 | | 06/03/2020 | MAZEDESIGN | IT SOFTWARE LICENCES | 1,022.93 |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4769-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1688,
"total-output-tokens": 436,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1280,
1
]
]
} |
a37e6941c8141967f139aa91c2756e3214e23225 | Services shared: costs spared? An analysis of the financial and non-financial benefits of local authority shared services
Appendix 4: Review of Procurement Lincolnshire shared services arrangements
- Boston Borough Council, City of Lincoln Council, East Lindsey District Council, Lincolnshire County Council, North Kesteven District Council, South Holland District Council, South Kesteven District Council and West Lindsey District Council
## Contents
| Section | Page | |----------------------------------|------| | Executive summary | 3 | | Introduction | 5 | | Shared services background | 6 | | Set-up consolidation benefits | 10 | | Wider business change benefits | 14 | | Third party services | 17 | | Strategic developments | 18 | Executive summary
Procurement Lincolnshire has made a substantial level of savings for the local authorities in the county between 2008 and 2011 – comprising £9 million in procurement savings and nearly £1.5 million in process savings. It has out-performed the targets originally set for the shared service of procurement savings of just over £4 million and process savings of around £660,000 for the period. The return on investment for the local authorities involved range from 91 per cent to 341 per cent for the period.
Established in April 2008, Procurement Lincolnshire is a single function shared service for all the local authorities in the county, made up of a county council, 6 district councils and a borough council. It provides strategic procurement advice for its partners.
The County Council hosts Procurement Lincolnshire. The district councils have delegated their procurement functions to the County Council.
The local authorities in Lincolnshire identified eleven possible shared services in 2007. Procurement Lincolnshire is to date the only shared service established that includes all of the Lincolnshire councils. Legal Services has also been set up as a shared service for six of the Lincolnshire councils. Both arrangements have provided a high level of service and significant levels of savings for the councils involved.
The set up costs for the shared service were modest at £148,000. Part of the reason for this is that the County Council had recently reviewed the size and capability of its own corporate procurement function before the shared service was established, so some of the groundwork had already been done. The County Council’s contribution to the costs of the shared service is 73 per cent and the remaining costs are apportioned between the seven other councils.
The savings from the shared service have not come from reducing staff. The staffing costs actually increased by just over 20 per cent at the start of the shared service from £600,000 to £740,000. The savings have come from improvements and efficiencies secured in procurement practice and processes.
Excellent use is made of management information. Bespoke systems have been developed to allow Procurement Lincolnshire to analyse how much is being spent by which authority on what and who with. This information has been key in securing the £9 million savings through improved procurement to date, with an additional £14 million of potential savings identified. Specialist knowledge has been developed through the category management structure of the shared service. There is real commitment from all the partners for the shared service to be successful. This has always been the case at senior level, but inevitably, this has taken some time to develop throughout all of the participating authorities.
Based on the notable successes of the function, a high level of trust has been established between the authorities and the shared service. As a result, Procurement Lincolnshire is seen by the partners as an effective joint service, rather than a County Council function.
Staff morale is high, with low staff sickness and turnover rates. There is a high number of professionally qualified staff in the shared service with experience from both the public and private sectors and staff survey findings have reflected positively on the service.
Two new priorities have been agreed for the shared service, building on the ones originally agreed when the shared service was set up. The first is to deliver additional year on year efficiencies, but not at the cost of quality.
The second is to develop and embrace socially responsible procurement, engaging with local and regional suppliers to promote the local economy and taking account of the social and environmental impact of spending decisions. Key performance indicators are in place for each of these priorities.
Past progress against these two priorities has been positive. Achievement against the first priority is clear from the levels of efficiencies secured to date.
In relation to the second, the service has received positive feedback from the Lincolnshire Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, two of the organisations that Procurement Lincolnshire works closely with to implement socially responsible procurement.
The shared service has proved to be innovative, adaptable and effective. It has developed its strategic capacity and capability and is influencing procurement policy and practice at the regional and national level. Introduction
The purpose of Local Government Association (LGA) research project is to substantiate, but not audit, a selection of five established and successful local government shared service arrangements. The research provides the sector with important evidence and numerical based analysis on the success of the projects in terms of financial returns and service delivery. The main themes explored were the impact of shared services on customer satisfaction and outcomes; the set up costs and timescales for delivery; the efficiencies achieved so far, and the extent to which the outcomes have varied from initial business cases.
Procurement Lincolnshire covers all the local authorities in a county and is a single function shared service. In theory the shared service should be relatively simple because it is a single function and in a clear geographical area. However, the reality is that working across eight local authorities is complex and it requires time to embed new methods of working. As the shared service has been running for more than three years, it now has an established operating model and a clear breakdown of the efficiencies achieved, that others can learn from.
This analysis was based on documentation provided by Procurement Lincolnshire from the partnership, the detailed business case, a review of Procurement Lincolnshire by a task and finish group of the participating authorities, 2010/11 annual report/ summary of three year review and the savings model.
This was supported by interviews with:
- **Alex Botten** Procurement Analyst, Procurement Lincolnshire
- **Sharon Cuff** Head of Procurement Lincolnshire
- **Alina Hackney** Senior Procurement Manager, Procurement Lincolnshire
- **Jason Jarvis** Head of Business Management, North Kesteven District Council
- **Marie Kaempfe-Rice** Procurement Officer, Procurement Lincolnshire
- **Daren Turner** Strategic Director, South Kesteven District Council
- **Pete Moore** Executive Director of Resources & Community Safety, Lincolnshire County Council
- **Councillor Tony Turner MBE** Lincolnshire County Council The eight local authorities in Lincolnshire recognise the opportunities shared services can provide. Five years ago they considered a programme of 11 services that could be shared. The objectives of the programme were:
- Engage with local people within their communities
- Develop and deploy a joined-up approach to achieve seamless service delivery
- Offer a “one stop” approach to customer services
- Simplify and rationalise the way in which services are delivered
- Realise efficiency savings to provide opportunities for service transformation
- Ensure Lincolnshire is able to attract and retain the best people to deliver its public services
To date two have been established – Procurement Lincolnshire and Legal Services. Both have been running for over three years and have led to high levels of savings for the local authorities and improvements in how the services are delivered.
The timing for the establishment of Procurement Lincolnshire was opportune. The County Council had decided to increase the size and professional skills of its procurement function.
At the same time the other councils recognised the need to bring together their buying power to achieve better deals with suppliers. The function was seen as a good one to start the shared services programme.
Procurement Lincolnshire was created in April 2008. It is a shared procurement service owned and run by the eight local authorities in Lincolnshire;
- Boston Borough Council
- City of Lincoln Council
- East Lindsey District Council
- Lincolnshire County Council
- North Kesteven District Council
- South Holland District Council
- South Kesteven District Council
- West Lindsey District Council.
The original aims for Procurement Lincolnshire were to realise:
- Enhanced value for money for partners
- Reduced tendering costs for partners
- Opportunities to standardise goods and services
- Opportunities for partners to learn from each other and consider alternative means of meeting needs
- Improved access to market for suppliers. The service is hosted by Lincolnshire County Council and each of the authorities has formally delegated its procurement function to the County Council as the host authority. Each of the authorities is an equal partner in Procurement Lincolnshire. The delegation is a very important feature of the partnership that ensures the service can operate flexibly to deliver the best value options on behalf of all the partners.
Checks and balances have been put in place to allow individual local authorities can influence activity within the service, while ensuring that the collective approach is not diminished. The first level of the governance process is a senior manager at each authority who acts as a liaison stakeholder. They are the first point of contact in each authority and have regular contact with their dedicated Procurement Advisor, an officer within Procurement Lincolnshire. The dedicated Procurement Advisor spends one day each week working in their allocated authority. Monthly monitoring meetings and quarterly review meetings are held with Procurement Lincolnshire managers.
The work of Procurement Lincolnshire is overseen by a Strategic Procurement Board made up of representatives from each authority. This Board reports to the Procurement Advisory Board who has overall accountability and consists of a County Councillor, District Councillor, a District Chief Executive (who chairs the Board), two District Directors, a County Director and the Head of Procurement Lincolnshire. The Chief Executive provides an overview of the shared service to the Lincolnshire Chief Executive Group.
Procurement Lincolnshire allocates a Procurement Advisor to each authority who is on site for at least one day per week. This officer is available throughout the rest of the week providing support remotely by telephone or email. Officer support is also available from other members of the Procurement Lincolnshire team, in particular the category management experts.
The service operates at a strategic level focussing on those activities which will deliver efficiencies and improve the way that services are delivered. Procurement Lincolnshire has committed itself to two clear priorities:
- Delivering year on year efficiencies, but not at the cost of quality
- Developing and embracing socially responsible procurement, engaging with local and regional suppliers to promote the local economy and taking account of the social and environmental impact of spending decisions.
It does not undertake operational procurement (such as placing individual purchase orders, expediting deliveries etc) which takes place at a local level in each of the councils.
For the first three years of operation the key performance indicators used were based on the purchasing performance indicators devised by the Audit Commission. They covered such areas as:
- Setting specific and measureable targets of the cashable and non-cashable benefits delivered by procurement (see Table 5);
- Percentage of tenders handled electronically
- Percentage of spend with a strategic sourcing plan • Increase in number of procurement cards, number of transactions using these cards and in total spend using them • Percentage of influenceable spend channelled directly through SMEs.
The shared service performed very well against these KPIs (see Table 1). For example, year on year the cashable and non-cashable benefits were exceeded and the overall cost of the shared service has been reduced from the original estimate (see Tables 4 and 5). The shared service has acknowledged that the original targets were cautious. As a result, more ambitious ones are being set for the future.
Table 1 sets out the direction of travel of performance against the original set of strategic objectives for the shared service between 2008/09 and 2010/11.
The vertical arrows show whether performance went up or down and the horizontal arrows represent no movement in performance. As the table shows the performance has been very good.
The one area that maintained performance in 2010/11 was because the use of the E-Procurement system was the same at 100per cent.
There has been an increase in collaborative working over the period. For example, between 2009/10 and 2010/11 the percentage of spend that was underpinned by a strategic sourcing plan increased from 62.5per cent to 88per cent.
Between 2009/10 and 2010/11 the number of procurement cards being used increased by 39per cent and the number of transactions using the cards increased 47per cent. This has led to an increase of total spend using the cards of 13per cent.
Influenceable spend is the amount of the expenditure by the eight local authorities that Procurement Lincolnshire has direct influence over. The percentage of this expenditure that was channelled through Small and Medium Enterprises (SME’s) increased to just over 50per cent in 2010/11 compared to 44per cent in 2009/10.
Arrows have been used to show performance against the strategic objectives over the three years in Table 1 because each year tended to have different key performance indicators. For example, the first year the key performance indicators were narrative. They did not include figures. There are figures in the second and third years. Where these are consistent they have been used in the above text. Performance Lincolnshire are conscious of the lack of consistency in the key performance indicators for the three years. A great deal of thought has gone into linking the new key performance indicators to Procurement Lincolnshire’s two new priorities. The intention is to use the new key performance indicators (see next paragraph) to show performance more clearly in the future. Based on the lessons learnt and to provide greater focus on the important areas for the future of the shared service, a new set of key performance questions and indicators have been developed which will be in use from 2011/12. They match the priorities outlined in paragraph 3.10. The questions for the first priority, delivering year on year efficiencies, but not at the cost of quality, are:
- To what extent are we meeting our partners cost reduction expectations?
- Does the service continue to deliver value for money for the partnership?
The indicators are:
- Savings delivered by the shared service partnership
- Average partner Return On Investment from the service
- Percentage of contract spend through new collaborative arrangements
The questions for the second priority, developing and embracing socially responsible procurement, are:
- To what degree are we engaging with the local supply base?
- To what extent are we making a difference to the local supply base?
The indicators are:
- Number of planned training events to engage with local suppliers, within the next quarter
- Number of local suppliers trained as a percentage of the local supply market
- The percentage of bids received by local suppliers
- Increase in spend with local businesses
| Strategic Objective | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | |---------------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------| | Efficiency and Value for Money | | ↑ | ↑ | | Training and Development | | ↑ | ↑ | | E-Procurement and Purchasing Cards | ↑ | | ↑ | | Collaborative Procurement and Partnerships | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | | Community and Customer Involvement | | ↑ | ↑ | | Socially Responsible Procurement | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | | Ethical Procurement | | ↑ | ↑ | | Regeneration | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ |
Table 1 Performance against Strategic Objectives 2008/09 – 2010/11 Cumulative savings of over £9 million have been made in procuring goods and services more efficiently and effectively in the first three years of operation (see table 1 below). Cumulative savings of nearly £1.5 million have been made as a result of process improvements, in particular through the introduction of electronic tendering and procurement cards (see table 3 below).
Table 2 Cumulative procurement savings 2008-11
| Category | Cumulative Saving 2008 – 11 | |-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Utilities | £3,960,267 | | Financial Services | £2,279,630 | | Information Communication Technology | £921,373 | | Miscellaneous | £179,858 | | Facilities & Management Services | £336,961 | | Works - Construction, Repair & Maintenance | £293,900 | | Vehicle Management | £231,700 | | Leisure Services | £188,891 | | Environmental Services | £176,065 | | Housing Management | £147,454 | | Consultancy | £112,135 | | Furniture | £54,987 | | Human Resources | £51,648 | | Sports & Playground Equipment & Maintenance | £38,947 | | Catering | £20,000 | | Procurement Cards | £5,500 | | Stationery | £5,451 | | Cleaning & Janitorial | £2,590 | | **Total** | **£ 9,007,357** | The process savings have been achieved between 2008–11 through improved procurement processes. For example, 100 per cent of tenders are now managed electronically.
Table 3 Cumulative process savings 2008-11
| Process | Cumulative saving 2008-11 | |--------------------------|---------------------------| | P-Card total | £ 651,366 | | E-Procurement total | £ 755,200 | | Total | £ 1,406,566 |
The set up cost for Procurement Lincolnshire was £148,000. This was spent mainly on new information technology (IT) – both equipment and systems – and training and development.
The figure does not include the time spent by officers on developing the business case or managing the transition. Each of the seven district councils funded £15,000 of the set up costs and the County Council funded the balance.
The actual set up and running costs are set out in Table 4 below.
For the district councils the average projected running cost per year was estimated at £41,000 with average full year benefits of £130,000.
Tables 4 and 5 show the full year benefits for the County Council and district councils have exceeded these projections.
Table 4 Savings profile
| | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | |--------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Starting budget*1 | £1.05m | £1.076m | £1.076m | £0.952m | | Influenceable Expenditure*2 | £194m | £194m | £194m | £194m | | Total local government expenditure | £749m | £749m | £737m | £737m est. | | Consolidation savings | £0.442m | £0.345m | £0.619m | | Procurement Savings\*3 | £1.285m | £3.065m | £4.125m | | Annual ongoing savings | £1.725m | £3.41m | £4.744m | | One-off costs | £148,000| | | |
\*1 Staff costs across all 8 local authorities for carrying out procurement was £600,000 in 2007/08. The 2008/09 budget was based on spending an additional £441,000 on staff.
\*2 Amount of the expenditure by the 8 local authorities Procurement Lincolnshire was able to influence.
\*3 The cumulative total for Procurement Savings in this table are £8.475 million. This is less than the total of £9.007 million given in Table 2 for the same period. The reason for this is the figures in this table are the ones given in the annual reports for the three years. They are the totals for the savings that had been validated at the time the annual reports were produced. Since then further savings have been validated through the process referred to in paragraph 4.9 below. This is the total given in Table 2. The numbers of staff involved in procurement have increased from 10 full time equivalents working across the authorities before the shared service was established to 17 between 2008 and 2011. Importantly, the skills and expertise of the team have been increased.
For example, eight members of Procurement Lincolnshire have been supported in becoming Associate Members of CIPS (the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply). Qualified staff have also been employed with experience from the private sector (two) along with from the public sector (three) and with experience across both sectors (one). The skills and expertise of individuals outside of the service, but with some responsibilities relating to have been improved across all 8 local authorities. 17 training events have taken place for staff with over 300 attendees.
Management information has been improved through the Procurement Information Management System (PIMs) and development of Lincolnshire Category Analysis Tool (LCAT). PIMS is a bespoke system that allows Procurement Lincolnshire to work plan, schedule and track benefits and their realisation. PIMS has improved the reliability of savings reporting and the confidence in the figures being reported.
LCAT is an in-house system that provides consistent and accurate data for efficiency reviews. Summary reports are provided to all partners to give a top level insight into their spend profiles.
These reports have identified savings areas in all the local authorities. High levels of future savings are anticipated from the increased use of the system. An estimated £14 million of potential savings have been identified from the first comprehensive analysis activity utilising the LCAT system. A savings model has been agreed through the Lincolnshire Financial Officers Group to ensure the savings are treated consistently and relate to the baseline costs of the service for each council.
For each project a savings evaluation sheet is completed in order to calculate the savings achieved. This has various different methodologies for calculating savings, including baseline comparisons, basket of goods etc. Only the savings value is entered into the reporting system by category.
Table 5 Cumulative savings by local authority
| Authority | Cumulative Target Savings | Cumulative Actual Savings | Variance | |----------------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|-----------| | Boston Borough Council | £ 102,719 | £ 299,372 | 191per cent | | City of Lincoln Council | £ 137,788 | £ 507,990 | 269per cent | | East Lindsey District Council | £ 273,906 | £ 535,477 | 95per cent | | Lincolnshire County Council | £ 3,045,721 | £ 5,817,955 | 91per cent | | North Kesteven District Council | £ 166,111 | £ 446,096 | 169per cent | | South Holland District Council | £ 159,079 | £ 701,122 | 341per cent | | South Kesteven District Council | £ 98,125 | £ 370,321 | 277per cent | | West Lindsey District Council | £ 115,138 | £ 329,024 | 186per cent | | Total | £ 4,098,585 | £ 9,007,357 | 120per cent | The model has proved to be an important part of the process by providing figures the local authorities trust. These Information and Communication Technology (ICT) systems are fundamental to the continued delivery of efficient and effective procurement by the service.
The other key priority for Procurement Lincolnshire is to develop and embrace socially responsible procurement, engaging with local and regional suppliers to promote the local economy and taking account of the social and environmental impact of spending decisions. The awareness of local businesses has been raised to the opportunities and tendering has been made more accessible, by simplifying the process and providing them with training in it.
The main effort to stimulate markets and competition has been through the Training in Public Procurement programme (TIPPs) programme. This has sought to encourage local suppliers to participate in the public procurement market within Lincolnshire. This has involved three annual Meet the Buyer events where suppliers have been able to engage with Procurement Lincolnshire and to explore potential contract opportunities. Wider business change benefits
Since its establishment Procurement Lincolnshire has developed a wide range of benefits. While not all of these can be quantified, these are felt to be of key importance to the effectiveness of the service.
There is a low and reducing sickness rate among staff; the average number of days sick for staff has reduced from 5 days in 2008/09, through 4 days in 2009/10 to 3 days in 2010/11. This compares with the County Council target of 9 days a year. The estimated quantifiable benefits of this reduction are as follows;
- Estimated cumulative FTE gained due to reduced sickness: 33 per cent
- Estimated cumulative value of days gained due to reduced sickness: £13,300
Procurement Lincolnshire staff have high morale. An indicator of this is the 78 per cent engagement index rating from the 2010 staff survey. The Engagement Index is a measure of respondents’ commitment to Procurement Lincolnshire. Engagement goes beyond satisfaction and can be defined as employees’ willingness to invest their personal effort in the success of the organisation. This compares with a national benchmark of 66 per cent and a County Council benchmark of 68 per cent.
The use of management information has resulted in savings (see previous section) but just as importantly it has provided trust in the evidence-based approach the service has adopted to procurement. There has been a major change in the way Procurement Lincolnshire is perceived by the participant authorities. Originally it was seen as a County Council led service, whereas now it is regarded as a joint service. An indication of this is the level of sign up for collaborative projects, such as for Housing maintenance, dry recyclables and, potentially, waste collection and disposal. The benefits of these projects are measureable.
Dry recyclables
Procurement Lincolnshire has worked with the three of the district councils to agree one contract on dry recyclables. Before the contract each council had a separate contract with a service provider. The contracts were based on the councils paying the service provider to take the dry recyclables. The new contract now provides each council with around £700,000 in income a year.
The shared service has proved to be innovative and adaptable. This has helped to build the trust of the partners. When the shared service started operating in 2008 Procurement Lincolnshire staff were based in each district council offices for two days a week. Now that relationships and trust has been established, the councils were very comfortable in reducing this to one day a week, in the knowledge that officers are accessible as required. Collaborative approach to housing refurbishment, improvement and maintenance
Procurement Lincolnshire led on a Housing Refurbishment, Improvement and Maintenance framework agreement on behalf of four of our partners with retained housing stock.
The framework agreement included nine service areas:
- Electric Heating and Hot Water Installation
- Pre-Paint Joinery and External Decorating
- External Wall Insulation and Rendering
- Supply and Installation of Doors
- Kitchen and Bathrooms
- Central Heating
- Installation and Replacement of Windows
- Void Property Cleaning and Clearing
- Environmental Improvements and Civil Works
These works are delivered to council owned housing and surrounding communal areas with an estimated spend of £11-29 million over a 4 year period. The framework was let in works lots and was then broken down further into geographical lots to encourage small and medium enterprises (SME’s) to bid for work.
Benefits include:
- One partner has generated savings of £147,000 in 2010/11
- Savings of over £630,000 are anticipated in 2011/12 based upon current budget proposals
- Up to 20 per cent savings for some partners on this new framework agreement in comparison to their previous spend
- Additional savings are being generated by conducting collaborative further competition exercises within the framework and aggregating spend
- Process savings have been generated due to conducting one collaborative framework agreement for nine works lots and four partners, rather than 36 individual tenders.
There are a number of benefits that are harder to measure. These include resource planning – being able to manage the peaks and troughs of procurement more effectively through the specialist approach to category management. Category management is the approach Procurement Lincolnshire has adopted to maximise the impact of its resources. Staff are given particular categories, such as utilities and ICT, to develop their understanding in that area of expenditure and manage procurement activity relating to that. This approach is proving to be very effective (see Table 1).
There is a high level of compliance in using the standardised procurement systems, including best value regional and national framework arrangements. As well as leading to savings (again, see table 1) the increased compliance allows Procurement Lincolnshire and the local authorities to manage risk more effectively. Procurement Lincolnshire has provided a single route for SMEs to provide services and products for the local authorities. Systems, such as e-tendering and the simplified PQQ, have been changed to encourage SMEs to bid for contracts more easily. Investment has been made in providing training and support for SMEs to ensure they understand the systems and the opportunities provided by Procurement Lincolnshire and receive a consistent response across the County. The shared service is currently working on reporting systems to allow it to track the impact of this within local SMEs.
The service works very closely with both the Lincolnshire Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses in this area. This is acknowledged by the Chamber:
“The partnership has done exceptionally well in supporting local businesses and helping them to tender for work within the public sector…Business feedback is always overwhelmingly positive, bearing in mind the partnership does not have funds in its own right but operates though in-kind activities of partners in both our areas, and we believe the work done by TIPPs has benefited the local business community. We are delighted and proud to be working in partnership with them.”
Procurement Lincolnshire has developed both its strategic capacity and its capability. This is clear in the region by the interest of the other local authorities in the PIMS and LCAT systems. It is recognised nationally through the role the Head of Procurement Lincolnshire plays on national procurement groups and directly through her work with the Local Government Association. Third party services
Currently Procurement Lincolnshire provides limited services to third parties. For example, it has a contract to provide training on procurement to local authorities in the region. Although it does not have plans to expand its work to third parties at the moment, it is a potential area of strategic development (see the next section). Strategic developments
There are a number of strategic options for Procurement Lincolnshire. The first group of options are based on providing services in the county. The second relate to providing services outside the county.
The options available within the county are:
- Carrying on with the current approach and using the management information to identify further areas for savings;
- Maximise the amount of collaboration on contracts among partners;
- Increase the level of influenceable spend among partners;
- Provide services for other public sector bodies in the county, such as Health bodies and the Police; and
- Increase the amount of involvement in strategic procurement in the County Council (the areas currently with dotted lines to the service).
The options available for operating outside the county are:
- Increasing the number of partners to include other local authorities;
- Providing a service to other local authorities on a fee basis/including them in contracts;
- Providing a service to other public bodies on a fee basis/including them in contracts;
- Carrying out more fee-earning work at the regional or national level, including marketing and training organisations in the PIMS and LCAT system;
- Providing an inputting and interpretation service for the PIMS; and
- Providing strategic procurement advice and/or training.
Many of these options are not mutually exclusive. Most of them would require Procurement Lincolnshire to review the level of resource needed to carry them out. There would also be a need to consider what governance model would be most effective for the services provided and to what organisations.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4770-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 20,
"total-input-tokens": 37353,
"total-output-tokens": 8140,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
441,
1
],
[
441,
850,
2
],
[
850,
3430,
3
],
[
3430,
5384,
4
],
[
5384,
7509,
5
],
[
7509,
9531,
6
],
[
9531,
12610,
7
],
[
12610,
15233,
8
],
[
15233,
17354,
9
],
[
17354,
19460,
10
],
[
19460,
22173,
11
],
[
22173,
25606,
12
],
[
25606,
26745,
13
],
[
26745,
29408,
14
],
[
29408,
31836,
15
],
[
31836,
33449,
16
],
[
33449,
33807,
17
],
[
33807,
35464,
18
],
[
35464,
35464,
19
],
[
35464,
35464,
20
]
]
} |
88a106ccf0aa184784d5e9f16fa1de235e1cac2c | Come Outside! recently ran two events over the February half term in South Wales, to give community members an opportunity to try new things, and inspire them to get outdoors and get active.
Taking place in NRW’s Llanwonno Forest in the Rhondda and at Parc Bryn Bach in Tredegar, the two events together brought over 700 people outside enjoying their natural environment.
The events took place thanks to collaborative working both within NRW as well as external partners such as the social landlord Tai Calon, the team of volunteers at the Daerwynno Outdoor Centre, the Blaenau Gwent Countryside Team, and many others.
Over the two days, hundreds of families from the local area and groups from organisations such as DrugAid, Gofal, and Communities First had loads of fun getting outdoors. Activities on offer ranged from solar observation and environmental crafts like willow weaving, to canoeing (above) and mountain biking.
Both events were opportunities for NRW and its partners to gather feedback from the participants. Surveys were filled out by the majority of people who attended and the data will be used to identify how local people view these greenspaces and what they see as important to them in terms of access, outdoor activity, active travel, and what the barriers they face to using the outdoors are.
Feedback was overwhelmingly positive. One participant said afterwards:
“I’ve actually been back since the event. I’d never been there before, and I never normally would have gone there. We usually just go to a nearby park and I sit in the car and wait for my kids. But I had such a good time I wanted to go back with my husband this time. It was just such a nice day and I enjoyed getting out and trying things. We signed up to do some more cycling activities there, and I’m going to go back there a lot because it’s so nice and it’s different to what I’m used to.”
Come Outside! aims to support partners to inspire, motivate and enable people from Communities First cluster areas to enjoy the outdoors, to experience the benefits of the natural environment, and to value and care for their local countryside and green spaces.
www.facebook.com/NRW.ComeOutside The Swansea Family Learning Unit have taken part in a Seashore Safari, Beach art, storytelling, Geocaching and outdoor cooking as part of an accredited training course developed by Gower Landscape Programme.
Over 10 weeks parents from Mayhill in Swansea have been learning about what they can do outside with their families on the Gower and in their local community. Based on their experiences, the group have put together a leaflet for local families detailing the activities on offer. Due to the success of the course, Gower Landscape Project along with Lifelong Learning have been discussing running it again across Swansea. Come Outside! will continue to work with the group to encourage more people to get involved and get outdoors.
A group from Recovery Cymru in Barry got the chance to experience outdoor cooking, foraging and falconry in Pontneddfechan with Mountain and River Activities. Some members of the group were nervous about taking part and one was stopped in her tracks when she heard that they would need to gut and prepare a fish for lunch!
However, by the time they had walked down to the site across difficult terrain through beautiful surroundings, everyone got into the survival mood and got involved. One person overcame health problems to get to the site and with a bit of support, made the walk and was rewarded with a cup of tea and made on an open fire.
The day was inspirational for the group and they are keen to take other members out.
“What a fantastic day out in the Brecons learning about survival skills and flying a hawk called Fern…thanks to Come Outside!, Jeff from Mountain and River Activities, his lovely assistant Gillian and Andrew from Rheola Falconry. We came away feeling exhilarated and wanting to learn more…I felt so humbled”
Come Outside! end of year 2 Evaluation Report Summary
Our end of year 2 Evaluation Report Summary is now available to read at http://bit.ly/1zSyPGI. It has been prepared by our evaluation consultants, Shepherd and Moyes, and includes feedback from nearly 100 group leaders and support workers involved with Come Outside! who responded to our e-survey. Come Outside! has been working with Canolfan Llwybrau Ni pupil referral unit which is part of the service that Gwynedd local authority provides for pupils who have social, emotional and behavioural needs.
Using a local start-up company Rhyddid Adventures, we have engaged with 16 pupils through a number of different activities which have all been linked to the curriculum the young people follow at the centre. Historical walks, mountain biking and a camp-out have all featured.
An end of term camp-out was part of the course work the pupils are following on 'Camp Crafft' by Agored Cymru.
A member of staff at the centre said, “From the camp-out they are learning how to work as a team in the outdoors, and how to divide tasks in order to complete a larger goal.
For example in order to eat they will have to collect fire wood, build a camp fire area and then finally cook on it – all before eating.”
“They have learnt so many skills just from this activity.”
Canolfan Llwybrau Ni has been impressed with how the pupils have engaged and benefited from the outdoor activities Come Outside! has introduced them to.
As a result they have made a significant financial investment in outdoor activities and are now working with Rhyddid Adventures to deliver the Duke of Edinburghs Award Scheme, National Navigation Awards and First Aid in the outdoors to all pupils at the centre.
A group in Ely, Cardiff have just completed an 8 week course on ‘Patterns in the Sky’ with Allan Trow from Dark Sky Wales. This has been jointly funded by Come Outside! and Communities First. Since November the group have had the opportunity to do some solar observations and to measure light pollution in their community in order to identify the best spot for star gazing. Following on from achieving this Agored Cymru accreditation the group are keen to share what they’ve learned with others and are hoping to lead Dark Skies walks locally as well as looking at options for continuing with their learning. A great reason to get outside on those cold, clear winter nights. Come Outside! is a big fan of Geocaching, the digital worldwide treasure hunt that anyone can have a go at. It involves hunting out hidden items using coordinates published on www.geocaching.com.
But we like to plant our own temporary caches tailored to our group’s interests too. By theming Geocaches to group’s interests, Come Outside! has been able to get across different messages to a wide range of groups across Wales. This has often led to introducing them to the wonders of Geocaching which people can do in their own time anywhere in the world.
In December a group in Pen-trebane Cardiff headed out into the woods next to the school to hunt out arts and crafts activities and are keen to learn more about Geocaching.
In Ely, Geocaches were set out as part of a Health and Wellbeing event with messages in the caches to promote positive mental health over the festive season.
Gellideg Walking group (pictured) from Merthyr have even been out Geocaching in the snow and ice on a beautiful winter’s day.
Members of community groups from various areas including Cardiff, Barry, Newport, Rhondda Fach and Merthyr Tydfil who have been taking part in walks with Come Outside! have achieved accreditation with Ramblers Cymru on the Health Walk Leaders courses.
This enables them to lead walks with their groups and have access to free insurance to cover their sessions.
Keep your eye out for our walk leaders, you can’t miss them in their new Hi Vis jackets.
Come Outside! were selected to be part of the British Heart Foundation National Conference 2014; Creative Partnerships; Promoting Physical Activity by Stealth.
This conference looked at the concept of stealth interventions and explored how the latest research, theory and practice can be applied to the promotion of physical activity. ‘Stealth interventions aim to piggy-back on existing movements or causes where people are doing physical activity, but their primary reason for doing physical activity is something different.’
We learnt that Come Outside! is already promoting this way of working across Wales. By tapping into people’s interests, physical activity is a byproduct of getting outdoors to do things that people are interested in. Come Outside! has been doing this through Dark Skies walks, Edible Trails, Heritage tours, Geocaching, Bushcraft, gardening and much more.
Our poster for the event is available via this link: http://bit.ly/1ExztPk
BHF’s Sharing Good Practice Booklet featuring Come Outside! is online at http://bit.ly/1BI70am
To get in touch, email us at ComeOutside@NaturalResourcesWales.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/4771-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 9250,
"total-output-tokens": 2060,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2185,
1
],
[
2185,
4320,
2
],
[
4320,
6380,
3
],
[
6380,
8976,
4
]
]
} |
8c956d14b5500f7acc8b272adea07c59b53af33d | UNCLASSIFIED
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
Purpose: HMRC Tax Transparency Sector Board
Venue: The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) 1st Floor, Artillery House, 11-19 Artillery Row, London. SW1P 1RT
Date / Time: Monday 15th July 2013 - 14:00 to 16:00pm
| Attendees: | Apologies: | |------------|------------| | HMRC | | | Jonathan Athow - HMRC - Knowledge, Analysis and Intelligence (KAI) | Andrew Sheffield | | Mike Hawkins - HMRC - Knowledge, Analysis and Intelligence (KAI) | Chris Franklin | | Cindy Bell – HMRC - Central Policy | Dyfed Alsop | | Bill Elmore – HMRC - KAI Data Policy & Co-ordination | Colin Yeend | | Simon Woodside – HMRC Business Customer and Strategy | Ed Parkes | | John Fegan - HMRC - Security and Information | Fiona Armstrong | | Daniele Bega – HMRC - KAI Data Policy & Co-ordination | James Templeton | | Ian Parfitt – HMRC - KAI Data Policy & Co-ordination | Johanna Edwards | | Executive agencies | Judith Jones | | Adrian Ball - Valuation Office Agency (VOA) | Melanie Bond | | Other Government Departments | Paul Boyle | | Paul Maltby - Cabinet Office (CO) | Rory Meakin | | External representatives | | | Peter Fanning - Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) | | | Chris Taggart – OpenCorporates (OC) | | | Dominique Lazanski - Taxpayers Alliance (TPA) | | | Jonathan Shaw - Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) | | | Keith Dugmore - Demographics User Group (DUG) | | | Richard Wild - Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) / BDO | |
1. Welcome and introductions (Jonathan Athow - HMRC - Knowledge, Analysis and Intelligence)
- Jonathan welcomed everyone to the fourth meeting of the HMRC Tax Transparency Sector Board.
- He thanked Peter Fanning and the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) for hosting the meeting.
2. Action Points and Minutes from the previous meeting (Jonathan Athow - HMRC - Knowledge, Analysis and Intelligence)
- No Action Points from 10th May
- Minutes agreed
3. Presentation about The Chartered Institute of Taxation (Peter Fanning – CIOT)
- The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) and the Association of Tax Technicians (ATT) are UK registered charities
- CIOT and ATT are the leading professional body in the United Kingdom concerned with UK tax compliance services.
- Their charitable objects require them to pursue the public benefit and work for a better, more efficient tax system for all. This includes responding to consultations and engaging with politicians and civil servants and taxpayers
- CIOT work to increase the understanding of tax matters generally by promoting forums for tax discussion and debate, and by publishing and distributing information on tax matters. • Finally, CIOT’s Low Incomes Tax Reform Group works to improve and simplify the tax system for those who cannot afford to pay for tax advice.
**Discussions**
• CIOT supports more data being made available externally, but this will have to be done in compliance with current laws • CIOT highlighted that there is a social contract between taxpayers and the fiscal authorities and that HMRC should ensure that individual taxpayer information is not disclosed • OpenCorporates pointed out the distinction between individuals and tax paying legal entities, highlighting that the boundaries of the social contracts are not clear when dealing with corporates • It was agreed that the cultural norms around taxpayer confidentiality are changing and new challenges are arising for tax authorities
4. **Presentation / Discussion : the Governments response to Shakespeare review and the G8 Open Data Charter (Paul Maltby – Director of Open Data and Government Innovation - CO)**
• G8 Open Data Charter committed countries to follow 5 open data principles for Government information: Open Data by Default, Quality and Quantity, Usable by All, Releasing Data for Improved Governance and Releasing Data for Innovation • In response to the Shakespeare review of Public Service Information (PSI), Cabinet Office have committed to set out a collaborative process with Government Departments for identifying those datasets which should be part of the ‘National Information Infrastructure’. • The National Information Infrastructure will be implemented in 3 stages:
- Identify all data held and owned by departments
- Prioritise data in collaboration with users
- Release of data • The National Information Infrastructure will be published in the UK Open Government Partnership Action Plan by 31st Oct. • The need for Quarterly Written Ministerial Statements will cease after the implementation of this initiative.
**Discussions**
• CO will work with all departments to develop an inventory of information held and release new datasets, within the legal framework for disclosure. They are keen that departments consider releasing those datasets that most closely relate to their core functions. • The Taxpayer Alliance pointed out the need to design a system where datasets on the National Information Infrastructure are tagged and easy to find • Demographics User Group outlined that the expectations relating to open data are increasing. In particular, they emphasised the benefits for the private sector of gaining access to Postcode and Address files, VOA data and Land Registry. • HMRC pointed out that they are currently updating the Data Catalogue that is already published on HMRC’s website: [http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/transparency/implementation-plan-catalogue.xls](http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/transparency/implementation-plan-catalogue.xls)
5. **Public consultation on HMRC Legal Framework (Cindy Bell) and The VAT register (Simon Woodside)**
• HMRC presented a paper to the board on their consultation: Sharing and Publishing Data for Public Benefit (released on 17 July: [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/sharing-and-publishing-data-for-public-benefit](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/sharing-and-publishing-data-for-public-benefit)) • This consultation invites views on proposals for HMRC to increase the scope for the department to share non-identifying information (that is, information that does not relate to identifiable individuals or legal entities), and on proposed safeguards. Options cover general and aggregate data as well as anonymised data sets. • HMRC also seeks views on the potential benefits, costs / risks and necessary safeguards for proposals to share VAT registration data, either publicly or under controlled conditions for specified purposes, for example, credit rating.
Discussions • OpenCorporates observed there is a big difference between making data available and making data available for public benefit. They drew the distinction between open data and selectively chosen data and were not in favour of selective releases for purposes which may benefit a limited range of organisations and further consolidate their market advantage. They felt there should be public disclosure of the purpose for which data were released. They further felt that HMRC should ensure that information released by HMRC should be fit for purpose and linkable to other data sources, such as Companies House data. • HMRC clarified that the current plans for publication of the VAT data register as open data will focus on non financial information. The consultation will help the Department explore the potential benefits and risks of this initiative and investigate whether there is appetite for greater releases. • CIOT highlighted that releasing full open data will lead to much greater privacy issues. • HMRC also highlighted that the consultation is looking for opportunities to widen data shares without compromising the core principle of taxpayer confidentiality. The current legislation provides very strong protection, which limits in some cases the opportunities for data sharing with other Government Departments and the use of data for policy development and research purposes. • HMRC already makes some of its data available to accredited bodies, through the Datalab, for research that benefits HMRC functions. The consultation suggests relaxing some of the constraints on disclosing non identifying data to improve information sharing for wider public benefit. • The Demographics User Group drew the board’s attention to the ESRC Business Datasafe initiative and its aims. Business Datasafe will join up data from private sector organisations such as store cards, client lists held by utility companies, banking transactions, mortgage details, and records or communications held by communication providers with social scientific survey data in a safe and secure setting for analytical purposes benefitting society.
6. AOB • CIOT thought further discussion / definition needed around the definitions of ‘private’ and ‘open’ data and taxpayers’ rights in this area at future meetings. AP1 15.07.13
Next meeting: Friday 4th October 2013 - 10:30 to 12:30 (Room 2/39 Chancellors Room - 100 Parliament Street London SW1A 2BQ)
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3095-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 16304,
"total-output-tokens": 2033,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2774,
1
],
[
2774,
6359,
2
],
[
6359,
9042,
3
]
]
} |
b2ecc21a578bbcb07423158ccaf11e21cd20f78f | UNCLASSIFIED
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
Purpose: HMRC Tax Transparency Sector Board
Venue: Open Data Institute 3rd Floor, 65 Clifton Street, London EC2A 4JE
Date / Time: Friday 10th May 2013 – 9:30 to 11:30am
Attendees:
| HMRC | Apologies: | |-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------| | Jonathan Athow - HMRC - Knowledge, Analysis and Intelligence (KAI) | Edward Troup | | Mike Hawkins - HMRC - Knowledge, Analysis and Intelligence (KAI) | Dyfed Alsop | | Cindy Bell – HMRC - Central Policy | Paul Boyle | | Bill Elmore – HMRC - KAI Data Policy & Co-ordination | John Fegan | | Daniele Bega – HMRC - KAI Data Policy & Co-ordination | Melanie Bond | | Ian Parfitt – HMRC - KAI Data Policy & Co-ordination | Ed Parkes | | Executive agencies | Johanna Edwards | | Colin Yeend - Valuation Office Agency (VOA) | Jonathan Shaw | | Other Government Departments | Keith Dugmore | | Paul Maltby - Cabinet Office (CO) | Richard Baron | | External representatives | John Cridland | | Fiona Armstrong - Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC) | | | Chris Taggart – Opencorporates (OC) | | | Dominique Lazanski - Taxpayers Alliance (TPA) | | | Rory Meakin - Taxpayers Alliance (TPA) | | | Judith Jones - Information Commissioners Office (ICO) | | | Peter Cummings – Experian (EXP) | | | Peter Fanning - Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) | |
1. Welcome and introductions (Jonathan Athow - HMRC - Knowledge, Analysis and Intelligence)
- Jonathan welcomed everyone to the third meeting of the HMRC Tax Transparency Sector Board.
- He thanked the Open Data Institute for hosting the meeting.
2. Action Points from (Jonathan Athow - HMRC - Knowledge, Analysis and Intelligence)
- AP5 - 25.02.13 HMRC to provide more information on the legal gateway used to publish importers data and on the Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) system HMRC has produced a note with a description of the Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) system. It was agreed that the Tax Transparency Sector Board would invite a representative from HMRC to give a presentation on CHIEF at one of the next meetings.
- AP6 - 25.02.13 Cabinet Office to talk to the Open Data User Group (ODUG) on how to process requests coming from external organisations This item covered by the presentation from Paul Maltby - Cabinet Office (agenda item 5). • **AP7 - 25.02.13** Everyone to review the list of requests for HMRC data and clarify requirements Item now closed. Jonathan thanked the group for their responses.
• **AP8 - 25.02.13** HMRC to provide a one page overview on the legal issues around HMRC Data A one page overview circulated ahead of the meeting. Paper presented at item 4 on the agenda.
• **AP9 - 25.02.13** HMRC to consult Companies House on the information published on XBRL and timing for publication HMRC made enquiries to Companies House on date of publication for XBRL but this information is not available. Analysis undertaken by HMRC highlights that tax charge figures in accounts from Companies House would not always be a reasonable proxy for tax actually paid, due to the complexity of some financial accounts.
• **AP4 - 17.12.13** The Tax Transparency Sector Board would also benefit from International expertise. The Chartered Institute of Taxation expressed their willingness to make their International network available to the group. Tax Transparency Sector Board to discuss with CIOT the best way to make use of their International network at one of the next meetings.
3. ‘Disclosure of Information by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC): HMRC’s Policy and Legal Framework’ by Cindy Bell – Head of Information Policy and Disclosure team in HMRC
- HMRC was created by a statute, the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA) and therefore is subject to different legislation compared to Ministerial Government Departments.
- HMRC adheres to a strict duty of confidentiality and is only allowed to share data in controlled, limited circumstances. In particular, the prohibition on disclosure does not apply in the case of the exceptions (‘gateways’) set out in CRCA.
- The main gateways are:
- where there is UK and EU legislation that permits disclosure (‘legislative gateway’);
- with the consent of the subject(s) of the information; or
- where the disclosure is made for the purpose of an HMRC function (‘functions gateway’)
- HMRC has also a duty to publish under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act but only unidentifiable information.
- Any sharing has to be proportionate to the benefits derived.
**Discussions**
- Experian highlighted that there would be benefits from information sharing between Government and the private sector.
- HMRC clarified that there are currently around 250 Gateways, mostly with other Government Departments and Public Bodies. However, there are also a few instances where HMRC has shared information with Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs). Information is generally shared with CRAs on the basis that they are working under contract to, and on behalf of, HMRC and are subject to the provisions of HMRC legislation.
- Legislative gateways are enacted through primary legislation. There are only a few cases (mostly where relevant EU legislation is in place) where the gateway is created using secondary legislation.
- Cabinet Office suggested that a discussion about functions gateway might be a topic for one of the next meetings.
- CIOT asked how HMRC manages the threat of cyber attacks. HMRC clarified the Department has put in place a number of measures to minimise the likelihood of deliberate or accidental disclosure.
4. ‘Open Data Institute’ by Gavin Starks - CEO Open Data Institute:
- The ODI presentation is available from this link: [http://www.slideshare.net/theODI/odi-overview-with-audio-narration](http://www.slideshare.net/theODI/odi-overview-with-audio-narration) The Open Data Institute has been operating for 6 months and has acted as a Hub for various organisations from the private and public sector and representative bodies, providing support and training on open data related issues.
Open data is defined as being:
- (1) Structured - Machine readable and logical
- (2) Addressable - URL’s are key and shareable
- (3) Licensed & Traceable- Open Licence with full provenance details
- (4) Continuous - Maintained & Accessible
The ODI’s mission is to catalyse the evolution of open data culture, to create economic, environmental and social value, by way of training and services to startups.
Some examples on use of open data include the analysis that the ODI has completed for the NHS on the cost of prescribed/non prescribed drugs, which could potentially save £200m.
Discussion
Experian initiated a discussion about the commercial benefit for companies to release open data.
According to the ODI, there are several business models currently being adopted. Examples include: charging for the data usage, development of software to interrogate the information and services provided to analyse the information. The ODI gave the example of the NHS providing a service to interrogate information on dentists’ and doctors’ practices and pharmacies using an Internet browser or mobile device, for which a subscription is charged.
OpenCorporates added that some companies sell cleansed data or allocate licenses for data use. Some IT companies charge for renting out fast computers available to interrogate the information, which, some situation could be too large for normal computers to process.
It was pointed out that the Open Source model, where the general public uses and modifies information released into the public domain, could create a competitive environment to improve the information held within Government.
The Economic and Social Research Council mentioned the Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI): https://www.innovateuk.org/-/sbri. This initiative provides opportunities for innovative companies to engage with the public sector to solve specific problems to drive innovation. Open data (possibly business transaction data, social media and existing survey data) is an area that SBRI is interested in exploring for social science research.
CIOT expressed concerns with the unintended consequences of releasing personal data into open environments, from a data protection point of view. The ODI explained that different cultures have different attitudes to privacy and some effort should be dedicated to inform the public on how much information is collected via alternative channels such as mobile phone devices.
5. Criteria to be used when assessing requests for information
- Following AP6 - 25.02.13, Paul Maltby, the Director of Open Data and Transparency Unit in Cabinet Office gave a presentation on a process for handling requests for open data requests.
- Since May 2010, www.data.gov.uk has published over 9,000 datasets and has become one of the largest portals for transparency data in the world. The Open Data and Transparency Unit in the Cabinet Office aims to release Government data and spread access to open data, with the aim to foster social and economic growth.
- The Open Data User Group (ODUG) working with the Transparency Team in Cabinet Office has developed a process for managing requests for open data:
- Step 1: Cabinet Office filters out and responds to requesters where the data is not held by a publicly funded body or the request does not relate to data
- Step 2: For requests where data is already released as open data but there are issues with accessing it, Cabinet Office will raise this with the data publisher.
- Step 3: If the information is not currently available as open data Cabinet Office will work with Government Departments and ODUG to understand if it can be released
- Step 4: ODUG have developed a visualisation of the requests received, published on Data.gov.uk
- Jonathan Athow opened the discussion around the criteria that HMRC should use to assess requests for information from external organizations.
- The model suggested to the board to make decisions on information requests would look into the following criteria:
- Legislation
- Availability and feasibility
- Benefits
- Costs
- Synergies with other planned HMRC work
**Discussions**
- The Taxpayers Alliance (TPA) pointed out that quick wins should be dealt with speedily even if the benefits case behind the request was limited.
- OpenCorporates felt that the requests going to ODUG could potentially narrow down the number of stakeholders involved. In particular, they pointed out that other data from other organisations could potentially be useful, such as information from Companies House and the potential for data use could be opened up.
- Experian stressed that all requests for information should be made public and transparent. There was general agreement on the statement, although Cabinet Office argued that the name of the requestor should be kept anonymous if a person does not wish to disclose their personal details.
- The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) emphasised that the benefit case for releasing information should be worked out in partnership with the data user community. The data should be released in linkable and re-usable format; however there are challenges in doing this whilst keeping data anonymous. Relating to this, the ICO have produced a Code of Practice for anonymisation.
- CIOT highlighted that, when assessing information requests, HMRC should balance benefit and potential harm to the taxpayer. HMRC agreed that this is an issue that should be taken into consideration and that the risk of unintended consequences should be included as one of the criteria.
- CIOT also pointed out that privacy has made the UK an attractive country for overseas investors. The Board agreed with this statement, but also highlighted that a lot of information is already available from alternative sources.
- OpenCorporates referred to the Prime Minister’s Davos speech and the emphasis given to transparency on shining a light on company and land ownership and where money flows from and to. In particular, OpenCorporates suggested the idea of a sub group to discuss whether individuals and companies should be treated differently from an open data perspective.
- HMRC agreed that before releasing information, a risk assessment should always be carried out on the potential for identification using alternative sources.
6. ‘Sub UK Geography and Geodemography’ by Bill Elmore – Head of Data Production in HMRC Knowledge, Analysis and Intelligence
- At the last Tax Transparency Sector Board in February, it was suggested that it would be useful if HMRC published statistics for sub-UK geographical areas that used “Common Output Areas”.
- HMRC has already been in contact with a commercial organisation (CACI), University College London (UCL) and the Demographics User Group (DUG) about the prospect of publishing personal incomes statistics using geodemographic categories.
- Geodemographic categories are not available directly from HMRC’s datasets and need to be created by linking postcode data to lookup tables provided by the ONS. HMRC currently uses the National Statistics Postcode Look-up (SPL).
- HMRC provided some examples of sub-UK statistical outputs currently released by the Department. They use a range of political and administrative boundaries. In general, the larger the sample size available, the lower the geographical level the information is published at.
- The Department has been testing the feasibility of attaching geodemographic classifications from NSPL to the Survey of Personal Incomes and provided some tables for discussion using 2001 Census based categories. UCL are currently working with ONS to develop new categories for 2011.
**Discussion**
- HMRC pointed out that in some cases, such as PAYE, statisticians still only have access to samples of data from the transactional systems, which explains the less detailed geography available in those cases due to low cell counts.
- Nevertheless HMRC aims to produce statistics at the lowest level of geography that the data will support, in line with Census outputs, and will review its published statistics to identify where it can go further with current data extracts or will be able to go further once data coverage improves.
- The VOA explained that that issues they faced were similar to those for HMRC, namely striking a balance between the level of geographical detail and the disclosiveness of the data.
- Experian pointed out that, given the delays in releasing and long intervals between Census analyses, it would be helpful if some proxies could be created based on HMRC incomes data before official statistics were released.
- Cabinet Office mentioned that the Data Strategy Board has made available financial resource to support Departments and Local Authorities to release open data – the Breakthrough Fund – and encouraged HMRC to consider bidding for funding to facilitate this or other open data releases.
**Next meeting:** Monday 15(^{th}) July 2013 (14:00 to 16:00pm)
**The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT)**
1st Floor, Artillery House, 11-19 Artillery Row, London. SW1P 1RT (Nearest Tube: St. James Park)
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3096-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 26254,
"total-output-tokens": 3544,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2952,
1
],
[
2952,
6503,
2
],
[
6503,
10396,
3
],
[
10396,
13840,
4
],
[
13840,
15861,
5
]
]
} |
868d79162b9ca15c43cef8057c340c18f38efcdc | HMRC Tax Transparency Sector Board Special Session
Venue: 100 Parliament Street, London Room 2/39 Chancellors Room
Date / Time: Friday 4th October 2013 - 10:30 to 12:30pm
Attendees:
| HMRC | Apologies: | |-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------| | Jonathan Athow - HMRC - Knowledge, Analysis and Intelligence (KAI) Chair | Chris Franklin | | Bill Elmore – HMRC - KAI Data Policy & Co-ordination | Colin Yeend | | Bruce Stewart – HMRC – Customs Directorate | Dyfed Alsop | | Cindy Bell – HMRC - Central Policy | Johanna Edwards | | Daniele Bega – HMRC - KAI Data Policy & Co-ordination | Paul Boyle | | James Templeton – HMRC Business Customer and Strategy | Paul Maltby | | John Fegan - HMRC - Security and Information | Simon Woodside | | Kevin Sams – HMRC – Customs Trade Statistics | | | Ian Parfitt – HMRC - KAI Data Policy & Co-ordination | | | Mike Hawkins – HMRC - KAI Data Policy & Co-ordination | | | Sandra Tudor – HMRC – Customs Trade Statistics | |
Executive agencies Adrian Ball - Valuation Office Agency (VOA)
Other Government Departments Ed Parkes - Cabinet Office (CO)
External representatives Andrew Sheffield - Experian Chris Taggart – OpenCorporates (OC) Dominique Lazanski – Open Data User Group/Taxpayers Alliance (TPA) Fiona Armstrong - Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC) Jonathan Shaw - Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) Judith Jones – Information Commissioners Office (ICO) Keith Dugmore - Demographics User Group (DUG) Melanie Hosker – Equifax Peter Fanning - Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) Rory Meakin - Taxpayers Alliance (TPA) Richard Wild - Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) / BDO Stephen Herring - Institute of Directors (IOD)
1. Welcome and introductions (Jonathan Athow - HMRC - Knowledge, Analysis and Intelligence)
- Jonathan Athow (Chair) welcomed everyone to the HMRC Tax Transparency Sector Board.
2. Update on the VAT register public consultation: (James Templeton – HMRC Business Customer and Strategy)
- HMRC provided an update on the public consultation on the VAT Register that closed on 24 September 2013.
- So far, about 50 responses have been received, providing views that can be clustered around three strands:
- One group of respondents agreed that HMRC should be able to share this information with specific third parties with a view to secure wider public benefits
- A second group felt that a release should be open, and that privacy implications were important and needed to be reflected in shaping the disclosure.
- A third group was opposed to any form of data release, either on principle or because of skepticism about potential benefits.
- HMRC said they intended to publish a response to the public consultation in the autumn
Discussion
- The Chartered Institute of Taxation suggested dialog with organisations that will be mostly affected by the release of the VAT Register. CIOT also recommended involving the banking sector in any initiative, as key players in the credit lending environment.
- HMRC confirmed that they will take into account the views of various credit providers.
- OpenCorporates suggested a staged release for the VAT Register, starting with publishing information on incorporated businesses, where privacy issues are less of a concern and moving gradually to include the rest of the population.
- HMRC agreed to look into this.
- Cabinet Office asked how the consultation would shape advice for ministers and if there would be an opportunity to see the content of the response to the consultation before release.
- HMRC stated they would share findings from the consultation with the group and take account of views from the Tax Transparency Sector Board when preparing advice to Ministers and senior officials.
- CIOT advised to use HMRC’s online systems to engage with people affected by the release.
3. Trade Statistics overview by HMRC (Kevin Sams – HMRC – Customs Trade Statistics)
- HMRC collects trade in goods declarations from businesses through: o Intrastat – EU transactions o CHIEF – Non EU transactions
- Trade statistics are published on a monthly basis on www.uktradeinfo.com. The newly designed website won the Royal Statistical Society’s 2013 Excellence in Official Statistics Award.
- The site provides a facility to customise analyses of the data and allows downloading versions of the Overseas Trade Statistics datasets and importers details, as open data.
- Aggregated information on imports and export is also delivered to: o Eurostat o The ONS for the production of Balance of Payments and National Accounts.
- Legislation for publishing data: o Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act (CRCA) 2005. Section 18 Confidentiality: (1) Revenue and Customs officials may not disclose information which is held by Revenue and Customs in connection with a function of the Revenue and Customs. (3) Subsection (1) is subject to any other enactment permitting disclosure. o European Regulation (EC) no 223/2009. Article 18 allows the dissemination of European trade statistics. Article 20, allows dissemination applying the ‘passive confidentiality’ principle o European Regulation (EC) No 1982/2004 (IP). Article 13a allows dissemination of annual statistics on trade by business characteristics. o Finance Act 1988 Section 8 (3) allows the release of names and addresses of persons of Non EU imported goods by classification. This does not cover Exporters.
4. HMRC led discussion on CHIEF (Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight - Bruce Stewart & Sandra Tudor - HMRC - Customs Directorate)
- HMRC clarified that CHIEF was not a database but a processing system. The major function of CHIEF is to manage the data behind import and export movements and calculate revenues due on those movements • The system records the movement of goods by land, air and sea. It allows importers, exporters and freight forwarders to complete customs formalities electronically and automatically checks for entry errors. • Businesses are required to submit a declaration if they import or export from Non EU countries. Over 50 boxes are requested on the customs declaration (using the Single Administrative Document form - SAD). • Not all boxes are completed depending on the import/export customs regime. Some information is only for customs administration or Statistical purposes, feeding into the Trade Stats described above. • Traders have the option to go onto? the Trusted Trader database, allowing for customs simplified procedures. • CHIEF will be replaced in 2017. There are a number of developments which will come into force, which are currently being discussed, with the aim to de-regulate/streamline the process.
AP11 04.10.13 • The Chair suggested to have more detailed discussions on data requirements on CHIEF with Cabinet Office at a later date
Discussion • In response to a question from the Institute of Directors on the drivers for publishing this information, HMRC highlighted EU legal requirements and UK Government/BIS commitment to increase the number of UK business exporting. • Cabinet Office requested a follow-up discussion to understand whether data from CHIEF can be used to develop a system similar to Panjiva. This is a U.S. based database relying on customs data made public by the U.S. government on global suppliers – “A Google for Finding Suppliers”. • OpenCorporates asked whether CHIEF and Intrastat overlapped and whether there had been any plans of merging the systems. • HMRC responded that for analytical purposes the two datasets were combined for companies trading in both systems. Anonymised information has also been made available in the Datalab. However, it was pointed out that Intrastat only included information on large exporters.
5. Access to Valuation Office data (Adrian Ball - Valuation Office Agency (VOA)) • The VOA opened by pointing out that their business model for sharing information with the general public is quite recent. In the last three years, VOA had progressed from 1 analyst to 25, responsible for the publication of a wide range of National Statistics tables including: o Business Rates o Council Tax Challenges, Changes, Property Attributes, Summary tables for England and Wales o Non Domestic Rates summary o Private rental market for England o Generation of Housing Price Elements for ONS • VOA also regularly releases online individual data on : o Non domestic rating o Council Tax o Rent Register and Rent Officers • Upon payment of fees (£1,000-£2,000), they also release national datasets on Non domestic rates under an Open Government Licence. • The VOA operates under the same legislation as HMRC’s, the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. • Going forward, the VOA is planning to develop an Open Data Strategy, promoting a culture to release information where possible, reducing costs and looking for efficiencies. Longer term, the VOA will conduct a systematic review of what datasets can published – aiming to release more information.
Discussion
- The Demographics Users Group enquired whether the VOA were taking steps towards standardising address files to have common properties.
- The VOA stated that key part of their strategy involves being able to make the system more efficient, looking into changing keying systems and working with the National Address Gazetteer to create a national unique property number.
- The Taxpayers Alliance asked whether there was any difference between Business Rates and Non Domestic Rates information.
- The VOA clarified that the systems were the same and the term Non Domestic Rates formed part of old VOA legacy and should not be used.
- OpenCorporates asked how much money the VOA cost recovery model brought in. They mentioned some discussions they had with representatives from the Belgian Government, highlighting that the money generated through their cost recovery was the same as their cost for supplying the information.
- The VOA stated that they did not hold information on their cost recovery, but that they highlighted that these costs had been significantly reduced in the last few year and they were looking to get these down to zero.
- Cabinet Office pointed out that price paid on sale or transfer of property datasets was already provided by Land Registry for free in open format.
- VOA mentioned that some of their information came from the Land Registry and that the two organisations were working closely to ensure sensible data structures.
- Cabinet office were also concerned that data, at present, only allowed individual searches but not bulk downloads.
- VOA said they were looking at future developments to their IT platform to make it more data driven and currently scoping to develop new systems
- The Institute of Directors asked whether there were any opportunities to fast track the release of data on non domestic properties and number of small organisations?
- VOA confirmed that they were currently involved in meetings to understand the best way to release this information.
AP12 04.10.13
- HMRC suggested that Cabinet Office and VOA held discussions to develop options on the release VOA data going forward
6. National Information Infrastructure (Guidance)/ NII (Ed Parkes - Cabinet Office (CO))
- In the Government Response to the Shakespeare Review of June 2013, the Government set out its aim to create a National Information Infrastructure (NII).
- Since then Cabinet Office have been developing a collaborative process for identifying Government data that could be potentially released as open data.
- The first step of the NII has included identifying and maintaining an inventory of data held by Government: prioritising data to be included in the NII; and supporting organisations to release data.
- This exercise resulted in the release of an inventory of over 3,200 datasets on data.gov.uk.
- At the end of October 2013, 60 Governments will be meeting as part of the Open Government Partnership. As part of this initiative the UK will review the commitments made in the Action Plan that was released in September 2011 and highlight further datasets being considered for release under transparency.
Discussion
- HMRC highlighted that there are some barriers to making the information available, which should be communicated to the general public • OpenCorporates remarked that www.data.gov.uk would be a good platform to inform the general public/Other Government Departments about the information that is available. • Chartered Institute of Taxation stressed the importance that any policy changes introduced by HMT took into considerations practical implications, underlining that, as tax evolves, more demands arise on HMRC’s data collection and administration. • The Institute of Directors asked whether there was any plan to make information on the calculations surrounding the Budget book available to the general public. • HMRC said that information surrounding Budget calculations was released on the Tax Information and Impact Note (TIIN), however, there were some constraints on some of the information that can be released publicly.
7. AOB and Summary • OpenCorporates asked about the practical, political and philosophical restrictions to publishing the Gift Aid paid to charities. In particular, they highlighted that Gift Aid required matching grant to charities and that the transfer of money to a charity did not contain any personal data. • HMRC agreed to discuss this topic as an agenda item for future tax transparency sector board meetings, while noting that the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act does not distinguish between data relating to identifiable individuals and data relating to identifiable charities. • The Chair thanked the participants for their contributions.
Next meeting: Monday 3rd February 2014 - 14:00 to 16:00 (Room 2/39 Chancellors Room - 100 Parliament Street London SW1A 2BQ)
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3097-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 5,
"total-input-tokens": 25409,
"total-output-tokens": 3199,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2693,
1
],
[
2693,
6104,
2
],
[
6104,
9227,
3
],
[
9227,
12648,
4
],
[
12648,
14231,
5
]
]
} |
e3a5ede84df55c38e1afc7e5b49e34bee3da1c4d | Tax Transparency Sector Board Terms of Reference
PURPOSE
The primary purpose of the Tax Transparency Sector Board will be to:
- Drive the Departmental transparency agenda and the release of HMRC information in line with the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, Data Protection Act and other relevant legislation
- Inform and advise HMRC's Open Data Strategy, serving as a focal point to direct requests for data and improving the Department's understanding of the value and use of tax information to the broader benefit of the UK
MEASURING SUCCESS
The following key output will enable the Board to measure success in meeting open data requirements:
The further release of new HMRC data that could be reused for commercial purposes or analysed by academia for wider public benefit, with a particular focus on:
- large routine public service datasets
- provision of access for service users to their own identifiable data
- user feedback on services
- strategies for engagement with data users to drive social and economic growth
- supporting individuals and businesses to obtain fast, easy access to public sector data
MEMBERSHIP
Members of the Board will include stakeholders from academia and the public, voluntary and private sector and HMRC and Cabinet Office officials.
Where exceptionally members cannot attend a deputy may represent them at the Chair's discretion. Membership is as follows:
| Name | Business Area | Role | |-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | **HMRC** | | | | Edward Troup | Central Tax & Strategy | HMRC Tax Assurance Commissioner and Second Permanent Secretary | | Mike Hawkins | Knowledge, Analysis and Intelligence | DD Data, Policy and Co-ordination | | Cindy Bell | Central Policy | Information, Policy and Disclosure | | Adrian Ball | Security and Information | Deputy Director Security & Information Directorate | | Alec Waterhouse | Personal Tax | Data Integrity | | **Executive Agency** | | | | Dyfed Alsop | Valuation Office Agency | Director of Strategy, People and Change | | **Other Government Departments** | | | | Ed Parkes | Cabinet Office | Transparency Account Manager for HMRC | | **Public Sector Transparency Board** | | | | Chris Taggart | Public Sector Transparency Board | | | **Academia** | | | | Paul Boyle / Fiona Armstrong | Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC) | Chief Executive | | **Confidentiality and Data Protection** | | | | Judith Jones | Information Commissioners Office (ICO) | Group Manager, Government and Society Group. | | **Credit Rating Agencies and Private Sector** | | | | Don Robert / Peter Cummings | Experian | Chief Executive | | Neil Munroe / Johanna Edwards | Equifax | Director of External Affairs & Communications | | **Think Tanks** | | | | Paul Johnson / Jonathan Shaw | Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) | Director | | **Other Representative Bodies** | | | | Keith Dugmore | Demographics User Group (DUG) | Director | | Peter Fanning | Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) | Chief Executive | GOVERNANCE
The Board will provide progress updates as appropriate to the:
- Public Sector Transparency Board
- HMRC Executive Committee (EXCOM)
In addition it should keep itself abreast of the developments of the Social Mobility Transparency Board.
FREQUENCY AND CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
- The board will initially meet every two months and then move to quarterly once it has developed a work plan.
- Decisions taken at the board meetings will be communicated in writing as part of the minutes
- Board members will routinely self assess their performance and review their ongoing attendance
SECRETARIAT
The secretariat will be provided by HM Revenue & Customs, KAI (Knowledge, Analysis & Intelligence) (Daniele Bega & Ian Parfitt) and will:
- Manage attendance on behalf of the chair
- Issue an agenda, which will be agreed by the chair, and papers in advance of the meeting (ideally 5 working days but a minimum of 3 working days)
- Issue minutes and action point logs within ten working days following a meeting
- Commission documents / papers from the appropriate members / Business Area
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3098-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 5466,
"total-output-tokens": 1060,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1392,
1
],
[
1392,
5325,
2
],
[
5325,
6418,
3
]
]
} |
8484a212ffec70be1997a5156a01cd849cb2cebe | Dear Stephan,
Open data proposals from the Open Data User Group: VAT data sharing
Thank you for your letter asking for HMRC’s views on the proposal put forward by the Open Data User Group for the release of HMRC VAT registration data. You asked us to consider the proposal in terms of feasibility, cost and risk to HMRC, but also in terms of the economic benefits this could deliver. Among other things the potential benefits claimed include:
- an increase in trade and bank credit due to improved credit scoring, in turn leading to higher investment;
- reductions in commercial fraud due to improved checks on the identity of business proprietors;
- further efficiencies for the public sector and to HMRC from improved data sharing and tax collection.
This is a significant proposal which HMRC is examining closely. As you will appreciate, it raises important cross cutting policy, legal and strategy issues, which need to be considered fully by the Department and in our advice to Ministers.
HMRC colleagues, led by Simon Woodside and James Templeton, have already held a number of meetings with BIPA and BIS colleagues (Matthew Wicks and Alex Turvey) where we have been discussing the potential benefits and ways of quantifying these. At the same time we have commissioned internal work looking at the costs and risks to HMRC, to ensure that our advice and decisions take all necessary factors into account.
The main costs and risks that we have identified so far include:
- compatibility of publication of information with HMRC’s statutory duty of confidentiality and the Data Protection Act 1998, and whether legislation would be necessary to implement disclosure;
- the likely reaction of individuals to the publication of identifying information which had been provided under legislative compulsion, and the impact of this on HMRC and on levels of tax compliance;
- the scope for publication of the VAT register to make it easier to hijack VAT numbers to commit VAT fraud
- competition issues, including the potential risk that the large number of small businesses not on the VAT register might be disadvantaged (since their credit score would not benefit);
- fit with HMRC’s long-term strategy for data sharing to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its activities.
One point I would draw to your attention is the difference in the basis of the proposal and HMRC’s current legislative framework. The proposal starts from the position that the data in question constitutes a business register. However, as you will understand, HMRC has collected the data under a legislative framework that prohibits sharing of data except where permitted by that legislation, for example, where it is for the purpose of one of the department’s statutory functions or if there is specific legislation that permits such disclosure. In situations where there is no clear benefit for HMRC’s tax collection function, the department’s powers to share data are limited without an express statutory provision. Moreover, since many of the businesses on the VAT register are sole traders or partnerships, the data is likely to be personal data and therefore covered by the Data Protection Act. The potential need for legislation reinforces the importance of robust analysis of the benefits case for making a sound decision.
We will shortly be reporting to Ministers on the potential options for release of the VAT register and the issues which would need to be addressed to take this proposal forward. The Tax Transparency Sector Board, which I chair, is meeting on 25 February, and we will also be providing an update on progress at that meeting.
Yours sincerely
Edward Troup Tax Assurance Commissioner and Second Permanent Secretary
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3099-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 2,
"total-input-tokens": 2138,
"total-output-tokens": 795,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1255,
1
],
[
1255,
3738,
2
]
]
} |
191c1f9e42bf9c4ecf57b591ef7f9f6e8217f80e | HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS SOLICITOR’S OFFICE AND LEGAL SERVICES QUALIFIED LAWYER VACANCY NOTICE
Headline information
JOB TITLE: Lawyer DEPARTMENT: HM Revenue & Customs DIVISION: Legal LOCATION: London and Manchester with posts in Bristol from April 2019 CLOSING DATE & TIME: Midday, Wednesday 18 July 2018 INTERVIEW DATES: WORKING ARRANGEMENT: Full time / Part time / Job share APPOINTMENT TERM: Permanent NUMBER OF POSTS: Various SALARY RANGE: Grade 7 Lawyer: £55,006 London; £48,868 Manchester and Bristol (there is the possibility of higher starting salary up to a maximum of £57,151 in London and £50,780 in Manchester and Bristol for strong candidates). The salary is not negotiable.
SALARY DETAILS: Candidates with less than two years’ PQE will be appointed as a Legal Officer on a salary of £42,420 London; £38,380 Manchester and Bristol until they reach 2 years PQE or are in service for one year whichever comes sooner. The salary is not negotiable.
TRAVEL REQUIRED: Sometimes CRB REQUIRED: Yes GUARANTEED INTERVIEW SCHEME: Yes RESERVED/NON-RESERVED: Non-reserved
VACANCY DESCRIPTION
HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) Solicitor’s Office and Legal Service (SOLS) is an integral part of HMRC, providing legal services for the whole Department. It is headed by the General Counsel and Solicitor, Gill Aitken. We advise on legal issues arising from HMRC’s policy and operational work and conduct the Department’s litigation. SOLS is made up of around 1,200 people who include lawyers, tax professionals, advocates, paralegals and support teams. Our legal work is high quality and covers a broad range of different areas of law. We provide advice on the interpretation and application of legislation and guidance on the full range of HMRC work including advising Treasury ministers on tax law. We work closely with Treasury and HMRC colleagues in developing policy and on proposals for the Budget. We also implement policy through primary and secondary legislation, principally the annual Finance Bill and in relation to the UK’s exit from the EU. HMRC lawyers produce the highest volume of secondary legislation in the government legal profession.
We conduct litigation in the most significant and valuable cases for HMRC. Our caseload regularly takes us to the higher UK Courts and the European Courts. We have had Lexcel accreditation since 2009.
Our lawyers work in specialist teams handling specific areas of work. Each team tends to focus on either policy and operational advisory work or litigation. An HMRC lawyer can expect to move teams every few years to build up a wealth of skills and experience. Specific work areas include:
- Business Tax
- Personal Tax and National Insurance
- Property Taxes
- Customs, Excise and Environmental Taxes
- Information Law
- Criminal Law Advice
- Tax Enforcement and Individual and Corporate Insolvency
- Direct Tax Litigation
- VAT and Excise
- Benefits and Credits
- Rating and Valuation
- Commercial Law
- Withdrawal from the EU.
We have vacancies for lawyers to undertake both policy and operational advisory work (which includes drafting legislation) and litigation work.
Applications are welcomed from qualified lawyers irrespective of post qualification experience.
We are looking for bright, enthusiastic and ambitious lawyers, with a commitment to delivery for HMRC.
INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT
Over the next 10 years HMRC will be reducing the number of its offices and will be located in Regional Centres – currently planned to be located in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast, Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Croydon and Stratford. There will also be a small number of offices where we will retain some specialist roles in Dover, Worthing, Gartcosh (near Glasgow), Ipswich and Telford, as well as our headquarters in central London. If you are recruited into an office that is not currently based in one of these locations, you will be expected to move to one in the future. Current plans are for our lawyers based in London to move to Stratford with lawyers being based in Bristol from April 2019. PERSON SPECIFICATION
We are looking for smart, enthusiastic and ambitious lawyers, with powerful communication skills and a commitment to delivering for HMRC. You may occasionally need to travel to visit clients or stakeholders or to Brussels.
You’ll need to be self-aware and keen to use feedback to help you learn and develop as a professional. In addition, the application and interview process will seek evidence of the following competencies:
Professional Legal Skills
- Understands the main features of public law.
- Reliable legal judgement and appreciation of legal risk.
- The ability to think strategically and creatively, see legal issues in their wider context and advise accordingly.
- Sound analysis, using secure legal research to produce timely and fit for purpose advice.
- The ability to communicate advice effectively both in writing and orally.
- An understanding of the role of lawyers in government.
Setting Direction – Making effective decisions
- Make difficult decisions by pragmatically weighing up the complexities involved against the need to act
- Analyse and evaluate data from various sources to identify pros and cons and identify risks in order to make well considered decisions
- Identify the main issues in complex problems, clarify understanding or stakeholder expectations, to seek best option
Engaging People – Collaborating and partnering
- Work as an effective team player, managing team dynamics when working across Departmental and other boundaries.
- Seek constructive outcomes in discussions, challenge assumptions but remain willing to compromise when it is beneficial
- Demonstrate genuine care for others, is approachable and build a strong interpersonal relationships
Delivering results – Managing a quality service
- Exemplify positive customer service behaviours and promote a culture focused on ensuring customer needs are met.
- Make clear, pragmatic and manageable plans for service delivery using programme and project management disciplines
- Create regular opportunities for staff and customers to help improve service quality and demonstrate a visible involvement Delivering results – Delivering at pace
- Get the best out of people by giving enthusiastic and encouraging messages about priorities, objectives and expectations
- Review, challenge and adjust performance levels to ensure quality outcomes are delivered on time, rewarding success
- Adopt clear processes and standards for managing performance at all levels
- Maintain effective performance in difficult and challenging circumstances, encouraging others to do the same.
Motivational Fit
- How well our requirements and offerings match your aspirations, why you are motivated to join SOLS and how you feel you might contribute effectively to a role with SOLS.
The application form asks for evidence of some of these competencies and when completing your application you will be asked to provide written examples of where you have demonstrated these.
You are not asked to provide evidence of all the competencies in the application form. At interview you will be asked questions testing the competencies as well as your strengths and motivations.
APPLICATION PROCESS
If you choose to apply you can expect the following steps:
1. You submit your application
2. Candidates meeting the advertised minimum eligibility criteria will be asked to complete an online critical reasoning test which will be sent via email. Applicants will be asked to complete this before a deadline – please ensure you check your email inboxes carefully, including junk folders as some systems filter the link as ‘spam’ or ‘junk’. If concerned please contact the Recruitment Team for advice (see contact details below). Please note that the pass mark is set separately for each recruitment campaign. Guaranteed Interview Scheme candidates who reach the minimum standard will be invited to the next stage.
3. Candidates who meet the required standard on the critical reasoning test will have their applications sifted by a SOLS sift panel. Please note detailed feedback will not be given following sift, however sift scores will be made available. Guaranteed Interview Scheme candidates who reach the minimum standard will be invited to the next stage.
4. Candidates who get through the sift will be emailed an online written exercise to test the ‘Professional Legal Skills’ criteria – you will be advised of a clear deadline for submitting your response. This allows you to respond to a legal question in the comfort of your own home and at a time convenient to you.
5. Those who pass the written exercise will be invited to be interviewed by a SOLS panel. Interviews normally last around 40 to 50 minutes.
6. We will allocate successful candidates to the most suitable vacancy available at the time of our offer, taking into account your performance at interview. We may hold a reserve list if the number of successful candidates after interview exceeds the number of available vacancies.
RECRUITMENT PROCESS TIMELINE
We expect the start dates for these roles in London and Manchester to be from November onwards and for roles in Bristol to be from April 2019 onwards.
Indicative timeline
| Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 3 | Stage 4 | Stage 5 | Stage 6 | |------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------| | Online application | Online assessment | Sift | Online Legal test | Interviews | Outcomes and security clearance | Take up duty | | If you are shortlisted to progress | 18 June –24 July | 30 July - 17 August | 17- 21 August | 10 - 21 September | 24 September onwards | November onwards |
POINT OF CONTACT
Name: Recruitment Team Telephone: 0845 3000 793 or 0117 923 4417 Email: glsqualified@tmpw.co.uk
MINIMUM ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Professional Qualifications Applicants must already be qualified to practise as a Solicitor, Barrister or Chartered Legal Executive in England and Wales (or be qualified 3 months from application date). You must have completed a training contract/pupillage, or have been exempted from this by the Law Society or the Bar Council or CILEx. Applicants qualified in a jurisdiction outside England and Wales will be required to undertake the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme within 2 years of appointment, and employment will be conditional upon the successful completion of the QLTS within this time period. HMRC offers some funding for the QLTS, however applicants should note that there is also a cost to the individual.
Professional entry criteria for Chartered Legal Executives (i.e. Fellows): Fellows are eligible to apply where (i) a Qualifying Law Degree (QLD) is held; or (ii) the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) has been completed; or (iii) where exams have been passed (i.e. a score of 50% or above achieved), at CILEx Level 6, in all of the following seven foundation subjects in law:
1. Contract Law
2. Criminal Law
3. Equity and Trusts Law
4. European Union Law
5. Land Law
6. Public Law
7. Law of Tort
**Academic**
Applicants **should** have a minimum of a 2:1 degree in their first degree (in any subject). Where an applicant holds an overseas degree qualification this should be equivalent to a 2.1 degree. HMRC will consider applicants who do not have a 2.1 degree but only where satisfactory evidence of equivalent high level academic and/or professional achievement can be provided. Achievement of commendation or distinction on Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL)/CPE, Legal Practice Course (LPC), or an LLM, or Very Competent on the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) will be accepted as equivalent academic performance.
*Chartered Legal Executives (i.e. Fellows)* should note that the GLS is willing to accept an overall average score of 65% across exams taken in the seven foundation subjects in law (where studied at CILEx Level 6) as demonstrating 2.1 degree equivalence (where a 2.1 degree is not held).
**Nationality**
As SOLS is part of the wider Civil Service, the Civil Service nationality rules apply. If a post is described as ‘reserved’, then only UK nationals will be eligible to be able to apply. If a post is advertised as a 'non-reserved' post, as our posts generally are, those listed below will be eligible to apply:
- UK Nationals (and British Protected Persons);
- Commonwealth citizens and nationals of the European Economic Area (EEA);
- Individuals with dual nationality where one part is British; and
- Certain family members of EEA, Swiss and Turkish nationals (as set out in the Civil Service nationality rules).
Full details of the Civil Service nationality requirements may be found at [Civil Service website](#).
Please note that it is possible to meet the above nationality requirements and still not be legally entitled to work in the UK. The UK Visas and Immigration operates a points-based immigration policy which applies to the migrants from outside the European Economic Area, Switzerland and Turkey.
It is the applicant’s responsibility to check whether this policy applies to them. When applying, applicants will be asked about their nationality at birth, whether they are subject to immigration control, whether there are any restrictions on your continued residence or employment in the UK etc. Detailed document checks will be made prior to employment.
Applications will be accepted from those applicants who may require sponsorship for a work permit under the UK Visas and Immigration points-based immigration policy. Applications which require sponsorship will, however, only be considered if no suitable settled worker is identified for the position.
GUARANTEED INTERVIEW SCHEME
HMRC has signed up to the Positive about Disabled People Commitment and will guarantee an interview to any disabled applicant who meets the minimum criteria. The Equality Act 2010 defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and adverse long-term effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
To meet the minimum criteria, candidates applying under the terms of the Guaranteed Interview Scheme (GIS) must:
- Meet all aspects of the stated minimum eligibility criteria (i.e. academic, nationality, and professional criteria);
- Meet the standard set for the Critical Reasoning Test); and
- Obtain a minimum score for (i) the core competencies being assessed at the application stage and (ii) against any job specific criteria specified.
Candidates applying under the terms of the GIS, who meet the minimum criteria outlined above, will be invited to attend an interview.
PRE-EMPLOYMENT CHECKS
All government departments are required to ensure that any personnel employed by them comply with the Baseline Personnel Security Standard (BPSS) before they take up employment.
You will be asked to produce original documents when attending interview to enable us to verify the above if you are successful. The information which you provide will be treated in the strictest confidence by SOLS and its authorised representative (TMP Worldwide).
The BPSS standard consists of checks on the following:
a) Identity: to verify identity departments and agencies will ask candidates to provide, in advance of any final offer of employment, a selection from the following:
- Confirmation of name, date of birth and address
- National insurance number or other unique personal identifying number (where appropriate)
- Full details of previous employers (name, address and dates), over the past three years
- Confirmation of any necessary qualifications/licences
- Educational details and references where someone is new to the workforce
- Confirmation of permission to work in the UK if appropriate. • Nationality and Immigration Status (including an entitlement to undertake the work in question) - British Passport, Current EEA or Swiss Passport, Current Passport from country of nationality and Biometric Residence Permit Card. Please see nationality rules above.
b) Employment history (past 3 years)
c) Criminal record (unspent convictions only)
d) Character enquiry form
e) Health declaration form
f) In addition, candidates are asked to account for any significant periods spent abroad or not in employment.
Please note only original documents will be accepted. Any delay in supplying this information or out of date documents will result in delays in completing these checks and delays in successful candidates being unable to take up posts.
Supplying false information or failing to disclose relevant information could be grounds for rejection of your application or dismissal and could amount to a criminal offence.
Your referees will not be approached until your permission has been obtained following success at interview.
Regarding criminal record checks, a basic disclosure will normally be required (covering convictions considered unspent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974). This will apply to successful candidates only and your permission will be required before checks are undertaken.
DATA PROTECTION
The information which you provide will be protected and processed for the purpose of successful completion of the Baseline Personnel Security Standard, in accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act (2018) and the General Data Protection Regulation.
If you have any concerns about any of the questions which you are asked to complete or what we will do with the information you provide, you should discuss these with the Recruitment Team. COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
HMRC processes are underpinned by the principle of selection for appointment on merit on the basis of fair and open competition as outlined in the Civil Service Commission’s Recruitment Principles which can be found at http://civilservicecommission.independent.gov.uk
If you feel your application has not been treated in accordance with these Principles and you wish to make a complaint, please contact Lisa Quinlan by telephone on 03000 586219 or by email at lisa.quinlan@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk in the first instance. If you are not satisfied with the response you receive from the Department, you can contact the Civil Service Commission.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3100-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 19589,
"total-output-tokens": 4170,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1629,
1
],
[
1629,
4113,
2
],
[
4113,
6244,
3
],
[
6244,
8694,
4
],
[
8694,
11100,
5
],
[
11100,
13713,
6
],
[
13713,
15933,
7
],
[
15933,
17732,
8
],
[
17732,
18388,
9
]
]
} |
bb8e44d39a238ee85c2c88b67c8a58cc07889f07 | Information Management Assessment
Action plan progress review
HM Treasury
Reviewed May 2017
Published August 2017
Working with government to raise standards in information management Background
The Information Management Assessment (IMA) programme is the best-practice model for government bodies wishing to demonstrate commitment to the principles of good information management.
The HM Treasury (HMT) IMA took place in September 2015. This progress review summarises key developments since the IMA. Areas where continued attention is still needed are listed under ‘Next Steps.’
Action plan development
HMT produced a detailed action plan, and progress on this was reported to its Operational Risk Group. The National Archives formally assessed progress against the action plan in September 2016. The IMA report and action plan are both published on The National Archives’ website.¹
¹ [http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/ima/ima-reports-action-plans/](http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/ima/ima-reports-action-plans/) Executive summary
Value of information
- We are pleased to note that HM Treasury (HMT) has made significant progress in improving its approach to information asset management and is now working to embed its governance approach across the department.
- HMT has maintained a good level of senior engagement with knowledge and information management and continues to promote the value of information across the organisation.
- We particularly commend the work around behavioural change and improving information and records management culture within HMT. This work has been used as a case study as part of the cross-government Behavioural Insights Toolkit.
Digital information and supporting technology
- HMT continues to lead the way in government in its approach to implementing a system for managing digital information throughout its lifecycle.
Information risk, governance and oversight
- HMT has taken steps to raise awareness of information risk through regular briefings at a senior level and by reviewing related policies. It needs to continue to promote a better understanding of information and records management risks through policies, guidance and training and to log these risks across HMT and identify appropriate mitigations.
- In recognition of the crucial role it plays in ensuring the successful use of Info Store in business areas, HMT has streamlined the Site Owner network and provides training, guidance and online forums to support it in its work.
- The approach taken by HMT to monitor compliance with information and records management policy continues to be exemplary. The Knowledge Management Benchmarking process has been enhanced by the inclusion of management information on use of Info Store in order to ensure that staff use corporate systems to manage digital information and records appropriately.
Records review and transfer
- HMT has made significant progress in appraising and selecting digital information, starting with the Panagon collection (1996-2004). It has also set up processes for the review and disposal of digital information from 2005 onwards. Working in conjunction with The National Archives, HMT now needs to confirm selection, establish a process for sensitivity review and transfer its earliest digital records to The National Archives.
- HMT is making progress with appraisal, selection and transfer of legacy paper records. It needs to continue to invest time and effort in this work to keep pace with the agreed plan to review these records and progress towards compliance with the 20 Year Rule.
Progress to address recommendations and risk areas
1 The value of information
| Performance rating | IMA 2015 | Review 2017 | |--------------------|----------------|-------------| | Communicating and realising value | Good practice | Good practice | | Managing information as an asset | Development needed | Satisfactory |
Situation at the time of the IMA
Senior engagement with Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) was among the best we had seen in government. HMT had a clear strategy for improving information and records management.
HMT needed to further develop its approach to information asset management in order to gain greater control of its information assets.
- Following the arrival of a new Permanent Secretary and Second Permanent Secretary in 2016 and a review of senior responsibilities, the Senior KIM Champion role is now held by the Director of Corporate Services. The Director is a member of Executive Management Board.
- The new Second Permanent Secretary presented the annual awards for Knowledge Management (KM) Benchmarking in spring 2017 which demonstrates continuing senior buy-in for this important work.
- HMT has developed a Behaviour Change Strategy to encourage users to improve their approach to record keeping and the use of Info Store. This has included the use of videos of users talking about their record keeping experiences and articles on historical records at HMT.
- A new role of Information Assurance Manager has been created. The successful candidate joined HMT in November 2016 and has taken part in The National Archives’ ‘train the trainer’ workshop for Information Asset Owners (IAO).
- Information policy guidance on the HMT intranet has been updated and now clearly sets out the role and responsibilities of the IAO and includes a definition of an information asset.
- The Information Assurance Manager is meeting with IAOs individually and going through a questionnaire which covers responsibilities, the information assets held in their area and whether they have completed IAO training. The majority of IAOs have taken part though some are still yet to engage. See next steps
- HMT has developed a new information asset register template. This includes information on retention and whether it would be required for The National Archives. See next steps
- The KM Benchmarking has been revised to better enable business areas to report on the assurance of their information assets (see section 3).
2 Digital information and supporting technology
| Performance rating | IMA 2015 | Review 2017 | |--------------------|----------------|-------------| | Supporting information through technology | Satisfactory | Good practice | | Digital continuity and IT change | Satisfactory | Satisfactory |
Situation at the time of the IMA
HMT had made good progress in putting in place a system – Info Store (based on SharePoint 2010) – to manage its digital information.
Although Info Store did not have the capability for full lifecycle management of records, HMT had set up the Information Management Project to address this.
- The Information Management project is now complete and Info Store is fully operational, with plug-ins (SyncPoint, Compliance Extender, Metalogix and Cardio Log) to enable full records management. HMT has enhanced the search functionality by including filter options on the left hand side – a simple and effective way of making it easier for staff to use.
- A Records Centre service has now been implemented within Info Store to enable archiving and review. See also section 4
- Shared drive users were identified and relevant content mapped and then migrated to Info Store between May and September 2016. Some staff are permitted to use shared drives for particular documents such as linked spreadsheets – this is closely monitored by the KIM team. No new shared areas are being set up.
- HMT has established monthly reporting to track records storage and quality – this feeds into the KM Benchmarking. See section 3
- HMT produces a report on the top 100 mailboxes, which is published on the intranet. Members of the KIM team also sit down with staff members with large inboxes and help them to manage their emails.
- Staff are encouraged to complete a course on smarter working with Outlook to help them manage their inboxes.
- Personal drives are in use and at present are not officially monitored (however, it is HMT policy to delete these when staff leave the organisation). See next steps 3 Information risk, governance and oversight
| Performance rating | IMA 2015 | Review 2017 | |--------------------|-------------------|---------------------------------| | Recognising information risk | Development needed | Progressing towards satisfactory | | Establishing control | Satisfactory | Good practice | | Providing guidance | Good practice | Good practice | | Measuring impact | Good practice | Best practice |
Situation at the time of the IMA
HMT had recently updated its Records Management Policy and related guidance and had developed an innovative and effective approach to monitoring KIM compliance via its annual KM Benchmarking.
HMT had established an Information Management steering group to facilitate joined-up working and networks of KIM Champions and Site Owners had been established to support information and records management in business areas.
HMT needed to do more to embed information risk within its risk management framework and increase awareness of information and records management risks.
- A Board briefing took place in March 2016 on information assurance and cyber security and there has been continuing engagement with Executive Management Board and SCS communications to raise awareness of information risk. Routine reporting has been established with quarterly sessions scheduled with the SIRO and monthly reports to the Operational Risk Group.
- Information security and risk policies have been reviewed and redrafted as part of the wider comprehensive policy consolidation exercise. HMT needs to continue to promote a better understanding of information and records management risks and ensure that these are logged and appropriate mitigations identified. See next steps
- The network of Site Owners has been reviewed and reduced to a more focussed, manageable group; HMT has focussed on upskilling these staff. A two hour training session is provided for Site Owners and there is also a monthly forum and an online space for news, guidance and discussions.
- Deputy Director level KIM Champions have responsibility for records management in their business area, for promoting good practice and tackling poor performance. The HMT Retention and Deletion Policy has now been published on GOV.UK, in line with Sir Alex Allan’s recommendation.
The KM Benchmarking has been further developed to use management information (extracted, in part, from Info Store) to measure records management practice in business areas from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective. Monthly dashboards are produced for KIM Champions that focus on record keeping, and quarterly reports are sent to leadership teams to ensure they are driving the right messages. Business areas are measured on what they are filing, edits, filing of emails, filing time, access management and file naming. This information is incorporated in the annual benchmarking and prizes are given for the best performing business areas. HMT would now like to include personal drive use in this monitoring. See next steps
4 Records, review and transfer
| Performance rating | IMA 2015 | Review 2017 | |-------------------------------------|----------------|---------------| | Oversight of records and selection | Satisfactory | Good practice | | Implementing disposal decisions | Development needed | Satisfactory |
Situation at the time of the IMA
HMT needed to develop an approach to appraisal, selection, sensitivity review and transfer of its digital information as well as continuing to progress with reviewing paper records in order to transition to the 20-year rule.
- Legacy digital records from 1996-2004 have now been appraised, listed on a digital SLAQ spreadsheet and records of historical value identified. This now needs to be signed off by The National Archives. See next steps
- HMT is now exploring how it will sensitivity review these legacy digital records. The first step has been to find a software tool to enable HMT to securely share digital records with other government departments in order to consult regarding sensitivity – HMT is currently discussing the possibility of using Cavarta for this. See next steps
- A process has been established for closing and archiving files on Info Store. For content created after 2015 a two step process has been established with files first closed, and then archived, into the information management area. This can be done manually or automatically after a set period of time. Once records are in the information management area the records management team will review them within ten years.
- HMT continues to make progress in reducing its backlog of legacy paper records, working closely with its third party supplier (Iron Mountain) and The National Archives. An Accelerated Transfer Programme Board meets monthly to keep track of this work and discuss any issues that may arise. Iron Mountain track all activities such as sensitivity review and provide statistics to HMT so they can monitor progress.
- HMT has revisited the Advisory Council to report on progress with appraisal, selection, sensitivity review and transfer of its legacy paper records and to refresh the Retention Instrument to ensure that legal cover is in place for these legacy records. See next steps
- Resource has been dedicated to processing records requisitioned from The National Archives and developing a method of tracking these. Work is underway to confirm records that are ‘misplaced in department’ and for the return of non-sensitive files to The National Archives, as well as planning for the review of sensitive files. See next steps Next Steps
The National Archives will continue to support HM Treasury (HMT) in its work on information and records management. Outstanding recommendations will be reviewed at the time of the department’s IMA reassessment. It is recommended that HMT focusses on the following:
- Embed the process for completing Information Asset Registers.
- Ensure that Information Asset Owners who have not yet met with the Information Assurance Manager do so.
- Build monitoring of personal drive use into monthly reporting and Knowledge Management benchmarking.
- Continue to promote a better understanding of information and records management risks through policies, guidance and training; for example, HMT could include a definition as part of the high level information policy guidance on the intranet.
- Recognise and log information and records management risks and identify appropriate mitigations.
- Working in conjunction with The National Archives, confirm selection and ensure that legacy digital records from 1996-2004 are sensitivity reviewed and progressed to digital transfer.
- Continue to keep pace with the agreed plan to review and transfer legacy paper records and progress towards compliance.
- Ensure misplaced records are declared and continue the good work in returning non-sensitive items and to plan for review of sensitive files.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3101-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 10,
"total-input-tokens": 21407,
"total-output-tokens": 3329,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
188,
1
],
[
188,
188,
2
],
[
188,
1113,
3
],
[
1113,
3579,
4
],
[
3579,
5816,
5
],
[
5816,
8174,
6
],
[
8174,
10450,
7
],
[
10450,
13171,
8
],
[
13171,
13905,
9
],
[
13905,
15250,
10
]
]
} |
c454bb36a3f837428f581f05bc643a121acd3f17 | HM Treasury Information Management Assessment (IMA) Action plan
1. HM Treasury (HMT) should further develop its approach to information asset management to gain greater control of its information assets.
- Defining what an information asset is for HMT.
- Considering how it can best document its information assets, drawing on the work that the Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) team is doing to survey and document the digital information that the department holds.
- Developing a method of reporting on assurance of these assets and linking this with the benchmarking process already established for Knowledge Management (KM).
- Defining the Information Asset Owner (IAO) role and considering how this can be better supported through training, guidance and networks.
| Actions to address recommendations and reduce risk | Priority: High / Medium / Low | Owner | Due for completion | Status | Additional commentary | |--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------|--------------------|--------|-----------------------| | 1A Review, redraft and communicate policy and associated documentation on information risk and asset management. Include a clear definition of what an asset is. | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | January 2017 | UNDERWAY | - Revision of RM and security policies undertaken
- Comprehensive policy consolidation exercise underway | | 1B Complete an Information Asset Register and institute a process for maintaining it. | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | March 2017 | UNDERWAY | - First draft of register completed
- Resource recruited
- Process to be defined and delivered | | 1C Incorporate measures for asset assurance reporting into the new revision of KM Benchmarking. | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | January 2017 | UNDERWAY | - Revision of RM and security policies undertaken
- Review of KM Benchmarking underway | | 1D Allocate a specific resource and develop a support offer for the IAO role. | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | October 2016 | UNDERWAY | - Resource recruited
- Offer to be defined | HMT should build on the work it has done so far and continue to develop its approach to the management of both its current and legacy digital information.
- Ensuring that the Information Management Project stays on track and continues to have the support and investment that its needs.
- Addressing issues around structure, access permissions and disposal as part of the Information Management Project.
- Gaining a greater sense of staff practice on the shared and personal drives and email through monitoring and increased reporting, possibly as part of the KM Benchmarking.
- Decommissioning any shared drives that aren’t necessary to ensure maximum take up of Info Store.
- Making sure IT is involved when business areas want to use collaboration and other web tools. Including rules about the use of these systems and capture of record content in the Records Management Policy and related guidance and effectively communicating this to staff.
- Raising staff awareness of how to optimise search within Info Store through guidance and the KM Champions and Site Owners.
- Reviewing the Site Owner role to evaluate whether the right people are carrying out the function and considering how many Site Owners are needed. Ensuring that the role is reflected in their performance objectives, as it is for the Knowledge Champions.
- Continuing to embed the use of Info Store across the organisation through communications, training, guidance and the KM Champions and Site Owners.
- Further consideration of what digital information it can proactively release and engaging with end users to see what would be of value.
- Where additional tools are used by business areas, ensuring that IT is involved in this process and that rules about the use of these systems and capture of record content are included within the Records Management Policy and related guidance and that this is communicated to staff.
| Actions to address recommendations and reduce risk | Priority: High / Medium / Low | Owner | Due for completion | Status | Additional commentary | |--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------|--------------------|--------|-----------------------| | 2A Complete the IM project as scheduled. Implement the Records Centre (archiving) service as part of the | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | October 2016 | COMPLETE | - Project on schedule - Requirements delivered for archiving service | | Action plan | Responsible Officer | Start Date | Status | Progress Notes | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|------------|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 2B Close down existing file shares as part of the IM project. | Not applicable | December 2016 | UNDERWAY | - Shared drive users identified
- Content migrated
- Plan to reset permissions in place | | 2C Implement a reporting service, to track records storage and quality, as part of the Info Store solution. | Not applicable | December 2016 | UNDERWAY | - Requirements in place
- Build underway | | 2D Implement an extranet facility for safe external collaboration. | Not applicable | November 2016 | UNDERWAY | - Build complete
- Pilot being planned | | 2E Design a communications and change strategy as part of the IM project, to include training and guidance on the Info Store application. | Not applicable | October 2016 | COMPLETE | - Strategy defined and being delivered | | 2F establish a new (smaller) cohort of Site Owners, introduce new mandatory training and continue to sustain the Site Owner community. | Not applicable | October 2016 | COMPLETE | - Smaller group defined
- Training delivered
- Resource in place to support Site Owners | | 2G Review, redraft and communicate policy and associated documentation on records management as part of the IM project. | Not applicable | October 2016 | COMPLETE | - Addressed in the Comms and Change Strategy | HM Treasury Information Management Assessment (IMA) Action plan
3 HMT needs to improve its approach to managing information risk within the wider HMT risk management framework.
- Putting together a description of information risk that reflects that information risk is not just about physical loss of information or cyber-attacks but is also about the ongoing availability and integrity of information and communicating this to staff.
- Ensuring that senior management and IAOs understand the importance of identifying and managing information risk and of the negative impact if information is not managed and protected appropriately through briefings and training.
| Actions to address recommendations and reduce risk | Priority: High / Medium / Low | Owner | Due for completion | Status | Additional commentary | |--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------|--------------------|--------|-----------------------| | 3A Review, redraft and communicate policy and associated documentation on information risk and asset management. Include a clear definition of what information risk is. | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | January 2017 | UNDERWAY | - Revision of RM and security policies undertaken
- Comprehensive policy consolidation exercise underway
- Launch next year | | 3B Actively communicate information risk to SCS. This includes sessions for EMB, Treasury Sub-Committee and the weekly SCS comms meeting. | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | October 2016 | COMPLETE | - EMB visited three times since the audit. Includes review of risk appetite and visit by TNA to the Board Sub-Committee
- SCS Comms visited three times, including by TNA
- Group meetings visited | | 3C Establish routine reporting to the SIRO and to the Organisational Risk Group. | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | October 2016 | COMPLETE | - Periodic sessions with SIRO scheduled (quarterly)
- Monthly reports to ORG | HMT should continue to invest time and effort in supporting and further developing the KM benchmarking.
- Thinking about how the process will be developed to challenge and motivate high-scoring business areas to continue to drive improvement.
- Exploring whether the process can be used to gather more detailed evidence of information and records management practice in business areas, for example, around use of Info Store, shared and personal drives, filing of emails etc.
- Considering whether information assurance reporting can be linked or incorporated into this process.
| Actions to address recommendations and reduce risk | Priority: High / Medium / Low | Owner | Due for completion | Status | Additional commentary | |--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------|--------------------|--------|-----------------------| | 4A Substantially revise KM Benchmarking for a fresh approach in Q4 (2016/17). | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | January 2017 | UNDERWAY | - Extensive research and consultancy on alternative models - Proposal to Leadership Team in December | | 4B Incorporate the new Info Store reporting service into the revision of KM Benchmarking. | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | December 2016 | UNDERWAY | - Requirements in place - Build underway | | 4C Incorporate measures for asset assurance reporting into the revision of KM Benchmarking. | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | January 2017 | UNDERWAY | - Revision of RM and security policies undertaken - Review of KM Benchmarking underway | HM Treasury Information Management Assessment (IMA) Action plan
5. HMT should continue to build on the positive work it has done so far in developing an approach for the appraisal, selection, sensitivity review and transfer of digital information.
- Building up a full picture of its digital holdings.
- Applying disposal criteria to legacy and current digital records.
- Developing a method of appraising digital records including the use of Series Level Appraisal Questionnaires (SLAQ).
- Devising an approach to sensitivity reviewing its digital information.
- Deciding how it will transfer digital information and testing this.
- Continuing to engage with The National Archives Information Management Consultant (IMC) and Digital Transfer User Group.
- Sharing knowledge, experience and learning from other government departments; testing and piloting different approaches.
- Publishing guidance on what to keep and/or retention or disposal schedules on GOV.UK.
| Actions to address recommendations and reduce risk | Priority: High / Medium / Low | Owner | Due for completion | Status | Additional commentary | |--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------|--------------------|--------|-----------------------| | 5A Consolidate our records on the Info Store platform through completing the IM project and closing down shared drives. | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | December 2016 | UNDERWAY | - Shared drive users identified
- Content migrated
- Plan to reset permissions in place | | 5B Enable records disposition on the Info Store application by implementing a Records Centre service. | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | October 2016 | COMPLETE | - Requirements delivered for archiving service | | 5C Ensure that digital Series Level Appraisal Questionnaires (SLAQs) are approved completed for the entirety of the Panagon collection (1996-2004). | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | October 2016 | COMPLETE | - SLAQs completed | | 5D Plan to revisit sensitivity review of the Panagon collection at least three years before scheduled transfer (currently planned as 2022) to allow one year to | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | October 2016 | COMPLETE | - SLAQs completed
- Long term transfer plan in place | | Action plan | Responsible Officer | Date | Status | Notes | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|------------|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | pilot and procure a solution and two years to complete the review task. | | | | | | 5E Publish the HM Treasury Retention and Deletion Policy on GOV.UK. | Not applicable | January 2017 | UNDERWAY | - Comprehensive policy consolidation exercise underway | | 5F Attend National Archives meetings, share expertise across government and participate in Cabinet Office’s digital records project | Not applicable | October 2016 | COMPLETE | - Meetings attended | | | | | | - Presentations given | | | | | | - Project initiation document in place for work with Cabinet Office | HM Treasury Information Management Assessment (IMA) Action plan
6 HMT should continue making positive steps in the management of its paper records, including appraisal, selection and transfer.
- Ensuring that it keeps on track with its transfer plan as agreed by the Advisory Council (AC).
- Carrying on work with Government Remote Services (GRS) on requisitioned records.
- Continuing its good work in managing the relationship with outside contractor/s carrying out management of paper records and accelerated review.
| Actions to address recommendations and reduce risk | Priority: High / Medium / Low | Owner | Due for completion | Status | Additional commentary | |--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|-------|--------------------|--------|-----------------------| | 6A Revisit the ACNRA, report on progress and refresh our Retention Instrument (RI). | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | October 2016 | COMPLETE | - ACNRA revisited and RI in place | | 6B Declare all records that are misplaced in Department and ensure that the TNA catalogue is updated. | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | December 2016 | UNDERWAY | - Work underway, final figures to be confirmed | | 6C List all retained items and extended closures. Return all non-sensitive files to the National Archives and plan to refer and process all sensitive files in the next three years. | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | January 2017 | UNDERWAY | - List completed and reviewed - Return of non-sensitive items underway - Planning for sensitive underway | | 6D Review supplier delivery monthly and hold a full contract review annually. | Not applicable | Departmental Records Officer | October 2016 | COMPLETE | - Monthly meetings in place - Annual review in place |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3102-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 17364,
"total-output-tokens": 3274,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2156,
1
],
[
2156,
4607,
2
],
[
4607,
6389,
3
],
[
6389,
8388,
4
],
[
8388,
9994,
5
],
[
9994,
12322,
6
],
[
12322,
13897,
7
],
[
13897,
15721,
8
]
]
} |
4baa79a369cc6aae0538ec60a6fbec9dd664adc8 | Statement of commitment
In advance of each Information Management Assessment (IMA) we recommend that Permanent Secretaries publish a statement of commitment to the IMA process that also underlines the importance of good practice in information and records management. HM Treasury (HMT) has not published a statement of commitment. However, the Second Permanent Secretary and Senior Sponsor for Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) within the department, John Kingman, visited The National Archives in August 2015 to demonstrate his commitment to the IMA process and to working with us.
Information Management Assessment background
HMT first underwent an IMA in 2010. The 2010 IMA report can be found on The National Archives’ website at nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/manage-information/ima/ima-reports-action-plans/
HMT committed to an IMA reassessment, which was conducted in September 2015. The reassessment entailed a detailed review of supporting documentation, followed by interviews with senior staff, specialists and practitioners in the department’s London office. These were carried out on 9 and 10, 14 and 15, and 21 September.
The following report provides a summary of good practice and risks identified. IMA reports and departmental action plans are published on The National Archives’ website at: nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/ima-reports-action-plans.htm Glossary
AC – Advisory Council CIO – Chief Information Officer CTO – Chief Technology Officer DRO – Departmental Records Officer EDRM – Electronic Document Records Management EMB – Executive Management Board ERM – Electronic Records Management FOI – Freedom of Information GIAA – Government Internal Audit Agency GOGGS - Government Offices Great George Street GRS – Government and Remote Services GPS – Global Positioning System HMT – Her Majesty’s Treasury IACSEP – Information Assurance and Cyber Security Engagement Programme IAO – Information Asset Owner IAR – Information Asset Register IM – Information Management IMA – Information Management Assessment IMC – Information Management Consultant IWS – Information Workplace Solutions ORG – Operational Risk Group KIM – Knowledge and Information Management KM – Knowledge Management PST – Personal Storage Table RM – Records Management SCB – Strategy and Capability Board SCS – Senior Civil Service SIRO – Senior Information Risk Owner Key findings of the assessment
1 The value of information
| Performance rating | | |--------------------------------------------------------|----------| | Communicating and realising value | Good practice | | Managing information as an asset | Development needed |
Situation at the time of the last Information Management Assessment (IMA) in 2010:
Senior leaders tended to engage with information management issues by exception rather than on a routine basis, opting to delegate to more junior grades, and there was no permanent representation at Board level.
In terms of culture, there was a broad understanding of the importance of information management in HM Treasury (HMT). However, it was perceived as an add-on and the preserve of more junior grades. HMT had high staff turnover and there was a tendency towards team autonomy.
- Senior support for Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) at HMT is among the best we have seen in the government departments we have assessed and marks a big improvement since the last IMA. HMT has appointed a Senior Sponsor for KIM, the Second Permanent Secretary, John Kingman. He is personally involved with the Knowledge Management (KM) benchmarking and is keen to support and lend his name to KIM messages. The HMT Permanent Secretary, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, also actively supports the KIM agenda. All senior staff we spoke to felt they had good access to the Permanent Secretary, Second Permanent Secretary and the Board, and KIM staff provide regular briefings to them. • The Records Management Policy clearly sets out the responsibilities and expectations of all staff for record keeping and is supported by clear and easy-to-follow guidance on how to do this. The majority of staff we interviewed recognised the value of information and the need to keep records and save them to Info Store, HMT’s corporate system for managing digital records. This is particularly important given the high staff turnover in the department.
• HMT has a clear strategy for improving information and records management. The inclusion of KIM as an integral part of the wider Information Workplace Solutions (IWS) Strategy 2015-20 should help to ensure that KIM goals are effectively aligned with those of IT and Security. This has been signed off and endorsed at SCS level.
• There is a good process in place for managing Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and its figures are satisfactory. HMT is proactively publishing information on GOV.UK and data.gov.uk but should consider the possibility of making more information/data available.
• HMT’s approach to information asset management needs to be improved. The department does not have an Information Asset Register and there is no formal reporting on information assurance. HMT would benefit from further developing its approach to information asset management in order to gain greater control of its information assets. Since the IMA, the department has set up an HMT Board Briefing on information assurance and cyber security in March 2016. A presentation from the Information Assurance and Cyber Security Engagement Programme (IACSEP) at an SCS meeting will follow. This will serve as a good starting point for taking this work forward. See recommendation 1.
2 Digital information and supporting technology
| Performance rating | | |--------------------|---| | Supporting information through technology | Satisfactory | | Digital continuity and IT change | Satisfactory | Situation at the time of the last Information Management Assessment (IMA) in 2010:
An electronic records management system, JIGSAW, was in place, but few teams used it to manage their records, often using the system retrospectively. There were issues around the reliability and stability of the system and it was unclear whether funding would be available to upgrade it. HMT were also looking into the possibility of using Microsoft SharePoint for managing digital records at the time of the IMA. There were generous storage limits in place for email, providing little incentive for staff to move important emails to JIGSAW, so they tended to manage their emails within their Outlook inboxes.
- HMT has made good progress in putting in place a system, Info Store (based on SharePoint 2010), to manage its digital information. Despite issues around the rapid rollout, take-up of the system appears to be good. Staff interviewed were broadly positive about using it, despite one or two minor points, which is a considerable improvement on the situation with JIGSAW at the time of the last IMA. Interviewees were particularly positive about the ease of transferring emails into Info Store. There are, however, some issues around the structure and access permissions and Info Store does not yet have capability for full lifecycle management: for example, disposal has not yet been applied to records within the system. All of these issues are being addressed through the Information Management project, which aims to redesign the SharePoint Electronic Document Records Management (EDRM) system to implement better policy compliance and enable digital preservation. See recommendation 2.
- HMT was one of the earliest adopters of digital information in government and while this brings benefits – such as a much more joined up approach between KIM and IT for the management of digital information – it also means that HMT has a large amount of ageing digital information. It is important that this information is maintained (kept complete, available and usable) for as long as HMT needs it, that information of historical value is identified and transferred to The National Archives, and that information is disposed of if it has no continuing value. Again, this is being addressed through the Information Management project. See recommendation 2.
- The Information Management project is hugely important for ensuring that HMT progresses to where it needs to be in managing its digital information. It is essential that each stage of the project goes ahead as planned and that it continues to have the support and investment that it needs. See recommendation 2.
3 Information risk, governance and oversight
| Performance rating | |------------------------------------| | Recognising information risk | Development needed | | Establishing control | Satisfactory | | Providing guidance | Good practice | | Measuring Impact | Good practice |
Situation at the time of the last Information Management Assessment (IMA) in 2010:
Comprehensive guidance on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) and induction training was in place but this was not necessarily being consistently followed across the business. The department had not progressed far with what to keep and had only rolled this out to one Directorate at the time of the assessment.
- HMT could do more to embed information risk within its Risk Management Framework. There is no overall description of information risk within HMT and there does not appear to be a shared understanding of what this actually means across the organisation. The department needs to develop a description of information risk that reflects that it is about more than physical loss of information or cyber-attacks but is also about the ongoing availability and integrity of information; it also needs to communicate this to staff. HMT should ensure that senior management and Information Asset Owners (IAO) understand the importance of identifying and managing information risk and of the negative impact if information is not managed and protected appropriately. The KIM and Information Security teams do regularly report on information-related risks to the Operational Risk Group (ORG), which is a positive step. The IACSEP briefings referred to in section 1 will also help raise awareness. See recommendation 3.
- HMT has recently established an Information Management (IM) Steering Group that meets every two months. It is chaired by the Departmental Records Officer (DRO) and the Head of KIM, and membership includes the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) and representatives from Internal Communications, IT Services, Knowledge Management, Site Owners, IT security and technical specialists. At the time of the IMA it was too early to judge the effectiveness of the steering group. However, this is a positive step in terms of facilitating formal interaction between all of the key information management stakeholders. HMT has established effective networks of Knowledge Champions and Site Owners in business areas. The Knowledge Champion role has proved to be particularly successful and plays an important role in the Knowledge Management (KM) benchmarking process and in improving KIM practice in business areas. The role of a Site Owner is similarly crucial in terms of managing use of Info Store. HMT should review the role to establish how it should change or be strengthened in view of the need to work with an enhanced Info Store. See recommendation 2.
- HMT has recently updated its Records Management Policy and this is reflected in a succinct, easy-to-read and up-to-date set of guidance for staff on how to manage information and records. A selection of KIM training is also provided, including a range of sessions on Info Store and more general sessions on KIM. All staff are expected to complete KIM induction training.
- HMT has done excellent work in developing an effective way of measuring compliance with KIM policy across the organisation. The KM benchmarking has proved to be successful in getting business areas to improve KIM practice as well as raising the profile of KIM across the department and providing an opportunity for KIM staff to have face-to-face contact with teams. HMT should continue to invest time and effort in this and think about how it can continue to develop and strengthen the approach for the future – for example, encouraging continued improvement in those areas that are already scoring highly and thinking about other useful metrics that could be collected as part of that process. See recommendation 4.
4 Records, review and transfer
| Performance rating | |--------------------------------------------------------| | Oversight of records and selection | Satisfactory | | Implementing disposal decisions | Development needed |
| Situation at the time of the last Information Management Assessment (IMA) in 2010: | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | HMT was slightly behind schedule in assessing its paper files to determine whether they should be permanently preserved and transferred to The National Archives under the 30-year rule. It also needed to consider the implications of the transition to the 20-year rule. |
- The Departmental Records Officer (DRO) has a high profile and is performing all of the functions of the role as detailed by The National Archives. The outsourcing of paper records storage and appraisal and selection of paper records appears to be working well, despite some initial difficulties. There are no particular concerns about resource at the moment, although there was recognition that the success of KIM at HMT is very dependent on the Knowledge Champions and Site Owners.
______________________________________________________________________
1 nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/our-role/plans-policies-performance-and-projects/our-projects/20-year-rule/ across the business. If their involvement were to change, there would be more pressure on the KIM team to carry out these tasks. The DRO and KIM team have an excellent working relationship with The National Archives.
- HMT is aware that it is currently behind in transitioning to the 20-year rule. The department submitted a paper on this to the Advisory Council (AC) in 2015, detailing the reasons for the delay and a plan for improvement. This was approved, a Retention Instrument is in place and HMT is currently on track with its transfer plan. See recommendation 6
- As with most other government departments, the biggest challenge facing HMT is how to appraise, select, apply disposal criteria, sensitivity review and transfer its digital information. HMT has already made good progress in starting to develop an approach for this through its Information Management project. The department is fully engaged with The National Archives’ Digital Transfer User Group, which will enable it to follow and learn from The National Archives and other government departments’ work on this, as well sharing its own knowledge and experience. See recommendation 5.
## Highlights table
The following are among the areas of good practice identified at the time of the assessment. They include systems and approaches that other government organisations may find helpful in mitigating information and records management related risks:
| Highlights of the 2015 Information Management Assessment | |---------------------------------------------------------| | The Second Permanent Secretary, John Kingman, is the Senior Sponsor for Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) within HM Treasury (HMT). He is personally involved with the Knowledge Management (KM) Benchmarking, including presenting awards to top performers and meeting with the directors and deputies of low-scoring business areas that need to improve practice. He was instrumental in refreshing the KIM unit and identifying new KIM leadership, and interviewees reported that he is keen to lend his name to and support KIM messages. He also visited The National Archives in July 2015, prior to the IMA reassessment, further demonstrating his commitment to the KIM agenda. The HMT Permanent Secretary, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, also actively supports the KIM agenda. All senior staff we spoke to felt that they had good access to the Permanent Secretary, Second Permanent Secretary, and the Board. |
HMT has a good process in place for managing Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. These requests are handled by business areas but a central FOI team coordinates this through case advisors, who provide advice and support, and monitor progress. They also hold weekly FOI surgeries with representatives from the FOI team and legal experts, which staff can attend to discuss issues. Advice given by the FOI team can range from intensive support on handling complex cases to wider discussions with policy teams. regarding withholding information. There is a range of FOI guidance available on HMT’s intranet, Red Box. FOI requests are tracked using E-case, HMT’s system for tracking correspondence, and records kept on Info Store, HMT’s corporate system for managing digital records. E-case can be used to look at performance by team and identify bottlenecks in order to offer more support to business areas that need it.
Email is the primary tool used to conduct business and share information within HMT. It is very easy to transfer emails into Info Store and the Automated Intelligence Syncpoint software is used to facilitate this. The majority of staff we spoke to highlighted how simple it was to move their emails to Info Store – there was a lot of positivity among interviewees on this. HMT staff are encouraged to file emails ‘as they go’, rather than transfer large batches at once.
HMT has recently documented requirements for the Information Management Project and the next iteration of its records management system. The Records Management (RM) Systems Requirements bring together mandatory records management requirements and business user input. They cover metadata, file plans, search, access permissions, retention and disposal, triggers for disposal and transfer to The National Archives.
HMT has established a network of Knowledge Champions who are responsible for raising the profile of KIM and encouraging good practice, as well as playing an important role in the KM Benchmarking, helping to gather evidence for their business area and facilitating the review meetings. The Knowledge Champions we spoke to were enthusiastic, proactive and took their responsibilities as Champions seriously. There are also monthly meetings for Knowledge Champions where they can discuss issues and share best practice.
All staff are expected to complete face-to-face induction training in KIM. Two sessions are provided. One is run in the form of a quiz that conveys KIM messages and tests staff knowledge in a fun and interactive way. The other session provides a more formal, high-level view, addressing the business and compliance value of KIM.
HMT has developed a really solid approach to measuring compliance with KIM policy through the KM Benchmarking. This is a self-assessment process: each business area scores KIM activities against a maturity model which describes what has to be achieved against each score. The assessments are carried out in hour-long team meetings. The Knowledge Champion facilitates the assessment and a member of the Knowledge and Information Management team moderates the session. Teams provide evidence of good practices to support the scores achieved. Scoring is on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 aware, 2 first steps, 3 defined, 4 managed, 5 embedded), although scores of 0 can be given in exceptional circumstances. Business areas that are not performing well have to repeat the process and if they don't improve, they have to meet with the Second Permanent Secretary to explain why. Results for 2014-15 show an overall improvement across the organisation. Following the benchmarking, business areas are expected to produce an action plan to demonstrate how they are going to improve practice.
# Recommendations to address risk areas
## Recommendation 1
**HM Treasury (HMT) should further develop its approach to information asset management to gain greater control of its information assets.**
This would be supported by:
- Defining what an information asset is for HMT.
- Considering how HMT can best document its information assets, drawing on the work that the Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) team is doing to survey and document the digital information that the department holds.
- Developing a method of reporting on assurance of these assets and linking this with the benchmarking process already established for Knowledge Management (KM).
- Defining the Information Asset Owner (IAO) role and considering how this can be better supported through training, guidance and networks.
## Recommendation 2
**HMT should build on the work it has done so far and continue to develop its approach to the management of both current and legacy digital information.**
This would be supported by:
- Ensuring that the Information Management Project stays on track and continues to have the support and investment that it needs.
- Addressing issues around structure, access permissions and disposal as part of the Information Management Project.
- Gaining a greater understanding of staff practice on the shared and personal drives and in managing email through monitoring and increased reporting, possibly as part of the KM Benchmarking.
- Decommissioning any shared drives that are unnecessary to ensure maximum up of Info Store.
- Making sure that IT is involved when business areas want to use collaboration and other web tools. Including rules about the use of these systems and capture of record content in the Records Management Policy and related guidance, and effectively communicating these to staff.
- Raising staff awareness of how to optimise search within Info Store through guidance and the help of the KM Champions and Site Owners.
- Reviewing the Site Owner role to evaluate whether the right people are carrying out this function and considering how many Site Owners are needed. Ensuring that the requirements of the role are reflected in Site Owners' performance objectives, as it is for the Knowledge Champions.
- Continuing to embed the use of Info Store across the organisation through communications, training, guidance and the help of the KM Champions and Site Owners.
- Further consideration of what digital information HMT can proactively release and engaging with end users to see what would be of value.
- Where additional tools are used by business areas, ensuring that IT is involved in their installation and use; making sure that rules about the use of these systems and capture of record content are included within the Records Management Policy and related guidance, and that these are communicated to staff.
**Recommendation 3**
**HMT needs to improve its approach to managing information risk within the wider HMT risk management framework.**
This would be supported by:
- Putting together a description of information risk asserting that information risk is not only about physical loss of information or cyber-attacks, but is also about the ongoing availability and integrity of information and communicating this to staff.
- Ensuring that senior management and IAOs understand the importance of identifying and managing information risk, and the negative impact if information is not managed and protected appropriately through briefings and training.
**Recommendation 4**
**HMT should continue to invest time and effort in supporting and further developing the KM benchmarking:**
This would be supported by:
- Thinking about how the process will be developed to challenge and motivate high-scoring business areas to continue to drive improvement.
- Exploring whether the process can be used to gather more detailed evidence of information and records management practice in business areas – for example, around use of Info Store, shared and personal drives, filing of emails, and so on.
- Considering whether information assurance reporting can be linked or incorporated into this process.
**Recommendation 5**
**HMT should continue to build on the positive work it has done so far in developing an approach for the appraisal, selection, sensitivity review and transfer of digital information.**
This would be supported by:
- Building up a full picture of HMT’s digital holdings.
- Applying disposal criteria to legacy and current digital records.
- Developing a method of appraising digital records including the use of Series Level Appraisal Questionnaires (SLAQ).
- Devising an approach to sensitivity reviewing its digital information.
- Deciding how it will transfer digital information and testing this.
- Continuing to engage with The National Archives’ Information Management Consultant (IMC) and Digital Transfer User Group.
- Sharing knowledge, experience and learning from other government departments; testing and piloting different approaches.
- Publishing guidance on what to keep and/or retention or disposal schedules on GOV.UK.
**Recommendation 6**
**HMT should continue making positive steps in the management of its paper records, including appraisal, selection and transfer.**
This would be supported by:
- Ensuring that HMT keeps on track with its transfer plan as agreed by the Advisory Council (AC).
- Carrying on work with The National Archives’ Government Remote Services (GRS) team on requisitioned records.
- Continuing its good work in managing the relationship with external contractor/s carrying out management of paper records and accelerated review. 1 The value of information
1.1 Communicating and realising value
Goal: The organisation establishes information’s value in principle and supports its realisation in practice.
Establishing the importance of information
Senior support for and engagement with Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) at HM Treasury (HMT) is among the best we have seen in the departments we have assessed. The Second Permanent Secretary, John Kingman, is the Senior Sponsor for KIM within HMT. He is personally involved with the Knowledge Management (KM) Benchmarking, including presenting awards to top performers and meeting with the directors and deputies of low-scoring business areas that need to improve practice. He was instrumental in refreshing the KIM unit and identifying new KIM leadership. Interviewees reported that he is keen to lend his name to and support KIM messages. He also visited The National Archives in July 2015, prior to the IMA reassessment, further demonstrating his commitment to the KIM agenda.
The HMT Permanent Secretary, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, also actively supports the KIM agenda. Interviewees reported him to be interested in the historical record and very knowledgeable on the history of HMT. All senior staff we spoke to felt that they had good access to the Permanent Secretary, Second Permanent Secretary and the Board. The Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO) is managed by the Permanent Secretary and has regular meetings with him. Both the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Departmental Records Officer (DRO) have been called in to brief the Permanent Secretary on issues such as digital records and the Goddard Inquiry. He has also pledged his support for the Information Management Project. This is good practice. Unfortunately, we were not able to secure an interview with a Non-executive Director – part of our standard interview process – and so could not test KIM awareness and engagement from their external and challenge perspective.
The annual KM Benchmarking process (see section 3) has helped to raise the profile of KIM with senior management. It has tasked senior management with responsibility for promoting the importance of managing knowledge, information and records and for improving practice in their business areas. The directors and deputy directors we spoke to recognised the importance of this and were actively involved in completing the benchmarking and producing action plans; they were committed to improving performance in their business areas. The benchmarking has also raised awareness of the importance of good KIM practice in business areas.
HMT has recently refreshed its Records Management Policy, which clearly sets out staff responsibilities for KIM and expectations around record keeping:
*The Treasury Board has overall responsibility for ensuring that Department record keeping meets business needs, Government standards and legal requirements.*
- **Deputy Directors** are responsible for the completeness, security and overall effectiveness of record keeping in their area, including oversight of their team file plan. They are the **Information Asset Owners** for all the data managed by their teams.
- **Info Store Site Owners** are appointed by Deputy Directors to administer their local Info Stores. Site Owners are specially trained and have access to a range of guidance and support in order to manage local access permissions, site features and record keeping functions, including the maintenance of a team file plan. All Treasury staff are responsible for reliable record keeping on behalf of HM Treasury: you will understand and use Info store; you will file regularly; you will file selectively; you will file securely; you will refrain from excessive personal storage. If you are unclear about any of this, you will seek advice.
Record keeping is important at Treasury and, as a result, team performance is monitored and reported back to SCS, most notably through the annual Knowledge Management Benchmarking exercise.
There are a number of pages on the intranet that cover KIM basics and information on record keeping. These include information on staff members’ responsibilities for managing their information, what should and shouldn’t be kept as a record, where records should be kept, and how they should be managed. The Record Keeping Essentials document states that:
We keep records for three reasons: first, because our information has business value; second, because we’re heavily scrutinised and need to be able to explain and justify our actions: third, because what Treasury does makes history and we have a statutory duty to deposit some of our records with The National Archives.
We keep records which provide reliable evidence of the decisions that we make, the advice that we give and why. We keep a full account then, of all Treasury decisions, advice and transactions including not only the final document in each process (say the submission, briefing, contract or minute) but evidence of the significant consultations, drafting, negotiations and other activities that led up to it.
The majority of staff we spoke to recognised the importance of keeping records within Info Store, HMT’s dedicated system for Electronic Records Management. (ERM). Many cited the high turnover of staff in the department: around 20%, with staff often moving on after 18 months. Take-up of Info Store appears to be high with most interviewees saying that they used it, although a small number of teams are reportedly still using the shared drives.
**Setting goals for information and its management**
HMT has an Information Workplace Solutions (IWS) Strategy 2015-20 and KIM is an integral part of this. The strategy has been signed off and endorsed at SCS level. It states that:
> In Knowledge and Information Management we will drive better record keeping and information sharing through upgrading our tools and working hand-in-hand with the business to help them gain control of their information. We will help Treasury to increasingly exploit the opportunities offered by new web applications, supporting innovation, whilst ensuring that our data stays integral and secure. Throughout all this the statutory agenda will remain in focus. We will help ensure that Treasury complies with the Public Records Act and can reliably meet legal discovery requirements in an increasing litigious environment.
The strategy will be translated into a business plan that is closely aligned with departmental objectives and the wider external environment.
The IWS strategy and business plan is governed by the IWS Executive Board, chaired by HMT’s Finance Director (an Executive Management Board (EMB) and Strategy and Capability Board (SCB) member) with senior customer representation from within the wider business and the Corporate Centre Group. The IWS Executive Board reviews and manages risks to delivery of the service; ensures customer centric service delivery; resolves issues; approves/rejects changes to the strategy and business plan; and authorises the engagement with the HMT’s SCB.
The strategy states that the following activities will help to achieve their knowledge and information goals: • Working with Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA) to help them achieve an information approach that sustains a digital legacy into the future.
• Supporting all staff to develop an information repository that works for them and their teams.
• Upgrading our core knowledge management platform, SharePoint. We will migrate to the very latest version of the software and add enhancements to improve user acceptance and experience, and to ensure that we can meet current and future requirements, including for long-term record keeping.
• Building capability across the Treasury to ensure that users get the most out of tools for sharing, searching, finding and analysing information, both internal and external including the increasing use of low-cost, highly-functional Web applications. This will include training, guidance and support for our communities of Knowledge Champions and Site Owners.
• Continued delivery of the annual KM Benchmarking exercise and the development of the measures that underpin it, to reflect evolving business needs and our growing KM maturity.
• Staying on top of our statutory responsibilities notably the transfer of historic Treasury records to the National Archives [sic]. Over the next few years this will include our first digital transfers and we will meet this technical challenge with no compromise in compliance.
The inclusion of KIM within the wider IWS strategy should help to ensure that KIM is effectively aligned with IT and Info Security, which are also covered by this strategy. The activities listed are already part of the KIM plan for 2015-16 and many of them form part of the Information Management project.
Enabling public access to information and supporting transparency and re-use
HM Treasury has a good process in place for managing Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. These requests are handled by business areas but a central FOI team coordinates them through case advisors, who provide advice and support, and monitor progress. They also hold weekly FOI surgeries with representatives from the FOI team and legal experts, which staff can attend to discuss issues. Advice given by the FOI team can range from intensive support on handling complex cases to wider discussions with policy teams regarding withholding information. There is a range of FOI guidance available on Red Box, HMT’s intranet. Staff interviewed were aware of this, although at least one expressed a preference for face-to-face advice from the team, which they found to be very helpful. **This is good practice.**
FOI requests are tracked using the E-case correspondence tracking system and records kept on Info Store, HMT’s corporate system for managing digital records. E-case can be used to look at performance by team and identify bottlenecks in order to offer more support to business areas that need it. The FOI team has wide search access and can, for example, search the whole of Info Store. The team has a lot of experience at searching and can provide support to business areas in carrying out searches in response to FOI requests. One interviewee said that, although Info Store search functionality could be better, in that it could be easier to find what they need, they are comfortable that it provides a reasonable search capability. They also felt that the advanced search functions in Info Store are helpful. The FOI team would like to be able to export search results from Info Store into Excel and is speaking to the KIM team about this. In addition, two case advisors within the FOI team have access to confidential records stored on the Number 10 system for managing confidential digital information.
HMT’s FOI figures are satisfactory but, according to one interviewee, they are striving to improve these. HMT reported having received 275 requests in Quarter 1 2015. The number of requests received has fallen steadily since 2013 from a peak of 779 in Quarter 1 2013. Of those received in Quarter 1 2015, 85% met the 20-day deadline and 92% were answered ‘in time’ (meeting the deadline or within permitted extension). From Quarter 1 2013, HMT has consistently achieved a figure of over 90% answered ‘in time’ for every quarter. In Quarter 1 2015, 30% of resolvable requests were granted in full: this is below the average for all monitored bodies (49%). Additionally, 42% were withheld in full: this is above the average for both departments of state (33%) and all monitored bodies (32%). As of 24 September 2015, there were 1,866 publications by HMT on GOV.UK, 369 of which were classed as transparency data, 63 were FOI releases and 367 corporate reports. The department has published 46 datasets on data.gov.uk. The website gives HMT an average score for openness of 1.9 out of 5 and it has received a total of 88 stars. HMT could do more to publish data proactively and there are already discussions underway to consider what else HMT could make available. The majority of information that HMT holds is unstructured policy information and there is a limit as to how much of this can be made available. One interviewee also suggested a study of common FOI queries to see if proactive publication of information would be of benefit. There was a strong feeling that datasets published should be of genuine value and the data itself of robust quality. HMT should be engaging with end users to see what would be of value. See recommendation 2.
1.2 Managing information as a valued asset
Goal: The organisation protects, manages and exploits its information assets to achieve maximum value.
Defining and cataloguing information assets
HMT does not follow a traditional approach to information asset management, at least in the way it is described in the Security Policy Framework. It does recognise information as a valuable asset (see section 1.1) but manages this through its approach to KIM and the KM Benchmarking exercise.
There is no definition of what an information asset is for HMT and this has led to some confusion around the term, particularly among Information Asset Owners (IAOs). The majority of information within the department is unstructured policy information rather than datasets, and those we interviewed were not sure how a traditional information asset management approach could be applied. HMT does not have a formal Information Asset Register, although it does have a list of SharePoint sites, file-shares and the mailboxes of each Treasury team. There is no comparable list for structured information assets. The department needs to find a way of articulating what business assets are important, and where the risks are in relation to these, which goes beyond a systems view. There is no formal reporting on information assurance. In most government departments we have assessed, Information Asset Owners (IAO) complete an annual report in relation to their information assets that feeds into the annual report required under the Security Policy Framework. The HMT Departmental Security Officer and KIM team are in discussions about how this could be developed.
HMT would benefit from further developing its approach to information asset management to gain greater control of its information assets. It is recommended that HMT defines what an information asset is and considers how it can best document its information assets, drawing on the work that the KIM team is doing to survey and document the digital information that the department holds. This would help IAOs to have a clearer idea of the assets for which they are responsible. HMT should also develop a process of reporting on the assurance of these assets. This could link with the KM Benchmarking process.
Ownership of information assets
Deputy Directors are IAOs. Their responsibilities in relation to KIM are well defined but not in terms of information asset management. Minimal support is provided to IAOs. There are links to wider government guidance on information assurance and information asset management on Red Box. Deputy Directors meet regularly at their Senior Civil Service (SCS) meetings, but are not using this opportunity to talk about information assets/information assurance. At the time of the IMA, HMT had not yet taken up the offer of IAO training from the Information Assurance and Cyber Security Engagement Programme (IACSEP) team at The National Archives, although certainly some of the deputy directors and the SIRO we spoke to expressed an interest in this. However, HMT has since arranged a Board Briefing on information assurance and cyber security in March 2016 with a presentation from IACSEP at an SCS meeting to follow. There are no official roles – such as Information Asset Managers or Coordinators – to support the IAOs, but there are well-developed networks of Knowledge Management Champions and Site Owners that support them in their KIM duties.
2 Information and supporting technology
2.1 The technology environment
Goal: The technology environment supports the management, protection and exploitation of information.
Corporate storage of information
Electronic Document and Records Management (EDRM)
HMT has recently moved to a new core IT supplier (NTT), having split from a shared service IT arrangement with Cabinet Office. It exited its previous EDRM, JIGSAW (based on LiveLink software), and has now implemented Info Store (based on SharePoint 2010). HMT was planning to adopt Info Store for some time but the actual implementation happened quickly over a period of three months. This meant that there was a lack of time to focus on cultural or business change activities such as training. Despite this, take-up of the system appears to be fairly good, and is certainly an improvement on the situation found during the IMA in 2010 with JIGSAW. Staff seem to be happy to use it, despite a few issues around search and structures.
At present, Info Store does not have the capability for full lifecycle management. For example, disposal has not been enabled. However, HMT has plans to address this and the Information Workplace Solutions (IWS) strategy 2015-20 states that HMT will be: Upgrading our core knowledge management platform, SharePoint. We will migrate to the very latest version of the software and add enhancements to improve user acceptance and experience and to ensure that we can meet current and future requirements, including for long-term record keeping.
HMT has set up an Information Management Project to:
- address the digital legacy (from the first EDRM in 1996 until the move to the latest in 2013, plus orphaned data on file shares) and move it all into line with The National Archives Gateway 1 for appraisal and selection
- redesign the SharePoint EDRM to implement better policy compliance (by design) and enable digital preservation.
HMT has recently documented requirements for the Information Management Project and the next iteration of its records management system. The Records Management (RM) Systems Requirements bring together mandatory requirements, records management requirements and business user input. They cover metadata, file plans, search, access permissions, retention and disposal, triggers for disposal and transfer to The National Archives. This is good practice.
Email
Email is the primary tool used to conduct business and share information within HMT. It is very easy to transfer emails into Info Store and the Automated Intelligence Syncpoint software is used to facilitate this. The majority of staff we spoke to highlighted how simple it was to move their emails to Info Store; there was a lot of positivity among interviewees about this. So far, HMT seems to have avoided the problems associated with bulk transfer that other government departments have experienced. This may be because HMT staff are encouraged to file emails ‘as they go’ rather than transfer large batches at once. This is good practice. There are clear rules about the deletion of email when people leave HMT. The Records Management Policy states that:
*All the emails of Treasury staff are deleted 10 days after staff leave. This is the generic data policy for email…Only transferring your email messages and documents to Info Store will properly preserve them as the Department’s records.*
The high turnover of staff at HMT raises the risk that important emails may not be filed before people leave the department and subsequently deleted. However, the ease of getting emails into Info Store, paired with raising awareness through training and guidance, should serve to mitigate this risk. HMT would benefit from having a greater understanding of what staff are doing with their emails in practice and could potentially do this through the KM benchmarking. This would help HMT to target further training and support for those that need it. See recommendation 4.
Although most staff we interviewed did not use Personal Storage Table (PST) files (file format used to store copies of messages, calendar events, and other items within Microsoft software), these have been an issue in the past. HMT addressed this by increasing the size of email accounts to 10GB and encouraged people to migrate PSTs to their Microsoft Outlook account. One interviewee felt that staff had been using PSTs more as a ‘security blanket’ and this did not necessarily mean they were not saving emails into Info Store.
**Shared and personal drives**
Shared drives remain accessible and contain around two and a half terabytes of data. However, the majority of staff we spoke to were not using shared drives. We heard from one or two interviewees that a few teams are still using them in lieu of moving to Info Store. In addition, a small number of staff members will always need access to a shared drive for use of linked spreadsheets as they cannot be moved to Info Store. Although it can get statistics on the volume of data they contain, HMT currently lacks the ability to see what staff actually do on shared drives. As with email, HMT would benefit from gaining a greater sense of practice in this area through either monitoring or reporting tools. See recommendations 2 and 4.
Shared drive use seems much less widespread than in other departments we have assessed. However, while they remain accessible there is always a risk that staff will revert back to using them, particularly if there are ever any significant technical issues with Info Store. Staff we spoke to told us that switching off access to the shared drives is not yet part of the Information Management Project, although there appears to be an aspiration to make it more difficult to access the shared drives in order to deter staff from using them. The Records Management Policy states that:
*Shared drives (G drives and others) cannot easily meet the functional threshold required for managing records. However, during a transitional period until April 2016 we anticipate that a substantial amount of data will persist on file shares. During this time the following arrangements will apply:*
- Documents stored on shared drives will be systematically moved by IWS into Info Store on a team by team basis. On migration, mandatory indexing information and an appropriate retention policy will be added; in as far as this is possible.
- During this process, redundant, duplicate and otherwise worthless documents (i.e. expired non-records) will be deleted.
- No new file shares will be allocated without a business case (to be approved by the Departmental Records Officer) from August 2015.
Any file storage that remains on file shares beyond April 2016 will be formally declared and registered by the Departmental Records Officer. Where this storage contains records it must be managed in broad accordance with HMT records policies and on closure, files must be migrated by IWS to Info Store in order to be processed for National Archives transfer. In addition to the plan described above, it is recommended that HMT decommissions any shared drives that are not necessary to ensure maximum take-up of Info Store. See recommendation 2.
All staff have access to a personal drive; as with email, personal drives are subject to clear rules around deletion. The Records Management Policy states that Personal H drives are deleted 30 days after staff leave HMT. Most staff we spoke to only used their personal drive to store documents of informational/personal value to them or as a temporary filing area for drafts, which they later transferred to Info Store. Again, there is a risk that documents may not be transferred to Info Store before staff leave the department. However, the ease of getting emails into Info Store, paired with raising awareness through training and guidance, should serve to mitigate this risk.
Intranet
HMT’s intranet is called Red Box. Based on a demonstration, we saw it was easy to navigate and there were good pages on KIM and Information Security. The majority of staff we spoke to used Red Box and were satisfied with it. It is currently being redesigned and an updated version will be launched soon.
Collaboration and other tools
Until now, HMT has had a fairly conservative approach towards the use of collaboration tools, preferring to use email instead (see above). HMT is using SharePoint predominantly as a filing tool and is not using it in a particularly dynamic way as of yet. The KIM team aims to encourage staff to use the collaboration functionality within Info Store and the team is trying to showcase these features – setting up a blog, a discussion forum and wish lists for the Site Owners Forum. Other business areas are slowly starting to pick up on this: for example, the Human Resources team now writing a regular blog. HMT has recently opened up wider access to web tools and this presents a challenge in terms of keeping track of what is being used and ensuring that any record is captured. Some concern was expressed about the fact that business areas can sign up for services and do not always tell IT. There was a desire to try and centralise this as much as possible. Computer desktops and infrastructure are locked down so staff are not able to install apps. IT is also trying to control the development of random databases and spreadsheets. If these types of tools are to be used more, HMT needs to ensure that IT is involved in their installation and use. Rules about the use of these systems and the capture of record content need to be included within the Records Management Policy and related guidance, and these need to be communicated to staff. See recommendation 2.
Finding, accessing and protecting information
Business areas create and maintain their own filing structures within Info Store. Site Owners are responsible for maintaining and controlling these file plans. Many of these structures originate from the original Electronic Document and Records Management System (EDRMS), JIGSAW. These structures were migrated to help introduce an element of familiarity to staff when moving across to Info Store. However, since then each business area has been asked to review and update its file plan. The KIM team has been monitoring this and will be chasing those that have not yet done this. We were shown a random selection of filing areas and, although all slightly different, they seemed sensible and well organised. However, we heard during some of the interviews that some business areas have created their own complex mini filing areas, which can appear impenetrable to staff outside those business areas. One business area has also introduced a ‘mystery shopping’ approach of checks to see if its staff members could find records in other teams’ filing areas. The Information Management Project will address this by assessing the structure as a whole and introducing more consistency. See recommendation 2.
Default access permission within Info Store is 'HMT all read access' and this is inherited throughout the file plan. Site Owners can set 'read write' access groups for their areas and add members to these. There is also an 'owners' access group that gives administrative privileges. It is possible to set up controlled areas where the default is that no one can see the contents, and it is possible to add members and specific access permissions. It is also possible to lock down folders, which involves ‘breaking the inheritance’ and setting up controlled permissions. This has caused a level of complexity with permissions in some filing areas and occasionally documents that should be closed are in areas that are open, and vice versa. The KIM team is aware of this issue and it will be addressed as part of the Information Management Project. HMT has procured a tool called Metalogix to give it a ‘back end’ view of the whole security landscape within Info Store so it can see where security inheritances have been broken and put these right. See recommendation 2.
Many staff we spoke to complained about search functionality within Info Store. Several had an expectation that a Google-style approach of typing in a keyword should help them quickly find what they were looking for. However, a demonstration of the search function revealed that this was more to do with a lack of understanding among staff of how to get the best out of searching within Info Store rather than any technical shortcomings. The search function enables users to select the scope of their search and they can search using keywords. Search results helpfully display in order of relevance. It is also possible to use a Boolean search. This involves using Boolean operators AND, OR and NOT to refine a search by combining or limiting terms. It is done using the search box or a user can open up a more advanced search with various options to refine results. At the moment, it is not possible to export search results into Excel or elsewhere – the FOI team has said that they would find this useful and the KIM team is addressing this issue. It is also not yet possible to output all searched-for documents into a separate library, a function that is useful for Inquiries or other investigations – a scripted solution will be needed to make this happen. It is recommended that the KIM team, through the KIM Champions and Site Owners, raise staff awareness of how to optimise search within Info Store by using the advanced search options or Boolean searching. See recommendation 2. 2.2 The continuity of digital information
Goal: The organisation is taking proactive steps to ensure the continuity of its information, over time and through change.
Oversight of information
HMT moved to digital earlier than many government departments (its first EDRM system, Panagon, dates back to 1996) and as a result has a substantial amount of ageing legacy digital information – approximately six terabytes. Part of the Information Management Project is to deal with this legacy digital information. HMT’s view of its digital information is improving: for example, it has a good idea of what is on Info Store. Some of the information on the shared drives has yet to be surveyed but this will be tackled as part of the Information Management Project.
Information from the old HMT EDRMs, Panagon and JIGSAW, has already been migrated to the Number 10 ‘confidential’ version of Info Store. The Information Management Project will develop an approach for the appraisal and selection, ongoing maintenance and disposal of this information and that on the shared drives. HMT has carried out some initial tests on format and found a few WordPerfect documents that could not be opened, although the majority of formats were accessible. HMT assured us that, as far as they were aware, there were no issues with exporting information from the Number 10 ‘confidential’ version of Info Store. See recommendation 2.
Digital continuity planning/IT change
IT and KIM are positioned within the same business area, IWS. They work closely together and there appears to be a good working relationship between the two. HMT was one of the earliest adopters of digital records in UK government and has not created any significant paper files since 1998. As a result, information management is seen as ‘digital’: there isn’t a paper and digital split of the kind we see in other government departments. Contracts and procurement are part of IWS too and have a similarly close working relationship with KIM. The KIM team has the opportunity to feed in its view as a matter of course in relation to IT procurement and contracts. HMT does not have a standalone digital continuity plan but this is in scope as part of the Information Management Project. This is a positive move, but HMT should ensure that digital continuity is built into business-as-usual processes. For example, formulating a more consistent way of documenting information assets would better equip HMT to keep track of its digital assets. See recommendation 1. 3 Information risk, governance and oversight
3.1 Recognising information risks
Goal: The organisation defines and manages information risks to minimise threats and maximise opportunities
Documenting and defining information risks
There is no overall description of information risk within HMT and there does not appear to be a shared understanding of what this actually means across the organisation. In order to ensure that information risks are consistently identified, it is recommended that HMT puts together a description of information risk and communicates this to staff. This description needs to reflect that information risk is about more than the physical loss of information or cyber-attacks, but is also about the ongoing availability and integrity of information. An understanding of information risk should form part of training and guidance for IAOs (see section 1.2). See recommendation 3.
There is no risk register at HMT. Instead, risks are reported and managed via quarterly updates to the Operational Risk Group (ORG). Sample reports from KIM and Information Security were included in the evidence provided for the IMA. KIM and Security reports are submitted to every ORG meeting. The KIM risk report for July 2015 states risks, mitigations and milestones. Risks and issues were listed as:
- Document security in Info Store continues to be an issue. Short of the wholesale revision envisaged in the Info Store business case above, remedial action will be partial and heavily dependent on manual input by business Site Owners.
- The Goddard Inquiry (into historic child abuse) has extended its embargo over the destruction of HMG records to electronic archives (post 1996 in our case) ahead of clarifying the scope of the documentary evidence that it will consider. A flurry of FOI requests from journalists has followed the revelation in the FT that Cabinet Office enforces a 90 day deletion policy on email inboxes. Requests from the BBC amongst others imply that deletion is mandated to avoid scrutiny.
The security risk report for the same period lists the following risks and issues:
- **Key security issues; Government Offices Great George Street (GOGGS) physical security (the armed attacks across the world); the new Security Policy Framework; the cyber security threat; the insider threat; the wider use of the internet (including social media); and refining the new Government Security Classifications guidance and the drop down menu.**
- **Group business continuity preparedness being inadequate.**
There is a high-level Catalogue of Risks, but this is not regularly updated and there is no ‘Red Amber Green’ status or mitigation attached to each of these.
**Implementing an information risk management approach**
There are three risk areas within HMT – economic, fiscal and operational – and each of these has a formal risk committee. Information risk is part of the latter. The Risk Management Framework as a whole is overseen by the Audit Committee. The ORG, along with the Economic and Fiscal Risk Groups, supports the Executive Management Board in managing risks to HMT's portfolio of responsibilities, as set out in the department’s Annual Work Programme. The group is chaired by the Second Permanent Secretary and meets every quarter or more frequently if necessary. According to the HMT Risk Management Framework document:
*The Treasury’s identification and management of risk is based in part on management information; annual business plan assessments including six monthly* reviews; the development of the Treasury’s Work Programme; the Quarterly Performance Report; and HR and Finance Management Information.
As mentioned above, KIM and Information Security regularly report on information related risks to the ORG. However, according to one interviewee, although risk in general is very important to the HMT Board, information risk is low down the agenda. HMT should ensure that senior management and IAOs understand the importance of identifying and managing information risk and of the negative impact if information is not managed and protected appropriately. The IACSEP briefings referred to in section 1.2 will act as a good starting point for this. See recommendation 1.
HMT has taken all necessary steps to ensure that its systems are resilient from a security point of view. More concern was expressed about possible cultural issues rather than technical or cyber-attack. For example, the high turnover of staff means that there is a risk that new staff might not fully understand how they should be protecting their information. However, there is a solid process in place for managing data loss incidents and guidance is provided that goes some way to mitigating this.
In 2014, HMT Internal Auditors reviewed and published a report on record keeping within the department. The review found a number of significant risks around systems used to capture and manage information; roles and responsibilities for information management; information retrieval; and the management of information risk. The recommendations were taken forward and a Corporate Memory follow-up of March 2015 shows that significant progress has been made in all these areas and this is reflected in the relevant sections of this IMA report. 3.2 Establishing control
Goal: The organisation has effective governance structures in place that foster communication and strategic planning.
Governance structures
HMT has recently established an Information Management (IM) Steering Group that meets every two months. It is chaired by the DRO and Head of KIM. Membership includes the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) and representatives from Internal Communications, IT Services, Knowledge Management, Site Owners, IT security and technical specialists. It will:
- Develop and own a list of strategic IM priorities, which will help clarify where we are, where we’d like to be and how we get there.
- Review new requirements for IM services and technologies and advise the Change Board, who will ultimately respond to them.
- Consider conflicts amongst business teams for change resource in order to assist decision making by the Change Board.
- Advise IWS on which IM approaches will work best in Treasury and steer the direction of training and support services to fit.
- Advise on communications messages to help ensure that IM is well understood and received across HM Treasury.
- Adjust its governance principles where appropriate.
At the time of the IMA it was too early to judge the effectiveness of the steering group but, according to the Terms of Reference it is hoped it will provide a reliable, formal interaction between all the key information management stakeholders. Supporting the business
The KIM team consists of six staff. It focuses on oversight and coordination of KIM at HMT and relies on the Knowledge Champions and Site Owners (see below) and its contract with third party provider, Iron Mountain (see section 4), to ensure that KIM activities are carried out in practice. The KIM at HMT page on Red Box makes it clear that everyone has responsibility for KIM stating that:
*Record keeping, handover, quality research, stakeholder engagement and all the other important elements of Knowledge and Information Management are delivered by YOU! Your input and understanding is absolutely crucial. The KIM team is here to support you.*
Current priorities for the KIM team include the Information Management Project (see section 2) and ensuring that appraisal, selection and transfer of paper records continues to remain on track with the agreed transfer plan (see section 4). This work is firmly aligned with the IWS Strategy.
Support networks
There are two key support roles for KIM, based in business areas. Each team has a Knowledge Champion (to support KIM monitoring and improvement) and each team also has an Info Store Site Owner (to help manage the local EDRM folders). In some cases it is the same person performing both of these roles. Training, guidance and support is provided by the KIM team for staff in these roles.
The Being a Knowledge Champion guidance states that they should be:
*an enthusiastic advocate of KM, who is able to coordinate KM activities and provide support for KM initiatives, monitor and report on the team’s progress, and work with other Knowledge Champions and the Knowledge Manager to develop good practices.* Their role is to:
- Attend and contribute to the monthly Cross Treasury Knowledge Champions meetings. Disseminate information from Knowledge Champions meetings to your team.
- Share effective knowledge management practice within your team, with other Knowledge Champions and with your Knowledge Manager.
- Act as an enthusiastic advocate of knowledge management best practice and challenge poor Knowledge Management behaviours.
- Raise Knowledge Management issues with your Deputy Director, at team meetings and at away days, making good use of the knowledge resources: stats, reporting, tools, etc.
- Provide help and advice on knowledge management to your team members. Answer questions your team has about knowledge management and related issues.
- Carry out knowledge management benchmarking working with your Knowledge Manager and Deputy Director. Capture and share your team’s best practices.
- Develop a knowledge management action plan, using the outputs of the benchmarking. Use the action plan to drive improvements in your team.
- Work with other knowledge networks e.g. Site Owners, Intranet Publishers, etc. to improve Treasury’s efficiency.
- Encourage use of the Research Library services for external information sourcing. Engage with your team regarding information needs and report back to the Research Library.
- Encourage innovation by actively promoting and disseminating new ideas.
As well as raising the profile of KIM and encouraging good practice, the Knowledge Champion plays a crucial role in the KM Benchmarking, helping to gather evidence for their business area and facilitating the review meeting. The Knowledge Champions we spoke to were enthusiastic, proactive and took their responsibilities as Champions seriously. There are monthly meetings for Knowledge Champions where they can discuss issues and share best practice, although not all attend these. As with most of these types of roles, it is done in addition to the day job, so there can be a challenge in juggling KIM activities with core work. Of those we interviewed, most were able to devote time to this work. The Deputy Directors we interviewed recognised the importance of the Knowledge Champions, as their work helps business areas to achieve good results in the KM Benchmarking. **This is good practice.**
Knowledge Champions work in support of their Deputy Directors (also IAOs), although they have no formally recognised role in terms of information assurance. HMT could consider the possibilities of using the role to support future work on information assurance reporting and information asset management. **See recommendation 1**
The Site Owner role is more practical. The Being a Site Owner document contains some sample objectives, although it is not mandatory for a Site Owner to have these as part of their performance objectives, and states that:
*A site owner is responsible for managing team sites, including:*
- Setting and maintaining permissions
- Site customisation
- Site promotion – to appropriate target audiences
- Compliance/ working practices
- Provide local support
- Team reporting. Monitoring usage and feedback
- Identify successor and handover on leaving
- Guidance to/Training of content contributors and approvers as appropriate
- Identify changes to Corporate Metadata/taxonomy
- Request new and updates to core templates
- Maintenance of site guide
- Intranet specific
- Responsible for structure, content, review and maintenance of the intranet
- Adding content providers and reviewers
- IT systems status report
- Set up info store libraries (following initial implementation and training) The Site Owner role is absolutely crucial in terms of embedding use of Info Store and encouraging staff to use it properly. Again, the Site Owners we interviewed were, on the whole, dedicated and enthusiastic. They were performing important tasks such as carrying out spot checks to see if colleagues were saving the right information, managing naming conventions and managing access permissions. The KIM team has recently recruited a member of staff to manage this network, providing guidance, support and advice on how to get the best out of Info Store in each business area. There are also bi-monthly meetings for Site Owners where they can get together to discuss issues and share good practice.
There are around 200 people currently in this role. Several of the staff we interviewed felt that this was far too many. The role seems to have been a victim of its own success, with some Site Owners being a little over-enthusiastic and creating their own complex filing areas. One interviewee suggested that it would be more helpful to have the role at group level. HMT would benefit from reviewing the role, to see whether they have the right people doing this and consider how many Site Owners they actually need. It is also recommended that it should be mandatory for Site Owners to reflect this work in their performance objectives, so that their hard work can be formally recognised and credited at performance reviews. See recommendation 2.
### 3.3 Providing direction
| Goal: The organisation gives staff the instruction they need to manage, protect and exploit information effectively. |
**Knowledge and information management policy and guidance**
HMT has recently revised its Records Management Policy to prepare for HMT needs in managing its digital information. The policy clearly sets out the responsibilities and expectations of all staff for record keeping and is supported by a clear, succinct and easy-to-follow set of guidance on how to manage information and records. This includes guidance on managing email, Freedom of Information (FOI), data protection, KIM basics and what to keep (see below). There is detailed guidance on how to use Info Store, which is helpfully divided into sections for new starters, regular users and Site Owners to help address their different learning needs. HMT has also produced some guidance on knowledge management. This includes guidance on creating handover notes and on knowledge capture and management more generally. This is considered to be particularly helpful, given the high staff turnover at HMT. KIM guidance is available on Red Box and staff members we interviewed had no particular problems finding it.
**What to Keep**
HMT has produced clear and easy-to-understand guidance on what to keep, which is available on Red Box. The ‘For the Record’ document states
*Government asks HM Treasury to do a number of things - to manage the national budget (1), control public spending (2), develop policy within the scope of Treasury's remit (3), support financial services (4), run the Department (5), including private offices (6) and play a role in the wider governance of HM Government (7). Each of these functions generates records that we must keep.*
It then goes on to describe at a high level the types of records that should be kept for each of these areas. The ‘What’s a Record’ guidance states that:
*You need to decide what information must be retained in order to provide an audit trail of evidence and to add to the corporate memory. This includes internal and external email exchanges and information submitted by third parties.*
This document also gives examples of what should be kept, such as: information created and received in decision making by HMT; information created and received to show the direction, key stages and outcomes of projects; and information created and received to manage HMT and government resources. HMT has not yet published any of its guidance on what to keep or its retention or disposal schedules on GOV.UK and should aim to do this. This is a requirement under the recommendations from Sir Alex Allan’s report on Records Review. See recommendation 5
Knowledge Champions and Site Owners play an important role in ensuring that this message is understood by staff in their business areas. Staff we interviewed mentioned the guidance and seemed to have a good idea of what records they should be saving on Info Store. Some business areas have even gone one step further and produced their own, more detailed versions of the guidance to ensure that staff are keeping the right records. For example, one had produced guidance on what fiscal records to keep, including submissions and email decisions.
Providing training
The high turnover of staff at HMT means that regular training is particularly important in order to ensure that business areas continue to manage their information and records as required. Generally, staff we interviewed had been on the training and were positive about it.
All staff are expected to complete face-to-face induction training in KIM. Two sessions are provided. One is run in the form of a quiz that conveys the KIM message and tests staff knowledge in a fun and interactive way. It includes multiple-choice questions, such as ‘how many Knowledge Champions are there and who is the Senior Sponsor for Knowledge Management?’ The other session gives a more formal, high-level view, addressing the business and compliance value of KIM. It also includes some useful top tips for staff (see below). This is good practice
1. Don’t leave it until Friday, file as you go
2. Don’t be a slave to email
3. Get to know your knowledge champion and site owner
4. Let people know who you are – look after your MySite profile
5. Explore our e-resources
6. Learn more about search and discovery
There is also face-to-face training on Info Store and an e-learning package. There are four different levels of training, devised to suit the varying needs of staff across the organisation: training for teams, one-to-one training, more detailed training for Site Owners, and tailored sessions for teams and Site Owners. More than one interviewee suggested that training had been rushed when Info Store was originally rolled out. HMT needs to ensure that, with the planned enhancements to Info Store, the training is updated to reflect any changes and that staff are retrained where necessary. See recommendation 2.
3.4 Measuring impact
| Goal: The organisation measures performance in practice and takes informed, risk-based action as a result. |
Measuring compliance with policy
The most important measure of KIM activity at HMT is the annual KM Benchmarking exercise, which is a major commitment for KIM and for HMT and has been running for the past five years. It is a self-assessment process where each business area scores KIM activities against a maturity model that describes what has to be achieved for each score. The assessments are carried out in hour-long team meetings. The Knowledge Champion facilitates their business area’s assessment and a member of the KIM team moderates the session. Teams provide evidence of good practice to support the scores achieved. Scoring is on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 aware, 2 first steps, 3 defined, 4 managed, 5 embedded), although scores of 0 can be given in exceptional circumstances. Business areas that are not performing well have to repeat the process and, if they do not improve, they have to meet with the Second Permanent Secretary to explain why. Results for 2014-15 show an overall improvement across the organisation. Following the benchmarking, business areas are expected to produce an action plan to demonstrate how they are going to improve practice.
Our interviews revealed a real sense of positivity towards the KM Benchmarking. It has proved to be a great opportunity to raise the profile of IM, a chance for the KIM team to be more involved with business areas and it clearly motivates teams. One interviewee said they were ‘impressed at how HMT was trying to do well with KIM; it was better than in other departments they had worked in.’ The benchmarking has encouraged a competitive spirit: results are published on the intranet, and business areas compete with each other to improve their scores. There is an award ceremony and an award is given to the top scoring business area by the Second Permanent Secretary. This is good practice.
Some interviewees felt the approach could be developed further and improved. For example, there has been a gradual upward curve in scores and HMT needs to think about how it is going to challenge and motivate business areas to continue to drive improvement. Several interviewees felt the process needed to be more evidence-based and that there could be more metrics gathered to show what was happening in practice. One interviewee questioned the consistency of the scoring as, when comparing their business area with another higher scoring area, they felt that it should have been marked higher. More than one interviewee felt that business areas had learned how to answer the questions to show them in a more positive light. Despite this, the KM Benchmarking is an excellent approach: HMT should continue to invest time and effort in it and explore these suggestions when considering how to develop the approach for the future. See recommendation 4.
Assessing progress against strategic goals
KIM staff have good access to the senior team at HMT. The SIRO is a member of the HMT Executive Management Board and Strategy and Capability Board. IM risks are reported regularly to the ORG and the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and the Head of KIM provides regular updates. The IWS strategy and business plan is: Governed by the IWS Executive Board, chaired by HMT’s Finance Director (an EMB and SCB member) with senior customer representation from within the wider business and Corporate Centre Group. The IWS Executive Board reviews and manages risks to delivery of the service; ensures customer centric service delivery; resolves issues; approves/rejects changes to the strategy and business plan; and authorises the engagement with the Treasury’s Strategy and Capability Board. 4 Records, review and transfer
4.1 Oversight of records and selection
Goal: The organisation understands the value of its records and can consistently identify those with enduring historical value.
Position of the Departmental Records Officer (DRO)
The DRO has a high profile within HMT, has a good working relationship with the SIRO and provides regular briefings to the Second Permanent Secretary and Permanent Secretary. The DRO is proactive and is fulfilling all aspects of the role as set out in The National Archives’ guidance.
Current priorities for the KIM team are around the Information Management Project, and keeping on track with the transfer plan. KIM activities are partially devolved within HMT, with KIM Champions and Site Owners responsible for managing knowledge, information and records in their own business areas and the process of storage of paper records and accelerated review contracted out to a third party provider, Iron Mountain. At the time of the IMA, there were no particular concerns around resource within the KIM team, although the DRO recognised that, if the business were to decide that it could no longer support the KIM Champion and Site Owner roles, that could cause difficulties, due to the increased workload. There were, however, no signs to suggest that this would be the case and the business areas we spoke to seemed to take their KIM responsibilities seriously.
Oversight, control and use of records
HMT has a full knowledge of paper records, and paper records holdings (on site and off site) are all fully listed. It has been able to provide accurate figures for the twice-yearly Records Transfer Report. The department’s knowledge of the digital records it holds is improving and the contents of the former EDRM systems and mapped shared drives are known. A proportion of legacy information on redundant shared drives is still ‘dark’ however, although is in scope for the Information Management Project.
Overall control of paper records appears to be good. Management and storage of paper records is contracted out to Iron Mountain, which has been providing this service to HMT for over ten years. There have been a few issues around the tracking and management of records requisitioned (records can be requisitioned for departmental business use or for the process of sensitivity review) from The National Archives. In particular, HMT has a number of records defined as ‘outstanding’ (out in the department for longer than six months), 15 of which have been with the department for longer than five years. However, the KIM team are actively working to process and return these records and have a good relationship with the Government and Remote Services (GRS) team at The National Archives. Any outstanding records that HMT cannot locate (following searches) should be declared as ‘misplaced in department.’ See recommendation 6
Staff we interviewed did not report any particular issues in terms of accessing paper or digital records, although the extent to which they are accessing legacy paper records appeared to be minimal, given that the department stopped producing paper records in 1998.
**Appraisal and selection**
HMT has an Operational Selection Policy (OSP 15 on The Control of Central Government Expenditure 1969-1997) and has produced detailed Record Selection Guidance that includes lists of records likely to be selected for transfer to The National Archives and a list of key economic events from 1982 to 1997. HMT has also developed detailed selection criteria relating to policy records, committee records and bilateral records. There are codes linked to these criteria that are used to support the decision to keep or destroy a file. The process of appraisal and selection is currently based on making keep/destroy decisions on a folder by folder basis. Files are selected using selection criteria and the basis of the file title. HMT uses Series Level Appraisal Questionnaires to gather information on a particular prefix of records, which includes an overview of the team that created the records within that prefix, and its place in the department’s structure. The department plans to adopt the same approach for digital records review and test it through the Information Management Project, though the volume of digital records may make this more difficult. See recommendation 5.
Some aspects of this work are contracted out to Iron Mountain. HMT’s KIM team oversees this process, managing the contract, providing detailed guidance and quality-checking the work before passing to The National Archives’ Information Management Consultant (IMC) for sign-off. Originally, both the paper storage and accelerated review work carried out by Iron Mountain were part of the same contract. HMT decided to split the contract and retender to avoid confusion between the two aspects of this work, making it clear exactly what was expected in terms of throughput. At the time of the IMA, the department was about to award the contract. If a new contractor takes on this work then HMT should take the time to build the process with them and to train and support staff to ensure that the quality of work does not decline, and it remains on target.
4.2 Implementing disposal decisions
Goal: The organisation understands the process for records disposal and consistently implements decisions in line with defined plans.
Triggers for disposal
The majority of HMT’s business records share a generic disposition rule – policy and private office records are reviewed after ten years with a view to selection for transfer to The National Archives or destruction. There are other records with more diverse retention requirements, notably corporate ones. There are ‘What to Keep’ schedules for this material and these are published on Red Box. In the Records Management Policy, records are divided into four categories that determine how they are managed, and retention/review periods are set for each of these:
There are four broad categories of documents at HM Treasury - Policy, Private Office, Corporate and Ancillary.
1.2 Policy documents describe the vast majority of our work and are the critical business material of nearly all our Groups. Policy documents often form part of a record, which means that they need to be managed carefully and preserved for a long time.
1.3 Private Office documents are the primary evidence of ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ activities. Private Office documents are also often part of a record.
1.4 Corporate documents are the substance of our governance, administration and resourcing as a Department and cover committees, HR, Finance, IT, procurement, projects and related activities. Corporate documents often form records too.
1.5 Ancillary material is everything that isn’t core to either our business or our central business support activities. It is of localised and short-term interest only and includes team administration and working and reference information. Ancillary documents don’t need to be kept for too long and will never become a part of our long-term record. Annex 1 provides more detail of the types of material in each category.
HMT has not yet applied disposal to its digital information. This will be addressed as part of the Information Management Project (see section 2). As HMT has relatively few retention categories, as described above, it should not be too difficult to apply these to digital information within Info Store, though it will prove more of a challenge to apply this to legacy digital information.
**Sensitivity review**
Most of the sensitive information in HMT’s records (approximately 60%) is owned by other government departments. HMT is dependent on other departments to carry out sensitivity review for this information and this can be time-consuming and cause delays. The KIM team is currently considering how it can improve the guidance and knowledge around sensitivity review for staff, and has been speaking to The National Archives and other government departments such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Department about this.
The main issue for HMT, as with the rest of government, is how to sensitivity review their digital information and the department needs to start developing an approach for this, given that its earliest digital information is due for transfer in 2016. HMT is fully engaged with The National Archives’ Digital Transfer User Group, which will enable them to learn from the work that other government departments and The National Archives is doing on digital sensitivity review. See recommendation 5
**Transfer and planning**
HMT recognises the importance of fulfilling its obligations under the Public Records Act. There is a specific goal in the Information Workplace Solutions strategy that states
‘To ensure statutory compliance, notably with the Public Records Act which requires both good records management and the preservation of historic Treasury archives’
The strategy also cites the move from a 30 to a 20-year rule and The National Archives’ Digital Transfer programme as drivers for this. HMT is currently behind schedule in terms of transitioning to the 20-year rule; however, it has devised a plan to address this. A paper was brought to the Advisory Council (AC) in February 2015 explaining that the transfer programme had fallen behind schedule; that the department is unlikely to catch up fully before 2023; and that they are setting out a plan for transfer. A further paper was presented to the AC in May 2015 detailing the work that HMT had done since then to:
- Revise the transfer plan to include details of the number of files in scope in each category, for each year.
- Further refine the delivery model by working with suppliers to find a way of resourcing transfer activity that balances the need for a good-quality service with the imperative of delivering it in a cost-effective way. The department is confident that it has a sustainable approach.
- Engage with the research community by involving historians in the archive selection approach and transfer priorities, and holding a transfer workshop with senior academics, jointly facilitated by HM Treasury, The National Archives and the Institute for Government.
A Retention Instrument was approved by the AC to cover these records. At the time of the IMA, HMT was successfully keeping to the transfer plan set out in the paper and should ensure that it remains on track with this in the coming years. See recommendation 6
The HMT KIM team is fully engaged with The National Archives and there is an excellent working relationship between the two organisations.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3103-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 57,
"total-input-tokens": 107956,
"total-output-tokens": 19868,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
0,
2
],
[
0,
1428,
3
],
[
1428,
2318,
4
],
[
2318,
2418,
5
],
[
2418,
4033,
6
],
[
4033,
5982,
7
],
[
5982,
8141,
8
],
[
8141,
9717,
9
],
[
9717,
12178,
10
],
[
12178,
14011,
11
],
[
14011,
15171,
12
],
[
15171,
16976,
13
],
[
16976,
18871,
14
],
[
18871,
20196,
15
],
[
20196,
22101,
16
],
[
22101,
24165,
17
],
[
24165,
25852,
18
],
[
25852,
25852,
19
],
[
25852,
27604,
20
],
[
27604,
29358,
21
],
[
29358,
31106,
22
],
[
31106,
33049,
23
],
[
33049,
35115,
24
],
[
35115,
37503,
25
],
[
37503,
39513,
26
],
[
39513,
41719,
27
],
[
41719,
43145,
28
],
[
43145,
44928,
29
],
[
44928,
47000,
30
],
[
47000,
48896,
31
],
[
48896,
50718,
32
],
[
50718,
52999,
33
],
[
52999,
55298,
34
],
[
55298,
55390,
35
],
[
55390,
57170,
36
],
[
57170,
57906,
37
],
[
57906,
59698,
38
],
[
59698,
61435,
39
],
[
61435,
63186,
40
],
[
63186,
64622,
41
],
[
64622,
66315,
42
],
[
66315,
68204,
43
],
[
68204,
69942,
44
],
[
69942,
71940,
45
],
[
71940,
73867,
46
],
[
73867,
75700,
47
],
[
75700,
77590,
48
],
[
77590,
79691,
49
],
[
79691,
80160,
50
],
[
80160,
81947,
51
],
[
81947,
83874,
52
],
[
83874,
85915,
53
],
[
85915,
87584,
54
],
[
87584,
89283,
55
],
[
89283,
90828,
56
],
[
90828,
90828,
57
]
]
} |
7fa9da07c0b4be98709ed82f957c87477ce9554a | HM Treasury Group organisational structure chart As at 30 June 2010
These organisation charts set out the management structure of organisations within the Treasury Group, and the organisational structure of HM Treasury. The organisational structure of the UK Debt Management Office and the Asset Protection Agency are published separately alongside these charts.
- For staff at Director (SCS2) grade and above, salaries have been shown in bands of £5,000. For teams at Deputy Director (SCS1) grade and below, the total salary costs have been shown, along with staff resources, rounded to the nearest £1,000.
- For teams with fewer than 5 FTE staff, data have been aggregated with other related teams where this could otherwise lead to the identification of protected personal data about individual staff members.
- Shaded boxes indicate staff at Director (SCS2) grade.
- Complete data sets used to produce these organisation charts are published on the data.gov website.
- Except where otherwise indicated, the key shown indicates the Treasury pay rates and ranges which applied at this date (as shown with their standard Civil Service equivalent grades).
**KEY:**
- Deputy Director Pay Range £58,200 - £117,800
- Range E (Grade 6/7) Pay Range £44,835 - £57,801
- Range D (SEO/HEO) Pay Range £26,910 - £38,255
- Range C (EO) Pay Range £21,621 - £26,720
- Range B (AO) Pay Range £18,116 - £21,663
- Student (AO) Pay Rate £18,116
Enquiries should be addressed to: public.enquiries@hm-treasury.gov.uk 020 7270 5670 Corporate Services Directorate (CSD)
Louise Tulett Group Director of Finance and Procurement £90,000 - £94,999
Emma Lindsell\* Director of Corporate Service £65,000 - £69,999
Treasury Group Finance Deputy Director 6.0 x Range E 7.0 x Range D 5.0 x Range C 8.8 x Range B Total Salary Costs £751,000
Treasury Group Commercial Deputy Director 1.0 x Range E 4.0 x Range D 5.0 x Range C 3.0 x Range B Total Salary Costs £452,000
Treasury Group Internal Audit Deputy Director 1.0 x Range E 3.7 x Range D Total Salary Costs £293,000
Group Human Resources Deputy Director 14.0 x Range E 6.0 x Range D 13.0 x Range C 16.2 x Range B Total Salary Costs £1,580,000
Information & Workplace Solutions Deputy Director 13.0 x Range E 7.7 x Range C 2.0 x Range B Total Salary Costs £1,443,000
Treasury Knowledge Management Deputy Director 2.0 x Range E 4.4 x Range D 2.0 x Range C Total Salary Costs £344,000
\*part time
Total Salary Costs £400,000
KEY: Deputy Director Pay Range £58,200 - £117,800 Range E (Grade 6/7) Pay Range £40,731 - £57,801 Range D (SEO/HEO) Pay Range £24,094 - £38,255 Range C (EO) Pay Range £18,358 - £26,720 Range B (AO) Pay Range £16,063 - £21,663 Student (AO) Pay Rate £18,116
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3104-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 9,
"total-input-tokens": 24212,
"total-output-tokens": 1234,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1520,
1
],
[
1520,
1520,
2
],
[
1520,
1520,
3
],
[
1520,
2717,
4
],
[
2717,
2717,
5
],
[
2717,
2717,
6
],
[
2717,
2717,
7
],
[
2717,
2717,
8
],
[
2717,
2717,
9
]
]
} |
315fcf67825f990bce11c4535190ea9e2807393e | ## GIFTS GIVEN OVER £140
### The Rt Hon George Osborne MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer
| Date gift given | To | Gift | Value (over £140) | |-----------------|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------| | 11 May 2013 | Principals and Deputies attending G7 | 39 Burberry scarves | Over the limit | | 11 May 2013 | Principals attending G7 | 19 Commemorative Royal Mint medal | Over the limit | | 16 May 2013 | Indian Finance Minister | Commemorative Royal Mint medal | Over the limit |
### The Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury
| Date gift given | To | Gift | Value (over £140) | |-----------------|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------| | Nil return | | | |
### Greg Clark MP, Financial Secretary
| Date gift given | To | Gift | Value (over £140) | |-----------------|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------| | Nil return | | | |
### David Gauke MP, Exchequer Secretary
| Date gift given | To | Gift | Value (over £140) | |-----------------|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------| | Nil return | | | |
### Sajid Javid MP, Economic Secretary
| Date gift given | To | Gift | Value (over £140) | |-----------------|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------| | Nil return | | | |
### Lord Deighton, Commercial Secretary
| Date gift given | To | Gift | Value (over £140) | |-----------------|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------| | Nil return | | | |
## GIFTS RECEIVED OVER £140
### The Rt Hon George Osborne MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer
| Date gift received | From | Gift | Value | Outcome | |--------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------|----------------|----------------------------------------------| | 11 May 2013 | HM Treasury | Commemorative Royal Mint coin | Over the limit | Retained by Department | | 11 May 2013 | Burberry | 39 Burberry scarves | Over the limit | 38 given as gifts at G7, 1 retained | | 11 May 2013 | Bank of England | Figurine of Bank of England doorman | Over the limit | Retained by Department |
### The Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury
| Date gift received | From | Gift | Value | Outcome | |--------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------|-------|---------| | Nil return | | | | |
### Greg Clark MP, Financial Secretary
| Date gift received | From | Gift | Value | Outcome | |--------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------|-------|---------| | Nil return | | | | |
### David Gauke MP, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury
| Date gift received | From | Gift | Value | Outcome | |--------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------|-------|---------| | Nil return | | | | |
### Sajid Javid MP, Economic Secretary
| Date gift received | From | Gift | Value | Outcome | |--------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------|-------|---------| | Nil return | | | | |
### Lord Deighton, Commercial Secretary
| Date gift received | From | Gift | Value | Outcome | |--------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------|-------|---------| | Nil return | | | | |
### HOSPITALITY RECEIVED
#### The Rt Hon George Osborne MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer
| Date of hospitality | Name of organisation | Type of hospitality received | |---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | 19 April 2013 | The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, Daily Mail, Financial Times, Bloomberg, Reuters, Dow Jones, Channel 4, Sky News (Washington) | Dinner | | 2 May 2013 | The Telegraph | Breakfast | | 2 May 2013 | HSBC | Lunch | | 15 May 2013 | Confederation of British Industry | Dinner | | 17 May 2013 | The Mail on Sunday | Lunch | | 11 June 2013 | The Mail | Lunch | | 16 June 2013 | Warner Bros | Use of cinema | | 19 June 2013 | The Mansion House (City of London Corporation) | Dinner and gave a speech |
#### The Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury
| Date of hospitality | Name of organisation | Type of hospitality received | |---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------| | 26 April 2013 | Asian Media and Marketing Group | Dinner | | 1 May 2013 | Daily Mail, The Sun | Lunch | | 1 May 2013 | Trade Union Congress | Drinks | | 1 May 2013 | The Guardian | Dinner | | 2 May 2013 | Evening Standard (Sarah Sands) | Lunch | | 16 May 2013 | The Daily Mail (Paul Dacre) | Lunch | | 23 May 2013 | ITN | Coffee | | 30 May 2013 | Manchester Chamber of Commerce | Dinner | | 19 June 2013 | The Mansion House (City of London Corporation) | Dinner |
#### Greg Clark MP, Financial Secretary
| Date of hospitality | Name of organisation | Type of hospitality received | |---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
______________________________________________________________________
1 Does not normally include attendance at functions hosted by HM Government; ‘diplomatic’ functions in the UK or abroad; functions hosted by overseas governments; minor refreshments at meetings, receptions, conferences, and seminars; and offers of hospitality which were declined.
- accompanied by spouse/partner or other family member or friend. | Date of hospitality | Name of organisation | Type of hospitality received | |---------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------| | 22 April 2013 | Lloyds Banking Group | Lunch | | 23 April 2013 | British Bankers’ Association | Breakfast | | 30 April 2013 | TheCityUK | Dinner and gave speech | | 7 May 2013 | Citi | Lunch | | 5 June | Which? | Dinner and gave speech | | 7 June 2013 | North East Local Enterprise Partnership | Lunch | | 12 June 2013 | British Bankers’ Association | Breakfast | | 19 June 2013 | The Mansion House (City of London Corporation) | Dinner | | 26 June 2013 | London Chamber of Commerce and Industry | Breakfast | | 27 June 2013 | Liverpool Vision – Accelerate 2013 | Dinner and gave speech |
**David Gauke MP, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury**
| Date of hospitality | Name of organisation | Type of hospitality received | |---------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------| | 18 April 2013 | BritishAmerican Business | Dinner | | 24 April 2013 | LexisNexis | Breakfast | | 15 May 2013 | The Enterprise Forum | Breakfast | | 15 May 2013 | Association of Revenue and Customs | Dinner | | 16-17 May 2013 | Ernst & Young | Dinner, overnight accommodation and lunch | | 22 May 2013 | SJ Berwin LLP | Lunch | | 23 May 2013 | LexisNexis | Dinner | | 11 June 2013 | Reform | Dinner | | 13 June 2013 | PricewaterhouseCoopers | Dinner | | 19 June 2013 | The Mansion House (City of London Corporation) | Dinner |
**Sajid Javid MP, Economic Secretary**
| Date of hospitality | Name of organisation | Type of hospitality received | |---------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------| | 23 April 2013 | Construction Products Association | Lunch | | 16 May 2013 | Home Builders Federation | Dinner | | 12 June 2013 | Institutional Money Market Funds Association (IMMFA) | Dinner | | 19 June 2013 | The Mansion House (City of London Corporation) | Dinner | | 27 June 2013 | Scottish Financial | Lunch | | Date of hospitality | Name of organisation | Type of hospitality received | |---------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------| | 12 April 2013 | Bank of America Merrill Lynch | Breakfast | | 30 April 2013 | British-German Association | Dinner | | 7 May 2013 | Royal Bank of Scotland | Dinner | | 15 May 2013 | Confederation of British Industry | Dinner | | 16 May 2013 | British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association | Breakfast | | 22 May 2013 | MHP Communications | Breakfast | | 22 May 2013 | Associated British Ports | Dinner | | 3 June 2013 | Enterprise Forum | Lunch | | 10 June 2013 | Lazard | Breakfast | | 11 June 2013 | London Chamber of Commerce and Industry | Dinner | | 12 June 2013 | Institute of Civil Engineers | Breakfast | | 13 June 2013 | The City of London Law Society | Dinner | | 16 June 2013 | Hutchinson Whampoa Ltd | Lunch | | 18 June 2013 | Federation of Small Businesses | Breakfast | | 20 June 2013 | Bank of America Merrill Lynch | Breakfast | | 25 June 2013 | Association of British Insurers | Breakfast |
## MINISTERS’ OVERSEAS TRAVEL
### The Rt Hon George Osborne MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer
| Date(s) of trip | Destination | Purpose of trip | ‘Scheduled’ ‘No 32 (The Royal) Squadron’ or ‘other RAF’ or ‘Chartered’ or ‘Eurostar’ | Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used | Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only | |-----------------|-------------|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | 10 April 2013 | London, UK | To return to the UK following the recall of Parliament | Scheduled | £733 | | 12 April 2013 | Dublin, Ireland | ECOFIN | Scheduled | £300 | | 17-20 April 2013 | Washington DC, USA | IMF Annual Meetings | Scheduled | £5,940 | | 13 May 2013 | Brussels, Belgium | ECOFIN | Eurostar | £786 |
### The Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury
| Date(s) of trip | Destination | Purpose of trip | ‘Scheduled’ ‘No 32 (The Royal) Squadron’ or ‘other RAF’ or ‘Chartered’ or ‘Eurostar’ | Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used | Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only | |-----------------|-------------|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | Nil return | | | | | |
### Greg Clark MP, Financial Secretary
| Date(s) of trip | Destination | Purpose of trip | ‘Scheduled’ ‘No 32 (The Royal) Squadron’ or ‘other RAF’ or ‘Chartered’ or ‘Eurostar’ | Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used | Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only | |-----------------|-------------|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | 12-13 April 2013 | Dublin, Ireland | Informal ECOFIN | Scheduled | £190 | | 7-8 May | Brussels, Belgium | Engagement | Eurostar | £416 |
- Indicates if accompanied by spouse/partner or other family member or friend. | Date(s) of trip | Destination | Purpose of trip | ‘Scheduled’ ‘No 32 (The Royal) Squadron’ or ‘other RAF’ or ‘Chartered’ or ‘Eurostar’ | Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used | Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only | |----------------|-------------|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 3-4 June 2013 | Brussels, Belgium | Engagement with MEPs | Eurostar | £472 | | 20-22 June 2013 | Luxembourg | ECOFIN | Scheduled | £750 | | 26-27 June 2013 | Brussels, Belgium | ECOFIN | Eurostar | £485 |
**David Gauke MP, Exchequer Secretary**
| Date(s) of trip | Destination | Purpose of trip | ‘Scheduled’ ‘No 32 (The Royal) Squadron’ or ‘other RAF’ or ‘Chartered’ or ‘Eurostar’ | Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used | Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only | |----------------|-------------|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 9–12 April 2013 | Los Angeles and San Francisco, USA | To engage with American companies about the UK tax system | Scheduled | £5,736 | | 16–17 May 2013 | Zurich, Switzerland | Spoke at a tax conference | Scheduled | £373 |
**Sajid Javid MP, Economic Secretary**
| Date(s) of trip | Destination | Purpose of trip | ‘Scheduled’ ‘No 32 (The Royal) Squadron’ or ‘other RAF’ or ‘Chartered’ or ‘Eurostar’ | Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used | Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only | |----------------|-------------|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | Nil return | | | | | |
**Lord Deighton, Commercial Secretary**
| Date(s) of trip | Destination | Purpose of trip | ‘Scheduled’ ‘No 32 (The Royal) Squadron’ or ‘other RAF’ or ‘Chartered’ or ‘Eurostar’ | Number of officials accompanying Minister, where non-scheduled travel is used | Total cost including travel and accommodation of Minister only | |----------------|-------------|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 13-17 April 2013 | Hong Kong, Singapore | Trade investment delegation | Scheduled | £5,191 |
### MEETINGS WITH EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS (INCLUDING MEETINGS WITH NEWSPAPER AND OTHER MEDIA PROPRIETORS, EDITORS AND SENIOR EXECUTIVES)
| Date of Meeting | Name of External Organisation | Purpose of Meeting | |-----------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | April 2013 | Royal Crown Derby | To discuss promoting UK growth and investment | | April 2013 | Marston’s PLC | To discuss promoting UK growth and investment | | April 2013 | Sky | General discussion | | April 2013 | British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (BVCA) | To discuss promoting UK growth and investment | | April 2013 | Prudential | To discuss UK financial services and economic growth | | April 2013 | Castle Precision Engineering | To discuss promoting UK growth and investment | | April 2013 | Sky | General discussion | | April 2013 | Time Warner | To discuss film and TV investment into UK | | April 2013 | European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) | To discuss EU economic growth and the role of the EBRD | | May 2013 | Deutsche Bank | To discuss European financial services | | May 2013 | BBC | To discuss 2013 Spending Round | | May 2013 | The Guardian | General discussion | | May 2013 | Royal Opera House | To discuss 2013 Spending Round | | May 2013 | The V&A, The Tate, The British Museum, The Arts Council, The Royal Shakespeare Company | To discuss 2013 Spending Round | | May 2013 | Lloyd’s of London, Standard Life, RSA, L&G, Prudential and Aviva | To discuss UK financial services and economic growth | | May 2013 | Conservative Home | General discussion | | May 2013 | Asda | To discuss promoting UK growth and investment | | May 2013 | Lloyds Banking Group | To discuss UK financial services and economic growth | | May 2013 | The Telegraph | General discussion | | May 2013 | Kering | To discuss promoting UK |
______________________________________________________________________
3 Does not normally include meetings with Government bodies such as other Government Departments, non-departmental public bodies, Non-Ministerial Departments, Agencies, Government reviewers, and representatives of Parliament, devolved or foreign governments. | Date | Name of External Organisation | Purpose of Meeting | |------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | June 2013 | Institute of Directors | To discuss 2013 Spending Round | | June 2013 | British Chamber of Commerce | To discuss 2013 Spending Round | | June 2013 | The Australian | General discussion | | June 2013 | Waitrose | To discuss promoting UK growth and investment | | June 2013 | Royal Bank of Scotland | To discuss UK financial services and economic growth | | June 2013 | Royal Society, British Academy, Royal Academy of Engineering, Academy of Medical Sciences, University of Oxford, Manchester University, GlaxoSmithKline and Amadeus Capital Partners | To discuss 2013 Spending Round and the importance of science to growth | | June 2013 | Bilderberg Conference | General discussion | | June 2013 | Fiat | To discuss promoting UK growth and investment | | June 2013 | Confederation of British Industry | To discuss 2013 Spending Round | | June 2013 | Federation of Small Businesses | To discuss 2013 Spending Round | | June 2013 | ITV | General discussion | | June 2013 | Christian Aid, Oxfam, Save the Children, CAFOD, Global Witness, Action Aid | To discuss the G8 Summit | | June 2013 | Reaction Engines | To discuss promoting UK growth and investment |
**The Rt Hon Danny Alexander MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury**
| Date of Meeting | Name of External Organisation | Purpose of Meeting | |-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | April 2013 | First Base | To discuss social housing | | April 2013 | Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, Age UK, Mind Nuffield Trust, The King's Fund, McKesson IOG, Serco, Novo Nordisk, Local Government Association, Mencap, Foundation Trust Network | Spending Round discussion | | April 2013 | Reform, Local Government Association, PricewaterhouseCoopers, New Economy, Capita, London Stock Exchange, New Local Government Network, MITIE | Spending Round discussion | | May 2013 | Local Government Association | Spending Round discussion | | May 2013 | FairFuelUK | To discuss transport policy | | Date | Name of External Organisation | Purpose of Meeting | |------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | May 2013 | BBC | Policy discussion | | May 2013 | Trade Union Council, Local Government Association | To discuss pensions policy | | May 2013 | National Housing Federation, Chartered Institute of Housing, London and Quadrant, Affinity Sutton, Family Mosaic, Wakefield and District Housing, Catalyst Housing, Trafford Housing Trust, Sanctuary, Northern Housing Consortium, Places for People, Home Group, Midland Heart, Placeshapers, The Housing Finance Corporation, Sovereign, Thames Valley Housing Association | To discuss housing policy | | June 2013 | Channel 4 | Policy discussion |
**Greg Clark MP, Financial Secretary**
| Date of Meeting | Name of External Organisation | Purpose of Meeting | |-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | April 2013 | TheCityUK | To discuss financial services | | April 2013 | US Commodity Futures Trading Commission | To discuss financial regulation | | April 2013 | Oakstone Merchant Bank, Dentons, DDGI Limited, City of London Corporation, The CityUK, Gatehouse Bank | To discuss Islamic finance | | April 2013 | Nationwide | To discuss financial services | | April 2013 | Manchester City Council | To discuss cities policy | | May 2013 | Wolverhampton City Council, Black Country LEP, Association of Black Country Authorities | To discuss cities policy | | May 2013 | Milton Keynes Council, Central Bedfordshire Council, South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership | To discuss cities policy | | May 2013 | European Institute for Urban Affairs, Liverpool John Moores University | To discuss cities policy | | May 2013 | Financial Ombudsmen Service | To discuss financial services | | May 2013 | Deutsche Bank | To discuss financial services | | May 2013 | HSBC | To discuss financial services | | May 2013 | London Finance Committee | To discuss Committee report | | May 2013 | Deutsche Borse | To discuss financial | | Date | Organisations | Topic | |----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------| | May 2013 | Legal & General | To discuss financial services | | May 2013 | Milton Keynes Council, Central Bedfordshire Council, South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership | To discuss cities policy | | May 2013 | Oakstone Merchant Bank, Dentons, DDGI Limited, City of London Corporation, The CityUK, Gatehouse Bank | To discuss Islamic finance | | May 2013 | Manchester City Council, Nottingham City Council, Newcastle City Council, Birmingham City Council, Leeds City Council, Liverpool City Council, Bristol City Council, Sheffield City Council | To discuss cities policy | | May 2013 | Preston City Council, Lancashire County Council, Lancashire Local Enterprise Partnership | To discuss cities policy | | May 2013 | Trafford Council | To discuss cities policy | | May 2013 | Portsmouth City Council, Southampton City Council, Solent Local Enterprise Partnership | To discuss cities policy | | May 2013 | Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership | To discuss cities policy | | May 2013 | Newcastle City Council | To discuss cities policy | | June 2013 | British Bankers’ Association, Federation of Small Businesses | To discuss financial services | | June 2013 | Goldman Sachs | To discuss financial services | | June 2013 | Nomura | To discuss financial services | | June 2013 | Oakstone Merchant Bank, Dentons, DDGI Limited, City of London Corporation, The CityUK, Gatehouse Bank | To discuss Islamic finance | | June 2013 | Financial Services Compensation Scheme | To discuss financial services | | June 2013 | Arbuthnot Banking Group | To discuss financial services | | June 2013 | AON | To discuss financial services | | June 2013 | Reading Borough Council, Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership | To discuss cities policy | | June 2013 | British Property Federation | To discuss cities policy | | June 2013 | Shelter, GE Money, British Bankers’ Association, Royal | To discuss financial services | | Date of Meeting | Name of External Organisation | Purpose of Meeting | |-----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------| | June 2013 | The Co-operative | To discuss financial services | | June 2013 | Cambridge City Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council, Greater Cambridgeshire Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise | To discuss cities policy | | June 2013 | Liverpool Vision | To discuss Liverpool International Festival for Business | | June 2013 | Stoke on Trent City Council | To discuss cities policy | | June 2013 | Lloyds Bank Banking Group | To discuss financial services |
**David Gauke MP, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury**
| Date of Meeting | Name of External Organisation | Purpose of Meeting | |-----------------|--------------------------------|--------------------| | April 2013 | Mattel | To discuss tax matters | | April 2013 | Intuit | To discuss tax matters | | April 2013 | Salesforce.com Inc and PwC | To discuss tax matters | | April 2013 | PricewaterhouseCoopers, Herbalife, Disney and Activision | To discuss tax matters | | April 2013 | PricewaterhouseCoopers, Yelp, EA Sports, EJ Gallo, Salesforce.com Inc, Levi Strauss, Bechtel, Bio-Rad | To discuss tax matters | | April 2013 | PricewaterhouseCoopers, Altera, Splunk, Varian Medical Systems, Yahoo | To discuss tax matters | | April 2013 | Los Angeles Daily Journal | General discussion | | April 2013 | Barclays | To discuss tax matters | | April 2013 | The Sun | To discuss tax matters | | April 2013 | Accountancy Age | To discuss tax matters | | April 2013 | Ernst and Young | To discuss tax matters | | April 2013 | Diageo plc, RSA Insurance Group plc, General Electric Company, Ford Motor Company, Amey plc, Said Business School, Oxford, Standard Chartered Bank, Vodafone, Confederation | To discuss tax matters | | Date | Name of External Organisation | Purpose of Meeting | |------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------| | April 2013 | Chris Kelly MP, the Institute for Family Business and the All Party Parliamentary Group for Family Business | To discuss tax matters | | April 2013 | The Hundred Group | To discuss tax matters | | April 2013 | Policy Exchange | To discuss tax matters | | April 2013 | Association of Revenue and Customs | To discuss HMRC matters. | | May 2013 | International Financial Centres Forum and Lansons Communications | To discuss tax matters | | May 2013 | Ernst and Young | To discuss tax matters | | May 2013 | PricewaterhouseCoopers | To discuss tax matters | | May 2013 | Grays Inn Tax Chambers, Chartered Institute of Taxation, Grant Thornton, BDO LLP, Ernst and Young, Institute for Fiscal Studies, KPMG, Travers Smith | To discuss tax matters | | May 2013 | Oliver Wyman | To discuss tax matters | | May 2013 | Liberty Global and Ernst and Young | To discuss tax matters | | May 2013 | Abbott Laboratories and Ernst and Young | To discuss tax matters | | May 2013 | A.P. Moller - Maersk A/S and Ernst and Young | To discuss tax matters | | May 2013 | Discovery Communications and Ernst and Young | To discuss tax matters | | May 2013 | Diageo PLC and Ernst and Young | To discuss tax matters | | May 2013 | Pearson and Ernst and Young | To discuss tax matters | | June 2013 | Lord Freud, A C Mole and Sons, Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals, Armstrong Watson, McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd UK, IRIS Software Group and Richmond Towers Communications. | To discuss tax matters | | June 2013 | Christian Aid, Save the Children UK, Action Aid, Oxfam | To discuss tax matters | | June 2013 | British Chambers of Commerce | To discuss tax matters | | June 2013 | Andrew Jones MP and the Share Schemes Advanced Studies Group | To discuss tax matters | | June 2013 | General Electric | To discuss tax matters |
**Sajid Javid MP, Economic Secretary**
| Date | Name of External Organisation | Purpose of Meeting | |------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------| | June 2013 | British Chambers of Commerce | To discuss tax matters | | June 2013 | Andrew Jones MP and the Share Schemes Advanced Studies Group | To discuss tax matters | | June 2013 | General Electric | To discuss tax matters | | Meeting | Description | |---------|-------------| | April 2013 | The Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) To discuss financial services | | April 2013 | Forum of European Asset Managers (FEAM): Blackrock, Allianz Global Investors, M &G Investment, Pioneer To discuss financial services | | April 2013 | Association of British Insurers (ABI) To discuss insurance | | April 2013 | Blackrock To discuss financial services | | May 2013 | Engineering Employers Federation (EEF) To discuss energy | | May 2013 | Deutsche Bank To discuss financial services | | May 2013 | Eggborough Power Ltd To discuss energy | | May 2013 | HSBC UK To discuss financial services | | May 2013 | Consumer Credit Association To discuss financial services | | May 2013 | Legal & General To discuss financial services | | May 2013 | Payments Council To discuss financial services | | May 2013 | Wine and Spirits Association To discuss alcohol duty | | June 2013 | Association of British Insurers (ABI) To discuss financial services | | June 2013 | Vattenfal To discuss energy | | June 2013 | Blackrock To discuss financial services | | June 2013 | Association of British Insurers (ABI) To discuss financial services | | June 2013 | Home Finance Forum: Bank of England, Council of Mortgage Lenders, Finance and Leasing Association, Tesco Bank, British Bankers' Association, Royal Bank of Scotland Lloyds Banking Group, Nationwide, Santander, Barclays, Virgin Money, Shelter, Intermediary, Money Advice Trust, Paragon, GE Money, Building Society Association To discuss financial services | | June 2013 | Equitable Life Members Action Group To discuss financial services | | June 2013 | Co-operative To discuss financial services | | June 2013 | British Insurance Brokers Association To discuss financial services | | June 2013 | United Kingdom Onshore Operators Group (UKOOG) To discuss energy | | June 2013 | 4 Children? To discuss childcare | | June 2013 | Scottish Financial Enterprise, Brodies LLP, Morgan Stanley, Ruffer LLP, Dundas & Wilson, Aberdeen Asset Management, Scottish Financial Enterprise, Cameron Hume Ltd, Alliance To discuss financial services | | Date of Meeting | Name of External Organisation | Purpose of Meeting | |-----------------|-------------------------------|--------------------| | April 2013 | Bloomberg TV | General discussion | | April 2013 | Hong Kong Economic Journal | General discussion | | April 2013 | Singapore Aero Engine Service Pte Ltd | Introductory meeting | | April 2013 | Changi Airport Group (Singapore) | Introductory meeting | | April 2013 | Business Times | General discussion | | April 2013 | Asset Trust | Discussion on affordable housing | | April 2013 | High Speed 2 Group | Discussion on HS2 project | | April 2013 | Electricite de France Energy | Discussion on future projects | | April 2013 | Stirling Capital | Discussion on infrastructure finance | | April 2013 | Rheinisch-Westfalische Elektrizitätswerke npower | Contact minister meeting to discuss energy infrastructure | | April 2013 | Carillion PLC | Discussion on infrastructure delivery | | April 2013 | Balfour Beatty | Discussion on infrastructure delivery and finance | | April 2013 | Paramount Park | Discussion on future project | | April 2013 | Tottenham Hotspur | Discussion on potential project | | April 2013 | Engineering Employers Federation | Discussion on transport infrastructure | | April 2013 | Energy UK | Discussion on energy infrastructure | | April 2013 | National Infrastructure Planning Association | Introductory meeting | | May 2013 | Abu Dhabi Investment Authority | Discussion on infrastructure finance | | May 2013 | Transport for London | Discussion on infrastructure finance | | May 2013 | Fujitsu | Discussion on infrastructure finance, and new infrastructure | | May 2013 | Network Rail | Discussion on infrastructure finance | | May 2013 | Atlantic Gateway | Discussion on the project | | May 2013 | Salamanca Merchant Bank | Discussion on regeneration projects | | May 2013 | Interserve | Discussion on current projects | | Date | Company/Association | Meeting Type | |------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | May 2013 | Iberdrola | Introductory meeting | | May 2013 | Metlife | Introductory meeting | | May 2013 | Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas| Introductory meeting | | May 2013 | Cheung Kong Infrastructure | Introductory meeting | | May 2013 | Centre CDP Capital | Introductory meeting | | May 2013 | Skanska | Discussion on infrastructure finance | | May 2013 | Crossrail | Discussion on the Crossrail project | | May 2013 | Credit-Suisse | Discussion on infrastructure finance | | May 2013 | Electricite de France Energy | Discussion on future projects | | May 2013 | Scottish and Southern Energy | Contact minister meeting to meet the new Chief Executive | | May 2013 | S P Setia | Discussion on current projects | | May 2013 | Gamesa Corporacion Tecnologica | Discussion on infrastructure projects | | May 2013 | British Property Federation | Discussion on infrastructure finance | | May 2013 | British Constructional Steelwork | Discussion on future infrastructure projects | | May 2013 | National Infrastructure Plan | Introductory meeting | | May 2013 | BT Pension Scheme | Discussion on Infrastructure finance | | May 2013 | Aviva | Introductory meeting | | May 2013 | British Bankers’ Association | Introductory meeting | | May 2013 | CH2M Hill | Discussion on infrastructure finance | | May 2013 | Swift | Discussion on financial sanctions | | May 2013 | Heathrow Airport | Discussion on current infrastructure projects | | May 2013 | Electricite de France Energy | Discussion on future projects | | May 2013 | Hitachi | Discussion on future projects | | May 2013 | Daily Telegraph | General discussion | | June 2013 | Amec | Discussion on infrastructure finance | | June 2013 | Toshiba | Discussion on future projects | | June 2013 | Veolia | Discussion on infrastructure delivery | | June 2013 | Costain | Introductory meeting | | June 2013 | Centrica | Minister contact meeting as | | Date | Organization | Event Description | |------------|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | June 2013 | Transport for London | Discussion on infrastructure finance | | June 2013 | Confederation of Indian Industry | Introductory meeting | | June 2013 | Temasek | Introductory meeting | | June 2013 | The Infrastructure Forum | Discussion on infrastructure finance | | June 2013 | The Economist | General discussion | | June 2013 | Vodaphone | Discussion on infrastructure projects | | June 2013 | Global Financial Advisors | Catch-up meeting to discuss reducing Government debt | | June 2013 | Lord Wolfson | Discussion on infrastructure projects | | June 2013 | Heads of Valleys Development | Discussion on potential project. | | June 2013 | Texas Pacific Group | Discussion on infrastructure finance | | June 2013 | The Institute for Infrastructure Studies | Discussion on the Institute | | June 2013 | Atlantic Gateway | Discussion on the project | | June 2013 | Macquarie Infrastructure | Discussion on infrastructure delivery | | June 2013 | China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group | Discussion on infrastructure investment | | June 2013 | Toshiba | Discussion on infrastructure investment | | June 2013 | Castlepines | Discussion on infrastructure finance | | June 2013 | Future London | Introductory meeting |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3105-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 17,
"total-input-tokens": 44393,
"total-output-tokens": 9830,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2843,
1
],
[
2843,
5241,
2
],
[
5241,
9111,
3
],
[
9111,
11635,
4
],
[
11635,
13130,
5
],
[
13130,
15846,
6
],
[
15846,
18773,
7
],
[
18773,
21288,
8
],
[
21288,
25920,
9
],
[
25920,
29521,
10
],
[
29521,
32386,
11
],
[
32386,
34513,
12
],
[
34513,
38856,
13
],
[
38856,
41008,
14
],
[
41008,
43292,
15
],
[
43292,
46559,
16
],
[
46559,
48693,
17
]
]
} |
7d3055d159ae870df10efaf3e629fa227dc8bc10 | Annual Report and Accounts 2014-15 (For the year ended 31 March 2015) Annual Report and Accounts 2014-15 (For the year ended 31 March 2015)
Accounts presented to the House of Commons pursuant to Section 6(4) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000
Annual Report presented to the House of Commons by Command of Her Majesty
Annual Report and Accounts presented to the House of Lords by Command of Her Majesty
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 2 July 2015 This is part of a series of departmental publications which, along with the Main Estimates 2015-16 and the document Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses 2015, present the Government’s outturn for 2014-15 and planned expenditure for 2015-16.
## Contents
1. Foreword from the Home Secretary
2. Foreword from the Permanent Secretary
### Annual Report
1. **Strategic Report**
- Departmental Structure
- Our Vision
- Cut crime
- Reduce immigration
- Prevent terrorism
- Promoting growth by keeping the UK safe
- Performance Indicators
- Home Office Science
- Better Regulation
- Sustainability
- Our staff
- Strategic Review
- Consultancy Services expenditure
- Complaints
- Response to correspondence
- Payment of suppliers
2. **Directors’ Report**
- Lead Non-Executive Board Member’s Report
- Our Ministers
- Machinery of Government changes
- Going concern
- Future Developments
- Our Boards
- Recruitment policy
- Off-Payroll engagements
- Data Losses / Information Assurance
- Remuneration Report
- Governance Statement
- Statement of Accounting Officer’s Responsibilities
- The Certificate of the Comptroller & Auditor General to the House of Commons
3. **2014-15 Annual Accounts**
- Statement of Parliamentary Supply
- Notes to the Departmental Resource Accounts (Statement of Parliamentary Supply)
- Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure Foreword by the Home Secretary, Rt Hon Theresa May MP
I am immensely proud of what the Home Office has achieved in all areas of its work in the past five years. We have implemented a programme of radical police reform, introduced a landmark Modern Slavery Act, overhauled our immigration system, and acted swiftly to respond to the grave and growing threats we face from terrorism.
Crime is down by more than a quarter since 2010, according to the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales. Over 870 bogus colleges have been shut. Our benefits system has been tightened and our deportation laws streamlined. We have clamped down on sham marriages, removed more than 24,000 foreign criminals and revoked the driving licences of over 9,500 illegal immigrants within the last year alone. And in our work to counter-radicalisation we have trained more than 160,000 frontline workers, excluded more preachers of hate than any other government, and we are successfully taking down on average 1000 items of online terrorist-related material per week.
I want to thank all Home Office staff for their hard work and dedication in delivering this record of achievement. Now with a Conservative majority following the general election, we are a new and different Government, and there is work to do for us to deliver on our manifesto commitments. The themes, however, remain the same: to cut crime, reduce immigration and prevent terrorism. They are themes that absolutely fit into those of the wider Government.
We are a Government for one nation, and our work to tackle extremism will help us protect people, families and communities from those who seek to spread hatred and sow discord and division. We will actively promote the British values that underpin our pluralistic society and which allow us to prosper and live in peace.
We are a Government for working people, and must build an immigration system which works in the national interest – fair to British subjects and legitimate migrants, and tough on those who flout the rules or abuse our hospitality as a nation.
We must also strive to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Our work to ensure social justice – to tackle child abuse, modern slavery and violence against women – is of immense importance.
The Home Office’s achievements over the past five years have been significant. The work everyone in this department does makes a real difference to people’s lives every single day. But with a clear and strong mandate, we must now work even harder, so that we can build a better life for the people of this country, and a Britain which is safer, fairer and stronger.
Rt Hon Theresa May MP Home Secretary Foreword by the Permanent Secretary, Mark Sedwill
In 2014-15 our priorities remained to cut crime, reduce immigration and prevent terrorism, whilst contributing to the government’s growth agenda, and over the past year and the duration of the Coalition Government we achieved the main commitments asked of us.
Crime is down and police reform has continued. The College of Policing is driving the implementation of professional standards across the police, and the Modern Slavery Bill was made law on 26 March 2015. However, a number of child sexual abuse (CSA) issues have emerged which led to the appointment, in February 2015, of Justice Lowell Goddard to lead the independent inquiry into CSA. It has also been recognised that CSA is an ongoing national threat and the scale of the challenge to tackle this alongside bringing justice to the victims cases, is significant, and will continue to be a high profile area of work for the Department over the next few years.
Reducing the risk of terrorist attack continues to be a key departmental priority. We updated counter-terrorism legislation to ensure that the police and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to deal with the increased and evolving terrorism threat. We also implemented the Serious Crime Act, consolidating and updating earlier legislation to ensure, for example, that extremists are prevented from accessing terrorism training overseas.
Through the Immigration Act 2014, we implemented fundamental changes to the UK removals and appeals processes. Whilst net migration increased over the course of the year, the act will reduce the pull factors which encourage people to come to the UK for the wrong reasons, and make it easier to remove people who should not be here. We also implemented the immigration health surcharge for non EEA nationals and, from 8 April 2015, introduced exit checks which will allow us to collect and analyse information on people leaving the UK.
Demand for passports in the first six months of the year was higher than anticipated, affecting our delivery and causing unacceptable delays for some customers. To address this, Her Majesty’s Passport Office ceased operations as an executive agency on 30 September 2014 and was incorporated into the Home Office. Further organisational change during the year saw the Gangmasters Licensing Authority becoming a non departmental public body of the Home Office, and the Disclosure and Barring Service becoming a public corporation.
Home Office transformation continued during the year. As well as improving delivery, we have made good progress on our other three priorities of improving digital, skills and engagement, and how we lead and manage change. We have invested heavily in developing operational and management skills and improved our IT resilience, taking the first step in providing a modern IT capability for our staff. But there is still work to do which is why, building on the progress we have made this year, we are continuing with consistent competence as the key theme for the first year of the next Parliament.
My role as Accounting Officer is to ensure effective financial management within a challenging financial landscape. We continue to drive value for money savings across all of our services, and we are planning for continued financial restraint during the next Parliament through to 2020. Our focus on medium term planning puts us in the best possible position to deliver further future savings, whilst, at the same time, minimising the impact on our operational activities.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all staff for their hard work during the last year.
Mark Sedwill Permanent Secretary 1 Strategic Report
Departmental Structure
Headquarters
The Home Office’s Headquarters is located at 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF.
Bodies included within the departmental structure
The Home Office departmental boundary encompasses the central government Department, four Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and the College of Policing. The NDPBs are the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Security Industry Authority, and the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, and the College of Policing, (a quasi-NDPB). The accounts of these entities form part of the Home Office’s consolidated financial statements. See note 22 to the accounts for further details.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO) is responsible for issuing UK passports and for administering the civil (birth, marriage, death) registration process in England and Wales. HMPO became a division of the Home Office on 1 October 2014. Prior to that date, the HMPO was an executive agency of the Department. Its accounts for the first six months up until 30 September 2014 have been shown separately in the accounts.
Non Departmental Public Bodies:
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
The IPCC’s primary statutory purpose is to secure and maintain public confidence in the police complaints system in England and Wales. Its three main functions are: oversight of the system to ensure complaints are handled well and any identified failings lead to improvements in policing; carrying out its own investigations into the most serious matters relating to the conduct of police; and considering appeals when a police force investigation is called into question. The IPCC is currently undertaking a three-year change programme to deliver the Home Secretary’s commitment to ensure it investigates all “serious and sensitive cases” involving the police.
College of Policing
The College of Policing was established as a limited company on 1 December 2012, assuming responsibility for raising the professional status of police officers and police staff. It operates at arm’s length from the Home Office, but has been consolidated within the departmental accounting boundary. The College of Policing is the professional body for policing in England and Wales. The College sets standards of professional practice, accredits training and sets learning outcomes, promotes good practice based on the best available evidence, supports partnership working and leads on ethics and integrity across policing.
Security Industry Authority (SIA)
The Security Industry Authority is responsible for regulating the UK private security industry. There are around 380,000 SIA licences. Licences are valid for three years and there is high staff churn within the industry so numbers working in the industry may be significantly less. Around 770 businesses are members of the voluntary Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS).
It reports to the Home Secretary under the terms of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Responsibility is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland and the SIA consults closely with the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly about regulation. Regulation of the private security industry supports the objectives of the Home Office to protect the public. Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC)
The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner is responsible for regulating immigration advisers by ensuring they are fit and competent and that they act in the best interest of their clients. The Commissioner has statutory regulatory and prosecutorial responsibilities, and is responsible for maintaining a regulatory regime. The Commissioner has responsibility for seeking out and taking action against those operating illegally, and promoting best practice, within the immigration advice sector. The type of organisations that the OISC regulates varies widely; from small community-based organisations and sole traders through to national charities and large specialist profit-making advisory services. Not-for-profit organisations are not required to pay a registration fee. Organisations that wish to be admitted to the regulatory scheme must demonstrate fitness and competence to do so. Thereafter, those who provide immigration advice and services must comply with the relevant code and rules.
Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA)
The Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) was established to tackle exploitation of vulnerable workers in the agriculture sector. The GLA administers a licensing scheme to regulate the supply of labour to the farming, food processing and shellfish gathering sectors.
The GLA covers the whole of the UK carrying out intelligence led activity and inspection. The Home Office took over as the parent department for the GLA from Defra in April 2014.
Entities within the Core Department:
In addition to the executive NDPBs there are also advisory and tribunal non-departmental public bodies, office holders and other bodies that operate at arm's length from the Department, that do not publish accounts because they do not have any money delegated to them. Where there are costs, these are met from Home Office budgets.
Advisory Non-Departmental Public Bodies – provide independent, expert advice to ministers on a wide range of issues. For the Home Office these are the: Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; Animals in Science Committee; Migration Advisory Committee; National DNA Database Ethics Group; Police Advisory Board for England and Wales; Police Negotiating Board (which ceased to operate in England and Wales from 1 September 2014); and the Technical Advisory Board.
Tribunal Non-Departmental Public Bodies – are usually concerned with the rights and obligations of individuals in relation to a branch of government or other public authority. They are the: Investigatory Powers Tribunal; Office of Surveillance Commissioners; Police Arbitration Tribunal (which ceased to operate in England and Wales from 1 September 2014); Police Discipline Appeals Tribunal.
Other Arm's Length Bodies sponsored by the Home Office:
Anti-Slavery Commissioner; Appointed person under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; Biometrics Commissioner; Forensic Science Regulator; HM Inspectorate of Constabulary; Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration; Independent Family Returns Panel; Independent Monitor of the Disclosure and Barring Service; Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; Intelligence Services Commissioner; Interception of Communications Commissioner; National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Body; Police Remuneration Review Body; Police ICT Company; Surveillance Camera Commissioner; Wimbledon and Putney Conservator.
The National Crime Agency (NCA) was established as a Non Ministerial Government Department on 7 October 2013. The financial results of the NCA are not consolidated within the Home Office accounts.
The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) was re-classified from a NDPB to a Public Non Financial Corporation on 31 July 2014 by the Office for National Statistics. The decision was backdated to apply from the creation of the service in December 2012. The results of the DBS are therefore not consolidated within the Home Office accounts. Our Vision
The Government’s vision for the Home Office is set out in our Business Plan which lists four priorities:
| Our four priorities: | |----------------------| | • Cut crime; | | • Reduce immigration;| | • Prevent terrorism; and | | • Promote growth by keeping the UK safe. |
The Home Office, its directorates, agencies and executive non-departmental public bodies work closely together to achieve the four Home Office priorities. Following the General Election in May 2015, the new Government added Tackling Extremism and Preventing Abuse and Exploitation to the list of priorities.
1. Cut Crime
Our objective is to support the police in cutting crime through work to: improve police accountability, transparency and integrity and public trust; improve police efficiency and effectiveness; reduce the drivers of crime, such as addressing the harm caused by misuse of drugs and alcohol and support local efforts to reduce crime; lead targeted action on key crime types, for example anti-social behaviour; ensure police powers and regulations are proportionate and effective; protect vulnerable victims; and join up with work across the wider Criminal Justice System.
The Crime Survey for England and Wales, which is based on the experience of the public rather than police figures, shows that crime has fallen by almost two thirds since its peak in 1995, and is now at its lowest level since the survey began in 1981. The number of crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales was 3.8 million offences in the twelve months to the end of December 2014, a 2% increase compared with the previous year. The renewed focus on the quality of crime recording, and a greater willingness of victims to report crime, is thought to have led to improved compliance with national recording standards, leading to proportionally more crimes reported to the police being recorded by them.
The implementation of an ambitious package of reforms has continued in 2014-15. Two important acts of Parliament were completed in March 2015: the Serious Crime Act strengthens the powers of the National Crime Agency, the police and other law enforcement agencies to pursue, disrupt and bring to justice serious and organised criminals; and the Modern Slavery Act will strengthen the response of law enforcement and the courts to slavery and trafficking. In addition, we have undertaken work to keep pace with emerging crime threats, including intensifying our focus on preventing sexual violence against children and vulnerable adults. Key performance indicator
The Home Office Business Plan includes a number of input and impact indicators to help the public assess the impact of policies and reforms. This data is published regularly on the GOV.UK website. For cut crime, the indicator is the number of police recorded offences where there is a known victim, which includes all violence and property offences but excludes crimes like drug offences.
Source: ONS
- Police recorded violent and property crime has fallen by 13 per cent between the year ending March 2010 and year ending December 2014, from 3.6 to 3.1 million offences.
- There has been a corresponding fall in the number of violent and property offences per 1,000 population from 66 in the year ending March 2010 to 56 in the year ending December 2014. Achievements between April 2014 and March 2015 include:
Improve police accountability, transparency and integrity and public trust
We took action to improve police accountability, re-balancing power towards communities, giving the public more information, and working with the police and other bodies to improve public trust in the police with an ambitious programme of reform.
During this year:
- The College of Policing published its Code of Ethics in July 2014, which sets out the standards of behaviour that the public can expect from officers and staff in every role and at every level and will help guide decision making;
- The majority of victims’ services, including for victims of sexual and domestic violence and victim initiated Restorative Justice Services, are now commissioned by Police and Crime Commissioners to respond to local needs rather than by central government;
- HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) introduced its 2014-15 Inspection Programme to Parliament. The PEEL programme represents a radical shift in how police forces are held to account by enabling the public to see clearly across a range of simple categories, how their force is performing on cutting crime, providing a service that is fair, and providing value for money. HMIC published its Chief Inspector’s first State of Policing assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of the police in November 2014;
- We improved oversight of the standards by which the police should handle complaints by granting the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s (IPCC) additional powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;
- We created a new offence of police corruption through the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015;
- We announced a review of the police disciplinary system by Major General Clive Chapman; and following the review the Home Secretary announced her intention to introduce legislation to reform the police complaints system and the police disciplinary system (with legally qualified chairs of police discipline hearings and hearings in public) and to introduce measures to strengthen protections for police whistleblowers;
- The Home Secretary established a statutory inquiry into undercover policing following Mark Ellison QC’s review of possible corruption and the role of undercover policing in the Stephen Lawrence case. On 12 March 2015 it was announced that Lord Justice Pitchford would Chair the inquiry. The terms of reference will be set in consultation with interested parties and are due to be published before the summer recess. Mark Ellison will also co-ordinate a multi-agency review, reporting to the Attorney General, into potential miscarriages of justice involving undercover policing;
- We implemented recommendations in Lord Justice Leveson’s report on the press and the police, including publication of guidance on ‘off the record’ briefings, relationships with the media, and on gifts, hospitality and entertainment;
- The College of Policing published its interim review of police leadership in March 2015. The review identified the challenges and opportunities likely to face policing in the coming decades and recommended changes required to enable everyone within policing to meet them. The review recommends implementing a culture of challenge at the top of forces, introducing career flexibility, embedding the Code of Ethics in selection processes and reviewing police powers in some roles;
- The Police Federation was reformed so that officers in future will actively choose whether to become members and whether to pay subscriptions, and to improve transparency particularly around the use of Federation funds; and
- We have published data on the police use of stop and search on data.police.uk Improve police efficiency and effectiveness
HMIC’s ‘Valuing the Police’ report, published in July 2014, found that police forces have largely met the financial challenge of the spending review with crime continuing to fall, victim satisfaction improving and forces protecting their frontline services.
During this year:
- The College of Policing published its five-year strategy in November 2014 and has co-ordinated work to support the National Policing vision for 2016, which sets out how frontline officers and staff will be supported with the skills, leadership, technology and ways of working that, will allow them to provide high-quality policing;
- This year’s Police Innovation Fund, provided funding to a range of projects to support improved police ICT and digital working, including investment in body worn video across eight forces and the development and trialling of a standardised mobile policing solution that could be replicated across other forces;
- An IT Supplier Summit was held in October 2014, attended by Police and Crime Commissioners, police forces and industry. The summit helped PCCs understand the potential for IT collaboration and was a major motivation for policing to develop IT standards;
- We established a Police Information Communications Technology (ICT) Company, which became operational on 1 April 2015. The Police ICT company will support policing bodies to make the best use of technology to deliver efficient and effective policing and improve public safety;
- PCCs and Chief Constables have agreed a vision for police procurement, founded on clear evidence of the costs and benefits of a collaborative approach, that takes advantage of opportunities to collaborate across the law enforcement community and wider public sector, increasing standardisation of goods bought and improved supplier and contract management;
- We continued to reform police pay and conditions by implementing the majority of recommendations from Tom Winsor’s independent review of police officer and staff remuneration and conditions, including enhanced entry requirements, direct entry at more senior ranks, and targeted pay & allowances that are more closely linked to contribution and reward professional skill & development;
- The Police Negotiating Board and Police Advisory Board in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was replaced by the new Police Remuneration Review Body which became operational in September 2014; and
- The 2015 Police Pensions Scheme successfully came into force on 1 April 2015 ensuring that police pensions will be maintained on a sustainable and affordable footing into the future. Lead targeted action on key crime types
Our reforms are tackling existing and emerging crime threats.
During this year:
- We increased capability in the National Crime Agency’s National Cyber Crime Unit and set up cyber teams in each of the nine Regional Organised Crime Units, following investment from the National Cyber Security Programme;
- We continued to build on the Drug Strategy, launched in 2010, to tackle drugs as a key driver of crime. There are positive signs that this approach is working: there has been a long term downward trend in drug use over the last decade, the number of heroin and crack cocaine users in England continues to decline, and more people are recovering from their dependency now than in 2009/10;
- The College of Policing, together with police forces and the National Crime Agency have provided cyber crime training to thousands of officers;
- The ‘Cyber Streetwise’ campaign, launched in January 2014, has measurably influenced an estimated two million people to adopt safer online practices (e.g. using more secure passwords);
- We have used our Computer Emergency Response Team to support the smooth running of both the Glasgow Commonwealth Games and the Newport NATO Summit;
- We introduced legislation to tackle the illicit market in substances used as drug cutting agents in the Serious Crime Act;
- We took action to address the harm caused by alcohol through twenty Local Alcohol Action Areas and improved the tools available to local communities by introducing six new powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, working in partnership with the drinks industry to take more voluntary action through the Public Health Responsibility Deal, including several new pledges;
- Forty-three areas benefitted from a frontline team and an expert support network as part of the Ending Gang and Youth Violence programme; and through the Serious Crime Act we strengthened and updated gang injunctions;
- A Crime and Policing Knowledge Hub was established to help improve our understanding of and response to emerging crime types. The Hub arranged an international conference on crime and policing at the end of January 2015, at which the Home Secretary’s keynote speech set out our thinking on the key drivers of crime;
- We are working through our Border Force and the National Crime Agency to strengthen resilience against organised criminals and harmful substances crossing the border. Overt interventions throughout the year by Border Force officers have resulted in the seizure of illicit goods, including Class A drugs and firearms at UK ports of entry. There are many examples: for example, in April 2014 Border Force officers at Manchester Airport seized around 50 kilograms of heroin in a consignment of carpets from Pakistan and in January 2015 our officers discovered 30 kilograms of cocaine during a search of a lorry at Dover, with an estimated street value of £3.8million due to its exceptionally high purity; and
- Border Force has also been at the forefront of tackling the global trade in smuggling endangered species. For example, in January 2015, Border Force officers seized 165 turquoise dwarf geckos, a critically endangered species. The seizure was referred to investigators from the National Crime Agency’s Border Policing Command who arrested a man on suspicion of an importation offence.
Protecting Vulnerable People
Tackling crimes against vulnerable people, for example, children, victims of slavery and women and girls who are the victims of violence presents a major challenge both in providing a service to victims and bringing perpetrators to justice. During this year:
- In July, following concerns raised about the original Home Office investigation into information received on child sexual abuse between 1979 and 1999, and whether the Department funded a pro-paedophile group, the Home Secretary announced a formal review lead by Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC. The report from this review was published in November 2014 and concluded that there was nothing to support concerns that the Home Office had deliberately or systematically removed or destroyed files to cover up organised child abuse or that it had failed in any deliberate way to refer individual allegations of abuse to the police. The review also failed to find evidence to corroborate allegations that the Department had funded a pro-paedophile group, but was unable to dismiss them completely. The Report did recommend improvements to the processes for recording allegations of child abuse and notifying the Police. The Department has improved its processes and continues to review how it handles information about child abuse to ensure it is recorded and referred to the Police appropriately;
- Following the publication of the Jay report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham last year and the failures across children’s services, the Home Secretary chaired a series of meetings with Secretary of State colleagues to consider both the findings and what the Government could do to help prevent these failures from happening again. A series of actions, announced in March 2015, will strengthen accountability and leadership in professions and local government; address the culture of inaction and denial that led to victims being dismissed and ignored; improve joint working and information sharing so that agencies intervene early; strengthen the protection of children who are at risk; reinforce law enforcement efforts to stop offenders; and provide greater support for victims and survivors;
- The Home Secretary established a statutory Inquiry in March 2015 which will consider whether public bodies and other non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse;
- The Modern Slavery Act received Royal Assent on 28 March 2015. This consolidates current offences relating to trafficking and slavery by creating two new civil orders to prevent modern slavery. It establishes an Anti-Slavery Commissioner and makes provision for the protection of modern slavery victims. We have also published a modern slavery strategy outlining a comprehensive response to modern slavery, including the efforts across government and law enforcement, with other countries, to tackle the problem at source and increase awareness within all communities;
- Ministers announced a package of measures to address Violence against Women and Girls at the Girl Summit on Forced Marriage and Female Genital Mutilation in June 2014, including our intention to establish a Female Genital Mutilation unit, which is now in place, to promote learning for safeguarding professionals, and to launch an online resource pack for service commissioners with funding in local areas. The Violence Against Women and Girls progress report was published on 8 March 2015 setting out delivery against over a hundred cross-government actions and key indicators of success; and
- We have established Border Force anti-trafficking teams at key ports, and undertaken operations at ports specifically to prevent victims being taken abroad to suffer Female Genital Mutilation. Border Force also participated in the 2014 White Ribbon Day in the London Borough of Hillingdon, to publicise the work it is doing with partners to combat Female Genital Mutilation.
In May 2014, experts from the internet industry met under the leadership of a UK-US taskforce to generate novel technical ideas to address online child sexual exploitation and to disrupt offenders, identify victims and keep children safe whilst online. The Prime Minister subsequently hosted the #WePROTECT summit in December 2014 to galvanise international action. The summit secured practical commitments by 47 countries, 2 international organizations, 10 civil society organizations and 14 leading companies to identify and protect victims and to strengthen global co-operation to track down perpetrators.
A new Child Abuse Image Database went live in December 2014 and provides law enforcement agencies with better tools to search seized devices and increase their ability to identify victims.
Strengthen the fight against serious and organised crime
The Serious Crime Act enhances the powers of the National Crime Agency, the police and other law enforcement agencies to pursue, disrupt and bring to justice serious and organised criminals. In May 2015, the powers of the National Crime Agency were extended to Northern Ireland which will have a significant impact in the fight against organised crime. The Act includes provisions to:
- Strengthen the operation of the asset recovery process by closing loopholes in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
- Amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to provide for a new offence where an attack on a computer system causes severe damage to human welfare, the environment, the economy or national security;
- Create a new offence targeting people who actively support, and benefit from, participating in organised crime; and
- Improve the effectiveness of serious crime prevention orders and gang injunctions.
Ensure police powers and regulations are proportionate and effective
Whilst the police need the right powers to cut crime, the powers must be proportionate and used in a way that maintains public trust and confidence.
During this year we introduced:
- A package of reforms that are changing the way that the police use stop and search powers. This follows the publication of HMICs report on stop and search which showed 27% of stop-and-search records reviewed did not contain reasonable grounds to search people. The ‘Best Use of Stop and Search’ Scheme was launched in August 2014 and revisions to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code of Practice to clarify ‘reasonable grounds’ for suspicion and to make clear that improper use will lead to performance or disciplinary proceedings came into force on 19 March 2015;
- A cross-Government review of powers of entry to remove unjustified powers and add further safeguards to protect the rights of individuals and businesses. We introduced a statutory code of practice, which came into force on 6 April 2015, that provides guidance and sets out considerations that apply to the exercise of powers of entry; and
- We delivered the majority of the Home Office actions in the cross-government alcohol strategy including: a) a ban on the worst examples of cheap alcohol being sold below cost price; strengthening mandatory licence conditions, for example to target irresponsible drink promotions in pubs and clubs and working with the alcohol industry to do more to reduce the harm caused by alcohol; and b) public consultations on the introduction of locally set licensing fees, the community and ancillary sales notice and proposed changes to licensing powers of entry.
Working across the wider criminal justice system
Coherent action across the criminal justice system towards a shared set of objectives is essential to ensure a more effective and efficient response to crime. We have delivered all the actions in Transforming the Criminal Justice System (CJS): A Strategy & Action Plan to Reform the Criminal Justice System published in 2013.
During the year we:
- Increased the national take-up of police-led prosecutions for uncontested traffic and other specified offences;
- Enabled the police to prosecute shoplifting offences through magistrates’ courts, where the value of the good stolen is £200 or less, whilst preserving the defendant’s right to elect a Crown Court trial;
- Provided more details on case timeliness on www.police.uk so that members of the public can better understand criminal justice services in their area and how they compare with others; and
- In April 2014, youth and adult liaison and diversion schemes for offenders with mental health, learning disability or substance misuse problems were launched in an initial ten areas covering thirteen police forces. These new schemes are based in both police custody suites and courts and aim to identify, assess and refer people with mental health problems and other vulnerabilities for treatment and support at their earliest point of contact with police. In addition the schemes will work with criminal justice partners and magistrates to support the most appropriate justice outcomes, such as mental health treatment requirements. A Home Office funded pilot to provide an alternative place of safety, for people detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, was launched in Sussex on 9 March 2015.
2. Reduce Immigration
Our objective is to continue to develop and implement policies to reduce net migration and tackle abuse, while attracting and retaining the brightest and best migrants to work, study or invest in the UK and to transform the immigration system so that it commands public confidence and serves our economic interests.
During this year:
- We introduced a new Immigration Act containing measures to stop migrants using public services to which they are not entitled, reduce the pull factors which encourage people to come to the UK for the wrong reasons, and make it easier to remove people who should not be here;
- To reduce non-EU net migration we have maintained the annual limit on economic migration. Despite the challenges we face on migration as a result of the UK’s relative economic strength and our proud history of tolerance and acceptance to those who genuinely need our protection. Net long-term migration to the UK was estimated to be 318,000 in the year ending December 2014, a statistically significant increase from 209,000 in the previous 12 months, but below the peak of 320,000 in the year ending June 2005;
- The UK has a proud history of offering protection to those fleeing persecution, but illegal migrants who lodge spurious asylum claims detract valuable resources from those who need it most, and corrode confidence in the system. The current asylum system is designed to provide swift protection to those in need by making high quality decisions, but discourage abusive claims by removing the right to appeal a negative decision before removal in clearly unfounded cases and prioritising failed asylum seekers for removal. In the year ending March 2015, we enforced the removal of over 4,200 people who had sought asylum at some stage during their time in the UK;
- The Home Office has met its public commitment to decide all straightforward asylum claims received before April 2014 by end of March 2015, and aims to decide straightforward claims within six months. In addition, our detained fast track process enables us to take quick decisions in suitable cases. The number of outstanding decisions at 1 April 2015 is the lowest it has been since December 2013. There will always be some non-straightforward cases that are too complex to decide within six months for reasons outside our control. We aim to decide these cases within 12 months;
- In 2014 the number of asylum claims in the EU was the highest it has been since 1992. However, compared with countries such as Germany – which saw a large increase in asylum claims in 2014, the UK has experienced a much more modest increase. We continue to work with EU partners to disrupt flows of illegal migration and enhance their asylum processing capacity. Working through the European Asylum Support Office, the UK has deployed over 20 asylum experts to other Member States in the last three years;
- To tackle problems at the port of Calais, we set out a number of commitments in a joint declaration on 20 September 2014, including £12 million from the UK towards bolstering security and infrastructure. The improvements under way as a result of this targeted investment build on the sustained UK support and investment in improving physical security and upgrading technology at Calais, for example enhancements made in 2014 to vehicle scanning equipment;
- As well as stopping people entering the UK, we are removing those with no right to be here. We have closed down bogus colleges and, to tackle issues around English language testing, we have conducted more enforcement visits;
- 130 organised immigration crime groups disrupted in 2014-15;
- We have also continued our interventions into potential sham marriages. Since April 2014, we have intervened in over 2,900 suspected sham marriages, resulting in over 1,700 arrests and over 600 removals;
- We continue to work with law enforcement partners to strengthen our response to European Economic Area (EEA) criminals who cross our border, by ensuring that better quality data is available at the immigration control to support a refusal decision;
- By making the necessary legislative changes, we have ensured that Border Force officers are able appropriately to exercise powers of detention at ports, including those in Scotland and the juxtaposed controls. This was completed in time for the UK’s connection to the Schengen Information System, which took place on 13 April 2015. This is one way through which Border Force will stop wanted criminals (such as those subject to European Arrest Warrants) at the border, enabling the police to arrest them before they enter the UK and commit further crimes here; • In the year ending March 2015, the number of passengers refused entry at UK ports rose by 11% to 18,373 (compared with 16,570 passengers refused entry in the year ending March 2014); • Our visa service has seen the vast majority of non-settlement visas dealt within target times and in February 2015 we brought our settlement caseload back into service standard; and • There have been significant improvements in responding to MP correspondence: our correspondence hubs are now responding to correspondence within 20 days in over 95% of cases (usually in 99% of cases).
Key performance indicator
The Home Office Business Plan includes a number of input and impact indicators to help the public assess the impact of policies and reforms. For Reduce immigration, the indicator is the measure of net migration to the UK.
The following chart sets out net migration data. Figures for quarters ending in 2014 are provisional. Net migration estimates up to 2011 have been revised in light of the 2011 Census. Therefore they will not be consistent with the separate immigration and emigration figures shown. The revised estimates are only available for the years ending June and December each year.
Source: ONS
Net long-term migration to the UK was estimated to be 318,000 in the year ending December 2014, a statistically significant increase from 209,000 in the previous 12 months, but below the peak of 320,000 in the year ending June 2005.
641,000 people immigrated to the UK in the year ending December 2014, a statistically significant increase from 526,000 in the previous 12 months. There were statistically significant increases for EU and non-EU nationals. Immigration of EU nationals increased to 268,000 in 2014 from 201,000 in 2013. Despite showing a slight decline from the last quarter, non-EU immigration increased to 290,000 in 2014 from 248,000 in the previous 12 months. While the increase in EU immigration continues the recent trend that began in 2012.
An estimated 323,000 people emigrated from the UK in the year ending December 2014. Overall emigration levels have been relatively stable since 2010.
1 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_404613.pdf 2 Figures for quarters ending in 2014 are provisional and are represented by a cross 3 Net migration estimates up to 2011 have been revised in light of the 2011 Census. Immigration and emigration estimates have not been revised and are therefore not consistent with the revised net migration estimates. The revised estimates are only available for the years ending June and December each year Achievements between April 2014 and the end of March 2015 include:
Strengthen the system of granting students permission to enter or stay in the UK
A number of policy changes have been made to attract the international students who we want to come to the UK, while clamping down on abuse. The figures show this strategy is working, with a 16% increase in the number of sponsored student visas applications for universities since 2010, and a rise of 30% for the elite Russell Group universities. In the year ending March 2015, we saw strong growth in the number of study visas granted with the largest increases in China (+3%), Brazil (+3%), Saudi Arabia (+4%) and Malaysia (+7%).
Other achievements during the year include:
- Continuing action to curb student visa abuse, making the application process more rigorous and requiring colleges to improve course quality. This has resulted in an 11% decrease in the number of further education study-related sponsor applications in the year ending March 2015;
- A significant increase in the number of interviews conducted on overseas applications. We have conducted about 150,000 interviews so far, of which 130,000 were for Tier 4 students. Tier 4 is for students coming to the UK for post-16 education.
- Taking action against the individuals and institutions involved in the English language testing fraud uncovered earlier this year. We have set up a sponsorship working group with education sector stakeholders in order to support students that have been affected by, but not involved in, the fraud. As at 31 December 2014, 48 of the 57 colleges that were suspended in June 2014 have had their licences revoked, 4 have surrendered their licences and another 4 have been reinstated. One college remains suspended due to on-going legal proceedings. We have also suspended a further 34 private colleges, 19 of which have been revoked and 4 surrendered their licence. As at 31 December 2014 a total of 12 private colleges remained suspended including the college that was suspended due to ongoing legal proceedings. As at 31 December 2014, we made more than 11,800 refusal, curtailment and removal decisions, conducted more than 2,700 enforcement visits, served removal notices in person on over 800 people whom we also detained. We have removed over 500 of those people who we detained; and
- Tackling the negative perceptions that students are not welcome in the UK by taking every opportunity to communicate the message that the UK is open to genuine international students and that we have a strong visa offer. We will continue to reiterate this message.
Improve the immigration system
In July 2014, the first phase of measures from the Immigration Act 2014 came into effect, including new powers to revoke driving licences and reforms to the penalty scheme for those who employ illegal workers. We have doubled the maximum penalty for employing an illegal worker to £20,000.
In September 2014, we announced launch dates for the next phase of measures which introduce a requirement for private rental sector landlords to check a prospective tenant’s immigration status.
We have focused on reducing outstanding asylum casework and constraining asylum support costs. In March 2014, we cleared all straightforward pre-2011 cases and in June 2014, we did the same for pre-2012 cases (other than those which form part of the Older Live Cases cohort). We have also cleared our backlog of trafficking claims; 70% of new claims receive a final decision within 90 days.
We also met our commitment to review and communicate decisions on outstanding legacy cases by the end of 2014 (other than in exceptional circumstances where we have been unable to conduct a review, for example because of a criminal investigation or litigation). The number of remaining exceptional cases is small and continues to reduce.
Strengthen the system of granting spouses permission to enter or stay in the UK
The Court of Appeal has upheld the lawfulness of the new English language and minimum income threshold requirements, which were introduced in changes to the immigration rules. In addition, we have implemented changes to give the full weight of primary legislation to the public interest in those requirements under the qualified right to respect for private and family life under European Court of Human Rights Article 8. We have tightened the rules for family visas and, compared with the year ending September 2010, family visas granted were down by a third (-33%). Set an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted to the UK
In April 2014, the limit set for Tier 2 (General) visas was 20,700 for the rest of the Parliament. Individuals can apply for a Tier 2 (General) visa if they have been offered a skilled job in the UK, are from outside the European Economic Area or Switzerland and have been sponsored by a licensed sponsor.
During this year:
- Our reforms have helped UK nationals into employment. Since the first quarter of 2010, employment levels have risen by 2.1 million, of which 1.3 million (61.4%) is accounted for by UK nationals, and 805,000 (38.6%) by non-UK nationals. Work visas issued were up by 9% in the 12 months to March 2015, compared with the year to March 2014, with skilled work visas issued up 13% over the same period;
- In the year ending March 2015, there was a 12% increase in sponsored visa applications for skilled work to 55,589. Most of the increase was accounted for by the three largest sectors: Information and Communication (23,541, +11%), Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities (10,768, +20%), Financial and Insurance Activities (6,608, +10%);
- We have made changes to Tier 1 routes to ensure that they remain open to those who will make the greatest economic contribution, whilst also preventing abuse. Recent changes include a higher investment threshold for the Tier 1 (Investor) category and a suspension of in-country switching into the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) category for most students and post-study workers; and
- We have improved flexibility for businesses and their employees by allowing Tier 2 visas to be granted for up to 5 years at a time, rather than the previous 3 years.
Transforming border security
We have continued to strengthen border security by introducing exit checks at all ports of departure, and by the continuation of the existing regime of full checks on entry in line with our Operating Mandate. Border Force has continued to enhance its law enforcement capabilities. It is now able to work even more effectively with its partners to exploit the border as a unique intervention point against individuals and goods that have the potential to cause social and economic harm to the UK.
During this year we have:
- Exceeded annual seizure targets for Class A Drugs, New Psychoactive Substances and Counterfeit Goods;
- Strengthened the operation of the Warnings Index. The Index is used by officers to check arriving passengers and is part of the Critical National Infrastructure. We have invested in new technology platforms to improve resilience;
- Exploited increasing volumes of Advance Passenger Information (API) and Passenger Name Records (PNR) to prevent harmful individuals from travelling to and entering the UK and identify others who are potentially of interest from law enforcement and security perspectives;
- Improved our ability to identify and intercept prohibited commodities by introducing an improved targeting system for sea container traffic, and readying border actors for further improvements relating to other maritime targeting;
- Improved the speed that legitimate travellers pass across the border by widening the pool of Registered Travellers, and increasing the number of electronic passport gates across the UK border control. These changes have also ensured that we continue to free up more border officer time to tackle to tackle criminals, traffickers and those who exploit vulnerable individuals;
- Significantly increased the numbers of refusals of foreign nationals, including those from EU countries, with a history of offending through effective joint working with police forces across the UK;
- Improved our ability to disrupt and deter people trafficking, including for the purpose of sexual exploitation or slavery;
- Worked with Public Health England to support the introduction of additional checks to combat the threat of the Ebola virus; and
- Worked with partners at ports with juxtaposed controls, and more widely with port owners and those in the haulage industry to strengthen our controls against illegal entry in response to a significant increase in the number of migrants trying to enter the UK by clandestine means in the Calais area and elsewhere. Border Force successfully prevented over 39,000 attempts at clandestine entry into the UK at those ports where Border Force operates controls in Northern France. Exit checks
Exit checks were introduced on 8 April 2015 on scheduled commercial international air, sea and rail routes. The majority of airlines already provide Advance Passenger Information (API). Where this cannot be provided, for example on some rail and ferry journeys, carriers and ports now check travel documents and collect data by checking or scanning passports or national identity cards.
Exit checks improves our ability to identify those who have left and those who have failed to leave the UK when they should have done so. They will help to inform work to identify those most likely to overstay and allow us to build an appropriate solution to deal with these individuals. They will also extend our ability to identify known or suspected persons of interest from a security, criminal, immigration or customs perspective and provide us with additional opportunities to take appropriate action.
In implementing exit checks the Government worked closely with ports and carriers to go with the grain of their businesses. As planned, the new arrangements were introduced on time, within budget and with no adverse effects for the travelling public.
Improve enforcement capability
We have now closed the Enforcement Transition Programme, a programme which oversaw the development of Immigration Enforcement from the former UK Border Agency, as national structures and processes are now in place to improve delivery against core objectives.
During this year we have:
- Developed a new operating model to tackle the breadth of immigration abuse, underpinned by the four Ps of Protect, Prevent, Pursue and Prepare. This new way of working tackles abuse with a wider spectrum of interventions and with a greater emphasis on partnership working and increasing compliance with the law;
- Implemented new powers to revoke driving licences and strengthened and simplified the civil penalty scheme to prevent illegal working. We have recovered more civil penalties against employers than ever before. These actions are ensuring the denial of benefits and services to those who have no legal right to them, to aggressively encourage voluntary departure from the country;
- Deporting Foreign National Offenders continued to be a priority for IE in 2014 and we removed well over 5,000 in the last financial year. We are now making the most of the new ‘deport first, appeal later’ provisions in the Immigration Act 2014; and
- Revised our approach to Assisted Voluntary Returns. The scheme is now only available to non-detained individuals, to prevent abuse of the system.
Tackle European Economic Area (EEA) criminality
We have continued to take steps to deal with European Economic Area (EEA) criminality.
During this year we have:
- Increased our use of the existing public policy test to deport or refuse entry to EEA criminals;
- Amended the law to discourage meritless immigration appeals;
- Ensured that the new re-entry bar on EEA nationals who have been administratively removed is being applied proportionately; and
- Increased the information flows on criminality committed in the UK and abroad by EEA nationals.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office
Significant levels of passport demand since the start of 2014 affected our delivery of UK passports to customers and, for some of them, caused unacceptable delays over the summer. A range of contingency measures were introduced by Ministers in June to ensure that passports were delivered on time for people who needed to travel.
We have taken steps to prevent a recurrence of events. We removed agency status from HM Passport Office and made the organisation directly accountable to Ministers. Demand forecasting has been reviewed and a new senior management structure put in place. These measures, along with a significant increase in operational resource, have provided customers with the level of service they rightly expect, whilst maintaining the high standards of passport security and supporting the Department’s aims on crime prevention and public protection. 3. Prevent terrorism
Our objective is to reduce the risk to the UK and its interests overseas from terrorism, so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence. This will be achieved through our work to deliver the UK’s Strategy for Countering Terrorism (CONTEST) by stopping terrorist attacks; stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism; strengthening our protection against terrorist attacks and mitigating the impact of terrorist attacks.
In August 2014, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre raised the national threat level from international terrorism from SUBSTANTIAL to SEVERE, meaning a terrorist attack is highly likely. The principal threat continues to come from militant Islamist terrorists, notably in Syria and Iraq. The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and other terrorist groups there have recruited foreign fighters, who have travelled from the UK and Europe.
ISIL has the intent and resources to direct and encourage terrorist activity in the West in parallel to its territorial ambitions. Al Nusrah Front (ANF), Al Qa’ida’s affiliate in Syria, is also engaged in providing training to foreign fighters. In addition, Al Qa’ida core, its affiliates and other regional terrorist groups remain intent on targeting Western interests.
Terrorist tactics are changing. While many groups still aspire to conduct large-scale attacks, others now encourage attacks which are simple and can be carried out by people acting on their own.
Measures in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 strengthen our powers and capabilities to tackle specific threats relating to Syria and Iraq, including providing additional means to disrupt the travel of foreign fighters to and from the region, as well as improving our ability to manage them on their return. The Government has also provided additional funding for the security and intelligence agencies and police to increase their investigative resource; and for the expansion of the cross-Government Prevent programme.
Further details on the terrorist threat and the UK’s response are included in the recently published CONTEST Annual Report 2014:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contest-uk-strategy-for-countering-terrorism-annual-report-for-2014.
Achievements between April 2014 and the end of March 2015 include:
Maintain the ability of the Police and the Security and Intelligence Agencies to identify and disrupt terrorist threats to the UK and its interests overseas
Following the increase in the threat level in August 2014, the Prime Minister announced new legislation to ensure the police, and security and intelligence agencies, have the appropriate legal powers and capabilities to tackle Syria and Iraq related terrorist threats.
The Act contains the following measures:
- Temporary Passport Seizure: providing the police with a new power at the border to seize temporarily (initially for 14 days, extendable with court permission to a maximum of 30) the passports and other travel documents of outbound individuals suspected of intending to travel to engage in terrorist-related activity;
- Temporary Exclusion Order: temporarily disrupting the return of a British citizen suspected of involvement in terrorist activity abroad, ensuring that their return is managed by the police; and
- Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMS): the legal threshold for imposing a TPIM notice has been raised to the ‘balance of probabilities’. The regime now includes powers to: relocate a subject, restrict a subject’s travel outside the area where they reside, require a subject not to meet with organisations or other persons specified and prohibits them from acquiring/holding a firearms license, offensive weapons or explosives. The maximum sentence for breaching a TPIM travel measure has been increased from five to ten years.
We remain committed to ensuring that powers and capabilities available to the police and security and intelligence agencies are necessary and proportionate, and subject to effective oversight. In November the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) of Parliament published a report on the intelligence relating to the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013. The report illustrated the rigorous public scrutiny that is now applied to the activities of the intelligence agencies in this country. The Government’s response was published in February 2015.
Bring forward proposals to enable the protection of the public and the investigation of crime in cyberspace, including introducing legislation as necessary
In April 2014, the European Court of Justice issued a judgment declaring the EU Data Retention Directive (DRD) invalid. Following the judgment, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) was passed in July 2014. The Act provides a clear statutory basis, in primary legislation, for the Government to require domestic communications service providers to retain certain types of communications data. In addition the Act makes explicit that, as Parliament always intended, any company providing telecommunications services to customers in the UK must comply with lawful authorisations under Part 1 of RIPA, regardless of where those companies are based.
The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 amended DRIPA to improve law enforcement agencies’ ability to identify which device or individual is responsible for sending a communication on the internet.
Stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism through delivery of the Prevent Strategy
Removing terrorist material from the internet remains a high priority. A dedicated police unit – the Counter-Terrorism Internet referral Unit (CTRIU) – continues to refer content which breaches UK terrorism legislation to the communication industry. If companies agree that it breaches their own terms and conditions, they remove it. We have removed more than 46,000 pieces of unlawful terrorist-related content since December 2013. Content relating to Syria and Iraq represents around 70% of the CTRIU caseload.
We have continued work to prevent people from travelling to Syria and Iraq in connection with extremist or terrorist activity; and (where there are no grounds for prosecution) managing the risk from those who have returned. We are providing parents and young people with advice and mentoring for young people. We are also providing training for frontline staff who may come into contact with people considering travel, including training in over 120 schools in Prevent priority areas. Literature explaining the risks of travel has been distributed to mosques, travel agents, ports and money transfer bureaux across the country. In July, the Home Secretary backed ‘Families Matter’ a national campaign led by a community organisation aimed at deterring young people from travelling to Syria and Iraq and encouraging family members of those who might be about to travel to seek help.
The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act contains the following measures in relation to our Prevent work:
- Creating a duty on a range of Government organisations working with the public including the police, local authorities, prisons, schools and universities, to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism; and
- Putting ‘Channel’ (our existing multi-agency voluntary programme to identify and provide support to people at risk of radicalisation) on a statutory basis, to ensure it is delivered consistently nationwide.
Improve UK border and aviation security against terrorists
Our highest Protect priority remains border and aviation security. Investment in data analytics has improved our understanding of complex travel patterns, increasing our ability to identify and address threats to the UK. Better targeting technologies have improved our ability to scrutinise cargo for explosives, firearms, money and drugs. We also now process advance passenger information (i.e. the bio-data included on a passenger’s travel document) for around 180 million individual journeys annually, both to and from the UK.
Terrorist groups (particularly those in Yemen and Syria) remain determined to attack civil aviation. We continue to improve UK aviation screening capability by further rolling out security scanners and exploring new detection technology. But aviation security is not just about screening in the UK; since July 2014 we have also been working with a number of other countries and airlines to apply additional security screening of passengers flying to the UK. Following recent terrorist attacks in Europe we are at the forefront of European work to collect and share more information about people travelling to Syria and Iraq (notably through Passenger Name Records) and to do more to control the movement of firearms across Europe.
The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 adds to existing border and aviation security powers by enhancing aviation, shipping and international rail security with provisions relating to passenger data, authority to carry (i.e. ‘no fly’ schemes) and security and screening measures.
**Improve the ability of the emergency services to work together during a major or complex incident**
The Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme (JESIP) concluded in September 2014. We have trained over 11,000 Operational & Tactical Commanders, designed and rolled out a control room training course and conducted live-play exercises across every region of the UK. The emergency services are now successfully applying JESIP principles in a range of non-terrorist incidents. 4. Promoting Growth by keeping the UK safe
Our objective is to promote growth and support business through work to: cut crime; open up public services; improve the operation of our immigration system so it is an asset to UK competitiveness; strengthen our dialogue with key countries for mutual benefit; build on the success of our world leading brands; and continue to support small and medium-sized companies through our procurement strategy.
Achievements between April 2014 and March 2015 include:
Overhauling our Visa and Immigration Service
We have invested substantial resource in communications both in the UK and overseas to improve information for customers and to tackle misperceptions about the visa service, both in the UK and overseas. We have created new fact sheets, briefing and marketing materials for our visa offer, which can be accessed by other government departments and partners on the GREAT brand library (www.greatbritaincampaign.com). We have established a cross-government communications group called 'Open for Business and Tourism' to maximise our resources and to ensure a consistent approach to our communications.
We issued 1.5 million entry clearance visas in the period April to September 2014. These figures are comparable with the same period last year when Electronic Visa Waiver applications are included.
We have:
- Continued to develop new premium services for high net-worth individuals and businesses in key growth markets. A priority visa service has already launched in over 100 countries. The Super Priority (same day) service launched in China in August 2014. Both services will be expanded;
- Launched a number of key initiatives in China. An intuitive online application form has been introduced for some visitors designed for use on mobile and tablet platforms. Customers who want extra flexibility can also use a passport pass back service (which allows applicants to retain their passport while their application is processed);
- Expanded the VIP mobile biometric service where, for an additional fee, we visit customers at their preferred location to take their biometrics and documents;
- Continued to pilot an elite service for global business leaders, the GREAT club. We have partnered with Tech London Advocates to hold interactive sessions with economically important groups, such as the technology sector. Both have received very positive feedback from users; and
- Expanded the range of countries in which we offer tailored priority (3-5 day) and super priority (24 hour) services and brought forward a range of other customer improvements. Trade on our world leading brands
The Home Office’s Security Industry Engagement Directorate was established in 2013 to coordinate cross government implementation of the security aspects of the 2012 National Security through Technology White Paper. In the last year:
**We have:**
- Promoted government and industry expertise overseas, through targeted trade visits and hosting inward delegations;
- Signed a security memorandum of understanding with Qatar, which will broaden and deepen security relationships between our respective countries;
- Co-ordinated and supported international events in Brazil and Japan, looking at opportunities for industry to help secure their respective Olympic and Paralympic Games;
- Supported the security industry: the Home Secretary attended an influential UK counter terrorism exhibition to provide public and visible support;
- Co-ordinated and led a ministerial trade visit to Pakistan focused on protective security.
- Organised and led a maritime security consortium trade event in Nigeria on HMS Iron Duke. We are working with industry to follow up on significant opportunities that were created at this event;
- Established and co-ordinated a quarterly industry and government security growth partnership steering group, providing a new approach to the innovation, promotion and delivery of UK security capabilities; and
- Jointly led a ministerial security session at Commonwealth Games British Business House which provided the climate for international delegations to build relationships with UK industry partners ranging from small medium enterprises to multi-national corporations.
Make lawful travel and trade with the UK easy and attractive
We continue to meet our service level agreements for queue performance at ports and airports, notably including over the peak summer period and during the Glasgow Commonwealth Games.
Improvements have been made at a number of ports, such as Stansted, Manchester, and Edinburgh, including new signage and passenger information. This is proving successful, with increased passenger use of electronic passport gates.
The Registered Traveller scheme allows trusted individuals to pass quickly through the Border passport control using electronic gates. The pilot has been expanded and, from July 2014, registered travellers have been able to use electronic gates at London Gatwick and Heathrow Airports. In addition, Fast Track lanes are in place at London Heathrow terminals. A new, flexibly resourced Fast Track service was introduced at London Heathrow Terminals 1 and 4 in April and Terminal 2 in June 2014. The new service includes a 15-minute queue target (95% of Fast Track queues within 15 minutes), and to date this target has been achieved.
We are continually refining our targeting capabilities to better identify individuals and goods that may pose a risk of harm, ensuring that genuine goods and people may pass through border controls more quickly. Performance Indicators
This section contains information and data collected by the Department to help measure the impact of our policies and reforms. The Home Office Business Plan includes our input and impact indicators and other data sets. Progress is published regularly on the Home Office website.
We have continued to publish information on how we have spent our budget through the Quarterly Data Summary (QDS). Each QDS report has been available centrally through the Government Interrogation Spending Tool (GIST) at https://www.gov.uk/gov.uk.
Making this information publically available is a key component if the government’s Transparency Agenda, and is intended to enable the public to judge the performance of the Department and assess whether the Home Office is having the effect they want.
Contextual information on spending figures
The definitions for the spending figures can be found at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/common-areas-spend-data-definitions.
For the financial year 2014-15, the QDS has been revised and improved in line with Action 9 of the Civil Service Reform Plan to provide a common set of data that will enable comparisons of operational performance across Government so that departments and individuals can be held to account.
The QDS (shown in the Spending table below) breaks down the total spend of the department in three ways: by Budget, by Internal Operation and by Transaction.
Contextual information on Results figures
The measurement annexes for Input indicators, Impact indicators are available on the Home Office website. Structural Reform Plan figures are based on the Home Office Business Plan 2013-15.
## Spending
**Home Office Core Department and Executive Agencies (as per Cabinet Office definitions)**
| 2014-2015 Spending | Actual | |---------------------|--------| | Total Spend (£m) | 12,833.35 | | (A) Spend by budget type (£m) | | | (A1) DEL, Sub-Total | 10,991.30 | | (A2) AME, Sub-Total | 1,842.05 | | (A3) Other expenditure outside DEL and AME | 0.00 | | (A1+A2+A3) Total Spend | 12,833.35 | | (B) Spend by internal operation (£m) | | | (B1) Cost of running the estate, Sub-Total | 108.77 | | (B2) Cost of running IT, Sub-Total | 697.54 | | (B3) Cost of corporate services, Sub-total | 90.76 | | (B4) Policy and policy implementation, Sub-Total | 10,782.13 | | (B5) Other costs | 1,154.15 | | (B1+B2+B3+B4+B5) Total Spend | 12,833.35 | | (C) Spend by type of transaction (£m) | | | (C1) Accruals based procurement spend, Sub-Total | 2,342.13 | | (C2) People costs, Sub-Total | 1,185.05 | | (C3) Grants, Sub-Total | 9,341.87 | | (C4) Other costs | (35.70) | | (C1+C2+C3+C4) Total Spend (£m) | 12,833.35 |
## Results
### Input Indicators
| Indicator | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | Context | |-----------|---------|---------|---------| | Cost per head of population of total police force cost | £174 | £188 | This excludes the Metropolitan police service and the City of London police figures. The 2014-15 cost is based upon actual government grant funding and council tax income received by the police during the year. | | Cost per passenger processed at the UK border | £2.80(^4) | £3.05 | This data may fluctuate as a result of deployment decisions in response to risk and operational requirements, which influence the balance between passenger processing and customs related activity at the border. | | Cost per decision for all permanent and temporary migration applications | £166 | £173 | | | Cost of producing and issuing a passport | £62.93(^5) | £57.71(^6) | |
### Impact Indicators
| Indicator | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | Context | |-----------|---------|---------|---------| | Crime rates – victim-based crime reported to the police | 3,142,935 victim-based crimes recorded by the police in the 12 months to December 2014 | 3,107,159 victim-based crimes recorded by the police in the 12 months to December 2013 | The year to December 2014 data shows a rate of 55.2 victim-based recorded offences per 1,000 population | | The size, value and nature of organised crime and our success in diminishing it and its profitability | As of 31 December 2014, UK law enforcement estimated that there were around 5,900 organised crime groups – comprising some 40,600 individuals – causing harm to the UK. The Home Office estimates that the social and economic costs of organised crime in this country are at least £24 billion a year. The Serious and Organised Crime Strategy Annual Report for 2014 reports on progress delivering the Strategy.(^7) | Law enforcement agencies estimate there are around 5,500 active organised crime groups operating to the detriment of the UK, comprising about 37,000 people. The Home Office estimates that the social and economic costs of organised crime in this country are at least £24 billion a year. | | Net migration to the UK | 318,000 – data for the end of December 2014 | 209,000 – data for the end of December 2013 | |
______________________________________________________________________
(^4) Rounded to the nearest 5p
(^5) Unit cost of all passports processed in the UK – first full year of international and domestic business
(^6) Unit cost of all passports processed in the UK – international costs are not included as 2013-14 was a transitional year during which we repatriated the service to the UK
(^7) [http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-serious-and-organised-crime-strategy-annual-report-2014 “The Serious and Organised Crime Strategy – Annual Report for 2014”](http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-serious-and-organised-crime-strategy-annual-report-2014) | Impact Indicators | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | Context | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Annual level of revenue protected through detecting goods where excise duty has not been declared | £279m | £265m | | | Clearance of passengers at the border within published standards | 99% | 99% | Migration applications decided within published standards are now calculated individually for in and out of country cases. The service standards changed during the 2014-15 financial year, and we are now unable to report against the old service standards. | | Percentage of migration applications decided within published standards – In country | 99.6% | n/a | | | Percentage of migration applications decided within published standards – Out of country | 96% | n/a | | | Percentage of asylum applications concluded in one year | 52% | 60% | | | Passport application processed within target | 87.6% | 99.6% | |
**Structural Reform Plan Actions 2014-15**
The structural reform plan was published under the 2010 to 2015 Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. The draft structural reform plan published in July 2010 was replaced by the Home Office business plan 2011-15⁸, which was updated to the Home Office business plan 2012-2015⁹. The latest status of progress in delivering actions in our business plan are available on the No 10 website¹⁰.
______________________________________________________________________
⁸ [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ho-business-plan-2011-to-2015-november-2010](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ho-business-plan-2011-to-2015-november-2010) ⁹ [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/home-office-business-plan-2012-to-2015-may-2012](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/home-office-business-plan-2012-to-2015-may-2012) ¹⁰ [http://transparency.number10.gov.uk/business-plan/5](http://transparency.number10.gov.uk/business-plan/5) Home Office Science
Under the leadership of the Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA), Professor Bernard Silverman, Home Office Science brings together a wide range of disciplines to provide a credible evidence base for policy decision-making and apply and develop relevant science and technology for front line operations. It also provides effective regulatory functions and stimulates innovation and economic growth through science, engineering and technology.
Home Office Science is responsible for:
- Informing and improving policy development and implementation;
- Improving operational effectiveness;
- Providing specialist operational capabilities;
- Supporting the Home Office’s independent scientific advisory committees;(^{11})
- Producing accurate and informative statistics;
- The effective and proportionate regulation of forensic pathology and the use of animals in science;
- Supporting regulation of the quality of forensic science and the use of surveillance camera systems;(^{12}) and
- The delivery of the National DNA Database (NDNAD).
Key Home Office Science achievements in 2014-15:
- Providing physical science and technology expertise and advice to policing and the criminal justice system, including:
- Completed type approval of two new preliminary drug screening devices, to enable testing under the drug-driving offence that came into effect in March 2015;
- The NDNAD processed more than 500,000 DNA transactions during the year and was upgraded to accommodate DNA profiles generated from new DNA-17 chemistries, which provide more sensitive and discriminating tests than the previous standard; and
- Independently assessed the water cannon purchased by the Metropolitan Police Service.
- Informing evidence-based policy and operational decision-making through research and analysis, such as:
- The Chief Scientific Adviser produced for the first time an estimate of the ‘dark figure’ of UK cases of modern slavery;
- Publication of research on migration, including reports on socio-economic characteristics and labour market characteristics of migrants;
- Completion of the Serious Organised Crime databook, which provides trend analysis on the scale, nature and response to serious organised crime threats; and
- Publication of statistics on immigration, hate crime, metal theft, and business crime;
- The operation of effective regulatory and advisory functions, including:
- Delivery of the two Coalition Commitments on the use of animals in science: a policy ban on the testing of Household Products in animals; and publication of a Delivery Plan and a one-year progress report on working to reduce the use of animals in research; and
- Publication by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) of a number of reports, including a major report on the impact of powdered cocaine on society; and
- The promotion of growth through the launch of the Security Innovation and Demonstration Centre, which aims to form collaborative partnerships between industry, academia, policy-makers and end-users in order to address grand challenges.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{11}) Home Office Science Advisory Council; Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; Animals in Science Committee; National DNA Database Ethics Group; Forensic Science Advisory Council.
(^{12}) The roles of Forensic Science Regulator and Surveillance Camera Commissioner are undertaken by public appointees who are independent of government but supported by staff from Home Office Science. Better Regulation
The Government’s priorities for the Home Office have been to cut crime, reduce immigration, prevent terrorism, and to promote growth by keeping the UK safe. In developing policies according to these priorities, the Home Office has continued to have regard to the Government’s Principles of Regulation; regulating business and civil society organisations only where there is a robust and compelling case to do so.
Whilst working to achieve these objectives, the Home Office has contributed to the Government’s Better Regulation agenda and Red Tape Challenge programme, which together have focused on reducing the overall burden of regulation on business so as to stimulate investment and growth in the UK economy.
Regulatory activity for the reporting year
Regulatory activity for the reporting year is covered by the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Statements of New Regulation (SNR7, SNR8 and SNR9), published by Government to inform business of regulatory changes, and to track the Government’s performance. These publications cover the period from January 2014 to June 2015 and record that the Home Office brought forward two low cost regulations in this time, and eleven deregulatory or ‘zero net cost’ (regulatory measures where the benefits to business equal or exceed the costs) measures; with an estimated net benefit to business of £7million per annum.
Relevant Home Office policies developed or implemented during this period include the removal of the requirement for personal licence holders within the alcohol sector to renew their licence; updating the poisons regulations to reduce burdens on retailers, whilst simultaneously improving control over the sale of poisons; and the introduction of Primary Authority for the restriction of underage sales of alcohol, improving consistency of enforcement and reducing burdens for retailers.
In addition, two EU measures were implemented during this period.
| EU measures implemented during this period: | |--------------------------------------------| | • the implementation of the EU regulation on the Marketing and Use of Explosives Precursors; and | | • the implementation of Article 4(4) of the EU Firearms Directive concerning record-keeping of firearms transactions. |
In both cases the Home Office implemented in a proportionate way that kept burdens on business to a minimum.
Audit of legislation
In 2014, the Home Office completed a comprehensive audit of its legislative stock, from 1850 to 2013, in order to identify opportunities for deregulation. The audit confirmed a range of efforts in the last Parliament to reduce burdens on business, and recognised that the Home Office has deregulated when it has been possible to do so without compromising the safety and security of the public. Further deregulatory opportunities were identified, including, for example, one to reduce burdens on the palliative care sector.
The audit of legislation also identified opportunities for the revoking of redundant regulations and the consolidation of legislation, in alignment with the Government’s Red Tape Challenge programme. As a result the Department has been able to double its contribution to the Red Tape Challenge, increasing to 76 the number of regulations scrapped or improved during this Parliament.
Regulatory activity during the Parliament – the Ninth Statement of New Regulation
The SNR9 was the final statement in this Parliament and reports the Government’s regulatory and deregulatory activity since 2011. A link to the SNR9 document can be found here: The Ninth Statement of New Regulation. Over the course of the Parliament, the Home Office introduced 13 regulatory measures and 20 deregulatory or ‘zero net cost’ measures. The net balance of the Home Office’s regulatory activity during the Parliament produced an estimated cost to business of £94.34million per annum.
13 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397237/bis-14-p96b-ninth-statement-of-new-regulations-better-regulation-executive.pdf Many of the regulatory measures contributing to this figure have, however, been introduced to address the concerns of both business and the wider society. For instance, an impact assessment of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act, considered a cost to business of £30.4 million. This has led to significant reductions in metal theft, benefitting in particular the rail and telecommunications industries, and reducing delays for rail passengers. The Home Office estimates that the wider benefits to business of this measure are in the region of £100 million. Other regulations with significant impacts on business include the banning of vehicle immobilisation on private land without legal authority and combating rogue wheel clamping practices.
The Home Office recognises that it is often how regulations are implemented, rather than the regulations themselves, that is of most concern to business. Initiatives to reduce the burden of regulatory compliance during this Parliament include the introduction of online electronic licensing systems, for licensing both controlled drugs and the use of animals in scientific procedures; simplifying the application process and reducing the time taken to issue licences to businesses. Sustainability
Home Office sustainability priorities are to:
- Assess and manage social and environmental impacts and opportunities in policy development and decision making;
- Deliver on the Greening Government Commitments(^\\text{14}) (GGC) by 2014-15; and
- Procure from small businesses with the aspiration that 25% of all spend in contracts should be awarded to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) by 2016-17.
Governance Arrangements
Overall accountability for delivering and mainstreaming sustainability in the Home Office falls to the Permanent Secretary and is championed by our Chief Commercial Officer. A Home Office Minister has oversight and responsibility for sustainability and attends the Home Affairs Greening Government Commitments (GGC) sub-committee. Day to day delivery is carried out by the Sustainability Team, who seek input and advice from a virtual Sustainability Implementation Group, which comprises members from Home Office business units and functional teams. The Sustainability Team acts as a focus and challenge to the Department to ensure sustainability principles are embedded into the business.
GGC Progress
Managing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings and travel
We have achieved a 27% reduction in greenhouse gases against a 2009-10 baseline. This exceeds the 25% GGC target and has been achieved by estate consolidations and energy saving measures.
| Managing greenhouse gas emissions | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |-----------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Non-Financial Indicators (tCO2e) (nominal) | | | | | | | | Domestic travel related emissions | 8,523 | 9,072 | 7,630 | 10,171 | 9,626 | 9,114 | | Building related emissions | 54,852 | 47,601 | 40,279 | 39,793 | 36,674 | 36,989 | | Reported greenhouse gas emissions | 63,375 | 56,673 | 47,909 | 49,964 | 46,300 | 46,103 | | Financial Indicators (£'000) | | | | | | | | Building energy expenditure | 10,190 | 9,548 | 8,349 | 8,826 | 8,566 | 8,134 | | CRC registration and license expenditure | Not applicable | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | | CRC (carbon reduction commitment) allowances | Not applicable | Not applicable | 503 | 523 | 404 | 702 | | Expenditure on official domestic business travel | 13,277 | 12,004 | 11,297 | 14,303 | 17,101 | 15,692 | | Expenditure on accredited carbon offsets (for air travel) | 57 | 26 | 17 | 3 | 2 | 7 | | Total expenditure | 23,524 | 21,580 | 20,167 | 23,656 | 26,075 | 24,536 |
(^{14}) [http://sd.defra.gov.uk/gov/green-government/commitments/](http://sd.defra.gov.uk/gov/green-government/commitments/) Managing our buildings
Although energy use has fallen in each of the last three years, this year’s carbon conversion factors have resulted in a small rise in greenhouse gases this year compared to last. Nevertheless we have delivered a 32% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from our buildings against 2009-10 baseline.
We have:
- Consolidated our estate, taking opportunities to vacate buildings as leases end;
- Incentivised our facilities managers suppliers to invest in new technologies such as boiler controls and voltage optimisers;
- Managed energy demand to minimise consumption through on-line monitoring to identify unexpected changes and facilitate urgent rectification by adjusting temperature settings and hours of plant operation;
- Installed more efficient computer hardware and architecture; and
- Reduced the amount of oil used for heating.
Energy use, in several of our buildings, can be viewed online15.
The Department purchases over 84% of its electricity from renewable sources.
| Managing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |-----------------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Non-Financial Indicators (tCO2e) | | | | | | | | Electricity: non-renewable | 26,227 | 22,203 | 19,173 | 16,896 | 6,490 | 4,806 | | Electricity: renewable | 16,971 | 16,891 | 14,702 | 15,365 | 23,704 | 26,475 | | Gas | 6,774 | 5,623 | 4,938 | 6,388 | 5,589 | 4,920 | | Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) | 318 | 237 | 350 | 166 | 162 | 102 | | Oil | 3,302 | 2,016 | 694 | 956 | 586 | 574 | | Fugitive emissions | 1,260 | 631 | 422 | 22 | 143 | 112 | | Total | 54,852 | 47,601 | 40,279 | 39,793 | 36,674 | 36,989 |
15 [http://webview2.ecodriver.net/HomeOffice/](http://webview2.ecodriver.net/HomeOffice/) Managing travel
Greenhouse gas emissions from travel arise from our vehicle fleet, hire cars, taxis, staff travelling in their own vehicles (where this is reimbursed) and business air travel. Overall travel emissions have increased by 7% against the 2009-10 baseline but there has been a small drop against 2013-14. The number of domestic flights taken has fallen by 8% against the baseline and 12% against 2013-14. There has been an increase in usage of vehicles (except grey fleet) and rail travel, with more mobile units carrying out more operational deployments throughout the UK.
| Managing greenhouse gas emissions from travel | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |---------------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Non-Financial Indicators tCO2e | | | | | | | | Air | 1,198 | 1,020 | 1,022 | 1,152 | 1,231 | 963 | | Rail | 1,557 | 1,445 | 1,348 | 1,720 | 1,836 | 1,854 | | Grey fleet | 2,163 | 2,100 | 1,578 | 1,607 | 1,390 | 1,146 | | Hire car | 918 | 1,101 | 1,073 | 1,270 | 1,672 | 1,858 | | Taxis | 53 | 53 | 35 | 35 | 48 | 31 | | Fleet | 2,634 | 3,353 | 2,574 | 4,387 | 3,449 | 3,262 | | Total | 8,523 | 9,072 | 7,630 | 10,171 | 9,626 | 9,114 | | Financial Indicators (£'000) (nominal) | | | | | | | | Domestic flights | 15,241 | 11,631 | 8,917 | 11,603 | 15,928 | 13,963 |
Managing water
The majority of water is used by our staff and visitors. Some larger buildings use water for cooling or catering. We have reduced water consumption by 43% against the 2009-10 baseline through building vacations; investment in water-saving technology; improved facilities management awareness and on-line metering.
| Managing water | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |----------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Non-Financial Indicators ('000 m³) | | | | | | | | Supplied | 306 | 248 | 227 | 198 | 200 | 172 | | Abstracted | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | | Total water | 310 | 253 | 229 | 201 | 204 | 175 | | Financial Indicators (£'000) (nominal) | | | | | | | | | 557 | 386 | 349 | 340 | 378 | 389 |
Managing office waste
Office waste includes shredded and un-shredded used paper, dry mixed recyclables, food waste, sanitary waste and packaging. We have achieved a 31% reduction against the baseline target of 25%. Total office waste has fallen due to a combination of factors including reductions in packaging, changes to our building portfolio and staff behaviour and improvements in waste data accuracy within our supply chain. Recovery rates have fallen from 78% to 66%. This may be due to changes in measurement in our waste supply chain and the use of round-robin collections. In our London Headquarters we recover 100% of office waste.
16 Private cars used for official business travel Managing office waste
| Non-Financial Indicators (tonnes) | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |----------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Recycled | 4,445 | 3,569 | 2,991 | 2,639 | 2,297 | 2,429 | | Composted | Not Known | Not Known | Not Known | 6 | 59 | 99 | | Incinerated with energy recovery | Not Known | Not Known | Not Known | 154 | 82 | 70 | | Total recovered | 4,445 | 3,569 | 2,991 | 2,799 | 2,438 | 2,598 | | Incinerated without energy recovery | Not Known | Not Known | Not Known | 3 | 19 | 21 | | Landfill | 1,240 | 1,290 | 1,504 | 1,022 | 989 | 1,283 | | Total waste | 5,685 | 4,859 | 4,495 | 3,824 | 3,446 | 3,902 |
| Financial Indicators (£’000) (nominal) | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |----------------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Total recovered | 626 | 478 | 391 | 365 | 291 | Not Applicable | | Landfill and incinerated without energy recovery | 99 | 103 | 120 | 85 | 83 | Not Applicable | | Total disposal cost | 725 | 581 | 511 | 450 | 374 | Not Applicable |
Managing office paper
We have reduced paper purchased by 19% against the 2009-10 baseline. Progress over the last five years is shown below.
Following a steady decline in paper use we have experienced two year on year increases. This is attributable to the passport application process (whereby work done overseas was transferred to the United Kingdom) and other operational arrangements in London.
This year we have encouraged the use of digital media and used the wider ‘Save it!’ campaign to demonstrate to staff the cost of printing, providing tips on double sided printing and reducing papers printed for meetings.
| Managing paper (A4 equivalent) | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | |--------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Non-Financial Indicators (reams) | 398,001 | 376,832 | 287,220 | 251,686 | 288,304 | 322,182 | | Financial Indicators (£’000) | 672 | 739 | 833 | 581 | 686 | 847 |
The data
All arms-length bodies are represented in this section, except the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner which are not required to report (based on their size) and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) which is now a Public Corporation. We have restated some figures from last year to take account of improvements in data quality and the removal of DBS data. Many of our buildings are shared with others and managed by landlords, these are not reported. All data is UK only. Carbon Smart provides limited data checks for all GGC reporting requirements. The greenhouse gas conversion factors used can be found in the government environmental impact reporting requirements for business.17
17 https://www.gov.uk/measuring-and-reporting-environmental-impacts-guidance-for-businesses Sustainable procurement
We ensure that sustainability is factored into how we buy goods and services and ensure that value for money is reflected over the lifetime of the contract. For example the Government Buying Standards (GBS)(^{18}) are incorporated throughout the procurement process. We continue to exceed our expenditure with SME target. As at January 2015 this was 18.6%.
By using the annual CAESER (Corporate Assessment of Environmental, Social & Economic Responsibility) assessment tool, we are able to monitor the sustainability performance of our core suppliers and track progress. We have developed a Corporate Social Responsibility Procurement Guide to provide contract managers with guidance and examples of best practice. We have also launched a web based Commercial Intelligence Tool that monitors critical factors, including sustainability, of our most important contracts.
Embedding Sustainability
| This year we have prioritised: | |--------------------------------| | • Influencing the performance of our supply chain and the police estate and police procurement decisions; | | • Measuring the carbon cost of crime and sustainability of asylum accommodation and services; | | • Benchmarking our buildings energy performance; and | | • Improving guidance for policy makers. |
Further information on these priorities, rural proofing, climate change adaptation and more detailed information of our performance against GGC will be published later this year in our 2014-15 Sustainability Report(^{19}).
Estates Strategy
The Department owns limited freehold property. Most property assets are leasehold. Our Estate Strategy has been updated to support ongoing business and transformation delivery plans over the next five years. The strategy sets out a programme to reduce our property holdings by surrendering leases and using our existing strategic properties more efficiently and effectively by encouraging staff to work in more flexible and agile ways, enabled by the working environment and infrastructure. We are working with other Departments and the Government Property Unit to recycle and release surplus land and accommodation. A specific estate strategy is being developed for the Immigration Removal Estate.
We have well established strategic hubs in Croydon, Liverpool, Sheffield and Greater London. We will be consolidating sites in Manchester in 2015-16.
We obtain alternative use valuations for freehold properties where there may be potential for securing greater value through relocation and disposal. This has led to the disposal of Bramshill Police College and sale subject to planning consent for residential re-development of the former Police College at Harrogate in 2014-15.
(^{18}) [http://sd.defra.gov.uk/advice/public/buying/](http://sd.defra.gov.uk/advice/public/buying/)
(^{19}) [https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/about/our-energy-use](https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/about/our-energy-use) Our Staff
Our diversity strategy
The Department’s vision is to make the most of our diversity by promoting effective and authentic leadership, by seeking behaviour change and by securing tangible outcomes. Four interlinking strategic aims have been set out in the strategy for 2013–16 to help us achieve this:
| Aims of our Diversity Strategy 2013-16 | |---------------------------------------| | • Leading a diverse workforce; | | • Creating a representative workforce;| | • Delivering an inclusive working environment; and | | • Improving how we deliver services to the public. |
The role of Civil Service, including our Home Office, diversity champions is to foster and embed equality for a designated specific protected characteristic across the Civil Service and their department, to improve performance as an employer and in the service we deliver to our customers. The Home Office Diversity Strategy Board with the support of the Diversity Delivery Group, is responsible for setting and overseeing the delivery of the strategy.
| Diversity Strategy Board responsibilities | |-------------------------------------------| | • Define and set the Department’s strategic direction on diversity; | | • Drive the development of an organisational culture that is inclusive and recognises, respects and values difference; and | | • Holds business areas accountable for mainstreaming equality and diversity into their business to deliver their objectives. |
Health and Wellbeing
The Home Office’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy was launched during 2014-15. This sets out three key aims including that every member of staff working in the Home Office fully understands that their health and wellbeing matters. A new attendance management policy was launched during this period with a key focus on employee wellbeing and encouraging managers to provide early support to staff both to prevent and reduce absence. Specific projects during the year relating to health and wellbeing have included the delivery of structured focus groups and workshops for such issues as the management of musculoskeletal injury and stress. These have been aimed at employees and managers to enable them to deal with workplace risk in relation to health and wellbeing and reduce the likelihood of ill health and absence. A programme of environmental surveys has also been initiated to assess the impact of environmental stressors such as noise, particulate and fume and develop controls where required to sustain a healthy workforce.
Workforce
The Department has robust and flexible workforce plans in place for the next year which will allow it to continue to manage its workforce, deliver business priorities and live within expenditure plans. Where appropriate, we have deployed our workforce flexibly; for example UK Visas and Immigration staff were deployed on Her Majesty’s Passport Office business over the summer of 2014 and we will continue to use our workforce in such ways in future years. We have been promoting opportunities for staff to work flexibly including access to the Civil Service Job Share Finder tool. To further support working parents we have also published policy and guidance on the right to shared parental leave (SPL) introduced in The Children and Families (C&F) Act 2014.
Capability and skills
Building the capability of our people remains central to our ability to deliver better as an organisation. 2014-15 saw the introduction of the first cross Home Office Skills Plan. This set out priority areas for development to contribute to Home Office transformation and the achievement of consistent competence across the Department. Progress against the plan has included:
- Take up of 1,000 places on the new Management Fundamentals programme to improve the capability of our managers;
- Expanding the offer of the Leadership Development programme to staff based overseas;
- Professionalisation of operational skills; and
- Improving commercial, digital, policy making and project delivery.
The refreshed Home Office Skills Plan for 2015-16 sets out ten priority areas where learning and development can be translated into improved performance and productivity and delivery of Home Office objectives. The priority areas are:
| Priority areas for Learning and Development | |--------------------------------------------| | Leadership of Operations and Change; | | Management Skills; | | Operational Skills; | | Working with Ministers; | | Policy Making; | | Commercial and Finance; | | Project Delivery; | | Digital; | | Data Analytics; and | | International. |
This plan will position the Home Office for the challenges of future years when demand for its services is likely to be larger in a technically more advanced world. It is also likely that there will be a requirement for more highly skilled, more productive and more flexible staff who are capable of driving their own development in support of an agile Home Office.
Community Involvement
The Home Office recognises that staff who undertake voluntary work not only benefit the communities in which they live and work, but also gain skills and experience that may be useful in the workplace.
Staff can apply for special leave with pay of up to five working days a year to work outside the Home Office as a volunteer. More days are available, for example, for staff who undertake community work as a special constable (ten days), a magistrate (eighteen days) or a school governor (six days). Links to a wide range of volunteering opportunities are advertised on the departmental intranet.
Gender
The Home Office is committed to ensuring that both men and women are able to reach their full potential in the Home Office. We are continuing to look to attract a larger number of female senior civil servants to work in the Department.
The Home Office is a member of ‘Opportunity Now’ – a business-led organisation that works to highlight the business benefits of gender equality in private, public and education sectors. We are also participating, along with other Whitehall departments, in a project run by the Demos consultancy company to look at the benefits of women’s networks, especially in the public sector.
In addition, we have held focus group discussions, hosted by the gender champion, to explore the ‘Women in Whitehall’ report’s findings and recommendations on the barriers to the progression of talented women. These discussions identified four common themes around: leadership and culture; children and ageism; policy and practice and the retention of talent. In January 2015, the Department’s Diversity Strategy Board (DSB) agreed priorities to be taken forward, which include focus on supporting women to fulfil their potential, confidence building and improving opportunities by providing better support for parents and pro-actively promoting flexible working opportunities.
| Number of male and female employees(^{20}): | Female | Male | Total at 31 March 2015 | |---------------------------------------------|--------|------|------------------------| | Directors(^{21}) | 3 | 7 | 10 | | Senior Managers(^{22}) | 83 | 158 | 241 | | Employees | 17,306 | 16,395 | 33,701 |
**Strategic Review**
**Funding**
The Home Office is accountable to Parliament for its expenditure. Parliamentary approval for its spending plans is sought through the Main Estimates presented to the House of Commons, specifying the estimated expenditure and asking for the necessary funds to be voted. The Department draws down voted funds in year from the Consolidated Fund as required.
The Estimates include a formal description (“ambit”) of the services to be financed. Voted money cannot be used to finance services that do not fall within the ambit.
At the Supplementary Estimate stage, a number of changes were made to the Department’s Estimate. These included:
**Changes made to the Department’s Estimate at the Supplementary Estimate stage:**
- Funding amounting to £237 million was agreed in relation to estimated Tribunal costs;
- An AME budget increase of £819 million mainly related to estimated police pension costs;
- Funding of £4.4 million for the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which transferred from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;
- Additional funding to cover the costs of policing the NATO summit (£35 million);
- Additional costs of £80 million in relation to the utilisation of existing provisions, including related to the 2011 riots damages costs;
- Programme funding to cover additional Border Force operational costs at Calais (£6 million); and
- A number of transfers with other departments in relation to court costs associated with the Immigration Act of 2014, support for the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement project, funding to cover work with the victims of child sexual exploitation and additional funding to strengthen national cyber security.
______________________________________________________________________
(^{20}) Based on headcount (not full-time equivalent). Includes permanent and temporary employees
(^{21}) Members of the Executive Management Board
(^{22}) All managers at Senior Civil Service (SCS) level Outturn
The Statement of Parliamentary Supply (SOPS), which is the main parliamentary control schedule, reports the outturn against Estimate (the Estimates Boundary). Additional detailed actual spending during 2014-15 against Estimate sub-heads is reported in the Analysis of Net Resource Outturn by Section (note 2.1 to the SOPS). Estimates for each sub-heading are finalised in the Supplementary Estimate with work to formulate these numbers taking place in December each year.
Estimate and the Accounts
The Estimate does not include income classified as Income Payable to the Consolidated Fund. It also excludes expense associated with the write-off of Income Payable to the Consolidated Fund related debtor invoices. These are, however, included in the accounts.
Further differences exist between the accounts (and Estimates) and the budgeting boundaries:
a) The resource budgeting boundary excludes items such as capital grants provided by the Home Office to Local Authorities (resource budgeting boundary excludes all capital grants); and
b) The budgeting boundary includes items which are not reported in the Estimate or accounts, for example, on balance sheet PFIs. (HO Estimate boundary is the same as the budgeting boundary as it includes all our DEL and AME). Payments to suppliers are classified as resource expenditure for budgetary purposes.
In accordance with the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM), explanations are provided for significant variances from the Net Estimate for Resources, or where it is thought appropriate to provide additional disclosure.
The overall spend for the year was in line with expectations at £13.195 billion (including resource, capital & AME).
The total DEL resource at £10.980 billion (resource only) shows an under spend for 2014-15, against the Supplementary Estimate, of £157 million (a variance of 1.4%). This is broken down as follows:
- DEL admin under spend of £76 million; and
- DEL programme under spend of £81 million.
The main cause of the underspend was final legal/litigation costs being less than expected. A number of legal cases concluded during the year, and the spend was generally less than originally forecasted. This was in line with Treasury expectations following a reserve claim at the Supplementary Estimates.
Across the business areas, the resource spend was generally in line with both expectations and delegated budgets. However, the significant variances between actual spend and delegated budgets within business areas are explained below:
Following the publication of the Supplementary Estimate, there has been significant restructuring within the Home Office. This resulted in further internal reallocation of budgets between business areas as financial pressures developed. This means that the variances highlighted in note SOPS2.1 (Analysis of net resource outturn by section) do not reflect the actual variances between revised delegated budgets and outturn. The variances explained below compare actual expenditure with revised delegated budgets as reported to the Executive Management Board, rather than the Estimate rows as in note SOPS2.1. Significant variances between actual spend and delegated budgets:
- Her Majesty’s Passport Office income was £74 million higher than planned due to greater than expected demand for passports;
- In meeting the increased demand for passports, HMPO incurred additional costs of £15 million compared to the original budget;
- The Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism under spent by £6 million, as a result of additional Asset Recovery income being realised;
- Border Force under spent by £5 million largely due to the planned reductions in the Border Systems Portfolio;
- The Corporate Services spend was £3 million greater than expected, largely due to increased estates costs and reduced Bramshill sale proceeds;
- There was an under-recovery of UK visa and immigration income (£5 million) largely driven by lower in-country migration demand and lower visit visa volumes. These reductions in demand were partially offset by higher than forecast uptake of optional premium services both in the UK and overseas;
- Increased UK visa and immigration costs (£19 million) were driven by higher asylum support costs caused by increased intake related to the problems in Syria and North Africa. Operational costs were £29 million higher than planned, primarily due to additional legal costs and workforce costs; and
- The Department incurred reduced immigration enforcement expenditure (£37 million) due to lower detention, escorting and removal costs.
Annually Managed Expenditure (AME), at £1,842 million, shows an under spend of £275 million. The vast majority of the departmental AME spend relates to the police pension top-up payment (£1.424 billion) and the establishment, at the Treasury’s request, of a provision (which we have estimated to be £460 million) to reflect the probability that litigation results in revised lump sum pension payments for retired police officers following the Pensions Ombudsman’s ruling.
Capital at £373 million showed an under spend of £18 million against budget. The majority of this underspend (£6 million) related to PFI capital adjustments and reduced police grants (£4 million) including those related to the Innovation Fund. The remainder of the underspend was caused by reduced detention estate and IT project costs.
The overall spend of the Department is declining, in line with reduced budgets. However, the resource spend of £12.822 billion in 2014-15 was greater than the pre-restated spend of £11.950 billion in 2013-14. The temporary increase in spend was due a number of exceptional items, often outwith the direct control of the Department. These included:
- The establishment of a police pension provision at the Treasury’s request following recent litigation (which we have estimated to be £460 million);
- An increase between years of police pension top-up payments (£138 million);
- Significant one-off legal/litigation costs (£150 million);
- Additional policing costs for the NATO Summit meeting (£35 million); and
- The Gangmasters Licensing Authority being consolidated within the departmental boundary for the first time in 2014-15.
Statement of Financial Position
The year end Statement of Financial Position (balance sheet) was in line with expectations. There are a number of points to note:
- From 1 October 2014, Her Majesty’s Passport Office is included in the results for the core Department, having previously been an executive agency. Non current asset balances at the year end reflect this change;
- The Department sold the Bramshill site during the year, and therefore the assets held for resale declined to £7 million;
- The Department had a cash balance of £166 million at the year end. Although this balance was lower than in the previous year, it still reflects significant receipts from other government departments late in the reporting year;
- Current provisions moved from £139 million at the start of the year to £505 million at the year end. This movement reflected, in the main, the creation of a pension scheme provision. The Treasury asked the Department to establish this provision to reflect the estimated cost of probable revised lump sum payments for eligible retired police officers; and
- Non current provisions increased from £138 million at the start of the year to £177 million at the year end. This was mainly due to an adverse movement in the pension liability for the Forensic Science Service of £42 million.
Cash Requirement
The overall cash requirement at 31 March 2015 was £12.616 billion, compared with a net control total figure of £12.952 billion. This was in line with expectations, reflecting both cash drawn down and in year movements in working capital.
Contingent Liabilities
As required by the FReM, notes 17 and 18 also disclose the Department’s contingent liabilities not required to be disclosed under IAS37, but which have been reported to Parliament in accordance with Managing Public Money. The Department is taking steps to help minimise the risks of these contingent liabilities crystallising as part of its normal risk management processes.
Spend on consultancy services and temporary staff
The Home Office has a robust consultancy and contingent labour expenditure control process. This process ensures that all requests to appoint external consultancy services or extend existing arrangements, require approval by the Consultancy & Contingent Labour (CCL) Board. This control covers the Home Office core, agencies and NDPBs.
The CCL Board, chaired by the Commercial Director, was established in October 2010 and meets at least every two weeks. Consultancy requests over £20,000, if approved by the CCL Board, are submitted to the Permanent Secretary for approval and then onwards to the Home Secretary and the relevant minister. The same process applies to new contingent labour posts, unless included in the CCL board’s quota (delegated authority allowing the board to agree up to 20 roles per quarter). Consultancy requests over 9 months are also submitted to The Cabinet Office Efficiency & Reform Group.
Full year spend in 2014-15 on Consultancy and Contingent Labour (CCL) by the Home Office, including agencies and NDPBs, was £89.6 million. The figure represents an increase of 1.2% from 2013-14 spend which was £88.5 million (after DBS CCL costs of £1.9 million in 2013-14 have been removed for comparative purposes). Her Majesty’s Passport Office this year has been included within Home Office HQ.
The Home Office monitors consultancy/agency staff costs to ensure that the continuing expenditure represents best value for money for the organisation. Of the £78 million spend by the Home Office core Department, £41 million is for agency staff predominantly in UK Visas and Immigration. Delays in recruitment of fixed term staff throughout the year, primarily through CCL staff conversion meant that agency Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff were retained in permanent posts although the overall FTE was generally within the budgeted FTE. Additionally, at the start of 2014-15 we experienced a higher than expected demand for passports and UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) staff were diverted from migrant casework processing to passports in order to ensure service levels were met. Agency staff have been retained as a flexible resource to deal with backlogs in migrant casework and asylum applications. Consultancy Services 2014-15 total expenditure (£000)
| Department | 2014-15 total expenditure (£000) | |-------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | Home Office core Department | 12,714 | | Independent Police Complaints Commission | 677 | | College of Policing | 152 | | Security Industry Authority | 1,077 | | **TOTAL** | **14,620** |
Contingent Labour/Agency Costs 2014-15 total expenditure (£000)
| Department | 2014-15 total expenditure (£000) | |-------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | Home Office core Department | 65,402 | | Independent Police Complaints Commission | 2,291 | | College of Policing | 5,374 | | Security Industry Authority | 1,902 | | Gangmasters Licensing Authority | 7 | | **TOTAL** | **74,976** |
Total Consultancy Services and Contingent Labour/Agency Costs 2014-15 total expenditure (£000)
| Department | 2014-15 total expenditure (£000) | |-------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | Home Office core Department | 78,116 | | Independent Police Complaints Commission | 2,968 | | College of Policing | 5,526 | | Security Industry Authority | 2,979 | | Gangmasters Licensing Authority | 7 | | **TOTAL** | **89,596** |
Complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) received a total of 1,222 complaints against the Home Office in the calendar year ending 31 December 2013. This is the period for which the most recently published Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report is available.
| Enquiries received | Complaints assessed | Complaints resolved through intervention | Complaints accepted for investigation | Investigations upheld or partly upheld | Investigations not upheld | |--------------------|---------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------| | 1,222 | 550 | 64 | 117 | 23 | 11 |
All recommendations made by the Ombudsman were complied with.
The number of enquiries about the Home Office decreased by 14% in 2013, falling from 1,417 to 1,222. This was driven by a 13% decrease in enquiries about what was the UK Border Agency or the UK Border Force, who accounted for 87% of all enquiries about the Home Office. There was also a 35% drop in enquiries about HM Passport Office. The proportion of enquiries about the Home Office where the customer was seeking advice on where and how to complain decreased from 68% to 57% with the remaining 43% taken on as complaints to be assessed.
23 [http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0005/25259/FINAL_Government_Complaint_Handling_report_2013.pdf](http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/25259/FINAL_Government_Complaint_Handling_report_2013.pdf) The Ombudsman assessed 550 complaints, similar to the 541 that they assessed in 2012. Of these, 518 were about what used to be the UK Border Agency or the UK Border Force. The number of complaints accepted for investigation rose from 29 to 117 as a result of changes in the Ombudsman processes. Of these, 104 related to the former UK Border Agency or the UK Border Force. The number of complaints upheld or resolved through intervention rose from 79 to 87. All of these related to what was previously known as the UK Border Agency or the UK Border Force.
Learning from complaints
Complaints about what was the UK Border Agency covered many different areas of their business, but the main theme running through those cases was delay.
The Department believes that complaints are an opportunity to improve its services and looks upon complaints as:
- Opportunities for us all to learn about the quality of the service we give, and at times to improve it;
- To improve our service, rather than just fixing a specific problem for an individual; and
- To take responsibility for complaints on our subject area. We ‘own’ the complaint on behalf of the organisation; the complainant ‘owns’ the original issue.
Also, the Home Office has published its complaint handling procedure, so the public can understand the process. Home Office staff are requested to familiarise themselves with it before handling a complaint in the interests of consistency.
For more information on the Ombudsman complaints process, classification of complaints and where to find recent reports and consultations refer to: http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/home
Performance in Responding to Correspondence from the Public
In 2014-15, Home Office Headquarters received 12,232 letters and emails from the public which required our response. We replied to 95% of this correspondence within the target of 20 working days.
Payment of Suppliers
The Home Office has signed up to the Confederation of British Industry’s (CBI) prompt payment code and BS7890, the British Standard for payment. Through the adoption of measured Service Improvement, accurate and timely management information and effective business engagement, we continue to maintain our prompt payment performance throughout the year. We aim to pay all valid invoices within five days of receipt of the compliant invoice. We paid 88% of invoices within 5 working days in 2014-15 (2013-14: 87%). We paid 99% of invoices within 30 days in 2014-15 (2013-14: 99%).
Mark Sedwill Accounting Officer
Date: 5 June 2015 Directors’ Report
Lead Non-Executive Board Member’s Report
Composition
There were a number of changes in Board membership during the year and the Home Office only had two NEDs in place for most of this period. This naturally created some discontinuity. However, four Supervisory Boards were held and were well attended and interactive.
Quality
Board agendas have covered a number of topics: from strategic updates through to ‘deep-dive’ items such as a review of the project portfolio, key risks and budget challenges and planning.
The meetings were focused, effectively chaired; with debate encouraged. Agendas were relevant and set appropriately to afford Board insight and scrutiny. The logistics of meetings and communications were timely and well managed. The support of the Board Secretariat is appreciated.
Departmental involvement of NEDs
During the year, NEDs have chaired and been members of the Audit and Risk and Nominations Committees and sat on key appointment panels. They have also contributed to specific issues where an external perspective was helpful, such as the Home Office Transformation programme including the Borders portfolio, the changes to HM Passport Office and the Triennial review of the IPCC. Numerous other activities have involved NEDs such as attendance at staff away days and mentoring of individuals within the Department. NEDs also attend the Permanent Secretary’s weekly thematic Executive Management Board meetings on an individual basis, which is invaluable in gaining a greater insight into the issues the Department faces.
Conclusion & recommendations
In summary, the Supervisory Board has added value with interactive debate and thematic reviews. The Department has made good use of the external expertise NEDs provide at the Board and in numerous other forums and activities.
Evaluation of Board effectiveness
In light of the fact that only two NEDs were in place (and for some months only one NED), a full Board evaluation is not appropriate. It is recommended that a full review be carried out once new NEDs are in place. Actions identified in earlier evaluations have, however, been reviewed and updated as follows: Update on Actions
- Minutes or updates from sub-committees of the Board to be circulated between Board meetings; committee Chairs to provide updates at every Board meeting or should significant issues arise. Updates are now provided at Board meetings.
- Board to consider whether monthly briefings between Board meetings on key departmental issues would improve information flows between meetings. The ability for NEDs to attend Executive Management Board meetings now ensures that key departmental issues are more easily communicated.
- A review of the Supervisory Board Operating Framework by the Board Secretariat. The Board Secretariat is reviewing Board governance structures to be agreed following the General Election.
- Risk reporting data to be re-evaluated to ensure that it includes a sharper focus on key Arm’s Length Body risks. Risk reporting does cover Arm’s Length Bodies but further work could be done on this.
- Board to consider scheduling at least two informal meetings a year in addition to a Strategy Away day. Not applicable until all NEDs are in place.
- Board to consider whether routine discussions should be condensed to the first thirty minutes of Board meetings, to allow the discussion of one priority issue for the rest of the meeting. Specific topics have been discussed and routine discussions reduced.
- Board members to be briefed on any high-profile issues as they arise, if possible before media coverage. Partly complete, some issues have been briefed.
- Proposals to be developed for Non-Executive Directors to be aligned with different Home Office work streams and to provide a source of external challenge where requested. In place. Both NEDs are aligned with different subject areas.
Sue Langley Home Office Lead Non-Executive Our Ministers
The following ministers were responsible for the Department during 2014-15:
| Minister | Position | |-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Rt Hon Theresa May MP | Secretary of State for the Home Office | | Rt Hon Lord Bates | Lords Minister and Minister for Criminal Information (from 6 August 2014) | | Lord Taylor of Holbeach | Lords Minister and Minister for Criminal Information (until 5 August 2014) | | Lynne Featherstone MP | Minister of State for Crime Prevention (from 4 November 2014) | | Name | Position | |-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Rt Hon Mike Penning MP | Minister of State for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (jointly with the Ministry of Justice) (from 15 July 2014) | | James Brokenshire MP | Minister of State for Immigration and Security | | Karen Bradley MP | Minister for Modern Slavery and Organised Crime | | Rt Hon Damian Green MP | Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Jointly with Ministry of Justice) (until 14 July 2014) | | Norman Baker MP | Minister of State for Crime Prevention (until 3 November 2014) | Machinery of Government Changes
The entities consolidated within the departmental boundary during 2014-15 are listed in Note 22 to the accounts. The Department continued to undergo re-organisation during the year. On 9 April 2014, the Prime Minister announced that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (formally a Non-Departmental Public Body of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) transferred to the Home Office. In line with merger accounting principles, the prior year numbers have been restated to include the results of the GLA. The financial impact of Machinery of Government (MoG) changes are explained in more detail in Note 26.
The other key organisational changes during the year are listed below:
a) following a ruling from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Disclosure and Barring Service was reclassified as a Public Corporation, and hence it is no longer included within the Home Office departmental boundary; and
b) Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO) ceased operating as an executive agency of the Department on 30 September, and was integrated within the core Department thereafter.
Going Concern
The Consolidated Statement of Financial Position as 31 March 2015 shows taxpayers’ equity of £(269.3) million, (2013-14 £137.0 million).
In common with other government departments, the future financing of the Department’s liabilities is to be met by future grants of Supply and the application of future income, both to be approved annually by Parliament. Accordingly, it is appropriate to adopt a going concern basis for the preparation of these financial statements.
External Auditor
These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and are subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The total notional NAO audit fee for the core Department and its agencies was £505,000 (2013-14, £701,000), of which that for the core Department alone was £400,000 (£495,000 2013-14). The audit fee for the Department’s non-departmental public bodies was not notional and totalled £269,000 (£248,000, 2013-14 restated for Machinery of Government changes). No remuneration has been paid to the NAO during 2014-15 for non-audit work (2013-14 £nil).
As far as the Accounting Officer is aware, there is no relevant audit information of which the auditor is unaware. The Accounting Officer has taken all the steps that he ought to have taken to make himself aware of any relevant audit information and to establish that the auditor is aware of that information.
Political and Charitable Donations
The Home Office has not made any political or charitable donations during 2014-15.
Future developments
The 2013 Spending Round (SR13) imposed significant reductions in departmental expenditure for the financial year 2015-16. The Department’s resource expenditure limits (excluding depreciation) will be £10,320 million (post Main Estimate). Within this resource settlement, the Department’s administration budget (excluding depreciation) will reduce to £400 million, equivalent to more than a 50 per cent real-terms reduction compared to the 2010-11 baseline used in Spending Review 2010. In line with the most recent Office for Budget Responsibility projections, the Home Office is anticipating that further reductions will be required through the course of the next Parliament. We have put in place a programme of work to develop the Department’s medium-term plans up to 2020, and the transformation plans that will be required to deliver further savings whilst meeting expectations on service standards and public protection. Plans will be finalised as part of any future spending round process led by HM Treasury. Our Boards
Supervisory Board (SB)
The Secretary of State-chaired Supervisory Board (SB) monitors the Department’s performance against its business plan at a strategic level and provides the overall leadership of the Department. It consists of ministers, non-executive directors, drawn primarily from the commercial private sector, and senior departmental officials. The Board’s agendas over the last year have covered:
- A range of ‘hot topics’ that the Department has been dealing with and updates on delivery priorities;
- Performance against strategic priorities;
- Input from sub-committees particularly on Internal and External Audit and Risk Management issues;
- In year financial performance and forward financial plans including transformation projects;
- Consideration of lessons to be learnt from previous experiences such as those concerning the Passport Office, and
- Staff Skills and Development planning.
It is supported by sub-committees on Audit & Risk Assurance, Remuneration, Nominations and Governance sub-committees.
The membership of the Supervisory Board during 2014-15 is listed below:
| Ministers | | |------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | Rt Hon Theresa May MP | Secretary of State for the Home Office | | Rt Hon Lord Bates | Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Criminal Information (from 6 August 2014) | | Lord Taylor of Holbeach | Lords Minister and Minister for Criminal Information (until 5 August 2014) | | Lynne Featherstone MP | Minister of State for Crime Prevention (from 4 November 2014) | | Rt Hon Mike Penning MP | Minister of State for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, jointly with the Ministry of Justice (from 15 July 2014) | | James Brokenshire MP | Minister of State for Immigration and Security | | Karen Bradley MP | Minister for Modern Slavery and Organised Crime | | Rt Hon Damian Green MP | Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, jointly with the Ministry of Justice (until 14 July 2014) | | Norman Baker MP | Minister of State for Crime Prevention (until 3 November 2014) |
| Officials | | |------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | Mark Sedwill | Permanent Secretary | | Peter Storr | Acting Director General, International and Immigration Policy Group (from 2 March 2015) | | Charles Farr | Director General, Office for Security and Counter-terrorism | | Mike Parsons | Chief Operating Officer | | Sir Charles Montgomery | Director General, Border Force | | Sarah Rapson | Director General, UK Visas and Immigration | | Mary Calam | Director General, Crime and Policing Group | | Kevin White | Director General, Human Resources | | Mandie Campbell | Director General, Immigration Enforcement | | Peter Fish | Director General, Legal (from 22 April 2014) | | Mike Anderson | Director General, International and Immigration Policy Group (until 2 March 2015) | Tyson Hepple Acting Director General, Her Majesty’s Passport Office (from 10 November 2014 until 31 March 2015)
Mark Thomson was appointed Director General of Her Majesty’s Passport Office on 1 April 2015.
Non-Executive Directors
Sue Langley Lead Non Executive Director from 1 May 2014 Val Gooding resigned 30 April 2014 Alan Brown from 11 August 2014
Role of the Executive Management Board (EMB)
The EMB, chaired by the Permanent Secretary and made up primarily of senior officials, is the Department’s senior management team, providing corporate strategic leadership and overseeing the day-to-day running of the Department.
It supports the Supervisory Board in driving the development of the Department’s leadership and wider capability, and setting the strategy for developing all Home Office staff; in maintaining oversight of performance; and in ensuring that all parts of the organisation are working together effectively.
The EMB, which meets almost weekly, is chaired by the Permanent Secretary. Members of the EMB were:
Officials
| Name | Position | |-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Mark Sedwill | Permanent Secretary | | Peter Storr | Acting Director General, International and Immigration Policy Group (from 2 March 2015) | | Charles Farr | Director General, Office for Security and Counter-terrorism | | Mike Parsons | Chief Operating Officer | | Sir Charles Montgomery| Director General, Border Force | | Sarah Rapson | Director General, UK Visas and Immigration | | Mary Calam | Director General, Crime and Policing Group | | Kevin White | Director General, Human Resources | | Mandie Campbell | Director General, Immigration Enforcement | | Peter Fish | Director General, Legal (from 22 April 2014) | | Mike Anderson | Director General, International and Immigration Policy Group (until 2 March 2015) | | Tyson Hepple | Acting Director General, Her Majesty’s Passport Office (from 10 November 2014 until 31 March 2015) | Non-executive directors
Independent non-executive directors of the Home Office Board are recruited through fair and open competition. All non-executive directors on the Supervisory Board are appointed by the Home Secretary. Non-executive directors of the board are appointed for an initial period of three years with an option to extend for a further three years. These appointments can be terminated with one month’s notice period.
The start and end dates of the non-executive directors were as follows:
| Non-Executive Director | Start Date | End Date | |------------------------|------------------|-------------------| | Sue Langley | 1 December 2013 | 30 November 2016 | | Val Gooding | 4 January 2011 | 30 April 2014 | | Alan Brown | 11 August 2014 | 10 August 2017 |
Sue Langley was appointed Lead non-executive director from 1 May 2014.
Public Appointments
All appointments to Home Office sponsored public bodies are made in accordance with the principles of merit, openness and fairness, as set out in the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) Code of Practice. From 01 April 2014 appointments have been managed centrally by a dedicated team in Human Resources for greater consistency of approach. As a result, the Department’s compliance and capability risk rating was revised from Amber/Red to Amber/Green in January 2015, indicating a moderate rather than significant compliance risk to the organisation and / or moderate concerns with capability to achieve successful appointments.
In 2014-15 the Department made 36 new public appointments, 13 re-appointments and extended the terms of eight individuals for up to one year. The Department has been a frontrunner across government in complying with the Cabinet Office aspiration that 50% of appointees are female, achieving a ratio of 53% for 2013-14 and 47% for 2014-15. To ensure that Ministers continue to be presented with a choice of appointees from a strong and diverse field, the Department will focus on implementing further strategies in 2015-16 to attract candidates from under-represented groups.
Appointment of Senior Officials
The Permanent Head of the Department was appointed by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Head of the Home Civil Service and with the agreement of the Ministerial Head of the Department. All Executive Management Board appointments are permanent Civil Service appointments, the terms of which are set out in the standard Senior Civil Service contract. These appointments are for an indefinite term under the terms of the Senior Civil Service contract. The rules for termination are set out in Chapter 11 of the Civil Service Management Code.
Ministers’ and Board Members’ Remuneration
Ministers’ remuneration is set by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 (as amended by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1996) and the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991.
The Permanent Secretary’s pay is set by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the Permanent Secretaries’ Remuneration Committee. The committee’s membership and terms of reference were announced by the then Prime Minister on 9 February 1995 (Hansard, cols 245-247).
Details on remuneration are set out in the Remuneration Report beginning on page 56.
The Home Office received the following accolades during 2014-15. Home Office accolades 2014-15
- Gold benchmark in Race for Opportunity (Race) and Opportunity Now (gender) (ranked in the top 10% of public sector organisations);
- Stonewall star performer and top 100 (5th overall); and
- Times top 50 employers for women.
During 2014-15, the Home Secretary signed the Time to Change Pledge, which aims to combat stigma regarding mental health in the workplace. In particular, a “movement” was initiated around mental health to address stigma, raise awareness and to bring together the mental health buddy networks. In addition the Department has fully supported the national Dementia Friends campaign.
The Home Office is implementing the Civil Service Talent Action Plan which seeks to understand and address the barriers to progression for women, disabled, BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) and LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) staff. Career progression, talent management and succession planning are important aspects of our strategy.
The Department provides resources to specific internal staff support networks – these include Home Office Women, The Network covering members of staff from black and minority ethnic communities, the Home Office Disability Support Network (HODS) and Spectrum covering lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender members of staff. There are also several faith groups within the Home Office: Home Office Sikh Association; Home Office Christian Network; Home Office Islamic Network; Home Office Hindu Connection and the Home Office Jewish Network.
Employment of disabled persons policy
We work to ensure that disability is not regarded as a barrier to recruitment or promotion. The Department is committed to ensuring that disabled staff have access to the same opportunities as other staff, not only when they first join the Department but at all stages in their career. Additionally, we provide internal support to staff with disabilities through the HODS, our disabled staff support network. We also have a number of buddy networks for a variety of disabilities where staff can obtain peer support and advice.
The Department operates a Guaranteed Interview Scheme, which guarantees an interview to anyone with a disability whose application meets the minimum criteria for the post. Once in post, disabled staff are provided with any reasonable support/adjustments they might need to carry out their duties.
Consultation with employees
The Home Office has in place a consultative framework for engaging trade union representatives. There are four recognised Trade Unions and facility time is provided to allow union representatives to take part in industrial relations duties.
Staff Sickness
The rolling year average working days lost to sick absence for the Home Office as at 31 March 2015 is 6.69 days (7.11 days in 2013-14). This figure is per staff year which is in line with cross-Government guidelines from Cabinet Office.
Recruitment policy
In May 2010 an external recruitment freeze was announced across the Civil Service. Exceptions to the recruitment freeze continue to be approved in accordance with Cabinet Office Guidelines. During the year, the Home Office filled 1,882 posts through external recruitment. The majority of this recruitment was to support the delivery of frontline business objectives. The remaining external recruitment filled specialist posts where the department was not able to source suitable candidates from within the Civil Service, for example, roles supporting the ‘Digital by Default’ agenda. Off-payroll engagements
Following the Review of Tax Arrangements of Public Sector Appointees published by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 23 May 2012, departments and their arm’s length bodies must publish information on their highly paid and/or senior off-payroll engagements.
The tables below provides the total number of off-payroll engagements, who are earning in excess of £220 per day plus new engagements during the year and also a table showing those who were board members or senior officials during the year.
Table 1:
This table shows the number of off-payroll engagements as of 31 March 2015, for more than £220 per day and that last for longer than six months.
| Main Department | Agencies | ALBs | |-----------------|----------|------| | Number of existing engagements as of 31 March 2015 | 150 | - | 34 | | Of which: | | | | | Number that have existed for less than one year at time of reporting | 49 | - | 26 | | Number that have existed for between one and two years at time of reporting | 57 | - | 8 | | Number that have existed for between two and three years at time of reporting | 28 | - | - | | Number that have existed for between three and four years at time of reporting | 6 | - | - | | Number that have existed for four or more years at time of reporting | 10 | - | - |
All existing off-payroll engagements, outlined above, have at some point been subject to a risk based assessment as to whether assurance is required that the individual is paying the right amount of tax and, where necessary, that assurance has been sought.
Table 2:
For all new off-payroll engagements, or those that reached six months in duration, between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2015, for more than £220 per day and that last for longer than six months.
| Main Department | Agencies | ALBs | |-----------------|----------|------| | Number of new engagements, or those that reached six months in duration, between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014 | 70 | - | 25 | | Number of the above which include contractual clauses giving the Department the right to request assurance in relation to income tax and National Insurance obligations | 70 | - | 25 | | Number for whom assurance has been requested | 70 | - | 25 | | Of which… | | | | | Number for whom assurance has been received | 58 | - | 19 | | Number for whom assurance has not been received | 12 | - | 6 | | Number that have been terminated as a result of assurance not being received | - | - | - |
24 ALBs figure for new/6month engagements is less than reported as existing for less than 1 year at 31/3/15 because 5 are new joiners immediately prior to year end and have not hit the 6 months assurance threshold at date of reporting 25 Of 18 for whom assurance was not received, 17 have left, and one is now on the payroll Table 3:
For any off-payroll engagements of board members, and/or, senior officials with significant financial responsibility, between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2015.
| Main Department | Agencies | ALBs | |-----------------|----------|------| | Number of off-payroll engagements of board members, and/or, senior officials with significant financial responsibility, during the financial year. | - | - | 1 | | Number of individuals that have been deemed “board members, and/or, senior officials with significant financial responsibility”, during the financial year. This figure should include both off-payroll and on-payroll engagements. | 11 | - | 11 |
Data Losses / Information Assurance
Information Assurance (IA) and managing information risk continue to be priorities for the Home Office with work being progressed in several key areas; cyber issues have been added for the first time this year to the enhanced maturity assessment used by the Department to provide comprehensive assurance to our SIRO and ultimately, the Home Office Board. For 2014-15 this involved six month reviews and a bespoke action plan for each part of the Department, evidencing the Home Office’s continued commitment and improvement in this area. Work has also begun to prepare for a National Archives Information Management Assessment of the Home Office in June 2015 which will provide external validation of the maturity assessment work undertaken this year.
In response to significant organisational changes across the Department, a programme of work is underway to ensure that our records of information assets and their associated Information Asset Owners (IAOs) are accurate and properly maintained. By the end of 2014-15 this programme had delivered the necessary training to over 200 of those IAOs. Delivering the baseline assurance necessary to build a robust IA culture will be an on-going process, especially as HMPO have been brought into the Home Office since this programme of work was initiated.
Data related incidents of all types are managed through the process designed by Home Office Corporate Security (CS). Any business area suffering an incident is supported by CS through every stage, ranging from initial information gathering and necessary immediate action, to management of the associated risks and finally, lessons learned.
### Personal Data Related Incidents
#### Table 1: SUMMARY OF OTHER PERSONAL DATA INCIDENTS FORMALLY REPORTED TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE IN 2014-15
No incidents have been formally reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office during the 2013-14 reporting period.
| Category | Nature of Incident | Total | |----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------| | I | Loss of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper documents from secured government premises. | 0 | | II | Loss of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper documents from outside secured government premises | 0 | | III | Insecure disposal of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper documents. | 0 | | IV | Unauthorised disclosure. | 0 | | V | Other | 0 |
#### Table 2: SUMMARY OF OTHER PERSONAL DATA INCIDENTS RECORDED IN 2014-15
Incidents deemed by the data controller not to fall within the criteria for report to the Information Commissioners Office but recorded centrally within the Department are set out in the table below. Small localised incidents are not recorded centrally and are not cited in the table below.
| Category | Nature of Incident | Total | |----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------| | I | Loss of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper documents from secured government premises. | 2 | | II | Loss of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper documents from outside secured government premises | 6 | | III | Insecure disposal of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper documents. | 0 | | IV | Unauthorised disclosure. | 14 | | V | Other | 11 |
**Note:** For the purpose of reporting, “Home Office Group” includes core Home Office, Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO) and excludes Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and other Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs). Remuneration Report
Service Contracts
The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 requires Civil Service appointments to be made on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. The Recruitment Principles published by the Civil Service Commission specify the circumstances when appointments may be made otherwise.
Unless otherwise stated below, the officials covered by this report hold appointments which are open-ended. Early termination, other than for misconduct, would result in the individual receiving compensation as set out in the Civil Service Compensation Scheme.
Further information about the work of the Civil Service Commission can be found at www.civilservicecommission.org.uk
Remuneration Policy
The remuneration of senior civil servants is set by the Prime Minister following independent advice from the Review Body on Senior Salaries (SSRB).
The Review Body sometimes advise the Prime Minister on the pay and pensions of Members of Parliament and their allowances, on Peers’ allowances and on the pay, pensions and allowances of Ministers and others whose pay is determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975.
In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body has regard to the following considerations:
- The need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people to exercise their different responsibilities;
- Regional and local variations in labour markets and their effects on the recruitment and retention of staff;
- Government policies for improving the public services including the requirement on departments to meet the output targets for the delivery of departmental services;
- The funds available to departments as set out in the Government’s Departmental Expenditure Limits;
- The Government’s inflation target; and
- Evidence received about wider economic considerations and the affordability of recommendations provided.
In making recommendations, the Review Body considers any factors that the Government and other witnesses may draw to its attention. In particular:
- Differences in terms and conditions of employment between the public and private sector and between the remit groups, taking account of relative job security and the value of benefits in kind;
- Changes in national pay systems, including flexibility and the reward of success;
- Job weight in differentiating the remuneration for particular posts;
- The need to maintain broad linkage between the remuneration of the three main remit groups, while allowing sufficient flexibility to take account of the circumstances of each group; and
- The relevant legal obligations, including anti-discrimination legislation regarding age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religion and belief and disability.
The Review Body sometimes make other recommendations to relate reward to performance where appropriate; maintain the confidence of those covered by the review body’s remit that its recommendations have been fairly and properly determined and the remuneration of those covered by the remit is consistent with the Government’s equal opportunities policy.
Further information about the work of the Review Body can be found at www.gov.uk/government/organisations/review-body-on-senior-salaries.
The disclosures within this Remuneration Report are subject to audit. Ministers
The Ministers responsible for the Department during 2014-15 are reported on pages 46 - 47.
Membership of the Home Office Supervisory Board
The membership of the Supervisory Board during 2014-15 is reported on pages 49 - 50.
Executive Management Board (EMB)
The membership of the Executive Management Board during 2014-15 is reported on page 50.
Non executive directors
The information details relating to the non-executive directors is reported on page 51.
Remuneration Committees
The Home Office Remuneration Committee work to Cabinet Office guidelines to determine the amount of non-consolidated performance-related pay for senior civil servants (SCS) within the Home Office. To assess the 2013-14 performance year the committees comprised:
| Pay Band 3 Remuneration Committee | |----------------------------------| | Mark Sedwill (Chair), Sue Langley, Jane Cosgrove |
| Pay Band 2 Remuneration Committee | |----------------------------------| | Mark Sedwill (Chair), Mike Anderson, Mary Calam, Mandie Campbell, Charles Farr, Sir Charles Montgomery, Mike Parsons, Sarah Rapson and Kevin White |
| Pay Band 1 Remuneration Committee | |----------------------------------| | Mark Sedwill (Chair), Mike Anderson, Mary Calam, Mandie Campbell, Charles Farr, Sir Charles Montgomery, Mike Parsons, Sarah Rapson and Kevin White |
The assessment and review of performance for senior civil servants is based on individual performance. Individuals were ranked in three performance groups in each pay band:
Group 1 – top 25% of performers
Group 2 – achieving 65% of performers
Group 3 – low 10% of performers
For the 2013-14 performance year, only Group 1 was eligible for a non-consolidated performance payment.
Arrangements for senior civil service pay and reward are determined centrally by the Cabinet Office following recommendations from the independent Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB). For the 2013-14 performance year Cabinet Office guidelines continued to allow for consolidated pay increases limited to an average award of 1%, and up to 3.3% of the SCS pay bill to be used for non-consolidated performance payments.
The Home Office awarded the staff in Groups 1 & 2 a pay increase limited to an average award of 1% which was dependent on individual performance and pay position. It paid out 1.1% of the SCS pay bill on non-consolidated performance payments to staff in Group 1; this equates to £279,500.
Bonus payments for the 2013-14 performance year were paid in July 2014. These were up to £10,500 (Pay Band 3); £7,500 (Pay Band 2) and £5,500 (Pay Band 1).
The assessment and review of performance for the 2014-15 performance year will be undertaken shortly.
Remuneration (including salary) and pension entitlements
The following sections provide details of the remuneration and pension interests of the Ministers and most senior management (i.e. Board members) of the Department.
| Single total figure of remuneration | |-------------------------------------| | Ministers | Salary (£) | Benefits in kind (to nearest £100) | Pension benefits (to nearest £’000) | Total (to nearest £’000) | |-------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------| | | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | | Rt Hon Theresa May MP Home Secretary| 67,505 | 68,169 | - | - | 21,000 | 25,000 | 89,000 | 93,000 | | Lord Taylor of Holbeach27 (until 5 August 2014) | 36,438 (105,076) | 105,076 | 3,100 | 11,000 | N/A | N/A | 40,000 | 116,000 | | Rt Hon Lord Bates28 (from 6 August 2014) | 47,339 (72,470) | - | - | - | 16,000 | - | 63,000 | - | | Lynne Featherstone MP (from 4 November 2014) | 12,936 (31,680) | - | - | - | 4,000 | - | 17,000 | - | | Rt Hon Mike Penning MP (from 15 July 2014) | 22,568 (31,680) | - | - | - | 8,000 | - | 30,000 | - | | James Brokenshire MP | 31,680 | 24,396 (32,344) | - | - | 11,000 | 12,000 | 43,000 | 36,000 | | Karen Bradley MP | 22,375 | 3,360 (23,039) | - | - | 7,000 | 1,000 | 29,000 | 4,000 | | Rt Hon Damian Green MP (until 14 July 2014) | 17,032 (31,680) | 32,344 | - | - | 4,000 | 12,000 | 21,000 | 44,000 | | Norman Baker MP (until 3 November 2014) | 26,664 (31,680) | 15,650 (32,344) | - | - | 5,000 | 5,000 | 32,000 | 21,000 |
The salary shown for MP ministers only relates to the difference between their MP’s salary and their minister’s salary, as the MP element is paid via the House of Parliament and not the Home Office.
26 The value of pension benefits accrued during the year is calculated as (the real increase in pension multiplied by 20) add (real increase in any lump sum) less (the contributions made by the individual). The real increase excludes increases due to inflation or any increase or decrease due to a transfer of pension rights.
27 Lord Taylor of Holbeach sits in the House of Lords and is not in receipt of an MP’s salary; therefore, his full ministerial salary is reported here. Lord Taylor of Holbeach received the Lords nightly allowance of £12,610.79 (£36,366 per annum) inclusive in his salary.
28 Lord Bates sits in the House of Lords and is not in receipt of an MP’s salary; therefore, his full ministerial salary is reported here. Lord Bates received the Lords nightly allowance of £2,456.10 (£3,760 per annum) in 2014-15 inclusive in his salary.
29 Included in Rt Hon Damian Green and Norman Baker MP salaries are £7,920 each, paid as compensation in lieu of notice.
## Remuneration (salary, benefits in kind and pensions)
### Single total figure of remuneration
| Board members | Salary (£’000) | Bonus payments (£’000) | Benefits in kind (to nearest £100) | Pension benefits (£’000) | Total (£’000) | |---------------|----------------|------------------------|------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------| | | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | | Mark Sedwill | 180-185 | 180-185 | - | - | 1,400 | 600 | 62,000 | 35,000 | | Permanent Secretary | | | | | | | | | | Peter Storr | 5-10 | - | - | - | - | - | 12,000 | 20-25 | | Acting Director General, International and Immigration Policy Group (from 2 March 2015) | (120-125) | | | | | | | | | Charles Farr | 165-170 | 140-145 | 10-15 | 5-10 | - | - | 38,000 | - | | Director General, Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | (140-145) | | | | | | | | | Mike Parsons | 150-155 | 85-90 | - | - | - | - | 57,000 | 43,000 | | Chief Operating Officer | (150-155) | | | | | | | | | Sir Charles Montgomery | 140-145 | 145-150 | 10-15 | - | - | - | 48,000 | 55,000 | | Director General, Border Force | (140-145) | | | | | | | | | Sarah Rapson | 130-135 | 125-130 | - | - | - | - | 98,000 | 21,000 | | Director General, UK Visas and Immigration | (125-130) | | | | | | | | | Mary Calam | 125-130 | 40-45 | 5-10 | - | - | - | 150,000 | 28,000 | | Director General, Crime and Policing Group | (110-115) | | | | | | | | | Kevin White | 140-145 | 140-145 | - | - | - | - | 22,000 | 6,000 | | Director General, Human Resources | | | | | | | | | | Mandie Campbell | 130-135 | 20-25 | 5-10 | - | - | - | 107,000 | 18,000 | | Director General, Immigration Enforcement | (130-135) | | | | | | | | | Mike Anderson | 130-135 | 130-135 | - | - | - | - | 39,000 | 28,000 | | Director General, International and Immigration Policy Group (until 2 March 2015) | (130-135) | | | | | | | |
### Single total figure of remuneration
| Board members | Salary (£’000) | Bonus payments (£’000) | Benefits in kind (to nearest £100) | Pension benefits (£’000) | Total (£’000) | |---------------|----------------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-------------------------|---------------| | | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | | Tyson Hepple | 35-40 | - | 0-5 | - | - | 8,000 | - | 45-50 | - | | Acting Director General, Her Majesty’s Passport Office (from 10 November 2014 until 31 March 2015) | (95-100) | | | | | | | |
### Non Executive Directors
| Non Executive Directors | Salary (£’000) | Bonus payments (£’000) | Benefits in kind (to nearest £100) | Pension benefits (£’000) | Total (£’000) | |-------------------------|----------------|------------------------|------------------------------------|-------------------------|---------------| | | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | | Sue Langley | 15-20 | 5-10 | - | - | - | - | - | 15-20 | 5-10 | | (20-25) | (15-20) | | | | | | | | | | Val Gooding | 0-5 | 20-25 | - | - | - | - | - | 0-5 | 20-25 | | (until 30 April 2014) | (20-25) | | | | | | | | | | Alan Brown | 5-10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 5-10 | - | | (from 11 August 2014) | (15-20) | | | | | | | | |
______________________________________________________________________
30 Peter Fish replaced Jonathan Jones as the Home Office’s legal adviser in April 2014. Peter remains on the Treasury Solicitors payroll and is still a Director General there. Peter is not a formal member of the Home Office EMB. His remuneration is therefore included in the Treasury Solicitors annual report.
31 The value of pension benefits accrued during the year is calculated as (the real increase in pension multiplied by 20) add (real increase in any lump sum) less (the contributions made by the individual). The real increase excludes increases due to inflation or any increase or decrease due to a transfer of pension rights. A change in personal circumstances may lead to a negative in year pension benefit being reported.
32 Charles Farr became a permanent Home Office member of staff on 15 July 2014 after his secondment from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Included in his salary is a payment of £24,461.25 for excess annual leave relating to his time at the FCO.
33 Mike Parsons’ salary included a recovery of £416.66 relating to a 2013-14 overpayment.
34 Sir Charles Montgomery’s 2013-14 salary included £4,962 for his March 2013 salary as he joined mid March, 2013.
35 Sarah Rapson made a salary sacrifice of £2,196.00.
36 Included in Mandie Campbell’s salary is a performance related bonus of £7,500 for her previous role.
37 Included in Mike Anderson’s Home Office salary is a payment of £10,089.00 for excess annual leave not taken.
38 Tyson Hepple made a salary sacrifice of £899.10. Included in Tyson’s salary is a performance related bonus of £2,500 for his previous role.
39 Sue Langley was promoted to Lead NED in May 2014. Her 2014-15 salary is therefore lower than the full year equivalent for a Lead NED. The non-executive directors listed above are those who sat on the Home Office Board, the Home Office Supervisory Board and the Executive Management Board. Non-executive directors do not receive bonuses. Other non-executive directors are employed by the Home Office’s agencies and NDPBs and their details can be found in the accounts of these bodies.
Salary
‘Salary’ includes gross salary; overtime; reserved rights to London weighting or London allowances; recruitment and retention allowances; private office allowances and any other allowance to the extent that it is subject to UK taxation. This report is based on accrued payments made by the Department and thus recorded in these accounts. In respect of Ministers in the House of Commons, departments bear only the cost of the additional Ministerial remuneration; the salary for their services as an MP (£66,396 from 1 April 2013, £67,060 from 1 April 2014) and various allowances to which they are entitled are borne centrally. However, the arrangement for Ministers in the House of Lords is different in that they do not receive a salary but rather an additional remuneration, which cannot be quantified separately from their Ministerial salaries. This total remuneration, as well as the allowances to which they are entitled, is paid by the Department and is therefore shown in full in the figures above.
Benefits in kind
The monetary value of benefits in kind covers any benefits provided by the Department and treated by HM Revenue and Customs as a taxable emolument.
Bonuses
Bonuses are based on performance levels attained and are made as part of the appraisal process. Bonuses relate to the performance in the year in which they become payable to the individual. The bonuses reported in 2014-15 relate to performance in 2013-14 and the comparative bonuses reported for 2013-14 relate to the performance in 2012-13.
Pay multiples
Reporting bodies are required to disclose the relationship between the remuneration of the highest-paid director in their organisation and the median remuneration of the organisation’s workforce.
The banded remuneration of the highest paid director in the Home Office in the financial year 2014-15 was £180,000 – £185,000 (2013-14, £180,000 – £185,000). This was 5.8 times (2013-14, 5.6 times) the median remuneration of the workforce, which was £31,260 (2013-14, £32,695).
In 2014-15, no (2013-14, 0) employees received remuneration in excess of the highest-paid director. Remuneration(^{40}) ranged from £10,000 – £15,000 to £180,000 – £185,000 (2013-14, £10,000 – £15,000 to £220,000 – £225,000).
______________________________________________________________________
(^{40}) Total remuneration includes salary, non-consolidated performance-related pay and benefits-in-kind. It does not include severance payments, employer pension contributions and the cash equivalent transfer value of pensions. The following table shows the median earnings of the Department’s workforce and the ratio between this and the earning of the highest paid director.
| Band of Highest Paid Director’s Total Remuneration (£’000) | 2014-15 (Mark Sedwill) | 2013-14 (Mark Sedwill) | |----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------| | Median Total (£) | 31,260 | 32,695 | | Remuneration Ratio | 5.8 | 5.6 |
The highest paid director has remained the same in both financial years. During 2013-14 there was a buyout of some Terms and Conditions of many civil servants, increasing total remuneration. During 2014-15 the total remuneration of these employees reduced as the buyout related to 2013-14 only. In addition, during 2014-15 many of the new staff joined at lower salaries than those leaving. These differences explain the increase in the Remuneration Ratio of 0.2.
Distribution of Headcount of Senior Civil Service (SCS) salaries (actual) as at end of March 2015(^{41}) (unaudited)
| Salary Bands | SCS within the range as at end of March 2015(^{42}) | Percentage | |--------------------|------------------------------------------------------|------------| | £60,000 – £70,000 | 26 | 12.15% | | £70,000 – £75,000 | 32 | 14.95% | | £75,000 – £80,000 | 36 | 16.82% | | £80,000 – £85,000 | 25 | 11.68% | | £85,000 – £90,000 | 26 | 12.15% | | £90,000 – £95,000 | 18 | 8.41% | | £95,000 – £100,000 | 7 | 3.27% | | £100,000 – £105,000| 11 | 5.14% | | £105,000 – £115,000| 10 | 4.67% | | £115,000 – £125,000| 7 | 3.27% | | £125,000 – £145,000| 8 | 3.74% | | £150,000 – £155,000| 3 | 1.40% | | £155,000 – £160,000| 2 | 0.93% | | £160,000 – £165,000| 1 | 0.47% | | £180,000 – £185,000| 1 | 0.47% | | £185,000 – £190,000| 1 | 0.47% | | Grand Total | 214(^{44}) | 100.00% |
______________________________________________________________________
(^{41}) This information has been extracted from Data View, the Department’s single source of Office for National Statistics compliant monthly snapshot corporate Human Resources data, using actual salaries as at the end of March 2015. Headcount figures are not reconcilable to the staff numbers in the accounts which are based on average figures.
(^{42}) Staff numbers are headcount of SCS, including grade equivalents.
(^{43}) Where individual £5k bands contain less than five individuals, some have been combined as per ONS statistical disclosure controls. However, those earning above £150k are subject to full disclosure.
(^{44}) Figures are for current paid civil servants only, in line with ONS guidelines on headcount reporting. Pension Benefits
| Ministers | Accrued pension at age 65 as at 31/3/15 | Real increase in pension at age 65 | CETV at 31/3/15 | CETV at 31/3/14 | Real increase in CETV | |------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------------| | Rt Hon Theresa May MP Home Secretary | 5 – 10 | 0 – 2.5 | 126 | 96 | 14 | | Lord Taylor of Holbeach (until 5 August 2014) | - | - | - | - | - | | Rt Hon Lord Bates (from 6 August 2014) | 0 – 5 | 0 – 2.5 | 34 | 19 | 9 | | Lynne Featherstone MP (from 4 November 2014) | 0 – 5 | 0 – 2.5 | 58 | 51 | 3 | | Rt Hon Mike Penning MP (from 15 July 2014) | 0 – 5 | 0 – 2.5 | 59 | 50 | 5 | | James Brokenshire MP | 0 – 5 | 0 – 2.5 | 43 | 32 | 5 | | Karen Bradley MP | 0 – 5 | 0 – 2.5 | 15 | 9 | 2 | | Rt Hon Damian Green MP (until 14 July 2014) | 0 – 5 | 0 – 2.5 | 60 | 56 | 3 | | Norman Baker MP (until 3 November 2014) | 0 – 5 | 0 – 2.5 | 41 | 34 | 4 |
Ministerial pensions
Pension benefits for Ministers are provided by the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF). The scheme is made under statute (the regulations are set out in Statutory Instrument SI 1993 No 3253, as amended).
Those Ministers who are Members of Parliament may also accrue an MP’s pension under the PCPF (details of which are not included in this report). The accrual rate has been 1/40th since 15 July 2002 (or 5 July 2001 for those that chose to backdate the change) but Ministers, in common with all other members of the PCPF, can opt for a 1/50th accrual rate and a lower rate of member contribution. An additional 1/60th accrual rate option (backdated to 1 April 2008) was introduced from 1 January 2010.
Benefits for Ministers are payable at the same time as MPs’ benefits become payable under the PCPF or, for those who are not MPs, on retirement from Ministerial office from age 65. Pensions are re-valued annually in line with Pensions Increase legislation. From 1 April 2014 members paid contributions between 8.4% and 17.9% depending on their level of seniority and chosen accrual rate.
The accrued pension quoted is the pension the Minister is entitled to receive when they reach 65, or immediately on ceasing to be an active member of the scheme if they are already 65.
In line with reforms to other public service pension schemes, it is intended to reform the Ministerial Pension Scheme in 2015. The new scheme will be a Career Average pension scheme, have an accrual rate of 1.775%, revaluation based on the change in prices, a Normal Pension age equal to State Pension age and a member contribution rate of 11.1%.
The Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV)
This is the actuarially assessed capitalised value of the pension scheme benefits accrued by a member at a particular point in time. The benefits valued are the member’s accrued benefits and any contingent spouse’s pension payable from the scheme. A CETV is a payment made by a pension scheme or arrangement to secure pension benefits in another pension scheme or arrangement when the member leaves a scheme and chooses to transfer the pension benefits they have accrued in their former scheme. The pension figures shown relate to the benefits that the individual has accrued as a consequence of their total Ministerial service, not just their current appointment as a Minister. CETVs are calculated in accordance with The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 and do not take account of any actual or potential reduction to benefits resulting from Lifetime Allowance Tax which may be due when pension benefits are taken. The real increase in the value of the CETV
This is the element of the increase in accrued pension funded by the Exchequer. It excludes increases due to inflation and contributions paid by the Minister. It is worked out using common market valuation factors for the start and end of the period.
| Board members | Accrued pension at pension age as at 31/3/15 and related lump sum | Real increase /(decrease) in pension and related lump sum at pension age | CETV at 31 March 2015 | CETV at 31 March 2014 | Real increase /(decrease) in CETV | Employer contributions to partnership pension account | |---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|---------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | Mark Sedwill Permanent Secretary | 60-65 | 2.5-5 | 941 | 851 | 42 | | | Peter Storr Acting Director General, International and Immigration Policy Group (from 2 March 2015) | 55-60 plus lump sum 165 -170 | 0-2.5 plus lump sum 0-2.5 | 1,236 | 1,223 | 11 | | | Charles Farr Director General, Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 0-5 | 0-2.5 | 31 | - | 22 | | | Mike Parsons Chief Operating Officer | 5-10 | 2.5-5 | 86 | 43 | 27 | | | Sir Charles Montgomery Director General, Border Force | 5-10 | 2.5-5 | 97 | 49 | 33 | | | Sarah Rapson Director General, UK Visas and Immigration | 30-35 | 5-7.5 | 425 | 326 | 59 | | | Mary Calam Director General, Crime and Policing Group | 35-40 plus lump sum 110-115 | 5-7.5 plus lump sum 20-22.5 | 565 | 443 | 95 | | | Kevin White Director General, Human Resources | 65-70 plus lump sum 205-210 | 0-2.5 plus lump sum 2.5-5 | 1,481 | 1,462 | 20 | | | Mandie Campbell Director General, Immigration Enforcement | 45-50 plus lump sum 145-150 | 5-7.5 plus lump sum 15-17.5 | 831 | 717 | 76 | | Civil Service Pensions
Pension benefits are provided through the Civil Service pension arrangements. From 30 July 2007, civil servants may be in one of four defined benefit schemes; either a final salary scheme (classic, premium or classic plus); or a whole career scheme (nuvos). These statutory arrangements are unfunded with the cost of benefits met by monies voted by Parliament each year. Pensions payable under classic, premium, classic plus and nuvos are increased annually in line with Pensions Increase legislation. Members joining from October 2002 may opt for either the appropriate defined benefit arrangement or a ‘money purchase’ stakeholder pension with an employer contribution (partnership pension account).
Employee contributions are salary-related and range between 1.5% and 6.85% of pensionable earnings for classic and 3.5% and 8.85% for premium, classic plus and nuvos. Benefits in classic accrue at the rate of 1/80th of final pensionable earnings for each year of service. In addition, a lump sum equivalent to three years initial pension is payable on retirement. For premium, benefits accrue at the rate of 1/60th of final pensionable earnings for each year of service. Unlike classic, there is no automatic lump sum. classic plus is essentially a hybrid with benefits for service before 1 October 2002 calculated broadly as per classic and benefits for service from October 2002 worked out as in premium. In nuvos a member builds up a pension based on his pensionable earnings during their period of scheme membership. At the end of the scheme year (31 March) the member’s earned pension account is credited with 2.3% of their pensionable earnings in that scheme year and the accrued pension is uprated in line with Pensions Increase legislation. In all cases members may opt to give up (commute) pension for a lump sum up to the limits set by the Finance Act 2004.
The partnership pension account is a stakeholder pension arrangement. The employer makes a basic contribution of between 3% and 12.5% (depending on the age of the member) into a stakeholder pension product chosen by the employee from a panel of providers. The employee does not have to contribute, but where they do make contributions, the employer will match these up to a limit of 3% of pensionable salary (in addition to the employer’s basic contribution). Employers also contribute a further 0.8% of pensionable salary to cover the cost of centrally-provided risk benefit cover (death in service and ill health retirement).
The accrued pension quoted is the pension the member is entitled to receive when they reach pension age, or immediately on ceasing to be an active member of the scheme if they are already at or over pension age. Pension age is 60 for members of classic, premium and classic plus and 65 for members of nuvos.
Further details about the Civil Service pension arrangements can be found at the website www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk New Career Average pension arrangements will be introduced from 1st April 2015 and the majority of classic, premium, classic plus and nuvos members will join the new scheme. Further details of this new scheme are available at http://www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk/members/the-new-pension-scheme-alpha/
Cash Equivalent Transfer Values
A Cash Equivalent Transfer Value (CETV) is the actuarially assessed capitalised value of the pension scheme benefits accrued by a member at a particular point in time. The benefits valued are the member’s accrued benefits and any contingent spouse’s pension payable from the scheme. A CETV is a payment made by a pension scheme or arrangement to secure pension benefits in another pension scheme or arrangement when the member leaves a scheme and chooses to transfer the benefits accrued in their former scheme. The pension figures shown relate to the benefits that the individual has accrued as a consequence of their total membership of the pension scheme, not just their service in a senior capacity to which disclosure applies.
The figures include the value of any pension benefit in another scheme or arrangement which the member has transferred to the Civil Service pension arrangements. They also include any additional pension benefit accrued to the member as a result of their buying additional pension benefits at their own cost. CETVs are worked out in accordance with The Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 and do not take account of any actual or potential reduction to benefits resulting from Lifetime Allowance Tax which may be due when pension benefits are taken.
Real increase in CETV
This reflects the increase in CETV that is funded by the employer. It does not include the increase in accrued pension due to inflation, contributions paid by the employee (including the value of any benefits transferred from another pension scheme or arrangement) and uses common market valuation factors for the start and end of the period.
Mark Sedwill Accounting Officer 5 June 2015 Governance Statement
Scope of Responsibility
As Accounting Officer, I have responsibility for maintaining a sound system of internal control that supports the achievement of the Home Office’s policies, aims and objectives, whilst safeguarding the public funds and departmental assets for which I am personally responsible, in accordance with the responsibilities assigned to me in ‘Managing Public Money’.
I delegate my responsibility as Accounting Officer to Accounting Officers of the Department’s Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and other public bodies. My relationship with Accounting Officers is set out in statements contained in the respective Framework Arrangements, Financial Memoranda and designatory letters. Each of the Home Office NDPBs produce their own Governance Statement which is published in their Annual Report and Accounts.
The systems in place are designed to manage risk to a high level rather than to eliminate all risk of failure to achieve policies, aims and objectives; it can therefore only provide high and not absolute assurance of effectiveness.
This Governance Statement covers the year ending 31 March 2015 but will remain open until the Home Office Annual Report and Accounts are signed.
Governance, Control and Risk Management Framework
We continuously review the effectiveness of the Department’s governance, control and risk management framework through our corporate governance structures and key controls. The main elements of the governance structure are: Main Elements of the Governance Structure
- **The Home Office Supervisory Board (SB)**, provides advice to the Home Secretary in setting the Department’s strategic direction. This has been delivered through a series of standing agenda items, including corporate reporting (overall performance against strategic objectives, risk and resource); updates on major programmes and projects; and updates from the sub-committees on Audit and Risk Assurance and Nominations and Governance. The Supervisory Board is chaired by the Home Secretary. Its membership is made up of the six Home Office ministers, the Permanent Secretary, nine other senior officials and two Non-Executive Directors. The SB met on four occasions between April 2014 and January 2015. Attendance at those meetings is outlined in the annex following this Governance Statement;
- **The Home Office Executive Management Board (EMB)**, which is responsible for driving the development of the Department’s leadership and wider capability. It also discusses and challenges the development of the Home Office’s key policies and programmes and ensures that all parts of the organisation are working together. This has been delivered through a wide ranging programme of discussions at almost weekly board meetings, led by individual board members. EMBs focus thematically on operational, policy and enabling functions. During the year operational EMBs have incorporated an element of Ministerial oversight with a particular focus on the immigration system. The EMB met on 32 occasions between April 2014 and March 2015. Attendance at those meetings is outlined in the annex following this Governance Statement. The EMB meets three weeks out of every four focusing in turn on the key priority areas of the Home Office that cut across separate managerial responsibilities in the Department;
- **The Home Office Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC)**, which provides independent advice to the Accounting Officer and SB members on the adequacy of arrangements for corporate governance, internal control and risk management. The ARAC met on five occasions between April 2014 and March 2015. Attendance at those meetings is outlined in the annex following this Governance Statement; and
- **The Home Office Senior Leadership Group on Risk and Safety (SLGRS)** recommends to the Board which of the top risks should be included on the Home Office Corporate Risk Register. The Senior Leadership Group on Risk and Safety meets monthly. It has a remit that includes keeping the Board informed of emerging risks as well as considering how better to improve risk management capability in the Department.
The main governance, control and risk management controls are highlighted below:
The main governance, control and risk management controls are:
- The Portfolio and Investment Committee (PIC, a sub-committee of EMB), which is chaired by the Chief Operating Officer, considers and makes investment approval decisions on programme and project business cases; and reviews the overall Home Office portfolio and, by exception, scrutinises individual programmes and projects during their lifecycle;
- The Internal Audit Unit (IAU), which completes a risk based programme of audits annually and provides independent advice to the ARAC;
- The Senior Information Risk Owner (SIRO), who provides an assessment of the Department’s information risk exposure and provides assurance on this;
- The application of the Home Office Assurance Framework. This is designed to supplement risk management arrangements. The framework describes ‘what good control looks like’ in the context of the Home Office business and it describes the benchmark standards that management should follow; and
- The work of the Performance and Risk Directorate, which is responsible for modernising performance reporting and promoting continuous improvement across the Home Office. Home Office Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC)
The Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC) comprises two non-executive Home Office Supervisory Board members, together with one independent external member.
The Committee provides independent advice and guidance to the Permanent Secretary as Accounting Officer, and to the Supervisory Board on corporate governance, internal control and risk management.
The Committee’s oversight extends to all Non-Departmental Public Bodies in the group. They each have their own Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, but arrangements are in place for audit assurances and significant issues arising within their remit to be notified to the Home Office Audit and Risk Assurance Committee and the Accounting Officer.
Members reviewed the comprehensiveness of the internal audit coverage in meeting the Supervisory Board and Accounting Officer’s needs, and assessed the reliability, quality and integrity of these assurances.
During 2014-15 the Home Office ARAC considered:
- The Chief Internal Auditor’s Opinion for 2013-14;
- The Department’s Commercial Directorate Improvement Plan;
- Approval of the 2013-14 Home Office Annual Report and Accounts;
- Interim 2014-15 Home Office Annual Report and Accounts;
- The NAO 2013-14 Audit Completion Report;
- The NAO Management Letter for 2013-14, including audit recommendations;
- The NAO Planning Reports for 2014-15 for the Home Office and HMPO Annual Reports and Accounts;
- A number of NAO value for money reports;
- Departmental risk management reporting and management;
- The draft Her Majesty’s Passport Office closure accounts;
- Approval of the final National Fraud Authority Annual Report and Accounts;
- Internal Audit Plan Update Reports;
- Draft audit strategy and plan for 2015-16;
- Internal Audit Outstanding Actions Updates; and
- The Audit and Risk Assurance Committee Annual Report for 2013-14.
The Chair has provided updates for the Supervisory Board on the work of the Audit Committee. The Chair also submits an annual report which includes an assessment of the effectiveness of the Department’s control framework.
Nominations and Governance Committee
The Nominations and Governance Committee (NGC) is chaired by a non-executive Home Office Supervisory Board member and comprises the Permanent Secretary, the Chief Operating Officer and the Director General of Human Resources.
The Committee supports the Supervisory Board in its responsibilities in relation to identifying and developing leadership and high potential; scrutinising the incentive structure; and succession planning.
The committee met for the fourth time on 20 April 2015 to review progress made over the previous 12 months and consider plans for the future. Members agreed that appropriate processes and systems were well established and embedded across the organisation, with the greatest maturity at Senior Civil Service level. The committee agreed that a more holistic approach should now be taken to make talent management and succession planning more dynamic and responsive to strengthen the pipeline of leaders. Strong diverse leadership, at all levels, will be essential for the successful transformation of the Department by 2020. Some positive steps have been taken in this direction with more work planned.
Incentives and rewards for senior leaders remain tightly controlled but the department has been increasingly innovative within these constraints. More consideration needs to be given to non-financial incentives to attract and retain talented individuals in key posts. The Committee agreed that their responsibilities should be split between the Executive Management Board and Senior Talent Board, with appropriate oversight by at least one non-executive Supervisory Board member.
Following each meeting, the Chair updates the Supervisory Board on the work of the Committee.
Evaluation of Board Effectiveness
A full evaluation of board effectiveness was not conducted due to only two NEDs being in place. This is explained in the Lead Non-Executive Director’s Statement (pages 44-45). The Department is recruiting two additional NEDs to ensure there is a full complement of skills and experience.
Governance Compliance
Government policy on departmental governance is outlined in Corporate Governance in Central Departments: Code of Good Practice (Cabinet Office, July 2011). This Code operates on a ‘comply or explain’ basis, whereby departments are asked to disclose any element of the Code with which they are not fully compliant, explaining their rationale and any alternative measures which have been put in place to meet the objectives of the Code.
The Home Office meets the provisions outlined in the Code through the operation of the Home Office Supervisory Board, with one exception. The Chief Internal Auditor (CIA) does not receive an invitation to attend the Supervisory Board. However, the CIA does have the facility to provide updates and briefings to the Executive Management Board as well as routine sight of the Board agendas and papers. Additionally, the CIA also has a programme of one to one sessions with the Permanent Secretary.
The Supervisory Board has oversight of delivery of the Department’s Business Plan. Through its operation, it assures sound financial management; sets the Department’s risk appetite and ensures appropriate controls are in place to manage risk; has oversight of the performance of the Department’s sponsored bodies; and ensures the Department has the capacity to deliver against current and future needs.
Risk Management
The Corporate Code of Governance requires all Boards to set ‘risk appetite’ (the amount of risk you are prepared to accept) for the Department. This requires a judgement on the balance to be struck between further reducing risk and the cost of doing so. The Home Office guidance defines different levels or profiles of risk severity under the headings of:
| Home Office levels or profiles of risk severity headings: | |----------------------------------------------------------| | • Public protection; | | • Financial; | | • The reputation of the Government and the Home Office; | | • Delivery of objectives. |
The Senior Leadership Group on Risk and Safety, which reports to the Executive Management Board, uses these profiles with their knowledge of the business to recommend to the Board which the critical risks are and what level to manage them down to.
Risk management is one of the key processes in the Home Office, and is integral to everything we do to prevent terrorism, cut crime and reduce immigration. The Executive Management Board is committed to continue to improve our risk management process throughout the year:
“The Home Office Executive Management Board is committed to effective risk management. The Home Office exists to keep the British public safe and the risk management culture we have built in the Department underpins this. We intend to demonstrate an ongoing commitment to improving risk management throughout our organisation.”
45 Quote taken from internal risk management policy document Our strategy has three elements: ensuring all our people have an awareness and understanding of the risks that affect the public and our business; ensuring that our people are competent at managing risk; and that our management controls assess risks and act to prevent, control or reduce them. Our risk systems are audited each year to test the robustness of our governance.
Our risk management approach is to be clear about what we are trying to achieve; to identify what might stop us from achieving these objectives; to assess the risks identified; to take action to mitigate them to an agreed level and then to review progress through a structured process which is set out in the Home Office Risk Management Policy and Guidance document. We expect our managers to lead by example and ensure risks are identified, assessed and managed. We encourage frontline staff to identify risks and speak out about their concerns to their managers.
Each month managers across the Home Office, including all of our executive arms length bodies, ensure that their local risk assessments are up to date and have been reviewed. These feed into the Senior Leadership Group on Risk and Safety (see below) and then to the Home Office Executive and Supervisory Boards – the latter chaired by the Home Secretary and with Ministerial and Non-Executive Director attendance. Information from these boards is fed back to the Risk Improvement Forum, so that all risk coordinators, who support the Risk Directors, can feed back the latest intelligence on our top risks, levels of exposure and readiness back down through the networks of risk coordinators embedded in all areas of our business. In addition quality assurance is provided by the main Home Office Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, as well as the committees that sit in other Home Office bodies. Home Office Internal Audit is closely involved in the management of the risk cycle including an annual audit of the effectiveness of our risk arrangements.
Last year we set up a dedicated Performance and Risk Directorate by bringing together a number of functions to improve the performance of the Home Office and better manage its risks including:
| Improvements since the last Annual Report: | |-------------------------------------------| | • Replacing our quarterly Risk Committee with a new monthly Senior Leadership Group on Risk and Safety, lead by Home Office Directors. The group is much more focused on real-time risks and threats and provides an early warning role for the Executive Management Board. The group conducts deep dives into our risks to assess capability and adequacy of response with a focus on lessons learned; | | • Expanding our Director ‘Gold Leads’ to cover more of the Department’s cross-cutting risks and issues. Gold leads, appointed by the Permanent Secretary, are empowered to manage specific threats across internal commands. They ensure that the whole Department’s resources are used to best effect, for example in managing our response to the Ebola outbreak; | | • Enlisting the help of a senior Trusted Advisor to ensure lessons are learned including learning lessons through corporate storytelling where managers, through narrative, pass on their learning of handling significant events and incidents. We have also introduced a new lessons learned repository to ensure that corporate knowledge and learning is captured; and | | • Maintaining a strong commitment to risk training and capability building, particularly of front-line staff. This is so all key grades understand the principles of risk management, its criticality to our business objectives and how to identify and manage risks the Home Office way. Over 100 front-line staff and risk coordinators have been trained in this last financial quarter alone, from all areas, across the whole UK. |
The nature of the Department’s business means that it has to manage a range of significant risks across its operational, policy and enabling functions. The main strategic risks to the Department are recorded in the Home Office Corporate Risk Register. A full refresh of the Home Office Corporate Risk Register was undertaken during 2014 and risks are added as necessary. The risks contained in the Corporate Risk Register are currently: Significant in-year Risks and Issues:
- Failure to identify, stop, manage or remove (from the UK) high-risk individuals;
- The volume of immigration threatens the integrity of our immigration controls;
- British Passport application volumes exceed capacity;
- Failure to prevent a terrorist attack against the UK;
- Failure to prevent a serious border or immigration system security breach;
- Failure to manage the threat caused by the conflicts in Syria/Iraq and the wider area;
- Failure of the Communications Capabilities Development Programme;
- Lack of coordination and clarity on our approach to illegal/criminal online activity;
- Loss of control of public order;
- Perceptions or examples of inappropriate police behaviour undermine the public’s trust in the police and in our police reforms;
- Failure to identify and respond effectively to child sexual exploitation; and
- Unplanned financial pressures cause a departmental overspend in 2014-15.
The most significant strategic issues that occurred during the period are outlined below.
Policing
In our 2013-14 Governance Statement we recognised that:
“The police service continues to be transformed, building on the election of the Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Challenges have been identified in terms of keeping pace with changing technology and encouraging improvements in police leadership and public perception of police integrity.”
We have taken action on these challenges this year as we continue to drive police reform.
Police Funding
Our focus has been on ensuring that our reforms give the police the platform to operate smarter and more efficiently and collaboratively. The 2015-16 police funding settlement was delivered effectively and on time, with force level allocations approved by Parliament on 10 February 2015. We worked closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to ensure council tax referendum proposals were published before Christmas to help PCCs with their financial planning.
A dedicated analytical team within the Police Resources Policy Team is making steady progress on developing a new police funding model. This model will ensure that declining resources are allocated effectively so that the police can continue to deliver with smaller budgets. This is complex and time-consuming work. Advice on next steps (including options around external consultation and timing of implementation) will be provided to ministers in due course.
The Police Innovation Fund (PIF) continues to grow. The focus on the initial fund was on technology projects (including collaborative ones) and the next round will have a wider focus. Bidding for the 2015-16 PIF closed on 2 January. 166 bids were received, worth a total of £117 million in 2015-16 and almost £79 million for 2016-17. Following assessment and moderation, 71 bids received either full or partial funding. The value of funding these bids amounts to £43.85 million in 2015-16 and £28.1 million in 2016-17. Bids were subject to a robust assessment against published criteria before Ministerial decisions were made and announced in March. The bidding process was improved this year and decisions announced before the start of the financial year. We will continue to ensure that adherence to grant conditions are subject to appropriate scrutiny.
Changing Technology
The Police Science and Technology Unit (PSTU) was created within the Policing Directorate. PSTU will be responsible for the policy on supporting the police to make the best use of technology and unlock efficiency/effectiveness benefits. Work is at an early stage, but PSTU has begun regular interaction with Home Office Technology, force leads, the Centre for Applied Science and Technology, and industry. PSTU focuses on bringing the capability of mainstream policing to a point where they are able to properly address the opportunities and risks presented by existing technology. A new team has been established to work with the National Policing Lead to deliver this.
The Police Innovation Fund has ensured that policing keeps pace with changing technology by supporting a range of projects to improve police ICT and digital working, including investment in body worn video across eight forces and the development and trialling of a standardised mobile policing solution that could be replicated across other forces.
**Police ICT**
At the General Meeting of the Police ICT Company on 25 March the members of the Company which include: 39 police forces; the Metropolitan Police; and British Transport Police, PSNI and the National Crime Agency agreed the new Articles of Association and appointed a new Company Board of Directors. The Home Office, acting on behalf of the government, is not a member of the Company but is eligible to become a member should it so wish. Under the Articles of Association, the Company’s objectives are restricted specifically to support and enable policing and other associated bodies to make the best use of technology to deliver efficient and effective policing and improve public safety. These powers do not include the ability to mandate forces to act, as this power remains with the Home Secretary. The Company was launched on 1 April 2015.
**Improvements in police leadership**
The officer workforce is more representative in terms of gender and ethnicity than it has ever been. To encourage further improvements in police leadership, the College of Policing is undertaking a fundamental review of police leadership and taking significant steps to promote greater diversity within policing. This year, we have also implemented new policies to further improve police leadership; measures include the introduction of direct entry superintendents and fast track schemes. The first cohorts of each began their training in autumn 2014.
**Integrity**
The Policing Directorate’s Police Integrity and Powers Unit (PIPU) analysis of public trust in the police appears to show that this has remained stable at around two thirds for the past few decades. High profile police failures do not appear to impact on people’s trust in the police; rather it is their own personal experience and that of peers that impacts. We are working to improve our understanding of this trust and what factors influence it.
We are increasing the integrity of the police through a series of proposed reforms to the police complaints and police disciplinary systems, along with reforms to the role and powers of the IPCC and measures to strengthen protections for police whistleblowers. This work is alongside work already underway to expand the capacity of the IPCC to enable it to investigate independently all serious and sensitive matters involving the police.
**Reform**
Significant work on policing powers has also progressed. On 30 April 2014, the Home Secretary informed Parliament of the new Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme. On 30 November, when the Scheme was formally launched, all forces had voluntarily signed up and were implementing the Scheme. Additionally, reforms to the current arrangements for authorising and scrutinising pre-charge bail decisions have been consulted on and an amendment introduced in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will ensure that 17 year olds are treated as children for the purpose of overnight detention in police custody.
More broadly, to ensure the coherence of police reform, The Police Strategy and Reform Unit (PSRU) in Policing Directorate has continued to work with policing partners to understand the impact of the reforms.
PSRU have also ensured continual improvement of policing governance (in particular Police and Crime Commissioners, Police and Crime Panels and the reform of ACPO) and encouraged a culture of innovation (Police Now, national picture of emergency services collaboration and support for the Innovation Fund).
There is also dedicated resource focussed on the future of systems, which provides regular updates to the Home Secretary. Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) scrutiny
Effective scrutiny of PCCs, particularly on how they spend public money, is central to the proper functioning of the PCC model. Where a Police and Crime Panel (who scrutinise the actions of PCCs) suspect that a PCC may have operated outside of the law they have the power to refer the PCC to the IPCC for investigation. The IPCC has investigated PCCs on several occasions throughout the last year, with two investigations still ongoing, no PCC has been charged with any offence. Further to this official measure PCCs are obliged, through the Local Policing Bodies (Specified Information Order) 2011, to publish a range of information. This transparency requirement ensures the public have access to the information they need to make an informed decision when voting for their PCC. In May 2014, according to an internal analysis the average level of compliance by PCCs with the overall requirements of the Specified Information Order (SIO) had reached approximately 90%, with all PCCs publishing details of their expenses.
The procurement requirements of the SIO remained a weakness in particular the publication of Invitations to Tender (ITTs) and contracts valued over £10k. A follow up survey in September 2014 suggested that just over half of OPCCs have published all of the necessary procurement information. Moreover, around 76% of the required procurement information across all OPCCs has been published. Despite this positive progress some difficulties clearly still remain, for instance the redaction of contracts has caused delay in their publication for some OPCCs. OPCCs are conscious of their individual shortfalls in compliance with the SIO, and we continue to work with them to improve the overall compliance rate by providing good practice examples. We are also exploring whether other tools such as the procurement data storage hub BravoSolution could further support PCCs in meeting their publication obligations.
HMIC powers concerning PCC scrutiny
A package of measures regarding HMIC, including an extension of HMIC’s remit to include the inspection of PCC staff who are employed to support the force and are delivering policing functions, will be considered for possible first session legislation in the next Parliament. Additionally, the recent Home Office consultation ‘Improving Police Integrity’ sought views on an extended remit for HMIC in inspecting PCC staff playing a role in the police complaints system. The Government response proposed that HMIC retain the ability to inspect the efficiency and effectiveness of the police complaints system, even if some complaints’ functions sit with PCC staff.
Reform of the Police Federation (HASC report published 16 May):
Having commissioned the “Normington” Review, which reported in early 2014, the Police Federation embarked this year on a major programme of reform to respond to high-profile criticisms of the culture, management and finances of the Federation and to implement the Normington recommendations. The Home Secretary announced in May 2014 additional measures that she intended to bring forward
| Measures announced by the Home Secretary: | |------------------------------------------| | • Cessation of all Government funding of the Police Federation; | | • Regulation changes to: | | – End automatic membership for police officers; | | – Ensure that new officers had to actively decide whether to join and pay subscriptions to the Federation; and | | – Clarify the Home Secretary’s power to scrutinise all central and local accounts held by the Federation. |
She also announced an intention to bring forward at the earliest opportunity proposals for the Freedom of Information Act to apply to the Federation. We have been working with the Federation since that time in developing its change programme and mapping the need for regulatory change to support the programme. Government funding of the Federation ceased as of September 2014 and we consulted the Federation on planned regulation changes in November/December 2014. Amending regulations were laid in Parliament in March 2015 and have now come into effect. We continue to work with, and challenge, the Federation in the further implementation of reforms, in line with the recommendations and timetable outlined by Normington. The application of the Freedom of Information Act to the Federation will require primary legislation. Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
On 7 July 2014, the Home Secretary announced an Inquiry to consider whether public bodies and other non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. Since that announcement, the first two Inquiry Chairs that were appointed both made the decision to resign due to a lack of public confidence in their impartiality. Dame Butler-Sloss resigned on 14 July, and Fiona Woolf resigned on 31 October.
On 3 November the Home Secretary made a statement to Parliament about how she would engage with survivors’ groups and parliamentarians before appointing a new Chair. Since then both the Home Secretary and officials have held several roundtable meetings with victims and victims’ representatives. On 4 February 2015 the Home Secretary announced her decision to disband the current inquiry and appoint Justice Lowell Goddard as Chairperson to lead a new Inquiry which was put on a statutory footing. On 12 March the Home Secretary issued a further statement formally appointing Justice Goddard as Chair of the Inquiry, appointing the Panel and announcing the terms of reference. The Inquiry is now on a statutory footing.
Increase in reporting of Child Sexual Abuse (CSA):
The volume of reporting of CSA has increased rapidly during the last year and continues to be the focus of intense public and political scrutiny. Following the publication of the Jay report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham last year about the appalling failures across children’s services, The Home Secretary chaired a series of meetings with Secretary of State colleagues to consider the findings, and what the Government can do to help prevent these failures from happening again. This built on the existing work of the Home Office-led National Group on Sexual Violence against Children and Vulnerable People published a progress report and action plan for 2015 on 12 March 2015.
There is also a number of official-level groups which co-ordinate work on sexual abuse and exploitation across Government. The Director of Safeguarding leads a cross Whitehall Group of Directors which has been established to drive work forward. This is in recognition that government has yet to develop a clear, cross-cutting strategy to set the direction for this work, partly because our understanding of the scale of CSE is still evolving. A strategy is now being developed for consideration by the Government. As part of this work, consideration is being given as to how to streamline the governance structure in this area.
We are also reviewing the police response to CSA, including the impact of further increases in reported cases and how this can be managed, for example through workforce changes, training, prioritisation and allocation of resources. This work be considered during across-Government and will include an assessment of the impact of increases in CSA on the wider Criminal Justice System.
Transforming Home Office Operations
Over the course of the past year, we have continued to improve and transform Home Office operations. The Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) report published on 29 October 2014, which followed the NAO’s report on the same subject published on 22 July 2014, looked at the progress made since the Home Secretary’s decision on 26 March 2013 to split the UK Border Agency into an immigration and visa section and an immigration law enforcement organisation. Whilst the report concluded that performance in most areas transferred from the UK Border Agency has held steady, it also raised a number of challenges facing the border and immigration system, including asylum intake pressures, removing those with no right to be in the UK, and the Department’s use of IT and financial planning.
We have looked to address these challenges with the following: Response to 29 October PAC report:
- Through the Immigration Act 2014, the Department is removing incentives for people to stay illegally in the UK, including by restricting access to public services, work and benefits. This includes systematic data sharing with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA);
- In asylum, the Department has recruited over 200 decision makers, and is focused on building and retaining a skilled workforce, utilising appropriate reward and recognition arrangements and performance management tools to effectively manage new asylum intake;
- The Department is addressing key challenges relating to the standardisation of technology, the reduction of the Department’s reliance on legacy systems, and the reduction of costs through the Home Office Technology Strategy. Replacement of borders and immigration technology, while supporting day-to-day operations, is a complex task that will be delivered incrementally over the coming years;
- Financial planning and performance monitoring are now being conducted in consolidated corporate functions, which are leading to improved consistency of measurement, better coordination and performance uplift in key areas. A newly-consolidated financial model has been designed and is being used to support 2015-16 financial planning, where the Department is preparing for a £500 million budget reduction in cash terms; and
- Additionally, the Department is taking action upstream to counter illegal migration to the UK. It is active in joint EU efforts to tackle illegal immigration and combat the activities of people smugglers and traffickers, including by playing a leading role in the new Khartoum Process (Horn of Africa) and the Silk Routes Partnership (Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan), building partner countries’ capacity to tackle migratory flows.
Foreign National Offenders (FNOs)
There are also ongoing risks associated with the monitoring, management, detention and removal of FNOs. The NAO published a report on managing and removing Foreign National Offenders in October 2014. The report examined the process for managing and removing FNOs in its entirety, from their entry into the UK and the prison system, to their deportation or administrative removals from the UK. The NAO recognised that more effort and resources have been put into managing and removing FNOs, and that this area continues to be inherently challenging, but concluded that progress since 2006 had been slower than it would expect. In November 2014 there was a Public Accounts Committee evidence session to discuss the report. The Committee identified a number of areas where improvements were still needed, such as improving the availability of good quality data and making the most of opportunities to remove FNOs earlier. They did however recognise the potential of recent changes, such as the radical reform of the appeals process through the Immigration Act 2014. We are already making many of the improvements needed and the Immigration Act 2014 is beginning to bear fruit in terms of increased removals numbers. Management of FNOs will continue to be of the utmost importance to the Home Office and wider HMG going forward.
Operation Nexus continues to roll out nationally to help us work better with the Police to remove FNOs. Officers are embedded in Metropolitan Police custody suites across the capital, custody suites in the West Midlands and operate in other police stations in Manchester, Kent, Cleveland, Merseyside, Cheshire, Wales and West Yorkshire. Since its inception, Operation Nexus has helped to remove over 3,500 foreign nationals.
Immigration abuse
Our new strategy and delivery model (the 4Ps) is enabling us to have a greater impact on immigration abuse in all its forms. Last year we provided an update on the inception of the Interventions and Sanctions Unit which was created to manage relationships with key partners and deny benefits and services to those who have no legal right to them. This year we have done far more with partners, and have a more systematic approach to data sharing. Routine data sharing of known immigration offenders with HMRC, DVLA and CIFAS has seen thousands of sanctions applied including licences revoked, bank accounts refused and tax credits stopped.
External and organisational challenges around migration remain as demand in key markets and routes is expected to grow. There is a continued and growing risk of abuse in the immigration system. We have managed the pressures on migration through the Reducing Net Migration Board which has brought together policy, operations, intelligence and performance units; by adjusting policy as necessary, for example on students; and by implementing the provisions in the Act to make removals easier and to deter illegal immigration.
On criminality, we have secured over 200 prosecutions with sentences totalling more than 300 years. We have developed our working with partners, including the National Crime Agency (NCA) the Office for Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) and overseas governments, to crack down on organised immigration crime.
Detention
A number of serious allegations were raised about the conduct of staff employed by detention estate contractors at Yarl's Wood and Harmondsworth immigration removal centres. We expect the highest standards from contractors who manage the detention estate and the serious allegations about Serco staff at Yarl's Wood required an immediate response. Several Serco staff have been suspended and Serco has also commissioned an independent review of its culture and staffing at Yarl's Wood. We have also made clear that we expect to see the swift and comprehensive introduction of body-worn cameras for staff at Yarl's Wood, and the implementation of other measures across the detention estate. All the allegations will be considered by Stephen Shaw, the former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, as part of his independent review of detainee welfare.
Professionalism
We are also committed to ensuring consistently high standards of professionalism and personal conduct across the organisation. Following the collapse of sham marriage trials in October 2014, we took immediate action to address capability, capacity and professional conduct failings in Criminal Investigations, alongside the wider drive across the business to ensure professional standards are adhered to consistently. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is leading an independent investigation into the collapse of the trials, as well as looking specifically at the actions of the officers involved.
Border controls
Published operational instructions and guidance, and officers’ record keeping have been identified by the Border Force Operational Assurance Directorate and by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders & Immigration (ICIBI) as matters of concern. An Internal Audit review of operational guidance also recommended improvements in current practices. Currently, reviews are under way with the aim of consolidating and simplifying where possible. A working group has been established to develop and implement an improvement plan. This work will complement the current review of operational (customs) policy that seeks to promote simplicity and accessibility, and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and complexity in the records that officers are required to make.
Replacing the Warnings Index and Semaphore systems
The failure of the Warnings Index system on 30 April 2014 generated significant media interest. The cause was an unexpected outage arising from encryptor changes, a vulnerability that was not foreseeable and had not been identified during testing. Since the incident, firmware has been upgraded to mitigate against the recurrence of the vulnerability. This is working successfully.
The ‘Digital Services at the Border’ (DSAB) programme was launched following a review of the current primary border systems; Warnings Index and Semaphore. The programme will deliver a digitally-driven border security IT system and new processes that will support Border Force, law enforcement, immigration, customs and security and counter-terrorism agencies in the discharge of their responsibilities. DSAB is adopting a fundamentally different approach to traditional large-scale technology build and delivery that will instead introduce technology in smaller incremental pieces. The existing WI service is more stable and resilient as a result of its successful migration in October 2014.
Educational Testing Services
Following evidence of cheating at several of their UK test centres, in February 2014, Educational Testing Service (ETS), one of the five companies licensed to carry out secure English language tests was suspended from conducting further testing in the UK and a criminal investigation was launched with the National Crime Agency. We have been investigating many of the colleges and universities involved because of wider concerns about their conduct. At certain private Further Education colleges, as many as three quarters of the file checks were a cause of concern. ETS’s American parent company have analysed test results from its test centres in the UK and have identified 33,725 invalid results and 22,694 questionable results.
In June 2014 we suspended the highly trusted sponsor licences of Glyndwr University and 57 private colleges. A decision was subsequently made on 21 November to reinstate Glyndwr University’s sponsor licence on a limited basis, with a further review that was conducted in January 2015.
As at 31 December 2014, 48 of the 57 colleges that were suspended in June have had their licences revoked, four have surrendered their licences and another four have been reinstated. One remains suspended due to ongoing legal proceedings. We have also suspended a further 34 private colleges, 19 of which have been revoked and four surrendered their licence. As at 31 December a total of 12 private colleges remained suspended including the aforementioned college that has been suspended due to ongoing legal proceedings.
As at 31 December, the Home Office had made more than 11,800 refusal, curtailment and removal decisions, served removal notices in person on and detained over 800 people and removed over 500 of those detained.
The Permanent Secretary commissioned a review of all the suppliers of English language testing services by an independent auditor, Moore Stephens LLP. Additionally Moore Stephens conducted a review on the provision of the Life in the UK test by Learn Direct. We adopted the recommendations of these reports both into our current assurance regimes with the existing Secure English Language Test (SELT) providers and to inform the next generation of language testing contracts.
The previous licensing arrangements concluded on 5 April. An Invitation to Tender was launched on 7 October 2014 to secure the future provision of SELTs. The requirements sought through this procurement incorporated additional and enhanced integrity and security measures recommended by Moore Stephens. The future generation of language testing contracts will make it easier for us to audit providers and give us a greater range of powers to tackle any failures by them. Two providers have been selected to deliver SELTs in the UK and the rest of the world and began operations from 6 April.
Asylum claims awaiting processing
In the NAO’s review of the Home Office performance in 2013-14, they identified a concern of the increasing volume of asylum claims awaiting processing.
We met our public commitments by ensuring that since April 2014 new straightforward asylum claims have received a decision within six months and that all straightforward claims received prior to April 2014 were decided by the end of 2014-15. The number of outstanding decisions, as of 1 April 2015, is the lowest it has been since December 2013. There will always be some non-straightforward cases that are too complex to decide within six months for reasons outside of our control. We aim to decide these cases within 12 months.
We also met our commitment to review and communicate decisions on the outstanding legacy cases by the end of 2014, other than in exceptional circumstances where an external impediment, such as outstanding criminal investigation or ongoing litigation, prevented us completing our review. The number of these remaining exceptional cases is small and continues to reduce.
46 http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-performance-of-the-Home-Office-2013-14.pdf Corporate
Contract Management
The National Audit Office (NAO) published its findings relating to the progress in improving standards of contract management within both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice on 4 September 2014.
The Report was subsequently reviewed by the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) at a hearing on the 8 September 2014 and the PAC published recommendations for improving contract management across Government in the 23rd Public Accounts Committee Report 2014 – 2015 – Transforming Contract Management.
The Home Office welcomed the recommendations from the NAO and PAC reports and accepted all recommendations relevant to the Home Office’s management of contracts.
Progress to date includes:
- Through the Immigration Act 2014, the Department is removing incentives for people to stay illegally in the UK, including by restricting access to public services, work and benefits. This includes systematic data sharing with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA);
- Adopting a comprehensive approach to improve contract management, via the implementation of a Contract Management Improvement Plan, which will be audited and monitored;
- Ensuring Senior commercial delivery leadership is in place;
- Ensuring collaboration and external assurance on workstream initiatives;
- Standardisation of contract management;
- Ensuring engagement with, and understanding of, business needs;
- Ensuring an efficient and seamless transition between procurements and contract management; and
- Implementing initiatives to improving commercial capability.
We manage supplier performance through appropriate contractual and other performance mechanisms. This ensures that we provide customer service and also that effective outcomes are achieved. A Supplier Management Policy was launched in October 2014 that sets out the approach to managing all Strategic and Operational suppliers in line with existing good practice and the Crown Commercial Representative governance. As part of this, Executive Oversight Boards are in place for all Strategic suppliers.
Our recent assessment of contract management and review of contract management procedures against the NAO’s “good practice contract management framework” indicated areas for improvement in contract management. Improvements are being addressed by a variety of activities including the development of a central contract repository and the provision of contract management guidance and training. Role responsibilities and accountabilities, including key commercial decision points are included in the Contract Management Manual. The terms of reference of the Commercial Oversight Group have been expanded to include contract management issues.
Following the completion of 14 audits by Moore Stephens, the Contract Management Improvement Plan (CMIP) was developed by the Commercial Directorate to improve contract management across the Department. This includes ensuring that recommendations forming part of the original review are addressed, as well as findings from additional cross-Government and Home Office reviews. We are continuing to monitor the implementation of recommendations in the CMIP.
Freedom of Information (FOI) performance
Departmental performance in responding to FOI requests within statutory deadlines has continued to rise throughout 2014-15, resulting in the Information Commissioner (ICO) ending its monitoring of the Department in May 2014. Published statistics show that the Department achieved performance of 84% for a total of 741 requests in Q1 2014-15; rising to 87% for 736 requests in Q2 and to 90% for 692 requests in Q3. Internal (unpublished) statistics show that performance for Q4 was 88% for 896 requests. This has been achieved by raising the profile of FOI work through senior engagement and by concentrating all performance oversight work
47 Home Office and Ministry of Justice – Transforming Contract Management (http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Home-office-ministry-of-justice-transforming-contract-management.pdf) in a central team. The Department still has six very late outstanding cases from 2014, all of which are pending final clearance before dispatch.
Physical security
Following terrorist attacks in Canada and France, Government departments have been reviewing their physical security and the Home Office has been considering what further action may be required for our estate. Work continued throughout January and February to both finesse and test existing arrangements and determine whether any substantive changes are required to security policy and measures within some buildings.
Paper file discovery
During work in support of the 2013 Investigation into Historic Child Sexual abuse, 36,000 Home Office Registered files (out of a total of 1.5 million) were declared as presumed destroyed, missing or not found on the Home Office’s paper record system (RMSys). This system was purchased by the Home Office in 1994 and has a number of age-related technical limitations which made it difficult to maintain an accurate and searchable record of past file movements. Extensive work in the intervening period has resulted in the status of just over 24,000 of these being identified.
The number of files with a confirmed status is expected to continue to increase as the ongoing work to apply good housekeeping to physical files continues and new processes introduced in the wake of the Wanless Whittam Review are embedded. The Internal Audit Report on historical file search and discovery identified wider information search and discovery issues that potentially prevent relevant information being identified for business or investigative purposes. Work is in hand to address the recommendations arising from this audit report including replacing the file tracking system. Until this occurs, the Home Office will continue to carry risk around its reputation and its ability to meet legislative obligations.
Passports
At the start of this financial year, Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO) was an executive agency of the Home Office.
Inaccuracies within the passport forecasting model meant that HMPO was under-resourced and without the necessary levels of flexible contingency to foresee and manage the early high demand experienced. The volume of applications received by HM Passport Office reached exceptional levels. At its peak, the number of passport applications awaiting assessment was 546,000; at 30 September 2014 the number of passport applications awaiting assessment had fallen to 66,000.
This issue was compounded by difficulties in obtaining skilled contingent labour at short notice to manage intake through the period. As a result, HMPO failed to meet key customer targets. Publicity surrounding the operational position compounded the issue by further increasing demand as customers submitted applications earlier than expected and customer-service enquiries escalated, further stretching the operational and support functions. The management of this issue required HMPO to escalate a number of mitigations and operational interventions for Ministerial approval:
| Mitigations and operational interventions for Ministerial approval: | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | • UK passport holders living overseas were offered the option to extend their passport for 12 months; | | • Parents or guardians of children living overseas who wish to travel to the UK were able to apply for an emergency travel document free of charge in place of a new or renewed passport for their children; | | • Passport applications from customers travelling within seven days and which had exceeded published turnaround times were expedited; | | • Staff were seconded in from other areas of HM Passport Office and the wider Home Office and given training on how to process passport applications. This provided HM Passport Office with increased capacity to handle the increasing volumes of applications being received; | | • Management incentivised staff by offering overtime. By increasing the amount of time in which to process applications, staff were able to increase the volume of passports issues; | | • Temporary workers were employed to provide additional support for existing staff, while ensuring that HM Passport Office’s other functions continued to operate; and | | • Additional staff were deployed to the MP Hotline in order to respond to MPs’ queries and escalate customers’ applications where necessary. | These interventions, coupled with the determination and flexibility of staff and additional resource provided by other parts of the Home Office, enabled the service to be delivered, albeit in many cases outside the delivery target.
During this period, the Home Secretary commissioned an operational review to ensure that HMPO operated with better processes, better customer service and better outcomes; and a review of HMPO’s Agency status, which considered whether alternative accountability and management arrangements would have meant the situation could have been avoided. A subsequent independent review of the passport production forecast model was undertaken to establish where operational improvements could be made. Internal Audit’s opinion on the part year reporting period was that ‘low’ assurance could be given over governance, risk management and internal control arrangements.
Following the reviews, the Home Secretary announced that HM Passport Office would cease to operate as an executive agency of the Home Office and would report directly to Ministers with effect from 1 October 2014.
The Passport Office now has a more robust framework in place to mitigate the risk of similar issues occurring in the future.
Arm’s Length Bodies
The Security Industry Authority (SIA) is a Non-Departmental Public Body accountable to Home Office (HO) Ministers. Their Annual Report and Accounts for 2012-13 and 2013-14 were laid before Parliament in January 2015. They had been delayed due to the receipt of whistleblowing allegations in May 2013 covering matters related to HR and procurement processes. The investigation into these allegations was completed in May 2014 and reported to their Audit Committee on 29 May 2014. The report raised no significant issues and all recommendations have been accepted and are being actioned.
The impact of the Hillsborough investigation is a key risk for the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) as the Hillsborough Independent investigation and Managed investigation (Operation Resolve) are likely to take another two years. Planning for completion of the criminal and misconduct investigation needs to be continually revised as the inquest proceeds. Managing the disclosure requirements of the coroner against the need to protect the criminal investigation is a continuing risk for the overall inquiry and disclosure work to assist the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has added to the workload of the investigation.
This is a challenging time for the IPCC and there is a risk that the pace of change exceeds the capacity within the organisation as we continue to manage unpredictable levels of demand and scale and nature of individual referrals including large scale investigations or large numbers of single issue cross referrals such as the historical child sex abuse allegations in South Yorkshire.
Accountability System Statement for Policing and Crime Reduction
In March 2015 we published the revised Accountability System Statement for Policing and Crime Reduction. The statement describes the current funding systems, legislation and guidance which form the accountability system for funding voted by Parliament which is utilised at the local level for policing and crime reduction. The statement was revised in early 2015 to: reflect the financial arrangements for 2015-16; update the format to give a clearer purpose to the document, making it more accessible to the general public; update the section on whistleblowing to take into account the Cabinet Office guidance on severance pay; clarify the function of external auditors; update on the new powers the College of Policing has been given from the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014; an update on the role of the HMIC PEEL Programme; and highlight that the Strategic Policing Requirement has been updated to include Child Sexual Abuse. It also sets out the Accounting Officer’s responsibility for both issuing police grants and the health of the overall police accountability system.
The Department’s Accountability System Statement can be accessed through the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accountability-system-statement-for-policing-and-crime-reduction Internal Audit reports
The Internal Audit (IA) unit has undertaken a range of work across Home Office business areas. Summaries of finalised reports are received by the Department’s Audit and Risk Assurance Committee. The Chief Internal Auditor has indicated that the previous low overall assurance rating is still appropriate. This is on the basis of the programme of work performed, which has included reviews of key areas such as guidance, assurance arrangements, risk management, information assurance, and programme and project management. The specific reasons for assurance ratings and recommendations made in separate audits are many and varied. However, IA has continued to encounter significant weaknesses in arrangements in important areas which limit the potential for aims to be achieved. The Chief Internal Auditor’s view is that the position is improving, but the following areas need continued focus:
| Areas that need continued focus: | |---------------------------------| | • Operational procedures and guidance for staff need to be consistently in place and/or updated so that staff are clear about what they must do and how; | | • A more consistent approach to the second line of defence (controls and assurance checks operated by management) across Home Office business areas needs to be taken. There is currently variable coverage; | | • Implementation of agreed actions in response to IA recommendations; and | | • Legacy IT systems that are not fully geared up to support staff and which need secondary systems and workarounds. |
Quality Assurance
In response to the Macpherson Review and recent publication of the AQqua Book, the Department is strengthening policy and supporting guidance covering the production and use of evidence and analysis. We are ensuring that appropriate quality assurance processes are in place across the Department for evidence and analytical outputs, including the development and use of models. Critical models are being identified alongside the introduction of formal governance, sign-off, and assurance procedures to ensure evidence is used effectively in the policy and operational process, and that risks related to evidence are properly logged, managed and escalated as necessary.
Financial Management
The Home Office came under significant and sustained financial pressure during the financial year. Effective controls are in place to monitor HM Treasury’s key control totals. The in-year financial position has been highlighted, and discussed, at monthly Executive Management Board meetings. The financial position has been clearly demonstrated through the production of enhanced monthly finance reporting packs.
The ‘Finance for the Future’ change programme concluded during the first half of the financial year. The creation of a strengthened, consolidated finance team followed the conclusion of the project, with a consequential review and updating of processes, controls and policies.
There have been a number of significant financial pressures during the year. In early January, the Treasury confirmed that the judgement in a case related to commutation factors used to determine pension lump sum payments for firemen had extended to police officers. The Treasury has identified a potential liability of around £767 million. The Department has recognised a liability of £460 million within the 2014-15 accounts. See note 16 to the accounts for further details.
During a sustained period of financial restraint, the Department continues to ensure delivery of business plan objectives in a cost effective manner. During the year ahead, we will continue to focus on the delivery of efficiency and value for money need to ensure the Department lives within future declining budgets. Localism
A large proportion of Home Office funding is directed through grants to local delivery organisations. Assurance is gained regarding probity in the use of public funds through validation of grant payments. Evidence is collated throughout the financial year to provide assurance to the Accounting Officer by the grant holding unit. The financial policy on grants ensures that legislation is in place and is supported by evidence to justify the grant funding from each grant holding unit.
We encourage value for money in the local use of grants by ensuring that the grant funding links to the delivery of Home Office aims and objectives, with the use of appropriate legislation. Each request must demonstrate value for money, including evidence on how value for money will be achieved and measured. Grants payments are made in accordance with the Home Office regularity and propriety policy as well as HM Treasury guidance in ‘Managing Public Money’.
Grant funding allocated to Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) contributes to the delivery of The Home Office Vision Statement and Coalition Priorities, as outlined in The Home Office Business Plan 2012-15. Police and Crime Commissioners are accountable for the grant funding, which would be granted to enhance their policing capabilities and operational policing activities to comply with the Police Act 1996. Police and Crime Commissioners are subject to external audit and auditors are required to express an opinion on the arrangements made by each PCC to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of the grant funding. Through the checks on arrangements to secure efficiency, it provides some assurance on Value for Money (VfM).
Conclusion
The Department continues to undergo significant organisational change, including the move to fully incorporate Her Majesty’s Passport Office within the core Department from the mid-year point.
We continue to review processes, policies and procedures within a rapidly changing environment. In particular, progress has been made in responding promptly to Freedom of Information requests, and we have reviewed departmental recording keeping in the light of the loss of a number of historic files.
The Chief internal Auditor has confirmed that the low overall assurance rating that he gave last year is still appropriate. However, I am satisfied that improvements are being made in the areas highlighted by him in his report and also that the governance arrangements that are in place are sufficient to continue managing these risks effectively. I am confident that based on the review outlined above, that the Home Office has a sound system of governance, risk management and internal control that supports its aims and objectives.
Mark Sedwill Accounting Officer 5 June 2015
## Annex to Governance Statement
### Board and Committee Attendance during 2014 – 15
| Name of Board member | Supervisory Board | Executive Management Board | Audit and Risk Committee | Nominations and Governance Committee | |----------------------|-------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------------------| | Rt Hon Theresa May MP Home Secretary | 4/4 | | | | | Lord Taylor of Holbeach Lords Minister and Minister for Criminal Information (until 5 August 2014) | 1/2 | | | | | Lord Bates Lords Minister and Minister for Criminal Information (From 6 August 2014) | 0/2 | | | | | Karen Bradley MP Minister for Modern Slavery and organised Crime | 4/4 | | | | | Norman Baker MP Minister of State for Crime Prevention (until 3 November 2014) | 0/2 | | | | | Rt Hon Damian Green MP Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Jointly with Ministry of Justice) (until 14 July 2014) | 0/1 | | | | | James Brokenshire MP Minister for Immigration and Security | 3/4 | | | | | Mike Penning MP Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Jointly with Ministry of Justice) (from 15 July 2014) | 0/3 | | | | | Lynne Featherstone MP Minister of State for Crime Prevention (from 4 November 2014) | 1/2 | | | | | Mark Sedwill Permanent Secretary | 4/4 | 31/32 | | 1/1 | | Mike Anderson DG International and Immigration Policy Group (until 27 Feb 2015) | 3/4 | 25/29 | | | | Name of Board member | Supervisory Board | Executive Management Board | Audit and Risk Committee | Nominations and Governance Committee | |----------------------|-------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Charles Farr | 2/3 | 27/32 | | | | DG Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism | | | | | | Mary Calam | 3/4 | 26/32 | | | | DG Crime and Policing Group | | | | | | Mandie Campbell | 3/3 | 25/30 | | | | DG Immigration Enforcement | | | | | | Mike Parsons | 4/4 | 27/32 | | 1/1 | | Chief Operating Officer | | | | | | Peter Fish | 2/2 | 27/31 | | | | DG Legal | | | | | | Sarah Rapson | 3/3 | 26/30 | | | | DG UK Visas and Immigration | | | | | | Kevin White | | | 26/30 | 1/1 | | DG Human Resources | | | | | | Charles Montgomery | 2/2 | 27/30 | | | | DG Border Force | | | | | | Tyson Hepple | 2/2 | 14/14 | | | | Acting DG UK Passport Office (From 10 Nov 2014) | | | | | | Peter Storr Acting | | | 3/3 | | | DG International and Immigration Policy Group from 6 March 2015 | | | | | | Sue Langley | 4/4 | 10/14 | 7/7 | 1/1 | | Non-Executive Director and Chair Audit & Risk Assurance Committee | | | | | | Peter Conway | | | 2/3 | | | Independent member (Until 11 June 2014) | | | | | | Anne Tutt | | | 6/7 | | | Independent member | | | | | | Isobel Sharp | | | 6/6 | | | Audit Chair of HMPO (until 16 February 2015) | | | | | | Alan Brown | 2/3 | 9/9 | 2/3 | | | Non-Executive Director (From 11 August 2014) | | | | |
Not all members were invited to every meeting held.
Apologies had been received from all members who were unable to make any of the meetings to which they were invited. Statement of Accounting Officer’s Responsibilities
Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (the GRAA), HM Treasury has directed the Home Office to prepare, for each financial year, consolidated resource accounts detailing the resources acquired, held or disposed of, and the use of resources, during the year by the Department (inclusive of its executive agencies) and its sponsored Non-Departmental Public Bodies designated by order made under the GRAA by Statutory Instrument 2014 No.531 (together known as the ‘Departmental group’ consisting of the Department and sponsored bodies listed at note 22 to the accounts). The accounts are prepared on an accruals basis and must give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Department and the departmental group and of the net resource outturn, resources applied to objectives, recognised gains and losses and cash flows of the departmental group for the financial year.
In preparing the accounts, the Accounting Officer is required to comply with the requirements of the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) and in particular to:
- Observe the Accounts Direction issued by Treasury, including relevant accounting and disclosure requirements, and apply suitable accounting policies on a consistent basis;
- Ensure that the Department has in place appropriate and reliable systems and procedures to carry out the consolidation process;
- Make judgements and estimates on a reasonable basis, including those judgements involved in consolidating the accounting information provided by Non-Departmental Public Bodies;
- State whether applicable accounting standards, as set out in the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) have been followed, and disclose and explain any material departures in the accounts; and
- Prepare the accounts on a going concern basis.
HM Treasury has appointed the Permanent Secretary of the Department as Accounting Officer of the Home Office.
The Accounting Officer of the Department has also appointed the Chief Executives of its sponsored Non-Departmental Public Bodies as Accounting Officers of those bodies. The Accounting Officer of the Department is responsible for ensuring that appropriate systems and controls are in place to ensure that any grants that the Department makes to its sponsored bodies are applied for the purposes intended and that such expenditure and the other income and expenditure of the sponsored bodies are properly accounted for, for the purposes of consolidation within the resource accounts. Under their terms of appointment, the Accounting Officers of the sponsored bodies are accountable for the use, including the regularity and propriety, of the grants received and the other income and expenditure of the sponsored bodies.
The responsibilities of an Accounting Officer, including responsibility for the propriety and regularity of the public finances for which the Accounting Officer is answerable, for keeping proper records and for safeguarding the assets of the Department or non-departmental public body for which the Accounting Officer is responsible, are set out in Managing Public Money48 published by HM Treasury.
Mark Sedwill Accounting Officer 5 June 2015
48 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/managing-public-money THE CERTIFICATE AND REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
I certify that I have audited the financial statements of the Home Office and of its Departmental Group for the year ended 31 March 2015 under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. The Department consists of the core Department and its agencies. The Departmental Group consists of the Department and the bodies designated for inclusion under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Estimates and Accounts) Order 2014. The financial statements comprise: the Department’s and Departmental Group’s Statements of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, Financial Position, Cash Flows, Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity; and the related notes. I have also audited the Statement of Parliamentary Supply and the related notes. These financial statements have been prepared under the accounting policies set out within them. I have also audited the information in the Remuneration Report that is described in that report as having been audited.
Respective responsibilities of the Accounting Officer and auditor
As explained more fully in the Statement of Accounting Officer’s Responsibilities, the Accounting Officer is responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a true and fair view. My responsibility is to audit, certify and report on the financial statements in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. I conducted my audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland). Those standards require me and my staff to comply with the Auditing Practices Board’s Ethical Standards for Auditors.
Scope of the audit of the financial statements
An audit involves obtaining evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. This includes an assessment of: whether the accounting policies are appropriate to the Department’s and the Departmental Group’s circumstances and have been consistently applied and adequately disclosed; the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by the Accounting Officer; and the overall presentation of the financial statements. In addition I read all the financial and non-financial information in the Annual Report to identify material inconsistencies with the audited financial statements and to identify any information that is apparently materially incorrect based on, or materially inconsistent with, the knowledge acquired by me in the course of performing the audit. If I become aware of any apparent material misstatements or inconsistencies I consider the implications for my certificate.
I am required to obtain evidence sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the Statement of Parliamentary Supply properly presents the outturn against voted Parliamentary control totals and that those totals have not been exceeded. The voted Parliamentary control totals are Departmental Expenditure Limits (Resource and Capital), Annually Managed Expenditure (Resource and Capital), Non-Budget (Resource) and Net Cash Requirement. I am also required to obtain evidence sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the expenditure and income recorded in the financial statements have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions recorded in the financial statements conform to the authorities which govern them. Opinion on regularity In my opinion, in all material respects:
- the Statement of Parliamentary Supply properly presents the outturn against voted Parliamentary control totals for the year ended 31 March 2015 and shows that those totals have not been exceeded; and
- the expenditure and income recorded in the financial statements have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions recorded in the financial statements conform to the authorities which govern them.
Opinion on financial statements In my opinion:
- the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of the Department's and the Departmental Group's affairs as at 31 March 2015 and of the Department's net operating cost and Departmental Group's net operating cost for the year then ended; and
- the financial statements have been properly prepared in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and HM Treasury directions issued thereunder.
Opinion on other matters In my opinion:
- the part of the Remuneration Report to be audited has been properly prepared in accordance with HM Treasury directions made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000; and
- the information given in the Strategic Report and the Directors' Report for the financial year for which the financial statements are prepared is consistent with the financial statements.
Matters on which I report by exception I have nothing to report in respect of the following matters which I report to you if, in my opinion:
- adequate accounting records have not been kept or returns adequate for my audit have not been received from branches not visited by my staff; or
- the financial statements and the part of the Remuneration Report to be audited are not in agreement with the accounting records and returns; or
- I have not received all of the information and explanations I require for my audit; or
- the Governance Statement does not reflect compliance with HM Treasury's guidance. Report
- I have no observations to make on these financial statements.
Sir Amyas C E Morse Comptroller and Auditor General
National Audit Office 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road Victoria London SW1W 9SP
Date: 25 June 2015 Statement of Parliamentary Supply
In addition to the primary statements prepared under IFRS, the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) requires the Home Office to prepare a Statement of Parliamentary Supply and supporting notes to show resource outturn against the Supply Estimate presented to Parliament, in respect to each budgetary control limit.
Summary of Resource and Capital Outturn 2014-15
| £000 | 2014-15 | 2013-14(\*) | |------|---------|------------| | | Estimate | Outturn | Voted outturn compared with Estimate: saving/(excess) | Outturn | | | Voted | Non-Voted | Total | Voted | Non-Voted | Total | Total | | Departmental Expenditure Limit | | | | | | | | | – Resource | SOPS2 | 11,136,331 | – | 11,136,331 | 10,979,794 | – | 10,979,794 | 156,537 | 10,567,520 | | – Capital | SOPS2 | 390,575 | – | 390,575 | 372,751 | – | 372,751 | 17,824 | 362,685 | | Annually Managed Expenditure | | | | | | | | | – Resource | SOPS2 | 2,117,222 | – | 2,117,222 | 1,842,049 | – | 1,842,049 | 275,173 | 1,382,040 | | – Capital | SOPS2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Total Budget | | 13,644,128 | – | 13,644,128 | 13,194,594 | – | 13,194,594 | 449,534 | 12,312,245 | | Non-Budget | | | | | | | | | – Resource | | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Total | | 13,644,128 | – | 13,644,128 | 13,194,594 | – | 13,194,594 | 449,534 | 12,312,245 | | Total Resource | | 13,253,553 | – | 13,253,553 | 12,821,843 | – | 12,821,843 | 431,710 | 11,949,560 | | Total Capital | | 390,575 | – | 390,575 | 372,751 | – | 372,751 | 17,824 | 362,685 | | Total | | 13,644,128 | – | 13,644,128 | 13,194,594 | – | 13,194,594 | 449,534 | 12,312,245 |
Net Cash Requirement 2014-15
| £000 | 2014-15 | 2013-14(\*) | |------|---------|------------| | | Estimate | Outturn | Outturn compared with Estimate: saving/(excess) | Outturn | | | Note | | | | | Net Cash Requirement | SOPS4 | 12,952,369 | 12,616,283 | 336,086 | 11,978,795 |
Administration Costs 2014-15
| £000 | 2014-15 | 2013-14(\*) | |------|---------|------------| | | Estimate | Outturn | Outturn | | | Note | | | | SOP3.2 | 581,167 | 504,744 | 478,408 |
Explanations to variances between Estimates and Outturn are given in the Strategic Report.
(\*) The 2013-14 comparatives have not been restated to take account of Machinery of Government changes as there are not material (See Note 26 for details).
The notes on pages 91 to 98 form part of these accounts. Notes to the Departmental Resource Accounts (Statement of Parliamentary Supply)
SOPS1. Statement of accounting policies
The Statement of Parliamentary Supply and supporting notes have been prepared in accordance with the 2014-15 Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) issued by HM Treasury. The Statement of Parliamentary Supply accounting policies contained in the FReM are consistent with the requirements set out in the 2014-15 Consolidated Budgeting Guidance and Supply Estimates Guidance Manual.
SOPS1.1 Accounting convention
The Statement of Parliamentary Supply and related notes are presented consistently with Treasury budget control and Supply Estimates. The aggregates across government are measured using National Accounts, prepared in accordance with the internationally agreed framework ‘European System of Accounts’ (ESA95). ESA95 is in turn consistent with the System of National Accounts (SNA93), which is prepared under the auspices of the United Nations.
The budgeting system, and the consequential presentation of Supply Estimates and the Statement of Parliamentary Supply and related notes have different objectives to IFRS-based accounts. The system supports the achievement of macro-economic stability by ensuring that public expenditure is controlled, with relevant Parliamentary authority, in support of the Government’s fiscal framework. The system provides incentives to departments to manage spending well so as to provide high quality public services that offer value for money to the taxpayer.
The Government’s objectives for fiscal policy are set out in the Charter for Budgetary Responsibility. These are to:
- ensure sustainable public finances that support confidence in the economy, promote intergenerational fairness, and ensure the effectiveness of wider government policy; and
- support and improve the effectiveness of monetary policy in stabilising economic fluctuations.
SOPS1.2 Comparison with IFRS-based accounts
Many transactions are treated in the same way in National Accounts and IFRS-based accounts, but there are a number of differences.
Departments must include the following notes as appropriate, providing additional disclosure of other transactions accounted for differently between the Statement of Parliamentary Supply and IFRS-based accounts.
SOPS1.a) PFI and other service concession arrangements
The National Accounts basis for recognising service concession arrangements is broadly similar to UK-GAAP, applying a risk-based test to determine the financial reporting. In addition, where contracts were signed before 1 April 2009, the budgetary treatment is determined under UK-GAAP. IFRS-based recognition of service concession arrangements (IFRIC 12) is determined using control tests, which can result in a different on/off balance sheet treatment. SOPS1.b) Capital Grants
Grant expenditure used for capital purposes are treated as capital (CDEL) items in the Statement of Parliamentary Supply. Under IFRS, as applied by the FReM, there is no distinction between capital grants and other grants, and they score as an item of expenditure in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure.
SOPS1.c) Prior Period Adjustments (PPAs)
PPAs resulting from an error in previous recording, or from an accounting policy change initiated by the Department, need to be voted by Parliament in the current year, whereas in IFRS-based accounts (IAS 8) they are treated as adjustments to previous years. (PPAs resulting from a change in accounting policy brought in by a new or modified accounting standard are not included in Estimates, so there is no misalignment.)
SOPS1.d) Income payable to the Consolidated Fund
HM Treasury has agreed a limit to income retainable by the Department, with any excess income scoring outside of budgets, and consequently outside of the Statement of Parliamentary Supply. IFRS-based accounts will record all of the income, regardless of the budgetary limit. In addition to this, there is other income payable to the Consolidated Fund, which is excluded from the Department’s budget, but is recorded as income in the IFRS accounts. Income payable to the Consolidated Fund is detailed in Note SOPS5.1.
SOPS1.e) Provisions – Administration and Programme expenditure
Provisions recognised in IFRS-based accounts are not recognised as DEL expenditure for national accounts purposes until the actual payment of cash (or accrual liability) is recognised. To meet the requirements of both resource accounting and national accounts, additional data entries are made in the Statement of Parliamentary Supply across AME and DEL control totals, which do not affect the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. As the Administration control total is a sub-category of DEL, Administration and Programme expenditure reported in the Statement of Parliamentary Supply differs from that reported in the IFRS-based accounts. A reconciliation is provided in SOPS note 3.2.
## SOPS2. Net outturn
### SOPS2.1 Analysis of net resource outturn by section
| Administration | Programme | Outturn | Estimate | Outturn | |----------------|-----------|---------|----------|---------| | Gross | Income | Net | Gross | Income | Net | Total | Net total compared to Estimate, adjusted for virements | Total | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | **Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limit** | | | | | | | | | | | **Voted:** | | | | | | | | | | | A – Crime and Policing Group | 21,747 | (5,393) | 16,354 | 8,607,185 | (21,168) | 8,586,017 | 8,602,371 | 8,630,053 | 27,682 | 27,682 | 8,345,745 | | B – Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 47,980 | 1,129 | 49,109 | 834,776 | (182,620) | 652,156 | 701,265 | 707,070 | 5,805 | 6,138 | 695,834 | | C – Immigration Enforcement | 8,581 | – | 8,581 | 458,749 | (29,843) | 428,906 | 437,487 | 462,199 | 24,712 | 25,302 | 437,606 | | D – UK Visas & Immigration | 29,588 | – | 29,588 | 800,814 | (1,018,202) | (217,388) | (187,800) | (254,084) | (66,284) | – | (253,235) | | E – International and Immigration Policy | 21,378 | – | 21,378 | 14,454 | (1,039) | 13,415 | 34,793 | 36,980 | 2,187 | 2,187 | 35,744 | | F – Border Force | 2,389 | (165) | 2,224 | 522,922 | (6,159) | 516,763 | 518,987 | 522,789 | 3,802 | 3,802 | 507,933 | | G – HM Passport Office | 45,004 | (43,419) | 1,585 | 358,353 | (419,013) | (60,660) | (59,075) | (25,854) | 33,221 | 33,221 | (54,868) | | H – Enablers | 375,827 | (32,665) | 343,162 | 538,874 | (56,393) | 482,481 | 825,643 | 945,753 | 120,110 | 46,436 | 769,491 | | I – Arms Length Bodies (Net) | 32,763 | – | 32,763 | 73,360 | – | 73,360 | 106,123 | 111,424 | 5,301 | 11,768 | 71,440 | | J – European solidarity mechanism (Net) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | | K – National Fraud Authority | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 11,830 | | **Total** | 585,257 | (80,513) | 504,744 | 12,209,487 | (1,734,437) | 10,475,050 | 10,979,794 | 11,136,331 | 156,537 | 156,537 | 10,567,520 |
### Annually Managed Expenditure
| Voted: | | | | | | | | | | | K – AME charges | – | – | – | (41,709) | – | (41,709) | (41,709) | (76,319) | (34,610) | – | 95,998 | | L – Police superannuation | – | – | – | 1,883,758 | – | 1,883,758 | 1,883,758 | 2,193,540 | 309,782 | 275,172 | 1,286,042 | | M – AME Charges Arms Length Bodies (Net) | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | | **Total** | 585,257 | (80,513) | 504,744 | 14,051,536 | (1,734,437) | 12,317,099 | 12,821,843 | 13,253,553 | 431,710 | 431,710 | 11,949,560 |
### SOPS2.2 Analysis of net capital outturn by section
| Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limit | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |-------------------------------------------|---------|---------| | **Gross** | **Income** | **Net** | **Outturn** | **Net total compared to Estimate** | **Net total compared to Estimate, adjusted for virements** | **Net** | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | **Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limit** | | | | | | | | **Voted:** | | | | | | | | A – Crime and Policing Group | 145,118 | – | 145,118 | 146,274 | 1,156 | 1,156 | 125,971 | | B – Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 78,375 | – | 78,375 | 81,075 | 2,700 | 1,373 | 64,292 | | C – Immigration Enforcement | 2,833 | (148) | 2,685 | 2,800 | 115 | 115 | 4,482 | | D – UK Visas & Immigration | 1,689 | (1) | 1,688 | 8,000 | 6,312 | 6,312 | 9,356 | | E – International and Immigration Policy | 4,905 | (199) | 4,706 | 6,000 | 1,294 | 1,294 | 8,618 | | F – Border Force | 43,653 | (91) | 43,562 | 57,360 | 13,798 | 7,574 | 54,719 | | G – HM Passport Office | 24,715 | – | 24,715 | 18,491 | (6,224) | – | 11,441 | | H – Enablers | 88,682 | (29,114) | 59,568 | 49,400 | (10,168) | – | 57,878 | | I – Arms Length Bodies (Net) | 12,334 | – | 12,334 | 21,175 | 8,841 | – | 25,928 | | J – European Solidarity Mechanism (Net) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | **Total** | 402,304 | (29,553) | 372,751 | 390,575 | 17,824 | 17,824 | 362,685 |
### Annually Managed Expenditure
| Annually Managed Expenditure | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |-----------------------------|---------|---------| | **Voted:** | | | | | K – AME charges | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | L – Police superannuation | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | M – AME Charges Arms Length Bodies (Net) | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | **Total** | 402,304 | (29,553) | 372,751 | 390,575 | 17,824 | 17,824 | 362,685 |
### SOPS3. Reconciliation of outturn to net operating cost and against administration budget
#### SOPS3.1 Reconciliation of net resource outturn to net operating cost
| Note | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | Net resource outturn in Statement of Parliamentary Supply | | | | Budget | SOPS2 | 12,821,843 | 11,949,560 | | Non-Budget | SOPS2 | – | – | | | | 12,821,843 | 11,949,560 | | Add: | | | | Capital Grants | | 215,920 | 189,949 | | PFI adjustments | | 67,300 | 22,715 | | | | 13,105,063 | 12,162,224 | | Less: | | | | Income payable to the Consolidated Fund | | 86,400 | 124,293 | | Capital Grant Income | | 3,624 | – | | Machinery of Government Change (\*) | | – | 1,779 | | | | 90,024 | 126,072 | | Net operating cost in Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure | | 13,015,039 | 12,036,152 |
(\*) The prior year numbers have been restated due to a number of Machinery of Government changes. See note 26 for details.
#### SOPS3.2 Outturn against final administration budget and administration net operating cost
| Note | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | Estimate – administration costs limit | | 581,167 | 512,503 | | Outturn – Gross administration costs | SOPS2 | 585,257 | 539,713 | | Outturn – Gross Income relating to administration costs | SOPS2 | (80,513) | (61,305) | | Outturn – Net administration costs | | 504,744 | 478,408 | | Reconciliation to operating costs: | | | | Add: provisions movements (transfer from Programme) | | 6,907 | (40,617) | | Less: Capital grant income | | (45) | – | | Add: PFI adjustments | | 26,427 | 6,021 | | Add: Machinery of Government Change (\*) | | – | 801 | | Less: Admin consolidated fund extra receipts | | (48) | (380) | | Administration net operating costs | | 537,985 | 444,233 |
### SOPS4. Reconciliation of Net Resource Outturn to Net Cash Requirement
| Note | Estimate | Outturn | Net total outturn compared with Estimate: saving/(excess) | |------|----------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Resource Outturn | SOPS2.1 | 13,253,553 | 12,821,843 | 431,710 | | Capital Outturn | SOPS2.2 | 390,575 | 372,751 | 17,824 |
#### Accruals to cash adjustments
**Adjustments to remove non-cash items:**
- Depreciation and amortisation: (261,467) (237,636) (23,831)
- New provisions and adjustments to previous provisions: (726,244) (491,254) (234,990)
- Departmental Unallocated Provision: – – –
- Supported capital expenditure (revenue): – – –
- Prior Period Adjustments: – – –
- Other non-cash items: (523) (20,174) 19,651
**Adjustments for NDPBs:**
- Remove voted resource and capital: (132,600) (119,303) (13,297)
- Add cash grant-in-aid: 103,645 110,357 (6,712)
**Adjustments to reflect movements in working balances:**
- Increase/(decrease) in inventories: – 1,670 (1,670)
- Increase/(decrease) in receivables: 180,000 64,976 115,024
- (Increase)/decrease in payables: 56,462 28,329 28,133
- (Increase)/decrease in pension liability: – (21) 21
- Use of provisions: 88,968 84,745 4,223
**Removal of non-voted budget items:**
- Consolidated Fund Standing Services: – – –
- Other adjustments: – – –
**Net cash requirement:**
| | £000 | £000 | £000 | |------|----------|---------|------| | | 12,952,369 | 12,616,283 | 336,086 | SOPS5. Income payable to the Consolidated Fund
SOPS5.1 Analysis of income payable to the Consolidated Fund
In addition to income retained by the Department, the following income relates to the Department and is payable to the Consolidated Fund (cash receipts being shown in italics).
| Outturn 2014-15 | Outturn 2013-14 | |-----------------|-----------------| | £000 | £000 | | Income | Receipts | Income | Receipts | | Operating income outside the ambit of the Estimate | 86,400 | 85,845 | 83,220 | 83,042 | | Excess cash surrenderable to the Consolidated Fund | – | – | 41,899 | 41,899 | | Total income payable to the Consolidated Fund | 86,400 | 85,845 | 125,119 | 124,941 |
SOPS5.2 Consolidated Fund Income
Consolidated Fund income shown in note SOPS note 5.1 above does not include any amounts collected by the Home Office where it was acting as agent of the Consolidated Fund rather than as principal.
The Home Office collects Immigration Penalties and Civil Penalties. The Department is not permitted to retain this income without HM Treasury approval. In 2014-15 HM Treasury allowed the Department to retain £3 million of this income (£3 million in 2013-14), the remaining income is surrendered to the Consolidated Fund. In accordance with HM Treasury guidelines, the non-retainable income generated is not recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. However, the net receivable due in respect of penalties raised, along with the receipt payable to the Consolidated Fund, is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position. The amounts collected as agent for the Consolidated Fund (which are otherwise excluded from these financial statements) were:
SOPS5.2.1 Penalties raised
| 2014-15 | Restated 2013-14 | |---------|-----------------| | £000 | £000 | | Immigration Penalties Raised | (3,666) | (2,631) | | Civil Penalties Raised | (32,342) | (19,573) | | Total Penalties Raised | (36,008) | (22,204) | | less: Element retained by the Home Office | 3,000 | 3,000 | | Total | (33,008) | (19,204) |
SOPS5.2.2 Write-offs
| 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |---------|---------| | £000 | £000 | | Immigration Penalties | – | – | | Civil Penalties | 14,471 | 1,602 | | Total | 14,471 | 1,602 |
### SOPS5.2.3 Receivables
| | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | Immigration Penalties| 766 | 460 | | Civil Penalties | 47,202 | 26,310 | | | 47,968 | 26,770 | | Accrued Income | – | 113 | | less: Provision for Doubtful Receivables | (26,393) | (11,904) | | | 21,575 | 14,979 |
### SOPS5.2.4 Payable to the Consolidated Fund
| | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | Total Payable to the Consolidated Fund | 21,575 | 14,979 | Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure
This account summarises the expenditure and income generated and consumed on an accruals basis. It also includes other comprehensive income and expenditure, which include changes to the values of non-current assets and other financial instruments that cannot yet be recognised as income or expenditure.
for the year ended 31 March 2015
| Note | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | |------|-----------------|---------------------------|-----------------|---------------------------| | | 2014-15 £000 | Restated 2013-14 £000 | 2014-15 £000 | Restated 2013-14 £000 | | Administration Costs: | | | | | | Staff costs | 3 | 236,948 | 245,321 | 265,174 | 239,546 | 261,778 | 279,339 | | Other costs | 4 | 326,250 | 340,507 | 357,585 | 204,514 | 224,138 | 235,124 | | Income | 6 | (58,664) | (80,606) | (84,774) | (41,469) | (80,528) | (70,230) | | Programme Costs: | | | | | | Staff costs | 3 | 939,274 | 989,295 | 1,062,626 | 869,979 | 950,579 | 1,012,438 | | Other costs | 5 | 13,174,288 | 13,297,034 | 13,340,464 | 12,213,261 | 12,424,594 | 12,468,986 | | Income | 6 | (1,625,104) | (1,883,481) | (1,926,036) | (1,428,945) | (1,841,464) | (1,889,505) | | Grant in Aid to NDPBs | | 110,357 | 110,357 | – | 105,134 | 105,134 | – | | Net Operating Costs for the year ended 31 March 2015 | | 13,103,349 | 13,018,427 | 13,015,039 | 12,162,020 | 12,044,231 | 12,036,152 | | Total expenditure | | 14,787,117 | 14,982,514 | 15,025,849 | 13,632,434 | 13,966,223 | 13,995,887 | | Total income | | (1,683,768) | (1,964,087) | (2,010,810) | (1,470,414) | (1,921,992) | (1,959,735) | | Net Operating Costs for the year ended 31 March 2015 | | 13,103,349 | 13,018,427 | 13,015,039 | 12,162,020 | 12,044,231 | 12,036,152 |
All activities are continuing operations.
The 2013-14 results have been restated to take account Machinery of Government changes (see Note 26 for details).
On 1 October 2014, Her Majesty’s Passport Office (an Executive Agency of the Home Office) became part of the Core Home Office. No restatement of the 2013-14 figures was made for this internal restructuring (see Note 25 for details).
Other Comprehensive Net Expenditure
| Note | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | |------|-----------------|---------------------------|-----------------|---------------------------| | | 2014-15 £000 | 2013-14 £000 | 2014-15 £000 | 2013-14 £000 | | | | | | | | Net (gain)/loss on: | | | | | | – revaluation of property plant & equipment | 8 | (77,128) | (77,128) | (76,925) | (54,256) | (55,176) | (55,518) | | – Intangibles | 9 | (2,018) | (2,018) | (1,757) | 1,604 | 1,989 | (429) | | Pensions – Actuarial (gains)/losses | | 42 | 42 | 484 | – | – | – | | Total comprehensive expenditure for the year ended 31 March 2015 | | 13,024,245 | 12,939,323 | 12,936,841 | 12,109,368 | 11,991,044 | 11,980,205 |
The notes on pages 105 to 164 form part of these accounts. Consolidated Statement of Financial Position
This statement presents the financial position of the Home Office. It comprises three main components: assets owned or controlled; liabilities owed to other bodies; and equity, the remaining value of the entity.
as at 31 March 2015
| Note | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | |------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------------| | | 31 March 2015 £000 | Restated 31 March 2014 £000 | Restated 31 March 2013 £000 | | | 31 March 2015 £000 | Restated 31 March 2014 £000 | Restated 31 March 2013 £000 | | Non-current assets: | | | | | Property, plant and equipment | 8 | 1,057,926 | 1,057,926 | 1,087,232 | 1,022,704 | 1,089,425 | 1,121,419 | 646,982 | 1,156,518 | 1,185,461 | | Intangible assets | 9 | 458,579 | 458,579 | 471,870 | 401,354 | 487,538 | 499,084 | 123,312 | 506,097 | 518,892 | | Trade receivables and other non-current assets | 14 | – | – | 1,648 | 42 | 42 | 1,497 | – | 1,049 | 3,200 | | Total non-current assets | | | | | | | | | | | | Current assets: | | | | | Assets classified as held for sale | 7 | 6,991 | 6,991 | 6,991 | 22,961 | 22,961 | 22,961 | – | – | – | | Inventories | 12,713 | 12,713 | 12,713 | 6,650 | 11,043 | 11,043 | – | 12,343 | 12,343 | | Trade and other receivables | 14 | 385,884 | 385,884 | 391,381 | 297,460 | 320,701 | 320,701 | 249,405 | 348,361 | 342,589 | | Cash and cash equivalents | 13 | 140,971 | 140,971 | 165,777 | 206,173 | 225,317 | 225,317 | 32,962 | 70,949 | | Total current assets | | | | | | | | | | | | Total assets | | | | | | | | | | | | Current liabilities: | | | | | Provisions | 16 | 504,808 | 504,808 | 505,370 | 135,800 | 138,859 | 138,859 | 11,295 | 41,592 | 46,483 | | Trade and other payables | 15 | 1,403,624 | 1,403,624 | 1,429,821 | 1,379,883 | 1,489,485 | 1,489,485 | 956,897 | 1,387,784 | | Total current liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | Non-current assets plus/less net current assets/ liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | Non-current liabilities: | | | | | Other payables | 15 | 289,200 | 289,200 | 292,455 | 290,362 | 296,394 | 296,394 | 230,301 | 296,777 | 299,473 | | Provisions | 16 | 175,651 | 175,651 | 176,911 | 131,646 | 138,341 | 138,341 | 79,601 | 141,691 | 141,251 | | Pensions Liability | 353 | 353 | 2,395 | 332 | 1,916 | 1,916 | – | 5,392 | | Total non-current liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | Total assets less liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | Taxpayers’ equity and other reserves: | | | | | General fund | (564,748) | (564,748) | (524,066) | (170,781) | (100,978) | (63,716) | (305,414) | 45,323 | 82,900 | | Revaluation reserve | 254,529 | 254,529 | 257,121 | 190,654 | 199,603 | 202,659 | 80,009 | 175,247 | 175,543 | | Pensions Reserve | (353) | (353) | (2,395) | (332) | (1,916) | (1,916) | – | (5,392) | | Total equity | | | | | | | | | | |
The 2013-14 results have been restated to take account of Machinery of Government changes (see Note 26 for details).
On 1 October 2014, Her Majesty’s Passport Office (an Executive Agency of the Home Office) became part of the Core Home Office. No restatement of the 2013-14 figures was made for this restructuring (see Note 25 for details).
The notes on pages 105 to 164 form part of these accounts.
Mark Sedwill Accounting Officer 5 June 2015 Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows
The Statement of Cash Flows shows the changes in cash and cash equivalents of the Home Office during the reporting period. The statement shows how the Home Office generates and uses cash and cash equivalents by classifying cash flows as operating, investing and financing activities. The amount of net cash flows arising from operating activities is a key indicator of service costs and the extent to which these operations are funded by way of income from the recipients of services provided by the Department. Investing activities represent the extent to which cash inflows and outflows have been made for resources which are intended to contribute to the Departments’ future public service delivery. Cash flows arising from financing activities include Parliamentary Supply and other cash flows, including borrowing.
for the year ended 31 March 2015
| Note | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | |------|---------------------------------|-------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------| | | 2014-15 | | Restated 2013-14 | | | Cash flows from operating activities | | | | | | Net operating cost | (13,018,427) | (13,015,039) | (12,044,231) | (12,036,152) | | Adjustments for non-cash transactions | 835,782 | 848,424 | 477,017 | 476,005 | | (Increase)/decrease in trade and other receivables | 14 (64,599) | (70,831) | 28,125 | 23,591 | | less movements in receivables relating to items not passing through the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure | 377 | 377 | (2,402) | (2,992) | | (Increase)/decrease in inventories | (1,670) | (1,670) | 1,300 | 1,300 | | Increase/(decrease) in trade payables | 15 (73,027) | (63,603) | 99,153 | 98,622 | | less movements in payables relating to items not passing through the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure | 58,799 | 58,797 | (174,775) | (176,282) | | Use of provisions | 16 (84,745) | (86,572) | (49,603) | (49,774) | | Increase/(Reduction) in pension liability | 21 | 479 | (17) | (156) | | Net cash outflow from operating activities | (12,347,489) | (12,329,636) | (11,665,433) | (11,665,838) | | Cash flows from investing activities | | | | | | Purchase of property, plant and equipment | (71,368) | (77,066) | (96,845) | (105,756) | | Purchase of intangible assets | (111,076) | (117,712) | (57,157) | (62,802) | | Proceeds of disposal of property, plant and equipment | 24,863 | 25,004 | 193 | 4,204 | | Proceeds of disposal of intangibles | 912 | 912 | 45 | 4,699 | | Loans to other bodies | – | – | (198,700) | (198,700) | | (Repayments) from other bodies | – | – | 198,700 | 198,700 | | Net cash outflow from investing activities | (156,669) | (168,862) | (153,764) | (159,655) | | Cash flows from financing activities | | | | | | From the Consolidated Fund (Supply) – current year | 12,571,585 | 12,571,585 | 12,136,085 | 12,136,085 | | From the Consolidated Fund (Supply) – prior year | – | – | – | – | | Advances from the Contingencies Fund | 275,000 | 275,000 | 198,700 | 198,700 | | Repayments to the Contingencies Fund | (275,000) | (275,000) | (198,700) | (198,700) | | Capital element of payments in respect of finance leases and on balance sheet (SoFP) PFI contracts | (35,042) | (35,040) | (49,813) | (49,123) | | Net financing | 12,536,543 | 12,536,545 | 12,086,272 | 12,086,962 | | Net increase/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents in the period before adjustment for receipts and payments to the Consolidated Fund | 32,385 | 38,047 | 267,075 | 261,469 | | Payments of amounts due to the Consolidated Fund | (97,587) | (97,587) | (107,085) | (107,101) | | Net increase/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents in the period after adjustment for receipts and payments to the Consolidated Fund | (65,202) | (59,540) | 159,990 | 154,368 | | Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the period | 206,173 | 225,317 | 46,183 | 70,949 | | Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period | 140,971 | 165,777 | 206,173 | 225,317 |
The 2013-14 results have been restated to take account of Machinery of Government changes (see Note 26 for details).
On 1 October 2014, Her Majesty’s Passport Office (an Executive Agency of the Home Office) became part of the Core Home Office. No restatement of the 2013-14 figures was made for this restructuring (see Note 25 for details).
The notes on pages 105 to 164 form part of these accounts. Consolidated Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity
This statement shows the movement in the year on the different reserves held by the Home Office, analysed into ‘general fund reserves’ (i.e. those reserves that reflect a contribution from the Consolidated Fund). Financing and the balance from the provision of services are recorded here. The Revaluation Reserve reflects the change in asset values that have not been recognised as income or expenditure. Other earmarked reserves are shown separately where there are statutory restrictions of their use.
for the year ended 31 March 2015
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | Balance at 31 March 2013 | 82,900 | 175,544 | (5,392) | 253,052 | | Opening balance adjustment | (7,834) | (1) | – | (7,835) | | Restated balance at 1 April 2013 | 75,066 | 175,543 | (5,392) | 245,217 | | Net Parliamentary Funding – drawn down | 12,136,085 | – | – | 12,136,085 | | Net Parliamentary Funding – deemed | 13,454 | – | – | 13,454 | | Supply payable/(receivable) adjustment | (169,473) | – | – | (169,473) | | Amounts payable to the Consolidated Fund | (125,119) | – | – | (125,119) | | Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the year | (12,036,152) | – | – | (12,036,152) | | Non-Cash Adjustments: | | | | | | Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of property, plant and equipment | 8 | – | 55,518 | – | 55,518 | | Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of intangible assets | 9 | – | 429 | – | 429 | | Movements in Reserves: | | | | | | Non-cash charges – auditor’s remuneration | 4,5 | 701 | – | – | 701 | | Notional charges and income | 4 | 944 | – | – | 944 | | External transfers | 12,117 | (14) | 3,320 | 15,423 | | Transfers between reserves | 28,661 | (28,817) | 156 | – | | Balance at 31 March 2014 | (63,716) | 202,659 | (1,916) | 137,027 |
### Balance at 31 March 2014
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | (63,716) | 202,659 | (1,916) | 137,027 |
### Opening balance adjustment
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | 16 | | | 16 |
### Restated balance at 1 April 2014
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | (63,700) | 202,659 | (1,916) | 137,043 |
### Net Parliamentary Funding – drawn down
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | 12,571,585 | | | 12,571,585 |
### Net Parliamentary Funding – deemed
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | 169,473 | | | 169,473 |
### Supply payable/(receivable) adjustment
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | (124,775) | | | (124,775) |
### Amounts payable to the Consolidated Fund
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | (86,400) | | | (86,400) |
### Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the year
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | (13,015,039) | | | (13,015,039) |
### Non-Cash Adjustments:
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | 8 | 76,925 | | 76,925 |
### Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of intangible assets
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | 9 | 1,757 | | 1,757 |
### Movements in Reserves:
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | 4,5 | 505 | | 505 |
### Non–cash charges – auditor’s remuneration
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | 4 | | | |
### Notional charges and income
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | 26 | 2 | | 28 |
### External transfers
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | (484) | | | (484) |
### Actuarial gain/loss in year
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | 42 | | | 42 |
### Release of reserves to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | 24,217 | (24,222) | 5 | |
### Balance at 31 March 2015
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | (524,066) | 257,121 | (2,395) | (269,340) |
### Of which:
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | (564,748) | 254,529 | (353) | (310,372) |
### Core Department
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | 40,682 | 2,592 | (2,042) | 41,232 |
### Agencies
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|-------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | (524,066) | 257,121 | (2,395) | (269,340) | Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity (Core Department and Agencies)
for the year ended 31 March 2015
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Restated Total Reserves £000 | |------|------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|-----------------------------| | | | | | | | Balance at 31 March 2013 | 45,323 | 175,247 | – | 220,570 | | Opening balance adjustment | (1,748) | (1) | – | (1,749) | | Restated balance at 1 April 2013 | 43,575 | 175,246 | – | 218,821 | | Net Parliamentary Funding – drawn down | 12,136,085 | – | – | 12,136,085 | | Net Parliamentary Funding – deemed | 13,454 | – | – | 13,454 | | Supply payable/(receivable) adjustment | (169,473) | – | – | (169,473) | | Amounts payable to the Consolidated Fund | (124,268) | – | – | (124,268) | | Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the year | (12,044,231) | – | – | (12,044,231) |
Non-Cash Adjustments:
- Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of property, plant and equipment 8 – 55,176 – 55,176
- Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of intangible assets 9 – (1,989) – (1,989)
Movements in Reserves:
- Non-cash charges – auditor’s remuneration 4,5 701 – – 701
- External transfers 14,379 (13) (349) 14,017
- Transfers between reserves 28,800 (28,817) 17 –
Balance at 31 March 2014
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | | | | | | Balance at 31 March 2014 | (100,978) | 199,603 | (332) | 98,293 | | Opening balance adjustment | – | – | – | – | | Restated balance at 1 April 2014 | (100,978) | 199,603 | (332) | 98,293 | | Net Parliamentary Funding – drawn down | 12,571,585 | – | – | 12,571,585 | | Net Parliamentary Funding – deemed | 169,473 | – | – | 169,473 | | Supply payable/(receivable) adjustment | (124,775) | – | – | (124,775) | | Amounts payable to the Consolidated Fund | (86,400) | – | – | (86,400) | | Comprehensive Net Expenditure for the year | (13,018,427) | – | – | (13,018,427) |
Non-Cash Adjustments:
- Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of property, plant and equipment 8 – 77,128 – 77,128
- Net gain/(loss) on revaluation of intangible assets 9 – 2,018 – 2,018
Movements in Reserves:
- Non-cash charges – auditor’s remuneration 4,5 505 – – 505
- Notional charges and income 4 – – – –
- External transfers 26 2 – 28
- Actuarial gain/loss in year – – (42) (42)
- Release of reserves to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure 42 – – 42
- Transfers between reserves 24,201 (24,222) 21 –
Balance at 31 March 2015
| Note | General Fund £000 | Revaluation Reserve £000 | Pension Reserve £000 | Total Reserves £000 | |------|------------------|--------------------------|---------------------|---------------------| | | | | | | | Balance at 31 March 2015 | (564,748) | 254,529 | (353) | (310,572) |
The notes on pages 105 to 164 form part of these accounts. Notes to the departmental accounts for the period ending 31 March 2015
1. Statement of accounting policies
Basis of preparation The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the 2014-15 Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) issued by HM Treasury. The accounting policies contained in the FReM apply International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as adapted or interpreted for the public sector context. Where the FReM permits a choice of accounting policy, the accounting policy which is judged to be most appropriate to the particular circumstances of the Department for the purpose of giving a true and fair view has been selected. The particular policies adopted by the Department are described below. They have been applied consistently in dealing with items that are considered material to the financial statements.
In addition to the primary statements prepared under IFRS, the FReM also requires the Department to prepare a Statement of Parliamentary Supply and supporting notes show outturn against Estimate in terms of the net resource requirement and the net cash requirement.
The financial statements are presented in Sterling and all values are rounded to the nearest thousand pounds (£000).
In common with other government departments, the future financing of the Department’s liabilities is to be met by future grants of Supply and the application of future income, both to be approved annually by Parliament. It has been considered appropriate to adopt a going concern basis for the preparation of these financial statements.
The accounts have been prepared under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.
1.1 Accounting convention These accounts have been prepared on an accruals basis under the historical cost convention modified to account for the revaluation of property, plant and equipment, intangible assets and inventories.
1.2 Restatement of 2013-14 Results The results for 2013-14 have been restated to:
a) exclude the financial data of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), which has been reclassified as a Public Corporation by the Office for National Statistics; and
b) include the financial data relating to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which transferred from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Home Office on 1 April 2014.
1.3 Basis of consolidation These accounts include the non-agency parts of the Department (the core Department) and its executive agency, Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO) up until 30 September 2014. On 1 October 2014, HM Passport Office functions transferred to the Home Office. In addition, the Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) of the Home Office are also consolidated in these accounts. The NDPBs consolidated within the departmental boundary are: Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC), Security Industry Authority (SIA) and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA). The College of Policing (CoP) is also consolidated as a quasi-NDPB.
The executive agency and non-departmental public bodies also produce and publish their own Annual Reports and Accounts. Transactions between entities included in the consolidated accounts are eliminated.
Machinery of Government (MoG) changes which involve the transfer of functions or responsibilities between two or more government departments are accounted for using merger accounting rules in accordance with the FReM. See note 1.2 above. The Department had one Machinery of Government change: the move of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Home Office. In addition, the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), which was previously consolidated into these accounts was reclassified as a Public Corporation by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and has therefore been excluded. Although DBS, as a public corporation, is no longer consolidated within the departmental boundary, the Department continues to sponsor and oversee the activities of the DBS.
The impact of the Machinery of Government changes to the accounts is detailed in Note 26. In addition to this Her Majesty’s Passport Office became part of the Core Home Office on 1 October 2014, and the residual elements of the National Fraud Authority transferred to the Core Home Office on 1 April 2014 (see Note 25 for details).
1.4 Judgments and key sources of estimation uncertainty
The preparation of financial statements requires management to make judgements and assumptions that affect the amounts reported for assets and liabilities at the year ending 31 March, and for amounts reported for income and expenses during the year.
In the process of applying the Department’s accounting policies, management has made the following judgements, which have the most significant effect on the amounts recognised in the financial statements:
Provisions A provision is recognised when the Department has a legal or constructive obligation as a result of a past event, it is probable that an outflow of economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. If the effect is material, expected future cash flows are discounted using the real rate set by HM Treasury. Among these provisions are the police pensions provision (see Note 16.4), together with those relating to the potential reparation costs related the riots that took place in August 2011, which were based on estimates provided by loss adjusters (see Note 16.3).
Police Pension Scheme provision A provision of £767 million was calculated as an estimate of the total cost of redress expected to be made in respect of commutation lump sums paid from police pension scheme in England and Wales between 2001 and 2006. The Home Office’s element of the total liability is £460 million.
a) Methodology The cost estimate was produced by calculating the amount of redress payment owed in respect of retirements in each financial year from 2001-02 to 2006-07. Where redress payments only apply for a proportion of that year, the assumption was made that the underlying commutation lump sum amounts are paid uniformly over each year (e.g. the lump sums paid between 1 December 2001 and 31 March 2002 was calculated as 1/3rd of the total lump sums paid over 2001-02).
As per the Pensions Ombudsman’s determination, the redress payments will include interest, calculated using the base rate of interest payable up to the end of 2014, and tax. The tax element is excluded from the Home Office’s provision.
b) Data and assumptions The key assumptions and data used for this cost estimate were:
- The multipliers (used to work out how much additional lump sum each officer should have been paid under commutation factors which would have applied if reviews were undertaken in 2001 and 2004);
- Partially projected amounts of commutation lump sums paid out between 1 December 2001 and 30 November 2006;
- The proportion of these which were paid to female retirees; and
- The pattern of retirement ages underpinning these lump sums.
Commutation lump sums There was no full data for the commutation lump sum paid out over the period between December 2001 and 30 November 2006, so appropriate figures were generated using the available information.
Actual data for commutation lump sum payments paid out over 2001-02 and 2002-03 was used in the estimate. For the remaining period (1 April 2003 to 30 November 2006) the commutation lump sums in each financial year were estimated assuming the total amount of lump sums moved in line with the number of retirements (full-time equivalents) in the year, using Home Office statistics (ADR data).
**Proportion of lump sums which were paid to female retirees** The cost of redress is lower for female officers compared to male officers. The calculation makes an allowance for this using an assumed proportion of female retirees throughout the period. Two sources of data can be used to calculate this proportion.
The first is the ADR data, which implies that 6.9% of retirements between 1 December 2001 and 30 November 2006 were in respect of female officers. The estimate for the total cost of redress assuming that 6.9% of retirements were in respect of female officers is £767 million. Of this, £85 million arises out of interest and £307 million is in respect of tax. The Home Office provision is made up of £460 million, £375 million being the lump sum payout and £85 million interest.
Alternatively, separate data was supplied by the Metropolitan Police force and a single administrator with data covering 15 different forces. This covers retirement over the period affected by redress, but implies a female proportion of 11.5%. On this basis the estimated cost of redress would be £739 million. Of this, £82 million arises out of interest and £296 million in respect of tax.
The amount provided in the accounts is based on the higher of these valuations, as this better represented retirement data from all police forces across the period in question.
**Police Pensions top-up grant accrual** The Department makes a grant to police forces to match the estimated deficit in their police pension schemes for the year (see note 1.17). The grant is based on estimates provided in-year by the police forces and adjusted for actual outturns from prior years. The Department recognises an accrual at the year-end for the element of the grant that has not been paid by the year-end. There are inherent uncertainties involved with the calculation of the pension grant, for example the number of retirees and amounts taken in lump sums, which means that the accrual is the best estimate of the liability at the year-end. The value of the accrual as at 31 March 2015 was £314 million.
**Service concession arrangements** The Department is party to Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs). The classification of such arrangements as service concession arrangements requires the Department to determine, based on an evaluation of the terms and conditions of the arrangements, whether it controls the infrastructure.
**Development costs** Initial capitalisation of costs is based on management’s judgement that technological and economical feasibility is confirmed.
**1.5 Administration and programme expenditure** The Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure is analysed between administration and programme costs. Administration costs reflect the costs of running the Department. These include both the administration costs and associated operating income.
Programme costs reflect non-administration costs, including payments of grants and other disbursements by the Department, as well as certain staff costs where they relate directly to service provision. The classification of expenditure and income as administration or as programme follows the definition of administration costs set out by HM Treasury.
**1.6 Property, plant and equipment** Property, plant and equipment is recognised initially at cost and thereafter carried at fair value less depreciation and impairment charged subsequent to the date of revaluation. Cost comprises the amount of cash paid to acquire the asset and includes any costs directly attributable to making the asset capable of operating as intended. The capitalisation threshold for expenditure on property, plant and equipment is £5,000.
Fair value of properties is based on professional valuations every five years and in the intervening years by the use of published indices appropriate to the type of property. Valuations are undertaken in accordance with the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Appraisal and Evaluation Manual. These valuations are carried out by the Valuations Office Agency (VOA). The last valuation was performed by Sarah M Brydon DipSurv MRICS of the VOA, who is a registered valuer recognised by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. The valuation was carried out as of 31 March 2015.
Other operational assets are revalued to open market value where obtainable, or on the basis of depreciated replacement cost where market value is not obtainable. Published indices appropriate to the category of asset are normally used to estimate value.
Any revaluation surplus is credited to the revaluation reserve except to the extent that it reverses a decrease in the carrying value of the same asset previously recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, in which case the increase is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure. A revaluation deficit is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, except to the extent of any existing surplus in respect of that asset in the revaluation reserve.
Depreciation is calculated to write down the costs of the assets to their estimated residual value on a straight-line basis over their expected useful lives as follows:
- Buildings – up to 60 years or life of lease
- Improvements to leasehold buildings – duration of lease or anticipated useful life
- Plant and equipment – 2 to 15 years
- Computers – 2 to 15 years
- Transport equipment – 3 to 20 years
- Furniture and fittings – 3 to 10 years
Assets in the course of construction are not depreciated until the point at which they are ready to be brought into use. No depreciation is provided on freehold land and non-current assets held for sale.
The carrying values of property, plant and equipment are reviewed for impairment if events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value may not be recoverable, and are written down immediately to their recoverable amount. Useful lives and residual values are reviewed annually and where adjustments are required these are made prospectively.
1.7 Intangible assets
Intangible assets are measured on initial recognition at cost. Following initial recognition, where an active market exists, intangible assets are carried at fair value at the period ending 31 March. Where no active market exists the Department uses published indices to assess the depreciated replacement cost. Internally generated intangible assets, excluding capitalised development costs, are not capitalised and expenditure is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure in the year in which the expenditure is incurred.
The useful lives of intangible assets are assessed to be either finite or indefinite. All intangible assets are currently assessed to have a finite life and are assessed for impairment whenever there is an indication that the intangible asset may be impaired. The amortisation period and the amortisation method are reviewed at least at each financial year end.
Software licences
Externally acquired computer software licences are amortised over the shorter of the term of the licence and the useful economic life of three to fifteen years.
Internally developed software
This includes software that arises from internal or third party development for internal or external access. The direct costs associated with the development stage of internally developed software are included in the cost of the asset. These assets are amortised over the useful economic life of three to ten years. Note 9 to the accounts refers to these assets as Information Technology (IT).
**Assets under construction**
Assets in the course of construction are not amortised until the point at which they are ready to be brought into use.
Expenditure which does not meet the criteria for capitalisation is treated as an operating cost in the year in which it is incurred.
**1.8 Third party assets**
The Department holds funds on behalf of third parties. Such funds include citizenship ceremony fees, proceeds of crime and bail bonds. These funds are not recognised in the financial statements as the Department has no beneficial interest in them. Details of the assets held on behalf third parties are given in Note 21 to the accounts.
**1.9 Leases**
Assets held under finance leases, which transfer to the Department substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of the leased item, are capitalised at the inception of the lease, with a corresponding liability being recognised for the lower of the fair value of the leased asset and the present value of the minimum lease payments. Lease payments are apportioned between the reduction of the lease liability and finance charges in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure so as to achieve a constant rate of interest on the remaining balance of the liability. Assets held under finance leases are depreciated over the shorter of the estimated useful life of the asset and the lease term.
Leases where the lessor retains a significant portion of the risks and benefits of ownership of the asset are classified as operating leases and the rentals payable are charged to the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure on a straight line basis over the lease term.
**1.10 Service concessions**
The Department accounts for PFI transactions on a control approach based on the FReM, which uses IFRIC 12 *Service Concession Arrangements* to inform its treatment. The Department is considered to control the infrastructure in a public-to-private service concession arrangement if:
- the Department controls or regulates the services that the operator must provide using the infrastructure, to whom it must provide them, and at what price; and
- the Department controls any significant residual interest in the property at the end of the concession term through ownership, beneficial entitlement or otherwise.
Where it is determined that such arrangements are not in scope of IFRIC 12, the Department assesses such arrangements under IFRIC 4 *Determining whether an Arrangement contains a Lease*. Where it is identified that the arrangement conveys a right to use an asset in return for a payment or series of payments, the lease element is accounted for as either an operating lease or finance lease in accordance with the risk and reward based approach set out at section 1.9 Leases.
Where it is determined that arrangements are in scope of IFRIC 12, the Department recognises the infrastructure as a non-current asset.
Where the contract is separable between the service element, the interest charge and the infrastructure asset, the asset is measured as under IAS 17, with the service element and the interest charge recognised as incurred over the term of the concession arrangement. Where there is a unitary payment stream that includes infrastructure and service elements that cannot be separated, the various elements will be separated using estimation techniques.
In determining the interest rate implicit in the contract, the Department applies the risk-free market rate at the time the contract was signed. The rate is not changed unless the infrastructure element or the whole contract is renegotiated. The risk-free rate is determined by reference to the real rate set by HM Treasury, currently 3.5%. The nominal rate is then calculated by adjusting this real term rate by the UK inflation rate.
The Department recognises a liability for the capital value of the contract. That liability does not include the interest charge and service elements, which are expensed annually to the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure.
On initial recognition of existing PPP arrangements or PFI contracts under IFRS, the Department measures the non-current asset in the same way as other non-current assets of that generic type. A liability is recognised for the capital value of the contract at its fair value at the period end, which will normally be the outstanding liability in respect of the property (that is, excluding the interest and service elements), discounted by the interest rate implicit in the contract.
Assets are revalued in accordance with the revaluation policy for property, plant and equipment (section 1.6 above) and intangible assets (section 1.7 above). Liabilities are measured using the appropriate discount rate. Revenue received under any revenue sharing provision in the service concession arrangement is recognised when all the conditions laid down in IAS 18 Revenue have been satisfied.
1.11 Financial Instruments
Financial assets
Financial assets are recognised when the Department becomes party to the contracts that give rise to them and are classified as: financial assets at fair value through profit or loss, loans and receivables, held-to-maturity investments, or as available-for-sale financial assets as appropriate. The Department determines the classification of its financial assets at initial recognition and, where allowed and appropriate, re-evaluates this designation at each financial year-end.
When financial assets are recognised initially, they are measured at fair value. Fair value is determined as the transaction price plus, in the case of financial assets not at fair value through profit or loss, directly attributable transaction costs. The subsequent measurement of financial assets depends on their classification. The following classifications are currently applicable:
Financial assets at fair value through the statement of comprehensive net expenditure
Financial assets classified as held for trading and other assets designated as such on inception are included in this category. Financial assets are classified as held for trading if they are acquired for sale in the short term. Assets are carried in the Statement of Financial Position at fair value with gains or losses recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure.
Loans and receivables
Trade and other receivables are recognised and carried at the lower of their original invoiced value and recoverable amount. Where the time value of money is material, receivables are subsequently measured at amortised cost. Provision is made when there is objective evidence that the Department will not be able to recover balances in full. Balances are written off when the probability of recovery is assessed as being remote.
Financial assets are derecognised when the contract that gives rise to it is settled, sold, cancelled or expires.
Financial liabilities
Financial liabilities are classified as either financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss or other financial liabilities.
Trade and other payables are recognised at cost, which is subsequently deemed to be materially the same as the fair value. Where the time value of money is material, payables are subsequently measured at amortised cost.
Financial liabilities are derecognised when the contract that gives rise to it is settled, sold, cancelled or expires. 1.12 Cash and cash equivalents
Cash in the Statement of Financial Position comprises cash at bank and in hand. For the purpose of the cash flow statement, cash and cash equivalents consist of cash, less any outstanding bank overdrafts.
1.13 Provisions
A provision is recognised when the Department has a legal or constructive obligation as a result of a past event, it is probable that an outflow of economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation.
1.14 Contingent liabilities
In addition to contingent liabilities disclosed in accordance with IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets, the Department discloses for parliamentary reporting and accountability purposes certain statutory and non-statutory contingent liabilities where the likelihood of a transfer of economic benefit is remote, but which have been reported to Parliament in accordance with the requirements of Managing Public Money. These comprise:
- items over £250,000 (or lower, where required by specific statute) that do not arise in the normal course of business and which are reported to Parliament by departmental Minute prior to the Department entering into the arrangement; and
- all items (whether or not they arise in the normal course of business) over £250,000 (or lower, where required by specific statute or where material in the context of resource accounts) which are required by the FReM to be noted in the resource accounts.
Where the time value of money is material, contingent liabilities which are required to be disclosed under IAS 37 are stated at discounted amounts and the amount reported to Parliament separately noted. Contingent liabilities that are not required to be disclosed by IAS 37 are stated at the amounts reported to Parliament.
1.15 Operating income
Operating income is income which relates directly to the operating activities of the Department. It is stated net of VAT.
Rendering of services
Operating income principally comprises fees and charges for services provided on a full cost basis to external customers.
Income for Her Majesty’s Passport Office is recognised when services and goods are issued. Income from free passports issued for all British Nationals born on or before 2 September 1929 that was introduced on 18 October 2004 is financed by Parliamentary Supply drawn down by the Home Office.
Income receivable for fees charged in respect of applications for visas and immigration documents is not recognised until the application process has been completed and a decision is made.
Licence fee income for the Security Industry Authority (SIA) is recognised at the point when an application is accepted. At this point, the fee paid becomes non-refundable and the SIA is committed to paying the managed service provider for processing the application. Application fee income for SIA is recognised at the point when a decision is made on the status of that application. Annual registration is charged to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure on a straight line basis over the period covered by the registration.
EU expenditure is recognised in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure on a pro-rata basis as the projects progress, the income receivable from the EU is recognised to match this expenditure. 1.16 Pensions
**Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme:** Past and present employees are ordinarily covered by the provisions of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). From 30 July 2007, civil servants may be in one of four defined benefit schemes; either a final salary scheme (classic, premium or classic plus); or a whole career scheme (nuvos). These statutory arrangements are unfunded with the cost of benefits met by monies voted by Parliament each year. The Department recognises the expected cost of these elements on a systematic and rational basis over the period during which it benefits from employees' services by payments to the PCSPS of amounts calculated on an accruing basis. Liability for payment of future benefits is a charge on the PCSPS.
**Partnership and Stakeholder Schemes:** Members joining from October 2002 may opt for either the appropriate defined benefit arrangement or a ‘money purchase’ stakeholder pension with an employer contribution (partnership pension account). The employer makes a basic contribution of between 3% and 12.5% (depending on the age of the member) into a stakeholder pension product chosen by the employee from a panel of three providers. The employee does not have to contribute, but where they do make contributions, the employer will match these up to a limit of 3% of pensionable salary (in addition to the employer’s basic contribution). Employers also contribute a further 0.8% of pensionable salary to cover the cost of centrally-provided risk benefit cover (death in service and ill-health retirement).
**Broadly By Analogy:** The core Department and IPCC also operate Broadly By Analogy (BBA) pension schemes, a pension arrangement entitling the recipient to benefits similar to those provided by the PCSPS scheme. The former Chairman of the NPIA and former Chairs of legacy Commissions, and some former members of the Police Complaints Authority within IPCC, are provided pensions under this arrangement. The BBA pensions are unfunded, with benefits being paid as they fall due. Liabilities for the scheme rest with the core Department and the IPCC, and provision for these liabilities is reflected in the Statement of Financial Position. The annual cost of the associated pension contribution is recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, and amounts relating to changes in the actuarial valuation of scheme liabilities are adjusted via the Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity. The scheme liabilities have been calculated by the Government Actuary’s Department.
Additional information in relation to Home Office pension schemes is included at Note 3.
1.17 Home Office grants
Grants (excluding Grant in Aid) are accounted for on an accruals basis and are paid as a reimbursement against expenditure that the grant recipient has already made. Grant in Aid is a funding mechanism to finance all or part of the costs of the body receiving the Grant in Aid.
**Home Office Police Core Settlement** Police grants paid by the Department to Police and Crime Commissioners are based on funding levels agreed in the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2014-15.
**Police Pensions top-up grant** The amount reported as the Police Pensions top-up grant is equal to the difference between outgoing pension expenditure and incoming pension contributions in a single year. An accrual is recognised in the Department’s financial statement for the estimated amount of grant relating to the year, which has not been paid by year-end.
**College of Policing funding** The amount of funding provided to the College of Policing through Grant in Aid in the 2014-15 financial year was calculated by taking an agreed percentage of the total Home Office funds available to provide for policing including grants to PCCs. This amount was taken (top-sliced) from the police grant and instead paid to the College. 1.18 Value Added Tax
Most of the activities of the Department are outside the scope of VAT and, in general, output tax does not apply and input tax on purchases is not recoverable. Irrecoverable VAT is charged to the relevant expenditure category or included in the capitalised purchase cost of fixed assets. Where output tax is charged or input tax is recoverable, the amounts are stated net of VAT.
1.19 Segmental Reporting
IFRS 8 – Operating Segments has been applied in full without interpretation or adaption in line with HM Treasury guidance. Financial information for operating segments for a minimum of 75% of comprehensive net expenditure has been disclosed in a note to the accounts. Segmental information is included in Note 2 to these accounts.
1.20 Deferred Income
Income is recognised at the point at which any conditions attached to the grant have been met or, if there were no such conditions, on receipt. The grants, or elements of them, are shown as deferred income if at the year-end monies have been received, but where the conditions relating to the grant have not yet been met.
A large element of the Department’s deferred income relates to visa income, where the Department receives payment in advance with the visa application, but where the income is not recognised until the application process is completed.
Lease incentives are deferred on a straight line basis over the life of the lease.
1.21 International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and other accounting changes that have been issued but are not yet effective
IFRS 13 – Fair Value Measurement was issued on 1 January 2013 and has been adopted by the EU. This will be effective from 2015-16. IFRS 13 has been prepared to provide consistent guidance on fair value measurement for all relevant balances and transactions covered by IFRS (except where IFRS 13 explicitly states otherwise). The Standard defines fair value, provides guidance on fair value measurement techniques, and sets out the disclosure requirements.
The Standard requires fair value be measured using the most reliable data and inputs available to determine the exit price for an asset or liability. This exit price is taken to be the price that two market participants (a buyer and seller) would settle on. To ensure transparency over the differing quality of inputs used to determine fair value, the Standard has established a hierarchy for input quality.
- Level 1 inputs (highest quality) are published prices available in an active market;
- Level 2 inputs are observable data available in a non-active market; and
- Level 3 inputs (lowest quality) are all other inputs, which are mostly unobservable. Entities are required to use the most appropriate inputs available to them in determining fair value. The inference is that the higher the quality, the more appropriate the input.
IFRS 13 requires additional disclosures where level 3 inputs are used to assess fair value, to give readers an understanding of the sensitivity of the valuation to changes in those inputs.
IAS 36 – ‘Impairment of assets’ on recoverable amount disclosures (amendment) was issued on 1 January 2014 and has been adopted by the EU, with a view to include in the final version of the 2015-16 FReM (subject to review). This amendment, which seeks to address the implications of references to IFRS 13 ‘Fair Value Measurement’, modifies some of the disclosure requirements regarding measurement of the recoverable amount of impaired assets. It clarifies the scope of certain disclosures and removes burdensome and unintended disclosure requirements without reducing the relevance and understandability of the financial information. 2. Statement of Operating Costs by Operating Segment
for the year ended 31 March 2015
| Reportable Segment | Administration Expenditure £000 | Programme Expenditure £000 | Gross Expenditure £000 | Income £000 | Net Expenditure £000 | |-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|-------------|----------------------| | Crime and Policing Group | 58,678 | 10,717,175 | 10,775,853 | (83,086) | 10,692,767 | | Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism| 47,980 | 906,137 | 954,117 | (7,775) | 771,468 | | Border Force | 2,389 | 522,693 | 525,082 | (182,649) | 342,433 | | UK Visas & Immigration | 29,588 | 807,658 | 837,246 | (1,019,791) | (182,545) | | Immigration Enforcement | 8,581 | 457,411 | 465,992 | (29,843) | 436,149 | | HM Passport Office | 45,004 | 357,989 | 402,993 | (507,606) | (104,613) | | International and Immigration Policy Group| 21,378 | 20,020 | 41,398 | (1,059) | 40,339 | | Enablers | 409,161 | 614,007 | 1,023,168 | (179,001) | 844,167 | | Net Expenditure | 622,759 | 14,403,090 | 15,025,849 | (2,010,810) | 13,015,039 |
Reconciliation between Operating Segments and SOPS Note 2
| | Administration Expenditure £000 | Programme Expenditure £000 | Gross Expenditure £000 | Income £000 | Net Expenditure £000 | |--------------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|-------------|----------------------| | Capital Grants | – | (215,920) | (215,920) | – | (215,920) | | Capital Grant income | – | – | – | 3,624 | 3,624 | | PFI adjustment | (26,427) | (40,873) | (67,300) | – | (67,300) | | Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts| – | – | – | 86,400 | 86,400 | | NDPB income (reported as net expenditure in SOPS Note 2) | (4,168) | (51,737) | (55,905) | 55,905 | – | | Provisions utilised adjustment | (6,907) | 6,907 | – | – | – | | EU Income (reported as net expenditure in SOPS Note 2) | – | (49,931) | (49,931) | 49,931 | – | | Net Resource Outturn | 585,257 | 14,051,536 | 14,636,793 | (1,814,950) | 12,821,843 | 2014-15 Gross expenditure by Operating Segment
- Crime and Policing Group: 71.72%
- Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism: 6.35%
- Border Force: 3.49%
- UK Visas & Immigration: 5.57%
- Immigration Enforcement: 3.10%
- HM Passport Office: 2.68%
- International and Immigration Policy Group: 0.28%
- Enablers: 6.81%
2014-15 Income by Operating Segment
- Crime and Policing Group: 50.70%
- Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism: 9.10%
- Border Force: 8.90%
- UK Visas & Immigration: 4.13%
- Immigration Enforcement: 25.25%
- HM Passport Office: 1.49%
- International and Immigration Policy Group: 0.05%
- Enablers: 0.40%
### 2.1 Departmental Net Assets by Operating Segment (as at 31 March 2015)
| Reportable Segment | Total Assets £000 | Total Liabilities £000 | Net Assets £000 | |-------------------------------------|-------------------|------------------------|-----------------| | Crime and Policing Group | 286,649 | (1,182,588) | (895,939) | | Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 67,207 | (186,559) | (119,352) | | Border Force | 236,337 | (54,995) | 181,342 | | UK Visas & Immigration | 408,127 | (340,820) | 67,307 | | Immigration Enforcement | 268,298 | (39,445) | 228,853 | | HM Passport Office | 186,720 | (75,124) | 111,596 | | International and Immigration Policy Group | 35,648 | (8,993) | 26,655 | | Enablers | 648,626 | (518,428) | 130,198 | | **Total balance** | **2,137,612** | **(2,406,952)** | **(269,340)** |
**for the year ended 31 March 2014**
| Reportable Segment | Administration Expenditure £000 | Programme Expenditure £000 | Gross Expenditure £000 | Income £000 | Restated 2013-14 Net £000 | |-------------------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|-------------|---------------------------| | Crime and Policing Group | 72,705 | 9,878,426 | 9,951,131 | (89,511) | 9,861,620 | | Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 52,210 | 876,652 | 928,862 | (174,071) | 754,791 | | Border Force | 3,970 | 508,742 | 512,712 | (12,916) | 499,796 | | UK Visas & Immigration | 14,730 | 796,961 | 811,691 | (1,105,391) | (293,700) | | Immigration Enforcement | 9,080 | 434,408 | 443,488 | (19,653) | 423,835 | | HM Passport Office | 41,217 | 280,742 | 321,959 | (451,578) | (129,619) | | National Fraud Authority | 639 | 11,191 | 11,830 | – | 11,830 | | International and Immigration Policy Group | 23,918 | 14,394 | 38,312 | (190) | 38,122 | | Enablers | 295,994 | 679,908 | 975,902 | (106,425) | 869,477 | | **Net Expenditure** | **514,463** | **13,481,424** | **13,995,887** | **(1,959,735)** | **12,036,152** |
**Reconciliation between Operating Segments and SOPS Note 2**
| Description | Administration Expenditure £000 | Programme Expenditure £000 | Gross Expenditure £000 | Income £000 | Restated 2013-14 Net £000 | |-----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|-------------|---------------------------| | Capital Grants | – | (189,949) | (189,949) | – | (189,949) | | PFI adjustment | (6,021) | (16,694) | (22,715) | – | (22,715) | | Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts | – | – | – | 124,293 | 124,293 | | NDPB income (reported as net expenditure in SOPS Note 2) | (14,593) | (167,457) | (182,050) | 182,050 | – | | Provisions utilised adjustment | 40,617 | (40,617) | – | – | – | | Machinery of Government changes | 5,247 | 121,996 | 127,243 | (125,464) | 1,779 | | EU Income (reported as net expenditure in SOPS Note 2) | – | (32,131) | (32,131) | 32,131 | – | | **Net Resource Outturn** | **539,713** | **13,156,572** | **13,696,285** | **(1,746,725)** | **11,949,560** | | Reportable Segment | Total Assets £000 | Total Liabilities £000 | Restated Net Assets £000 | |--------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|------------------------|--------------------------| | Crime and Policing Group | 257,340 | (568,870) | (311,530) | | Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism | 55,115 | (179,792) | (124,677) | | Border Force | 242,597 | (63,407) | 179,190 | | UK Visas & Immigration | 210,607 | (291,247) | (80,640) | | Immigration Enforcement | 249,657 | (38,394) | 211,263 | | HM Passport Office | 182,469 | (100,762) | 81,707 | | National Fraud Authority | 166 | (1,567) | (1,401) | | International and Immigration Policy Group | 33,885 | (8,849) | 25,036 | | Enablers | 970,186 | (812,107) | 158,079 | | Total balance | 2,202,022 | (2,064,995) | 137,027 |
This segmental analysis is consistent with how financial performance is reported to the Home Office Supervisory Board.
The underlying factors in identifying the reportable segments are driven by the budget allocations, departmental priorities and financial risks. This provides the board with decision making information based upon sound financial reporting. It enables the determination of resource spend by entity, departmental priority and operational activity. Home Office Business Segments
The Crime and Policing Group (CPG), and the services the group oversee, play vital roles in achieving the Home Office’s core purpose of protecting the public. CPG are responsible for the implementation of crime and policing policy and sponsor the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Security Industry Authority, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and the College of Policing. In addition, CPG sponsor the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS); however do not report DBS transactions and balances within this business segment because DBS is a Public Corporation and is outside of the departmental accounting boundary.
The Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT) gives strategic direction to the UK’s work to counter the threat from international terrorism. Its primary objective is to protect the public from terrorism by working with others to develop and deliver the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy.
Border Force is a professional law enforcement command within the Home Office. It has approximately 8,000 officers, responsible for securing the UK border and controlling migration at 138 ports and airports across the UK and overseas.
UK Visas and Immigration is responsible for considering applications from visitors to come to or remain in the UK. It is a high-volume service that aims to become a globally trusted operator delivering excellent customer service and secure decisions.
Immigration enforcement is responsible for preventing abuse, pursuing immigration offenders and increasing compliance with immigration law. It works with partners to regulate migration in line with the law and government policy and supports economic growth.
The International and Immigration Policy Group (IIPG) was established to provide the Department with a focused cross-cutting capability to help it meet the government’s agenda. This is done through a mixture of strategy and policy work, casework, management of external programmes, and coordinating and liaising with colleagues across the Department and externally. IIPG sponsor the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office, provides accurate and secure records of key events and has responsibility for producing passports. Her Majesty’s Passport Office delivers the following services:
- it provides passport services for British nationals residing in the UK and, in association with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to those residing overseas; and
- it administers civil registration in England and Wales.
The National Fraud Authority (NFA) ceased operations on 31 March 2014, with assets transferred to the City of London Police on 1 April 2014. NFA was established following the government’s fraud review and was responsible for increasing the UK economy’s protection against the harm caused by fraud. Its functions were transferred to the National Crime Agency, City of London Police and Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism.
Enablers includes Corporate Services, Communications Directorate, Human Resources Directorate and Strategy, Delivery and Private Office Group. 3. Staff numbers and related costs
Staff costs comprise:
| | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |--------------------------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | **Wages and salaries** | | | | Permanently employed staff | 1,080,734 | 945,736 | | Others | 134,502 | 262 | | Ministers | 234 | | | Special advisers | | | | **Total** | 1,058,764 | 71,303 | | **Social security costs**| | | | | 73,842 | 73,679 | | **Other pension costs** | | | | | 175,113 | 175,069 | | | | | | **Sub Total** | 1,329,689 | 1,194,484 | | **Less recoveries in respect of outward secondments** | (1,889) | (1,889) | | **Total net costs** | 1,327,800 | 1,192,595 |
Of which:
| | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |--------------------------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | **Core Department** | | | | | 1,176,222 | 1,069,142 | | | 106,491 | 286 | | | 1,109,525 | | | **Core Department and Agencies** | | | | | 1,234,616 | 1,126,880 | | | 107,147 | 286 | | | 1,212,357 | | | **Departmental Group** | | | | | 1,327,800 | 1,192,595 | | | 134,616 | 286 | | | 1,291,779 | |
\*Of which:
| | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |--------------------------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | **Departmental Group** | | | | Charged to administration costs | 265,174 | 279,339 | | Charged to programme costs | 1,062,626 | 1,012,440 | | **Total** | 1,327,800 | 1,291,779 |
| | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |--------------------------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | **Core Department & Agencies** | | | | Charged to administration costs | 245,321 | 261,778 | | Charged to programme costs | 989,295 | 950,579 | | **Total** | 1,234,616 | 1,212,357 |
| | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |--------------------------|---------|---------| | | £000 | £000 | | **Core Department** | | | | Charged to administration costs | 236,948 | 239,546 | | Charged to programme costs | 939,274 | 869,979 | | **Total** | 1,176,222 | 1,109,525 |
- The total amount of capitalised staff costs not included in the figures above is £1.2 million (£5.7 million in 2013-14).
### Staff Costs by Business Segment
| Business Segment | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | Restated | |-----------------------------------------|---------|---------|----------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Departmental Group | | | | | Crime and Policing Group | 142,726 | 98,845 | 121,605 | | Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism| 38,206 | 36,033 | 38,756 | | Border Force | 368,325 | 366,373 | 367,088 | | UK Visas & Immigration | 248,999 | 190,731 | 235,939 | | Immigration Enforcement | 203,533 | 191,278 | 185,635 | | International and Immigration Policy | 23,074 | 22,405 | 24,812 | | HM Passport Office | 114,184 | 110,924 | 100,647 | | National Fraud Authority | | | 2,185 | | Total | 1,139,047 | 1,016,589 | 1,076,667 | | Enablers | 188,753 | 176,006 | 215,112 | | Total Staff Costs | 1,327,800 | 1,192,595 | 1,291,779 |
### Average number of persons employed
The average number of whole-time equivalent persons employed during the year was as follows. These figures include those working in the Department as well as in the agencies and other bodies included within the consolidated departmental resource accounts.
| Business Segment | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | Restated | |-----------------------------------------|---------|---------|----------| | | | | | | Departmental Group | | | | | Crime and Policing Group | 2,510 | 2,106 | 2,087 | | Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism| 753 | 661 | 930 | | Border Force | 8,332 | 8,025 | 8,080 | | UK Visas & Immigration | 6,787 | 5,051 | 6,315 | | Immigration Enforcement | 5,351 | 4,824 | 4,811 | | International and Immigration Policy | 494 | 473 | 381 | | HM Passport Office | 3,664 | 3,474 | 3,352 | | National Fraud Authority | | | 39 | | Enablers | 4,906 | 4,046 | 4,555 | | Total | 32,797 | 28,660 | 30,550 | | Of which: | | | | | Core Department | 29,005 | 25,332 | 25,651 | | Core Department and Agencies | 30,974 | 27,115 | 29,042 | | Departmental Group | 32,797 | 28,660 | 30,550 |
Included within the staff numbers above are 15 members of staff who were engaged in capital projects (49 in 2013-14).
### 3.1 Reporting of Civil Service and other compensation schemes – exit packages
#### Civil Service Compensation Scheme
| Exit Package cost band | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | |------------------------|-----------------|---------------------------|-------------------| | | Number of compulsory redundancies | Number of other departures agreed | Total number of exit packages by cost band | Number of compulsory redundancies | Number of other departures agreed | Total number of exit packages by cost band | Number of compulsory redundancies | Number of other departures agreed | Total number of exit packages by cost band | | Less than £10,000 | – (–) | 50 (–) | 50 (–) | – (1) | 51 (–) | 51 (1) | – (1) | 52 (1) | 52 (2) | | £10,000 – £25,000 | – (–) | 79 (3) | 79 (3) | – (2) | 79 (3) | 79 (5) | 2 (2) | 88 (6) | 90 (8) | | £25,000 – £50,000 | 1 (2) | 99 (6) | 100 (8) | 1 (4) | 99 (6) | 100 (10) | 3 (4) | 118 (9) | 121 (13) | | £50,000 – £100,000 | 1 (1) | 71 (15) | 72 (16) | 1 (2) | 72 (15) | 73 (17) | 3 (3) | 81 (18) | 84 (21) | | £100,000 – £150,000 | – (–) | 14 (4) | 14 (4) | – (–) | 14 (5) | 14 (5) | – (–) | 14 (5) | 14 (5) | | £150,000 – £200,000 | – (–) | – (2) | – (2) | – (–) | – (2) | – (2) | – (–) | – (2) | – (2) | | £200,000 – £250,000 | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | | £250,000 – £300,000 | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | | £300,000 – £350,000 | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | – (–) | | Total number of exit packages by type | 2 (3) | 313 (30) | 315 (33) | 2 (9) | 315 (31) | 317 (40) | 8 (10) | 353 (41) | 361 (51) | | Total resource cost (£000) | 109 | 11,828 | 11,937 | 109 | 11,895 | 12,004 | 374 | 13,382 | 13,756 | | | (150) | (2,129) | (2,279) | (357) | (2,275) | (2,632) | (434) | (2,596) | (3,030) |
Comparative figures for the prior year are shown in brackets. These comparative figures have been restated to take account of the Machinery of Government changes (see Note 26 for details).
Redundancy and other departure costs have been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, a statutory scheme made under the Superannuation Act 1972 and as amended by the Superannuation Act 2010. Exit costs are accounted for in full in the year of departure. Where the Department has agreed early retirements, the additional costs are met by the Department and not by the Civil Service pension scheme. Ill-health retirement costs are met by the pension scheme and are not included in the table.
(a) Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme
The Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) is an unfunded multi-employer defined benefit scheme but the Home Office is unable to identify its share of the underlying assets and liabilities. The scheme actuary valued the scheme as at 31 March 2012. You can find details in the resource accounts of the Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation (www.civilservice.gov.uk/pensions).
For 2014-15, employers’ contributions of £172.2 million were payable to the PCSPS (£163.1 million in 2013-14 (Restated)) at one of four rates in the range 16.7% to 24.3% of pensionable pay, based on salary bands. The Scheme Actuary reviews employer contributions usually every four years following a full scheme valuation. The contribution rates are set to meet the cost of the benefits accruing during 2014-15 to be paid when the member retires and not the benefits paid during this period to existing pensioners. (b) Partnership and Stakeholder Schemes
Employees can opt to open a partnership pension account, a stakeholder pension with an employer contribution. Employers’ contributions of £930.2k (£667.7k in 2013-14 (Restated)) were paid to one or more of the panel of three appointed stakeholder pension providers. Employer contributions are age-related and range from 3% to 12.5% of pensionable pay. Employers also match employee contributions up to 3% of pensionable pay. In addition, employer contributions of £21.4k (£12.1k in 2013-14 (Restated)), 0.8% of pensionable pay, were payable to the PCSPS to cover the cost of the future provision of lump sum benefits on death in service or ill-health retirement of these employees.
Contributions due to the partnership pension providers at 31 March 2015 were £13.9 million (£13.2 million in 2013-14 (Restated)). Contributions prepaid were £nil (£nil in 2013-14).
23 persons (23 in 2013-14 (Restated)) retired early on ill-health grounds; the total additional accrued pension liabilities in the year amounted to £51.9k (£62.1k in 2013-14 (Restated)).
(c) By Analogy Pension Scheme
The Home Office also operates a ‘Broadly by Analogy’ (BBA) Pension Scheme. This scheme is analogous with the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). The BBA pensions are unfunded, with benefits being paid as they fall due. Liabilities for the scheme rest with the Home Office and provision for these liabilities is reflected in the statement of financial position.
The By Analogy Pension arrangement is operated under broadly the same rules as the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). Liabilities relating to payments made before normal retirement under the terms of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme are excluded. The pension arrangements are unfunded, with benefits being paid as they fall due and guaranteed by the employer. There is no fund and, therefore, no surplus or deficit.
The size of this scheme is small and there are only a few former members of the Police Complaints Authority and the former Chairman of the National Policing Improvement Agency within the Home Office who are provided pensions under this arrangement. The exact value of the scheme is therefore not disclosed here.
### 4. Other Administration Costs
| Note | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Restated 2013-14 £000 | |------|----------------|---------------------------|--------------------|----------------|---------------------------|--------------------|----------------------| | | 2014-15 £000 | | | 2013-14 £000 | | | | | | 2,459 | 2,459 | 3,126 | 1,159 | 1,159 | 2,305 | | | | PFI and other service concession arrangements service charges | 72,080 | 72,080 | 72,080 | 51,274 | 51,274 | 51,854 | | | Other IT and accommodation related service charges | 29,240 | 35,244 | 35,244 | 36,017 | 39,913 | 39,913 | | | Non-cash items | | | | | | | | | Depreciation | 21,519 | 21,672 | 16,543 | 18,968 | 19,086 | | | | Amortisation | 1,329 | 1,762 | 1,458 | 1,992 | 2,608 | | | | Impairment | 419 | 419 | 2,248 | 2,248 | 2,248 | | | | (Profit)/loss on disposal of property, plant and equipment | (5,113) | (5,113) | (5,130) | 680 | 744 | 721 | | | PFI Interest charges | 24,183 | 24,183 | 24,183 | 23,675 | 23,675 | 23,673 | | | Notional charges | – | – | – | – | – | 944 | | | Auditor’s remuneration and expenses | 400 | 505 | 505 | 495 | 701 | 701 | | | Provision movements | 6,907 | 6,907 | 6,907 | 9,096 | 9,153 | 9,138 | | | Bad debt movement | (118) | (118) | (118) | (320) | (58) | (58) | | | Other | | | | | | | | | Publication stationery & printing | 1,295 | 1,343 | 1,578 | 1,287 | 1,437 | 1,585 | | | Facilities management and staff services | 34,502 | 37,259 | 45,388 | 30,268 | 35,674 | 36,590 | | | Travel, subsistence and hospitality | 13,956 | 14,787 | 15,991 | 13,961 | 16,297 | 17,621 | | | Professional fees | 8,359 | 12,202 | 13,644 | 8,994 | 10,853 | 11,040 | | | e-Borders Settlement | 100,138 | 100,138 | 100,138 | – | – | – | | | Auditor’s remuneration and expenses | – | – | 181 | – | – | 154 | | | Media and IT | 3,037 | 3,080 | 6,296 | 4,222 | 4,303 | 9,610 | | | Early retirement costs | 6,616 | 6,616 | 6,616 | 3,089 | 3,089 | 3,089 | | | Other administration expenditure | 5,042 | 5,668 | 7,103 | 368 | 2,716 | 2,302 | | | Total | 326,250 | 340,507 | 357,585 | 204,514 | 224,138 | 235,124 |
On 1 October 2014, Her Majesty’s Passport Office (an Executive Agency of the Home Office) became part of the Core Home Office. No restatement of the 2013-14 figures was made for this restructuring (see Note 25 for details). The 2013-14 results have been restated to take account of Machinery of Government changes (see Note 26 for details).
No remuneration has been paid to the National Audit Office for non-audit work (2013-14, £nil).
## 5. Programme Costs
| Note | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | |------|----------------|---------------------------|--------------------|----------------|---------------------------|--------------------| | | 2014-15 £000 | Restated 2013-14 £000 | | | | | | | 13,174,288 | 12,213,261 | 13,340,464 | 12,424,594 | 12,468,986 | | | | 13,297,034 | 12,424,594 | 13,340,464 | 12,468,986 | | | | 13,340,464 | 12,468,986 | | | | | | | 124 | | | | | |
### Rentals under operating leases (\*)
- Core Department: 48,343
- Core Department & Agencies: 48,343
- Departmental Group: 50,263
- Restated 2013-14: 2,763
### PFI and other service concession arrangements service charges
- Core Department: 240,639
- Core Department & Agencies: 240,639
- Departmental Group: 245,730
- Restated 2013-14: 272,762
### Other IT and accommodation related service charges
- Core Department: 356,154
- Core Department & Agencies: 380,197
- Departmental Group: 380,197
- Restated 2013-14: 263,028
### Non-cash items
- Depreciation: 102,562
- Amortisation: 161,198
- Impairment: 13,260
- (Profit)/loss on disposal of property, plant and equipment: 5,516
- PFI Interest charges: 729
- Finance lease interest charge: 7,216
- Provision movements: 484,027
- Bad debt movement: (259)
### Grants
- Grants – current
- Main Police Grants
- Home Office Police Core Settlement (1): 4,583,345
- Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Formula funding (2): 2,923,548
- Legacy Council tax grants (3): 500,466
- Other (4): 1,076,787
- Grants – capital (5): 215,919
- Grants – EU (6): 49,931
- Police Pensions top-up Grant (7): 1,423,715
- Other
- Publication stationery and printing: 4,719
- Passport printing and stationery: 54,120
- Facilities management and staff services: 145,369
- Travel, subsistence and hospitality: 32,331
- Professional fees: 83,342
- Auditor’s remuneration and expenses: 5,577
- Media and IT: 19,089
- Early Retirement: 5,577
- Asylum costs: 234,880
- Detention costs: 136,926
- UK Visas & Immigration commercial partner costs: 84,259
- Asset recovery costs: 84,949
- FCO Management Charge: 37,846
- Other programme costs: 57,785
### Total
- 13,174,288
- 12,213,261
- 13,340,464
- 12,468,986 Home Office grants reported above include the following:
Funding for police purposes, comprising of:
Home Office Police Core Settlement (1)
Funding to local policing bodies under Section 46 of the Police Act 1996.
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Formula funding (2)
Grant funding previously paid to local policing bodies by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under section 78A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 through the Local Government Finance Report (England). It is now paid by the Home Secretary under Section 46 of the Police Act 1996. This is as a result of the Government’s decision that local policing bodies should be funded from outside the business rates retention scheme.
Legacy Council Tax Grants (3)
This funding comprises Council Tax Freeze Grant from the 2011-12 and 2013-14 schemes, payable to local policing bodies in England who chose to freeze or lower precept in those years and the Local Council Tax Support Grant, which was paid to local policing bodies in England in 2013-14 following the localisation of council tax support schemes.
It was previously paid by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under Section 31(4) of the Local Government Act 2003. It is now paid by the Home Secretary under Section 46 of the Police Act 1996. This is a result of the Government’s ambition to simplify police funding arrangements.
Other (4)
Various other grants paid by the Home Office to local policing bodies, charities and local councils.
In addition, other types of grants include:
Capital Grants (5)
Financial support paid to third parties for the purchase or improvement of assets (including buildings, equipment and land), which are expected to be used for a period of at least one year.
European (EU) Grants (6)
i) The European Return Fund supports the efforts of EU Member States to improve the management of return in all its dimensions through the use of the concept of integrated management.
ii) The European Integration Fund supports the efforts of EU Member States in enabling third-country nationals of different economic, social, cultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic backgrounds to fulfil the conditions of residence and to facilitate their integration into European Societies.
iii) The European Refugee Fund supports and encourages efforts made by the EU Member States in receiving, and in bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons, taking account of Community legislation on those matters, by co-financing the actions provided for in the corresponding decision.
Police Pensions top-up Grant (7)
The amount reported as the Police Pensions top-up grant is equal to the difference between outgoing pension expenditure and incoming pension contributions in a single year. An accrual is recognised in the Department’s financial statements for the estimated amount of grant relating to the year, which has not been paid by year-end.
On 1 October 2014, Her Majesty’s Passport Office (an Executive Agency of the Home Office) became part of the Core Home Office (see Note 25 for details). No restatement of the 2013-14 figures was made for this internal restructure. The 2013-14 results have been restated to take account of Machinery of Government changes (see Note 26 for details).
No remuneration has been paid to the National Audit Office for non-audit work (2013-14, £nil).
(\*) A review of operating leases carried out during the year identified new information relating to existing operating leases and the numbers have been adjusted as such. The 2013-14 amounts have not been restated.
### 6.1 Income
| Retained Income | 2014-15 £000 | Restated 2013-14 £000 | |-----------------|--------------|-----------------------| | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | | Passport fees | 175,437 | 395,424 | 395,424 | – | 357,734 | 357,734 | | Visa and Immigration income | 1,014,768 | 1,014,768 | 1,014,768 | 1,052,613 | 1,052,613 | 1,052,613 | | Asset recovery income | 169,632 | 169,632 | 169,632 | 162,973 | 162,973 | 162,973 | | Hendon data centre income | 74,174 | 74,174 | 74,174 | 79,277 | 79,277 | 79,277 | | Airwave | 20,426 | 20,426 | 20,426 | 16,466 | 16,466 | 16,466 | | Certificate Services | 7,023 | 14,134 | 14,134 | – | 14,182 | 14,182 | | Other administration income | 37,139 | 38,601 | 42,772 | 39,294 | 39,296 | 28,982 | | Other programme income | 94,012 | 100,597 | 143,149 | 34,396 | 43,052 | 90,258 | | EU income | 49,931 | 49,931 | 49,931 | 32,131 | 32,131 | 32,131 | | **Total Retained Income** | **1,642,542** | **1,877,687** | **1,924,410** | **1,417,150** | **1,797,724** | **1,834,616** |
| Payable to Consolidated Fund | 2014-15 £000 | Restated 2013-14 £000 | |------------------------------|--------------|-----------------------| | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | | Passport fees | 38,221 | 83,395 | 83,395 | – | 70,946 | 70,946 | | Excess visa and immigration income | – | – | – | 41,699 | 41,699 | 41,699 | | Other excess receipts | – | – | – | 200 | 200 | 200 | | Other administration income | 48 | 48 | 48 | 355 | 355 | 371 | | Other programme income | 2,957 | 2,957 | 2,957 | 11,010 | 11,068 | 11,903 | | **Total payable to Consolidated Fund** | **41,226** | **86,400** | **86,400** | **53,264** | **124,268** | **125,119** |
| Total | 2014-15 £000 | Restated 2013-14 £000 | |-------|--------------|-----------------------| | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | | **Total** | **1,683,768** | **1,964,087** | **2,010,810** | **1,470,414** | **1,921,992** | **1,959,735** |
| Of which | 2014-15 £000 | Restated 2013-14 £000 | |----------|--------------|-----------------------| | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | | Administration income | 58,664 | 80,606 | 84,774 | 41,469 | 80,528 | 70,230 | | Programme income | 1,625,104 | 1,883,481 | 1,926,036 | 1,428,945 | 1,841,464 | 1,889,505 | | **Total** | **1,683,768** | **1,964,087** | **2,010,810** | **1,470,414** | **1,921,992** | **1,959,735** |
A regional analysis of overseas income generated by UK Visas and Immigration is given below:
| Region | 2014-15 £000 | 2013-14 £000 | |--------|--------------|--------------| | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | | Africa | 71,251 | 71,251 | 71,251 | 71,152 | 71,152 | 71,152 | | Americas | 43,975 | 43,975 | 43,975 | 35,970 | 35,970 | 35,970 | | Euro-Med | 70,023 | 70,023 | 70,023 | 110,690 | 110,690 | 110,690 | | Pacific | 125,123 | 125,123 | 125,123 | 103,617 | 103,617 | 103,617 | | South Asia | 112,212 | 112,212 | 112,212 | 83,055 | 83,055 | 83,055 | | The Gulf | 101,039 | 101,039 | 101,039 | 96,054 | 96,054 | 96,054 | | **Total** | **523,623** | **523,623** | **523,623** | **500,538** | **500,538** | **500,538** | Home Office income includes:
– income for Her Majesty’s Passport Office from their continuing activities, representing the sale value of all services provided during the year;
– income receivable for fees charged in respect of applications for visas and immigration documents.
Some income streams are charged below the cost of delivery where the Department has to maintain its international competitiveness. To compensate for this, some fees are set above the cost of delivery. In particular, the income for certain in-country applications is set at a level that allows for a contribution towards immigration related activities, in addition to covering the cost of processing applications. The overall aim is to ensure that income contributes to the end-to-end costs of the immigration system.
Operating income includes both retained income and income due to the Consolidated Fund, which HM Treasury has agreed should be treated as operating income.
The Department receives European Union (EU) funding for a number of internal and external projects. This funding is used to provide assistance in the resettlement and integration of refugees and third country nationals, and the return of foreign nationals to their home country.
### 6.2 Analysis of income from services provided to external and public sector customers
| Segment | Note | Income £000 | Full Cost £000 | Surplus / (deficit) £000 | Fee recovery actual % | Fee recovery target % | |---------|------|-------------|----------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------| | Crime and Policing Group Animal Licences (scientific procedures) | 1 | 4,244 | 4,092 | 152 | 104 | 100 | | Crime and Policing Group College of Policing – People Development | 2 | 12,391 | 25,918 | (13,527) | 48 | 100 | | Crime and Policing Group SIA – Licensing Income | 3 | 28,023 | 24,996 | 3,027 | 112 | 100 | | Crime and Policing Group SIA – ACS Income | 3 | 2,195 | 2,506 | (311) | 88 | 100 | | Crime and Policing Group Drugs Licensing | 4 | 1,449 | 957 | 492 | 151 | 100 | | Crime and Policing Group GLA – Licensing Income | 5 | 835 | 2,065 | (1,230) | 40 | 100 | | Border Force Border Force | 6 | 4,692 | 4,732 | (40) | 99 | 100 | | UK Visas & Immigration International Group – Visas | 7 | 585,500 | 393,216 | 192,284 | 149 | 148 | | UK Visas & Immigration Immigration Group – In country | 8 | 429,300 | 198,936 | 230,364 | 216 | 239 | | UK Visas & Immigration OISC – Registration Fees | 9 | 1,063 | 4,031 | (2,968) | 26 | 100 | | HM Passport Office Passports | 10 | 478,819 | 422,285 | 56,534 | 113 | 100 | | HM Passport Office Certificate Services | 11 | 14,482 | 21,914 | (7,432) | 66 | 100 | | Enablers Information Services | 12 | 97,318 | 335,419 | (238,101) | 29 | 100 | | Enablers Centre for Applied Science and Technology | 13 | 2,227 | 18,738 | (16,511) | 12 | 100 |
1,662,538 1,459,805 202,733 This analysis of income satisfies the Fees and Charges requirements of HM Treasury rather than IFRS 8 Operating Segments. Categories of income and costs below £1 million have been excluded from this analysis.
Notes:
1. Animal Licences relate to income generated from the licences required by organisations for the use of living animals in scientific procedures, which falls under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) in England, Scotland and Wales.
2. People Development includes exams and assessments, learning and development services and leadership development services.
3. The SIA Licensing Income is the application fee for an individual SIA Licence. Individuals working in specific sectors of the private security industry are required by law to hold an SIA Licence.
The SIA Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) income is the registration and application fees for companies joining the voluntary scheme for providers of security services. Companies who satisfactorily meet the agreed standards may be registered as approved and advertise themselves as such.
04. Drugs Licensing relate to income generated from the licences required by organisations who handle controlled drugs and precursor chemicals; doctors prescribing certain drugs for the treatment of addiction, and individuals requiring personal import or export licences to travel with prescribed medication containing controlled drugs.
05. The GLA Licenses are issued to businesses that provide workers to the fresh produce supply chain and horticulture industry, to make sure they meet the employment standards required by law. Fees are a combination of an initial application fee charged for new licence applicants and an annual inspection fee.
06. Border Force charges Airline Carriers for the costs of detaining passengers arriving in the UK without the required UK entry documentation and also for charges for the cost of providing fast track services. The cost recovery target is 100%.
07. UKVI International Group is responsible for issuing Visas. The Group’s cost recovery target is 148%.
08. UKVI Immigration Group deals with UK based applications for permanent settlement and Nationality applications. The Group’s cost recovery target is 239%, with the additional income from fees contributing to the overhead costs within the Department.
09. OISC charge is immigration advisers the registration fees on application to join or remain within the OISC scheme.
10. Passport activities include all services relating to the issuing of passports where the financial objective of this activity is to break even in year. A fee is charged for all passports except for those issued to war veterans, that is, those born on or before 2 September 1929.
11. Includes all services relating to the issuing of certificates for birth, death and marriage. In addition central HO funding is provided for support functions to maintain the registers of all vital events. The financial objective is to break even after central HO funding for non fee bearing activities.
12. Information Services includes the Airwave radio service, fingerprint identification, the Police National Computer (Hendon Data Centre), police science and forensics as well as project support and IT systems.
13. CAST generates income from OGDs and overseas bodies – notably the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice. This income comes in two main forms: cost sharing to deliver projects and services of mutual benefit to CAST and its partner organisations; and contracted services where CAST carries out work on behalf of another organisation.
### Segment Income Full Cost Surplus / (deficit) Fee recovery actual Fee recovery target
| Segment | Note | Income £000 | Full Cost £000 | Surplus / (deficit) £000 | Fee recovery actual % | Fee recovery target % | |---------|------|-------------|----------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------| | Crime and Policing Group Animal Licences (scientific procedures) | 1 | 3,978 | 4,866 | (888) | 82 | 100 | | Crime and Policing Group College of Policing – People Development | 2 | 15,912 | 41,571 | (25,659) | 38 | 100 | | Crime and Policing Group SIA – Licensing Income | 3 | 23,515 | 23,838 | (323) | 99 | 100 | | Crime and Policing Group SIA – ACS Income | 3 | 2,116 | 2,080 | 36 | 102 | 100 | | Crime and Policing Group Drugs Licensing | 4 | 1,147 | 899 | 248 | 128 | 100 | | Border Force Border Force | 6 | 3,893 | 3,962 | (69) | 98 | 100 | | UK Visas & Immigration International Group – Visas | 7 | 528,245 | 449,195 | 79,050 | 118 | 100 | | UK Visas & Immigration Immigration Group – In country | 8 | 524,300 | 208,428 | 315,872 | 252 | 189 | | UK Visas & Immigration OISC – Registration Fees | 9 | 1,090 | 4,041 | (2,951) | 27 | 100 | | HM Passport Office Passports | 10 | 435,982 | 371,277 | 64,705 | 117 | 100 | | HM Passport Office Certificate Services | 11 | 15,532 | 22,756 | (7,224) | 68 | 100 | | Enablers Information Services | 12 | 104,388 | 519,733 | (415,345) | 20 | 100 | | Enablers Centre for Applied Science and Technology | 13 | 1,100 | 1,099 | 1 | 100 | 100 |
**Total:** 1,661,198 1,653,745 7,453
### 7. Assets held for sale
| Segment | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |---------|---------|---------| | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | | Land | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Buildings | 5,974 | 5,974 | 5,974 | 3,120 | 3,120 | 3,120 | | Plant and equipment | 1,011 | 1,011 | 1,011 | 18,700 | 18,700 | 18,700 | | Furniture and fittings | 6 | 6 | 6 | 563 | 563 | 563 | | **Total** | 6,991 | 6,991 | 6,991 | 22,961 | 22,961 | 22,961 |
Assets are continually reviewed to ensure they support the service delivery objectives of the Department. The assets identified as held for sale are surplus to departmental requirements in meeting these objectives. The sale of these assets is actively pursued by the Department with an expectation that the assets will be sold within 12 months of the date of classification. The assets are not depreciated during this time.
At 31 March 2015, two properties were held for sale having been identified as surplus to departmental requirements. These properties were expected to be sold in 2015-16.
## 8. Property, plant and equipment
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Transport Equipment £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-----------| | **Cost or valuation**| | | | | | | | | | At 1 April 2014 | 46,465 | 851,627 | 54,484 | 371,596 | 491,838 | 59,802 | 125,315 | 2,001,127 | | Additions | 1 | 4,546 | 2,032 | 4,389 | 3,564 | 3,862 | 58,852 | 77,066 | | Disposals | (670) | (10,857) | (1,658) | (71,909) | (885) | (3,294) | (122) | (89,395) | | Impairment | (9,571) | (85) | (416) | (699) | (411) | (8,384) | | (19,566) | | External transfers | – | – | (432) | – | – | – | | – | | Transfers to assets held for sale | (4,500) | – | – | – | – | – | | – | | Reclassifications | 402 | 23,576 | 1,975 | 19,056 | 11,367 | 3,457 | (87,232) | (27,399) | | Revaluations | 1,463 | 94,458 | 315 | 1,659 | 8,576 | 16 | 1,129 | 107,616 | | **At 31 March 2015** | 43,161 | 953,779 | 56,631 | 324,375 | 513,761 | 63,452 | 89,358 | 2,044,517 | | **Depreciation** | | | | | | | | | | At 1 April 2014 | – | (271,571) | (36,493) | (249,087) | (277,441) | (45,116) | – | (879,708) | | Charged in year | – | (29,274) | (5,403) | (47,741) | (43,792) | (6,817) | – | (133,027) | | Disposals | – | 10,758 | 1,552 | 68,351 | 878 | 2,993 | – | 84,532 | | Impairment | – | (638) | 28 | 35 | – | – | – | (575) | | External transfers | – | – | 403 | – | – | – | – | 403 | | Transfers to assets held for sale | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | Reclassifications | – | (661) | 562 | 587 | 361 | 731 | – | 1,580 | | Revaluations | – | (25,343) | 171 | (1,041) | (4,275) | (2) | – | (30,490) | | **At 31 March 2015** | – | (316,729) | (39,180) | (228,896) | (324,269) | (48,211) | – | (957,285) | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2015** | 43,161 | 637,050 | 17,451 | 95,479 | 189,492 | 15,241 | 89,358 | 1,087,232 | | **Carrying amount at 1 April 2014** | 46,465 | 580,056 | 17,991 | 122,509 | 214,397 | 14,686 | 125,315 | 1,121,419 | | **Asset financing:** | | | | | | | | | | Owned | 43,161 | 339,590 | 17,451 | 71,169 | 176,277 | 13,562 | 86,493 | 747,703 | | Finance leased | – | 32,638 | – | – | – | – | – | 32,638 | | On balance sheet PFI/other concession arrangements | – | 264,822 | – | 24,310 | 13,215 | 1,679 | 2,865 | 306,891 | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2015** | 43,161 | 637,050 | 17,451 | 95,479 | 189,492 | 15,241 | 89,358 | 1,087,232 |
### Analysis of property, plant and equipment at 31 March 2015
Of the total:
| | Carrying amount at 31 March 2015 | |----------------------|----------------------------------| | Core Department | 42,288 | | Agencies | – | | Non-Departmental Public Bodies | 873 | 15,538 | 455 | 5,796 | 173 | 5,293 | 1,178 | 29,306 | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2015** | 43,161 | 637,050 | 17,451 | 95,479 | 189,492 | 15,241 | 89,358 | 1,087,232 |
### Cost or valuation
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Transport Equipment £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-----------| | **At 1 April 2013** | 46,105 | 946,899 | 47,901 | 358,185 | 482,125 | 59,204 | 177,030 | 2,117,449 | | **Additions** | 1,235 | 10,365 | 6,966 | 4,773 | 4,752 | 4,223 | 93,782 | 126,116 | | **Disposals** | – | (16,794) | (2,046) | (27,000) | (7,062) | (3,341) | (1,085) | (57,328) | | **Impairment** | – | (14,721) | – | (955) | – | – | (10,505) | (26,181) | | **External transfers** | (1) | – | (725) | (2) | 1,839 | – | (8,577) | (7,466) | | **Transfers to assets held for sale** | (3,120) | (33,045) | – | (11) | (1,887) | (664) | – | (38,727) | | **Reclassifications** | – | 15,136 | 1,694 | 39,026 | 2,342 | 175 | (125,331) | (66,958) | | **Revaluations** | 2,246 | (56,213) | 674 | (2,420) | 9,729 | 205 | 1 | (45,778) | | **At 31 March 2014** | 46,465 | 851,627 | 54,484 | 371,596 | 491,838 | 59,802 | 125,315 | 2,001,127 |
### Depreciation
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Transport Equipment £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-----------| | **At 1 April 2013** | – | (397,153) | (32,814) | (226,423) | (233,961) | (41,637) | – | (931,988) | | **Charged in year** | – | (24,351) | (4,783) | (45,025) | (42,966) | (6,327) | – | (123,482) | | **Disposals** | – | 15,781 | 1,722 | 25,657 | 5,436 | 2,889 | – | 51,485 | | **Impairment** | – | 14,168 | – | 634 | – | – | – | 14,802 | | **External transfers** | – | (1,425) | 327 | (2,772) | (1,050) | (3) | – | (4,923) | | **Transfers to assets held for sale** | – | 14,345 | – | 11 | 1,324 | 86 | – | 15,766 | | **Reclassifications** | – | 3 | (945) | (2,768) | (1,284) | 1 | – | (4,963) | | **Revaluations** | – | 107,061 | – | 1,599 | (4,940) | (125) | – | 103,595 | | **At 31 March 2014** | – | (271,571) | (36,493) | (249,087) | (277,441) | (45,116) | – | (879,708) |
### Carrying amount at 31 March 2014
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Transport Equipment £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-----------| | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2014** | 46,465 | 580,056 | 17,991 | 131,762 | 248,164 | 17,567 | 125,315 | 1,121,419 |
### Asset financing:
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Transport Equipment £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-----------| | **Owned** | 46,465 | 296,968 | 17,991 | 90,095 | 203,375 | 11,153 | 125,315 | 791,362 | | **Finance leased** | – | 42,425 | – | – | – | – | – | 42,425 | | **On balance sheet PFI/other concession arrangements** | – | 240,663 | – | 32,414 | 11,022 | 3,533 | – | 287,632 | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2014** | 46,465 | 580,056 | 17,991 | 122,509 | 214,397 | 14,686 | 125,315 | 1,121,419 |
### Analysis of property, plant and equipment at 31 March 2014
| | Land £000 | Buildings £000 | Transport Equipment £000 | Information Technology £000 | Plant & Machinery £000 | Furniture & Fittings £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------|----------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-----------| | **Core Department** | 44,306 | 541,777 | 17,422 | 89,973 | 208,521 | 9,048 | 111,657 | 1,022,704 | | **Agencies** | 1,361 | 20,442 | – | 29,615 | 5,020 | 1,430 | 8,853 | 66,721 | | **Non-Departmental Public Bodies** | 798 | 17,837 | 569 | 2,921 | 856 | 4,208 | 4,805 | 31,994 | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2014** | 46,465 | 580,056 | 17,991 | 122,509 | 214,397 | 14,686 | 125,315 | 1,121,419 |
Buildings comprise freehold, long leasehold (leases with 50+ years to run from the period ending 31 March 2015) and short leasehold buildings.
Other property, plant and equipment were revalued on the basis of the latest available indices.
Assets under construction comprise capital additions for projects that have not yet gone live. Once assets are ready for use they are reclassified to the appropriate asset category and are subject to depreciation.
The present value of the minimum lease payments is used to value finance leases.
## 9. Intangible assets
| Cost or valuation | Information Technology £000 | Software Licenses £000 | Websites £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |-------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------| | At 1 April 2014 | 793,924 | 88,982 | 897 | 54,288 | 938,091 | | Additions | 18,529 | 1,824 | 4 | 97,355 | 117,712 | | Disposals | (53,725) | (7,454) | – | (267) | (61,446) | | Impairments | (3,201) | (61) | – | – | (3,262) | | Reclassifications | 70,762 | 7,196 | (1) | (52,491) | 25,466 | | Transfers | 5 | 203 | (379) | (64) | (235) | | Revaluations | 3,368 | 110 | 4 | – | 3,482 | | **At 31 March 2015** | **829,662** | **90,800** | **525** | **98,821** | **1,019,808** |
### Amortisation
| Cost or valuation | Information Technology £000 | Software Licenses £000 | Websites £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |-------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------| | At 1 April 2014 | (400,426) | (38,094) | (487) | – | (439,007) | | Charged in year | (157,916) | (11,501) | (45) | – | (169,462) | | Disposals | 53,094 | 7,440 | – | – | 60,534 | | Impairments | 1,212 | 61 | – | – | 1,273 | | Reclassifications | 786 | (264) | (169) | – | 353 | | Transfers | (2) | (2) | 302 | – | 298 | | Revaluations | (1,769) | (155) | (3) | – | (1,927) | | **At 31 March 2015** | **(505,021)** | **(42,515)** | **(402)** | – | **(547,938)** |
### Carrying amount at 31 March 2015
- **324,641**
- **48,285**
- **123**
- **98,821**
- **471,870**
### Carrying amount at 1 April 2014
- **393,498**
- **50,888**
- **410**
- **54,288**
- **499,084**
### Asset financing:
- **Owned**
- **280,947**
- **43,822**
- **123**
- **98,821**
- **423,713**
- **Finance leased**
- –
- –
- –
- –
- **On balance sheet PFI/other concession arrangements**
- **43,694**
- **4,463**
- –
- –
- **48,157**
### Carrying amount at 31 March 2015
- **324,641**
- **48,285**
- **123**
- **98,821**
- **471,870**
### Analysis of intangible assets at 31 March 2015
| Of the total: | Information Technology £000 | Software Licenses £000 | Websites £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |--------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------|------------| | Core Department | 324,523 | 40,794 | 123 | 93,139 | 458,579 | | Agencies | – | – | – | – | – | | Non-Departmental Public Bodies | 118 | 7,491 | – | 5,682 | 13,291 | | **Carrying amount at 31 March 2015** | **324,641** | **48,285** | **123** | **98,821** | **471,870** |
### Cost or valuation
| | Information Technology £000 | Software Licenses £000 | Websites £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------|------------| | At 1 April 2013 | 674,920 | 80,127 | 3,804 | 65,238 | 824,089 | | Additions | 77,202 | 3,752 | – | (18,152) | 62,802 | | Disposals | (16,999) | (9,535) | – | (1,285) | (27,819) | | Impairments | (1,709) | (252) | – | (293) | (2,254) | | Reclassifications | 63,720 | 15,036 | (2,902) | 75 | 75,929 | | Transfers | 121 | 104 | – | 8,705 | 8,930 | | Revaluations | (3,331) | (250) | (5) | – | (3,586) | | **At 31 March 2014** | **793,924** | **88,982** | **897** | **54,288** | **938,091**|
### Amortisation
| | Information Technology £000 | Software Licenses £000 | Websites £000 | Payments on Account & Assets under Construction £000 | Total £000 | |----------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------|------------| | At 1 April 2013 | (268,248) | (36,620) | (329) | – | (305,197) | | Charged in year | (144,558) | (10,201) | (164) | – | (154,923) | | Disposals | 13,889 | 9,231 | – | – | 23,120 | | Impairments | 208 | 29 | – | – | 237 | | Reclassifications | (3,208) | (803) | 2 | – | (4,009) | | Transfers | (60) | 111 | – | – | 51 | | Revaluations | 1,551 | 159 | 4 | – | 1,714 | | **At 31 March 2014** | **(400,426)** | **(38,094)** | **(487)** | – | **(439,007)**|
### Carrying amount at 31 March 2014
- **Owned**: 393,498
- **Finance leased**: 50,888
- **On balance sheet PFI/other concession arrangements**: 410
### Asset financing:
- **Owned**: 336,290
- **Finance leased**: 45,886
- **On balance sheet PFI/other concession arrangements**: 410
### Carrying amount at 31 March 2014
- **Owned**: 393,498
- **Finance leased**: 50,888
- **On balance sheet PFI/other concession arrangements**: 410
### Analysis of intangible assets at 31 March 2014
- **Core Department**: 323,091
- **Agencies**: 67,473
- **Non-Departmental Public Bodies**: 2,934
### Carrying amount at 31 March 2014
- **Core Department**: 393,498
- **Agencies**: 50,888
- **Non-Departmental Public Bodies**: 410
10. Impairments
The Home Office has incurred the following impairments to non current assets during the financial year:
| Note | 2014-15 £000 | 2013-14 £000 | |------|--------------|--------------| | 4,5 | 22,129 | 13,359 | | (3) | 37 | 37 |
An analysis of these impairments by asset class are as follows:
| Note | 2014-15 £000 | 2013-14 £000 | |------|--------------|--------------| | 8 | 10,208 | 553 | | 8 | 57 | – | | 8 | 378 | 321 | | 8 | 699 | – | | 8 | 411 | – | | 8 | 8,384 | 10,505 | | 9 | 1,989 | 1,501 | | 9 | – | 223 | | 9 | – | 293 |
Impairment of £7.5 million relate to assets transferred over to the College of Policing from the National Policing Improvement Agency, which were subsequently impaired.
An additional £6 million relates to the downward revaluation of a Home Office property. 11. Capital and other commitments
11.1. Capital Commitments
| | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | |----------------------|----------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------| | Property, Plant & Equipment | 20,451 | 20,451 | 20,451 | | Intangible assets | 7,982 | 7,982 | 14,782 | | | | | | | | 28,433 | 28,433 | 35,233 |
Contracted capital commitments of over £100,000 as at 31 March not otherwise included in these financial statements
The Home Office is undertaking a project to provide the replacement hardware for the Police National Computer (PNC) mainframes and assistance to design and move to a new architecture. There is currently a capital commitment with Fujitsu Services Limited amounting £12.5 million over 3 years.
The SIA is building a brand new IT system to replace the existing licensing system. There are currently capital commitments of £6.8 million in relation to the delivery of this intangible asset. 11.2. Commitments under leases
11.2.1 Operating Leases
Total future minimum lease payments under operating leases are given in the table below for each of the following periods.
Obligations under operating leases for the following periods comprise:
| | 2014-15 | Restated 2013-14 | |----------------------|---------|------------------| | | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Land | | | | | | | | Not later than one year | 882 | 882 | 1,139 | 1,214 | 1,214 | 1,232 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 3,527 | 3,527 | 4,902 | 4,857 | 4,857 | 4,857 | | Later than five years | 92,978 | 92,978 | 93,749 | 96,798 | 96,798 | 96,798 | | | 97,387 | 97,387 | 99,790 | 102,869 | 102,869 | 102,887 | | Buildings | | | | | | | | Not later than one year | 43,319 | 43,319 | 48,891 | 34,276 | 46,574 | 49,894 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 136,820 | 136,820 | 146,074 | 114,533 | 146,561 | 155,469 | | Later than five years | 211,987 | 211,987 | 211,987 | 224,841 | 240,955 | 241,551 | | | 392,126 | 392,126 | 406,952 | 373,650 | 434,090 | 446,914 | | Other | | | | | | | | Not later than one year | 324 | 324 | 421 | 595 | 595 | 687 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 279 | 279 | 518 | 779 | 779 | 972 | | Later than five years | – | – | – | – | – | – | | | 603 | 603 | 939 | 1,374 | 1,374 | 1,659 | | Total Commitment | 490,116 | 490,116 | 507,681 | 477,893 | 538,333 | 551,460 |
A review of the operating leases carried out during the year identified new information relating to operating leases. The prior year figures have been restated accordingly.
The 2013-14 figures have also been restated to take the account of the Machinery of Government changes (see Note 26 for details).
### 11.2.2 Finance Leases
Total future minimum lease payments under finance leases are given in the table below for each of the following periods.
Obligations under finance leases for the following periods comprise:
| Buildings | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |-----------|---------|---------| | Not later than one year | £9,487 | £9,487 | £9,487 | £9,006 | £9,006 | £9,006 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | £39,160 | £39,160 | £39,160 | £37,182 | £37,182 | £37,182 | | Later than five years | £97,707 | £97,707 | £97,707 | £105,664 | £105,664 | £105,664 | | | £146,354 | £146,354 | £146,354 | £151,852 | £151,852 | £151,852 | | Less interest element | £73,768 | £73,768 | £73,768 | £76,732 | £76,732 | £76,732 | | Present value of obligations | £72,586 | £72,586 | £72,586 | £75,120 | £75,120 | £75,120 | | Total Commitment | £72,586 | £72,586 | £72,586 | £75,120 | £75,120 | £75,120 |
Present value of obligations under finance leases for the following periods comprise:
| Buildings | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |-----------|---------|---------| | Not later than one year | £9,487 | £9,487 | £9,487 | £9,006 | £9,006 | £9,006 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | £30,551 | £30,551 | £30,551 | £29,952 | £29,952 | £29,952 | | Later than five years | £32,548 | £32,548 | £32,548 | £36,162 | £36,162 | £36,162 | | Total present value of obligations | £72,586 | £72,586 | £72,586 | £75,120 | £75,120 | £75,120 | 11.3. Commitments under PFI and other service concession arrangements
11.3.1 “Off balance sheet” (SoFP)
Airwave
In 2000, the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), which later became part of the NPIA and is now part of the National Crime Agency, entered into a 19 year Public Finance Initiative (PFI) arrangement to design, build and operate a digital radio system providing national secure voice and data coverage for UK Policing (Airwave). Responsibility for this has now transferred to the Home Office.
The cost consists of a core service charge and a menu service charge. The core service charge was estimated to cost £1.2 billion over the entire 19 year life of the initiative with payments being made on a monthly basis. The menu service charge was estimated to cost £290 million over the 19 year life of the initiative and is paid by the Police Forces. The menu service charge has therefore been excluded from the “off balance sheet” table.
This is determined to be an “off balance sheet” deal under IFRIC12 Service Concession Arrangements as the Department does not control access to the service or use all but an insignificant amount of the output. Airwave is increasingly being used by the Fire and Ambulance Services as well as other public sector organisations.
The two former HM Passport Office PFIs, Computer Sciences Corporation and De La Rue, have been re-classified in 2014-15 as “on balance sheet” PFIs. Their total obligations have therefore been excluded from the “off balance sheet” table.
| | 2014-15 | Restated 2013-14 | |----------------------|---------|-----------------| | | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Not later than one year | 206,292 | 206,292 | 206,292 | 184,936 | 184,936 | 184,936 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 785,321 | 785,321 | 785,321 | 714,318 | 714,318 | 714,318 | | Later than five years | 31,445 | 31,445 | 31,445 | 201,024 | 201,024 | 201,024 | | Total obligations under “off balance sheet” PFI and other service concession agreements for the following periods comprises: | 1,023,058 | 1,023,058 | 1,023,058 | 1,100,278 | 1,100,278 | 1,100,278 |
11.3.2 “On balance sheet” (SoFP)
Home Office IT Systems
In October 2009, the Home Office signed extensions to its IT contracts with Fujitsu and ATOS Origin to January 2016. The services provided under these contracts remained unchanged (i.e. to provide the IT infrastructure and support for the Home Office).
There was an overlap between the services provided by both these suppliers, but renegotiations at Home Office level have ensured that both ATOS and Fujitsu are now delivering a common IT infrastructure, development and support service which is used by the Home Office.
Under IFRIC 12, this arrangement is deemed as an “on balance sheet” (SOFP) service concession, the assets being treated as the assets of the Home Office. Computer Sciences Corporation
Under the terms of the 10 year contract signed in 2009, Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) work with HM Passport Office in supporting and upgrading the IT systems. This includes the recent upgrade of the passport application and enrolment system, which incorporates new capabilities to process applications for passports, enabling customers to apply online; and the upgrade of the existing Omnibase application, which is a secure database used across government that stores historic passport records.
The total cost of this contract is £416.92 million, of which £103.57 million relates to capital.
De La Rue
Under the Passport Design and Production (PDP) contract, HM Passport Office has outsourced an element of its passport printing to De La Rue (DLR). Under the terms of the contract, which was signed in 2009, DLR builds infrastructure on behalf of HM Passport Office and uses this infrastructure in the production of passports. DLR is also responsible for ongoing support and maintenance of the infrastructure.
The commitment with DLR includes assets which are not exclusively used in the service delivery to the Home Office. These assets have been included in the “on balance sheet” commitment as the proportion of the net book values of the non-exclusive assets is not material.
The total cost of this contract is £403.54 million, of which £38.96 million relates to capital.
Home Office Central London Accommodation
On 26 March 2002, a 29 year public private partnership contract was signed for the construction and maintenance of a new central London headquarters building at 2 Marsham Street. The new building houses the majority of staff in the Home Office based in Central London. Under IFRIC 12, 2 Marsham Street is recorded as an “on balance sheet” (SOFP) asset of the Home Office. The operational and variable payment streams to the contractor for building services are charged to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure.
The contract contains an option for the Home Office to purchase the building.
Airwave
The “on balance sheet” (SOFP) portion of the Airwave commitment represents assets for the London Underground and the resilience network which have been paid for. Airwave Solutions Ltd will transfer some assets deemed transferable to the Home Office at the end of its contract period upon receipt of payment for the assets at fair market value. The “on balance sheet” value represents the current assessment of these assets’ fair value and they are treated as if they were a finance lease.
IBM
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has a contract with IBM for the provision of IT services and infrastructure assets, which is being used by the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA). This contract was reframed on 1 February 2010. The contract involves the IT contractor (IBM) supplying an end-to-end outsourced IT service to Defra and its Network Bodies, including the provision of the physical IT equipment.
During the life of the contract, Defra has the right to use assets owned by IBM and IBM are obliged to provide a consistent level of performance as set out in the contract. This includes underlying IT product developments commissioned by the Department.
The assets are treated as assets of the GLA and the substance of the contract is a finance lease, comprising two elements – imputed finance charges and service charges. Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) IT and Telephony Service
On 25 August 2009, a 10 year fixed price contract was signed for the provision of IT and Telephony services to the IPCC from Steria Limited. The contract was effective from 20 December 2009, with a break point at seven years. The assets acquired under the contract are under the control of the IPCC.
Under IFRIC 12 the contract is a service concession arrangement with the IPCC as the grantor and Steria Limited as the operator.
| | 2014-15 | Restated 2013-14 | |----------------------|---------|------------------| | | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Total obligations under “on balance sheet” PFI and other service concession agreements for the following periods comprises: | | | | | | | | Not later than one year | 188,967 | 188,967 | 190,060 | 120,343 | 200,034 | 200,793 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 418,452 | 418,452 | 419,497 | 239,929 | 495,893 | 497,373 | | Later than five years | 589,315 | 589,315 | 589,315 | 604,997 | 616,947 | 617,014 | | | 1,196,734 | 1,196,734 | 1,198,872 | 965,269 | 1,312,874 | 1,315,180 | | Less interest element | 355,807 | 355,807 | 355,885 | 352,276 | 352,276 | 352,378 | | Present Value of Obligations | 840,927 | 840,927 | 842,987 | 612,993 | 960,598 | 962,802 |
| | 2014-15 | Restated 2013-14 | |----------------------|---------|------------------| | | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Present value of obligations under “on balance sheet” PFI and other service concession agreements for the following periods comprises: | | | | | | | | Not later than one year | 188,967 | 188,967 | 190,017 | 120,343 | 200,034 | 200,744 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 384,304 | 384,304 | 385,314 | 210,396 | 466,360 | 467,854 | | Later than five years | 267,656 | 267,656 | 267,656 | 282,254 | 294,204 | 294,204 | | Total Present Value of Obligations | 840,927 | 840,927 | 842,987 | 612,993 | 960,598 | 962,802 | 11.3.3 Charge to the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure and future commitments
The total amount charged in the Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure in respect of “off balance sheet” (SoFP) PFI and other service concession arrangement transactions and the service element of “on balance sheet” (SoFP) PFI and other service concession arrangement transactions was £317,810k (2013-14 £358,221k (Restated)) and the payments to which the Department is committed is as follows:
| | 2014-15 | Restated 2013-14 | |----------------------|---------|------------------| | | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Not later than one year | 290,894 | 290,894 | 294,467 | 197,800 | 267,251 | 270,957 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 1,073,100 | 1,073,100 | 1,084,149 | 769,072 | 1,025,036 | 1,037,952 | | Later than five years | 227,883 | 227,883 | 227,883 | 401,866 | 413,816 | 415,740 | | | 1,591,877 | 1,591,877 | 1,606,499 | 1,368,738 | 1,706,103 | 1,724,649 |
11.4 Other financial commitments
The Home Office has entered into non-cancellable contracts (which are not leases or PFI contracts):
The Home Office has entered into a number of contracts with various providers to manage and maintain several immigration removal centres and short term holding facilities. The total value of these contracts is £234.9 million. The most significant of these commitments is an eight-year contract with MITIE Care and Custody Ltd to manage and maintain the Colnbrook and Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centres near Heathrow. This contract commenced on 1 September 2014 with an option to extend a further three years. The current commitment for the contract is £172.6 million.
The Home Office launched the COMPASS project in July 2009 to procure new accommodation and transport services contracts for asylum applicants. In 2012, the Home Office entered into six 5 year contracts with Clearel, G4S and Serco for the provision of accommodation, transport and associated services. The remaining commitments to the three providers are: Clearel £80.1 million, G4S £102.9 million and Serco £117 million.
In October 2014 the Home Office entered into a 7 year contract with Shared Services Connected Limited (SSCL) to provide the transactional processing services alongside the hosting of a cross government Enterprise Resource Planning system. The first year of the contract is at a fixed price, after which it will move to a volumetric pricing structure. At the end of the 7 years the Home Office has an option to extend the contract for a further 3 years. The estimated remaining value of the 7 year commitment is £60.7 million.
The Department entered into two 5 year contracts with VF Worldwide Holdings and Teleperformance Limited for the management of Visa applications globally. The contracts commenced on 1 April 2014, with an option to extend twice for a further two years each time. The fixed element of the commitment to the two suppliers are: VF Worldwide Holdings £52.9 million and Teleperformance Limited £38.3 million.
The Home Office entered into a contract with Serco on 4 October 2005 for the provision of technical support for the Fixed Radiation Detection Systems and Radionuclide Identification Systems. The remaining commitment is £18.4 million and the contract will complete on 31 March 2017.
The Home Office is undertaking a project to provide the replacement hardware for the Police National Computer (PNC) mainframes and assistance to design and move to a new architecture. The current commitment with Fujitsu Services Limited (excluding capital projects) is £25.8 million. The Home Office has entered into non-cancellable contracts for the provision of contracted out services for telephone appointment booking services and passport back room services. The remaining commitment is £17 million.
The Home Office entered into a contract with Sodexo for cash subsistence payments to asylum seekers, which started on 28 May 2013 and ends 27 May 2016. The remaining commitment is £3.1 million, which is made up of £2.64 million fixed management fee and variable charges estimated to be £0.4 million for the remainder of the contract. The Department also has contracts with Tascor for provision of escorting services and Wagtail UK Ltd for provision of search dog teams at ports. These contracts are valued at £16.8 million and £11 million respectively.
The Home Office has a contract with IBM for the Border Systems Programme (BSP) which is responsible for IT systems at the UK borders. This contract has £7.9 million remaining and runs from 8 June 2012 to 30 April 2016.
The Home Office has a remaining commitment of £6.1 million for Airwave Licences.
The payments to which the Department is committed, analysed by the period during which the commitment expires are as follows:
| | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Not later than one year | 301,827 | 301,827 | 301,827 | 202,689 | 211,710 | 211,710 | | Later than one year and not later than five years | 476,571 | 476,571 | 476,571 | 444,432 | 462,869 | 462,869 | | Later than five years | 71,201 | 71,201 | 71,201 | 1,753 | 1,753 | 1,753 | | Total | 849,599 | 849,599 | 849,599 | 648,874 | 676,332 | 676,332 | 12. Financial instruments
As the cash requirements of the Department are met through the Estimates process, financial instruments play a more limited role in creating and managing risk than would apply to a non-public sector body of a similar size. The Department has very limited powers to borrow, invest surpluses, or purchase foreign currency. Financial assets and liabilities are generated by day-to-day operational activities and are not held to change the risk facing the Department in undertaking its activities.
The majority of financial instruments relate to contracts for goods and services in line with the Department’s expected purchase and usage requirements and the Department is, therefore, exposed to little credit, liquidity or market risk.
13. Cash and cash equivalents
| | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Restated 2013-14 | |----------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|--------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|--------------------|------------------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | | Balance at 1 April | 206,173 | 206,173 | 225,317 | 32,962 | 46,183 | 70,949 | | | Balance transferred on 1 April 2013 from UKBA | – | – | – | 13,219 | – | – | | | Net change in cash and cash equivalent balances | (65,202) | (65,202) | (59,540) | 159,992 | 159,990 | 154,368 | | | Balance at 31 March | 140,971 | 140,971 | 165,777 | 206,173 | 206,173 | 225,317 | |
The following balances at 31 March were held at:
| | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Restated 2013-14 | |----------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|--------------------|-----------------|----------------------------|--------------------|------------------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | | Government Banking Service (GBS) | 140,931 | 140,931 | 147,923 | 206,132 | 206,132 | 210,736 | | | Commercial banks and cash in hand | 40 | 40 | 17,854 | 41 | 41 | 14,581 | | | Balance at 31 March | 140,971 | 140,971 | 165,777 | 206,173 | 206,173 | 225,317 | |
The high year-end Core Department balances at the end of 2013-14 and 2014-15 largely reflect significant late receipts from another Government Department.
### 14. Trade receivables, financial and other assets
| | 31 March 2015 | Restated 31 March 2014 | Restated 31 March 2013 | |----------------------|---------------|------------------------|------------------------| | | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Core Department Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Core Department Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Core Department Group £000 | | Amounts falling due within one year: | | | | | | | | | | | Trade receivables | 136,660 | 136,660 | 143,003 | 100,718 | 112,036 | 111,067 | 62,537 | 79,564 | 69,638 | | VAT receivables net of payables | – | – | (585) | 28,514 | 28,514 | 28,077 | 32,976 | 32,976 | 32,209 | | Staff receivables | 3,408 | 3,408 | 3,523 | 1,442 | 1,624 | 1,695 | 7,694 | 11,913 | 11,981 | | Receivables – government departments | 29,705 | 29,705 | 21,436 | 9,229 | 9,229 | 4,154 | – | 9,566 | 9,525 | | Other receivables | 1,220 | 1,220 | 1,534 | 1,620 | 1,620 | 2,448 | 8,936 | 10,699 | 11,297 | | Prepayments and accrued income | 214,891 | 214,891 | 221,775 | 155,937 | 168,220 | 172,565 | 137,262 | 203,643 | 207,244 | | Current part of PFI and other service concession arrangements prepayment | – | – | 695 | – | – | 695 | – | – | 695 | | Amounts due from the Consolidated Fund in respect of supply | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | | | 385,884 | 385,884 | 391,381 | 297,460 | 321,243 | 320,701 | 249,405 | 348,361 | 342,589 |
| | 31 March 2015 | 31 March 2014 | Restated 31 March 2013 | |----------------------|---------------|---------------|------------------------| | | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Core Department Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Core Department Group £000 | Core Department £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Core Department Group £000 | | Amounts falling due after more than one year: | | | | | | | | | | | Other receivables | – | – | 193 | 42 | 42 | 42 | – | 1,049 | 1,049 | | Prepayments and accrued income | – | – | 1,455 | – | – | 1,455 | – | – | 2,151 | | | – | – | 1,648 | 42 | 42 | 1,497 | – | 1,049 | 3,200 |
### 14.1 Intra-Government balances
| Amounts falling due within one year: | 31 March 2015 | Restated 31 March 2014 | Restated 31 March 2013 | |-------------------------------------|---------------|------------------------|------------------------| | Balances with other central government bodies | 78,344 | 27,892 | 125,930 | | Balances with local authorities | 59,849 | 25,508 | 38,404 | | Balances with NHS Bodies | 64 | – | 1 | | Balances with public corporations and trading funds | 596 | – | 39 | | **Subtotal: intra-government balances** | 138,853 | 53,400 | 164,374 | | Balances with bodies external to government | 247,031 | 244,060 | 85,031 | | **Total receivables at 31 March** | 385,884 | 297,460 | 249,405 |
| Amounts falling due after more than one year: | 31 March 2015 | 31 March 2014 | Restated 31 March 2013 | |-----------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|------------------------| | Balances with other central government bodies | – | 42 | – | | Balances with bodies external to government | – | – | 1,455 | | **Total receivables at 31 March** | – | 42 | – |
Included within receivables is £24.7 million (2013-14: £17.6 million) that will be due to the Consolidated Fund once debts are collected.
## 15. Trade payables and other current liabilities
| Amounts falling due within one year: | 31 March 2015 | Restated 31 March 2014 | Restated 31 March 2013 | |-------------------------------------|---------------|------------------------|------------------------| | | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | | | Departmental Group £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Other taxation and social security | 12,716 | (1,327) | (44) | | | 12,716 | 14,234 | 862 | | | 12,716 | (1,327) | (50) | | | 12,716 | 14,234 | 1,980 | | Trade payables | 46,982 | 30,196 | 17,567 | | | 46,982 | 49,158 | 36,961 | | | 46,982 | 49,158 | 31,658 | | | 46,982 | 49,158 | 20,763 | | Other payables | 10 | 2,844 | 6,807 | | | 10 | 2,844 | (3) | | | 10 | 2,844 | 11,747 | | | 10 | 2,844 | 15,648 | | Staff payables | – | – | 450 | | | – | – | – | | | – | – | 437 | | Accruals and deferred income | 1,126,308 | 1,065,520 | 840,535 | | | 1,126,308 | 1,147,462 | 1,203,455 | | | 1,126,308 | 1,145,877 | 1,223,176 | | Unpaid pension contributions | – | – | – | | | – | – | – | | | – | – | – | | Payables - government departments | 61 | 9,006 | 638 | | | 61 | 9,006 | 9,168 | | | 61 | 9,006 | 9,168 | | Current part of finance leases | 9,487 | 9,006 | 638 | | | 9,487 | 9,006 | 9,168 | | | 9,487 | 9,006 | 9,168 | | Current part of imputed finance | 26,991 | 27,086 | 31,283 | | lease element of on balance sheet | 26,991 | 27,086 | 39,294 | | (SoFP) PFI contracts and other | 26,991 | 28,328 | 40,136 | | service concession arrangements | 26,991 | 28,328 | 40,136 | | Amounts issued from the Consolidated | 124,775 | 169,473 | 13,454 | | Fund for supply but not spent at | 124,775 | 169,473 | 13,454 | | year end | 124,775 | 169,473 | 13,454 | | Consolidated Fund extra receipts | 31,558 | 49,896 | 10,694 | | due to be paid to the Consolidated | 31,558 | 49,896 | 10,694 | | Fund – received | 31,558 | 49,896 | 10,694 | | – receivable | 24,736 | 17,585 | 10,694 | | | 24,736 | 17,585 | 10,694 | | | 24,736 | 17,585 | 10,694 | | | 1,403,624 | 1,472,678 | 1,387,784 | | | 1,403,624 | 1,429,821 | 1,379,883 | | | 1,403,624 | 1,429,821 | 1,379,883 |
## Amounts falling due after more than one year:
| Amounts falling due after more than one year: | 31 March 2015 | Restated 31 March 2014 | Restated 31 March 2013 | |-----------------------------------------------|---------------|------------------------|------------------------| | | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | Core Department & Agencies £000 | | | Departmental Group £000 | Departmental Group £000 | Departmental Group £000 | | Other payables, accruals and deferred income | 2,138 | – | – | | | 2,138 | 2,602 | 3,238 | | | 2,138 | 2,602 | 84 | | Imputed finance lease element of on balance | 223,962 | 224,248 | 227,048 | | sheet (SoFP) PFI contracts and other service | 223,962 | 224,248 | 227,048 | | concession arrangements | 223,962 | 226,753 | 229,680 | | Finance leases | 63,100 | 66,114 | 69,729 | | | 63,100 | 66,114 | 69,729 | | | 63,100 | 66,114 | 69,729 | | | 289,200 | 290,362 | 296,777 | | | 289,200 | 292,455 | 299,473 |
### 15.1 Intra-Government balances
| Amounts falling due within one year: | 31 March 2015 | Restated 31 March 2014 | Restated 31 March 2013 | |-------------------------------------|---------------|------------------------|------------------------| | Balances with other central government bodies | 366,579 | 334,605 | 169,118 | | Balances with local authorities | 491,755 | 432,415 | 451,918 | | Balances with NHS Bodies | 60 | 124 | 116 | | Balances with public corporations and trading funds | 220 | 4,341 | 1,228 | | **Subtotal: intra-government balances** | 858,614 | 771,485 | 622,380 | | Balances with bodies external to government | 545,010 | 608,398 | 334,489 | | **Total payables at 31 March** | 1,403,624 | 1,379,883 | 956,869 |
| Amounts falling due after more than one year: | 31 March 2015 | Restated 31 March 2014 | Restated 31 March 2013 | |-----------------------------------------------|---------------|------------------------|------------------------| | Balances with bodies external to government | 289,200 | 290,362 | 230,301 | | **Total payables at 31 March** | 289,200 | 290,362 | 230,301 |
### 16. Provisions for liabilities and charges
| | 2014-15 | Restated 2013-14 | |--------------------------------|---------|------------------| | | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | **Balance at 1 April** | 267,226 | 273,949 | 277,200 | 90,896 | 183,283 | 186,199 | | **Balance transferred at 1 October 2014 from HMPO** | 6,705 | – | – | – | – | – | | **Balance transferred at 1 April 2013 from UKBA** | – | – | – | 80,633 | – | – | | **Provided in the year** | 89,976 | 90,367 | 92,561 | 201,787 | 202,333 | 202,886 | | **Police Pension Provision provided in the year** | 460,000 | 460,000 | 460,000 | – | – | – | | **Provisions not required written back** | (58,835) | (58,973) | (60,773) | (62,922) | (66,453) | (66,543) | | **Provisions utilised in the year** | (84,406) | (84,745) | (86,570) | (47,584) | (49,603) | (49,734) | | **Transfer of provisions** | – | – | – | 3,107 | 3,107 | 3,107 | | **Borrowing costs (unwinding of discounts)** | (207) | (139) | (137) | 1,309 | 1,282 | 1,285 | | **Balance at 31 March** | 680,459 | 680,459 | 682,281 | 267,226 | 273,949 | 277,200 |
**Comprising:**
**Current liabilities**
- Not later than one year: 504,808, 504,808, 505,370, 135,580, 136,829, 138,859
**Non-current liabilities**
- Later than one year and not later than five years: 157,431, 157,431, 158,571, 113,246, 115,440, 116,603
- Later than five years: 18,220, 18,220, 18,340, 18,400, 21,680, 21,738
**Balance at 31 March**
- 680,459, 680,459, 682,281, 267,226, 273,949, 277,200
### Early Departure Dilapidations Legal Claims Pensions and Other Total
| | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | |----------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | **Balance at 1 April 2014** | | | | | | | Provided in the year | 65 | 2,337| 40,114| 50,045| 92,561| | Police Pension Provision provided in the year | – | – | – | 460,000 | 460,000 | | Provisions not required written back | (2,203) | (5,930) | (40,153) | (12,487) | (60,773) | | Provisions utilised in the year | (7,449) | (3,257) | (72,955) | (2,909) | (86,570) | | Transfer of provisions | – | – | 149 | (149) | – | | Borrowing costs (unwinding of discounts) | 70 | (207) | – | – | (137) | | **Balance at 31 March 2015** | 17,737 | 37,732 | 113,290 | 513,522 | 682,281 |
**Comprising:**
**Current liabilities**
Not later than one year | 6,427 | 3,652 | 29,049 | 466,242 | 505,370 |
**Non-current liabilities**
Later than one year and not later than five years | 11,108 | 15,942 | 84,241 | 47,280 | 158,571 |
Later than five years | 202 | 18,138 | – | – | 18,340 |
**Balance at 31 March 2015** | 17,737 | 37,732 | 113,290 | 513,522 | 682,281 |
**Of the total:**
Core Department | 17,450 | 36,387 | 113,100 | 513,522 | 680,459 |
Core Department & Agencies | 17,450 | 36,387 | 113,100 | 513,522 | 680,459 |
Departmental Group | 17,737 | 37,732 | 113,290 | 513,522 | 682,281 |
### Early Departure Dilapidations Legal Claims Pensions and Other Restated Total
| | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | |----------------------|------|------|------|------|------| | **Balance at 1 April 2013** | | | | | | | Provided in the year | 1,011 | 6,285 | 192,993 | 2,597 | 202,886 | | Provisions not required written back | (766) | (6,623) | (38,829) | (20,325) | (66,543) | | Provisions utilised in the year | (10,453) | (2,053) | (32,677) | (4,551) | (49,734) | | Transfer of provisions | 3,107 | – | – | – | 3,107 | | Borrowing costs (unwinding of discounts) | 1,372 | (87) | – | – | 1,285 | | **Balance at 31 March 2014** | 27,254 | 44,789 | 186,135 | 19,022 | 277,200 |
**Comprising:**
**Current liabilities**
Not later than one year | 9,546 | 6,368 | 111,005 | 11,940 | 138,859 |
**Non-current liabilities**
Later than one year and not later than five years | 16,566 | 20,217 | 72,738 | 7,082 | 116,603 |
Later than five years | 1,142 | 18,204 | 2,392 | – | 21,738 |
**Balance at 31 March 2014** | 27,254 | 44,789 | 186,135 | 19,022 | 277,200 |
**Of the total:**
Core Department | 23,162 | 39,187 | 185,970 | 18,907 | 267,226 |
Core Department & Agencies | 25,375 | 43,548 | 186,004 | 19,022 | 273,949 |
Departmental Group | 27,254 | 44,789 | 186,135 | 19,022 | 277,200 | 16.1 Early Departure Costs
The Home Office meets the additional costs of benefits beyond the normal PCSPS benefits in respect of employees who retire early by paying the required amount to PCSPS to cover the period between early departure and normal retirement date. The Home Office provides for this in full when the early retirement programme becomes binding on the Home Office by establishing a provision or accrual for the estimated payments.
Severance costs outstanding at year end under the new Civil Service Compensation Scheme are accrued for rather than provided for in a provision.
16.2 Dilapidations
The Home Office makes provisions to cover its obligations for the reinstatement of its leasehold buildings to their original state before its occupation.
16.3 Legal Claims
Provision has been made for various legal claims against the Home Office. The provision reflects all known claims where legal advice indicates that it is more than 50% probable that the claim will be successful and the amount of the claim can be reliably estimated. The amount provided is on a percentage expected probability basis. No reimbursement will be received in respect of any of these claims. Legal claims, which may succeed but are less likely to do so (or cannot be estimated), are disclosed as contingent liabilities in Note 18.
Riot Damages Act
A £162 million legal provision was established last year for the costs arising from the 2011 riots under the Riot Damages Act. The provision comprised of consequential losses arising from the riots and litigation in relation to the definition of a riot. On 9 December 2014 it was ruled that the Department cannot appeal against the previous ruling regarding the definition of a riot and the provision was adjusted accordingly. The provision remaining at the end of the year was £82.5 million, which will be reviewed as claims for consequential losses are assessed.
16.4 Pensions and Other Provisions
The Department has further provisions which do not fall into the above categories but which satisfy the criteria for provision creation. The following is a list of significant provisions making this figure:
Police Pensions provision
Following a complaint from a retired firefighter, Mr W Milne, the Pensions Ombudsman found GAD guilty of maladministration in failing to review commutation factors from 1998 to 2006 applicable to the lump sum Mr Milne was entitled to receive when he retired in November 2005. The full determination is available at http://www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk. The case has knock-on consequences for a large number of retired police officers. The Home Office is liable for additional top up payments in relation to police pensions.
The Department has established a pension provision to reflect the estimated cost of probable revised lump sum pension payments for eligible retired police officers. Pension scheme administrators are identifying police officers who retired between 2001 and 2006 and may be affected by this ruling. The Home Office provision is £460 million, made up of £375 million lump sum payout and £85 million interest. The cost estimate does not include any additional tax cost, which is a liability for HM Treasury. These tax costs are estimated to be £307 million.
Forensic Science Service
The FSS provision increased by £46.1 million during the year, mainly reflecting an adverse movement in the pension liability. The £42 million pension liability provision is based on a December 2014 valuation carried out by Mercer. The full actuarial valuation is being undertaken by the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD). The rest of the increase relates to further winding up costs being confirmed. As at 31 March 2015 the winding up provision stood at £4.6 million. Confiscation Orders
A provision of £5.1 million relates to payments made against three Confiscation orders to the Nigerian Authorities in relation to the assets of a Nigerian Official being restrained in the UK. Under a UN convention on corruption (UNCAC) the UK has to repatriate the funds paid against the Confiscation orders.
17. Financial Guarantees, Indemnities and Letter of Comfort
The Department has entered into the following quantifiable guarantees, indemnities or provided letters of comfort. None of these is a contingent liability within the meaning of IAS 37 since the likelihood of a transfer of economic benefit in settlement is too remote. They therefore fail to be measured following the requirements of IAS 39.
Managing Public Money requires that the full potential costs of such contracts be reported to parliament. These costs are reproduced in the table below.
| Indemnities | Restated 1 April 2014 £000 | Increase in year £000 | Liabilities crystallised in year £000 | Obligation expired in year £000 | 31 March 2015 £000 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------| | Indemnity provided to BAA in respect of damage or injury caused to third parties from Border Force in their use of vehicles operating airside while transporting immigration officers between airside locations. | 50,000 | – | – | – | 50,000 | | Indemnity in respect of rolling out the Airwave contract in the London Underground (amount capped per incident). Minute dated 15 October 2009. | 100,000 | – | – | – | 100,000 | | Claims arising from the Simplifying Passenger Travel Interest Group (SPT) not exceeding £5 million. Minute dated 8 July 2008. | 5,000 | – | – | – | 5,000 | | Indemnities were given to various port and airport authorities during installation stage of Cyclamen. The maximum exposure is £115 million with no individual indemnity being above £10 million. Minute dated 29 May 2009. | 115,000 | – | – | – | 115,000 | | | 270,000 | – | – | – | 270,000 |
The opening balance of the BAA indemnity was refined to reflect more up to date information.
In addition to the above mentioned indemnities, there is a €10 million, £7.27 million indemnity relating to Cyclamen with Eurotunnel converted at the rate at 31 March 2015 from the European Central Bank website. This indemnity is ‘live’ until 31 March 2017 under the Hosting Agreement.
18. Contingent liabilities disclosed under IAS 37
Disclosed under IAS 37
The liabilities described below cover all known claims where legal advice indicated that the criteria for recognition of a provision have not been met.
There are a number of legal claims outstanding against the Department including unlawful detention claims, unlawful dismissal and personal injury claims. Contingent liabilities of £3.27 million relate to ongoing Home Office litigation.
Not disclosed under IAS 37
The Department has also entered into the following unquantifiable contingent liabilities by offering guarantees, indemnities or by giving letters of comfort. These are considered unquantifiable because either a potential liability cannot be estimated with a degree of certainty at the current time or because there is no stated maximum exposure. None of these is a contingent liability within the meaning of IAS 37 since the possibility of a transfer of economic benefit in settlement is too remote. Indemnities
Home Office Central London Accommodation Strategy (HOCLAS) (Minute dated 23 January 2002)
The Home Office has indemnified the contractor for an unquantifiable amount against any financial loss arising from the Home Office providing defective information in respect of the contract.
Border Force New Detection Technology (NDT)
The following minutes have been used to notify Parliament of the contingent liability relating to the UKVI NDT, dated:
10 September 2003, 18 December 2003, 18 March 2004 and 2 July 2004
The minutes above refer to the following locations and NDT equipment which is loaned by the agency to recipients:
i) **Calais**: Heartbeat equipment and building and Passive Millimetric Wave Imager ISO containers. Heartbeat equipment and two buildings in juxtaposed control zone commenced Spring 2004.
ii) **Coquelles**: Heartbeat Detection Unit at the Euro tunnel operated in the juxtaposed control zone by the UKIS. Passive Millimetric Wave Imager ISO containers. Shelter for and Heartbeat detection equipment which is under control of, and operated by, the UKVI in the juxtaposed control zone.
iii) **Dunkerque**: Heartbeat building commenced Summer 2005. Heartbeat equipment and building operated by the UKIS in the juxtaposed control zone and commenced operation in Spring 2004.
iv) **Ostend**: Heartbeat shelters.
v) **St. Malo**: CO2 probes to be operated by French operators.
vi) **Vlissingen**: Heartbeat equipment and shelters.
vii) **Zeebrugge**: Two further Heartbeat buildings and one Passive Millimetric Wave Imager ISO container.
The minutes also refer to the following:
Indemnity in respect of the deployment and/or demonstration of NDT by the UKVI in Europe. Within the scope of this indemnity “Europe” is defined as the member states of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE); those North African and Middle Eastern countries with which the OSCE has special relationships (Algeria, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia); and those countries which participate in Euro-Mediterranean dialogue with the Council of Europe (Libya, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority).
Harmondsworth and Campsfield Inquiry Team (Minute laid 4 July 2007)
Indemnity provided to the Chairman and members of the team carrying out, in good faith and honesty, the inquiry into the disturbances at the Harmondsworth and Campsfield Immigration Removal Centres.
Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance Service (CIFAS) – Fraud Protection Service (Minute dated 23 November 2011)
To indemnify bodies against erroneous data entered on the CIFAS database, resulting in claims lodged against those organisations.
The Home Office use of Foreign & Commonwealth Office premises
Commitment to conditional support provided to the FCO against all third party claims arising out of, or in connection with, the agency’s occupation of the premises.
Police Pay and Conditions Review
A standard board indemnity was given to the Lead Reviewer for the Police Pay and Conditions Review. 19. Losses and special payments
19.1 Losses Statement
Losses are transactions of a type which Parliament could not have known when Supply funding for the Department was voted. The term loss includes loss of public monies, stores, stocks, cash and other property entrusted to the Home Office. Examples include: cash losses, bookkeeping losses, exchange rate fluctuations, losses of pay, allowance and superannuation benefits, losses arising from overpayments, losses arising from failure to make adequate charges, and losses arising from accountable stores.
Situations where recurring or individual circumstances result in multiple losses of equivalent nature are grouped together. This group is subsequently counted as one case. This results in greater visibility where circumstances result in significant total values of cases despite individual cases being low value.
| | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | Restated 2013-14 | |----------------------|-----------------|---------------------------|--------------------|-----------------|---------------------------|--------------------|-----------------| | | Number of cases | £000 | £000 | Number of cases | £000 | £000 | Number of cases | £000 | | Losses under £300,000| 1,137 | 1,345 | 3,212 | 1,547 | 3,212 | 1,547 | 948 | 2,866 | | Losses over £300,000 | 2 | 3,935 | 2 | 3,935 | 2 | 3,935 | 3 | 1,562 | | Total | 1,139 | 5,280 | 3,214 | 5,482 | 3,214 | 5,482 | 951 | 4,428 |
Cases over £300,000 comprise:
- Overpayments
- Fruitless Payments
- Loss of Pay/Cash Payments
- Constructive Losses
- Claims Waived or Abandoned
- Exchange rate fluctuations
A review carried out during the year identified new information relating to losses. The prior year figures have been restated accordingly.
A constructive loss of £1.58 million was incurred by the Home Office as a result of the cancellations of scheduled flights intended to remove ineligible asylum seekers, which were subsequently cancelled due to asylum seekers being granted the right to appeal.
An exchange rate loss of £2.3 million was realised due to fluctuation in exchange rates from Euro denominated receipts from the European Commission and Sterling denominated grant payments made to beneficiaries of the Returns Fund. 19.2 Special Payments
Special Payments are transactions that Parliament could not have anticipated when passing legislation or approving Supply Estimates for the Department. Examples include: extra contractual payments to contractors, ex gratia payments to contractors, other ex gratia payments, compensation payments, and extra statutory and extra regulatory payments.
Situations where recurring or individual circumstances result in multiple special payments of equivalent nature are grouped together. This group is subsequently counted as one case. This results in greater visibility where circumstances result in significant total values of cases despite individual cases being low value.
| | Core Department | Core Department & Agencies | Departmental Group | |----------------------|-----------------|---------------------------|--------------------| | | Number of cases | £000 | Number of cases | £000 | Number of cases | £000 | | Special payments under £300,000 | 5,503 | 30,527 | 5,503 | 30,527 | 5,503 | 30,527 | | Special payments over £300,000 | 5 | 151,764 | 5 | 151,764 | 6 | 152,154 | | Total | 5,508 | 182,291 | 5,508 | 182,291 | 5,509 | 182,681 |
A review carried out during the year identified new information relating to special payments. The prior year figures have been restated accordingly.
Payments totalling £25.2 million were made by the Home Office in relation to 4,282 legal claims. These include: 3,766 adverse legal cost payments totalling £17.2 million, 448 ex-gratia cases totalling £7 million, 38 compensation payments totalling £802k, and 26 extra statutory cases totalling £52k.
An ex-gratia payment of £150 million was made to Raytheon Systems Limited as a full and final settlement for the termination of the e-Borders contract. (See note 24 for more details).
In 2012 the Home Office lost a challenge in the Immigration Tribunal, resulting in the Appeals Judge awarding the claimants up to the full amount of the appeals fees. The appeal fee refunds in 2014-15 totalled £1 million.
A payment totalling £427k comprising of legal costs and compensation over a three year period (2012-13 £42k, 2014-15 £385k) was made by the Home Office to a family for unlawful deportation.
An interim payment for adverse legal costs totalling £300k was made by the Department in relation to an asylum case of an unaccompanied minor.
The Department also made an interim payment for adverse legal costs in relation to an asylum case, totalling £500k over a two year period (2013-14 £73k 2014-15 £427k).
The Home Office paid an exemplary fine of £20k after securing retrospective approval from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in relation to breaching the control process in negotiating the salary of the Director General of the National Crime Agency.
A compensation payment of £390k was paid by the College of Policing in respect of an employee who suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. 20. Related-party Transactions
The Home Office is the sponsor of the Non-Departmental Public Bodies listed in Note 22. These bodies are regarded as related parties, with which the Home Office has had various material transactions during the year. Until 30 September 2014 the Home Office was also the parent Department of Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO). On 30 September 2014 the HMPO ceased operating as an executive agency and was integrated in the core Department thereafter.
The Office for National Statistics ruled that the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) was a public corporation. It is therefore considered a related party operating under the control of the Home Secretary.
In addition, the Department has had transactions with other government departments and other central government bodies. In particular there have been transactions with:
- The Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation relating to the employees’ pension scheme. The employer’s contribution to this pension scheme can be found in Note 3 to these accounts; and
- The Foreign and Commonwealth Office relating the overseas Visa income collection.
The Forensic Archive Ltd is considered a related party operating under the ‘guardianship’ of the Home Office with Home Office senior management sitting on the board.
Ministers’ interests are declared and maintained through the Register of Members’ Interests at the House of Commons and the Register of Lords’ Interest at the House of Lords.
Board members and key senior management staff are subject to a standard annual interests review, stating whether they, their spouses or close family members have been in a position of influence or control in organisations with which the Home Office has transactions.
Michael Charles Wells, the Chief Operating Officer in UKV&I, is married to Deirdre Wells, the CEO of UKInbound – a trade association promoting travel to the UK. No monetary transactions have been recorded between the Home Office and UKInbound, but the association has been involved in a Visa Steering Group with the Home Office.
Notes 14 and 15 provide details of intra-government balances. The Remuneration Report provides information on key management compensation.
Details of related party transactions during the time when HMPO remained an executive agency of the Department are disclosed in HMPO final accounts. Details of related party transactions of NDPBs are disclosed in their audited accounts. 21. Third-party assets
The Home Office receives applications from foreign nationals to obtain British nationality. The application money includes a ceremony fee of £80 (2013-14 £80), and the local authorities who carry out the ceremonies are entitled to the whole of the fee after the ceremony has been completed. To maintain control over these assets the Home Office holds the funds in its GBS account on behalf of the local authority until the ceremony has taken place.
Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Section 24 of the UK Borders Act 2007 assets can be appropriated by the Home Office and other law enforcement bodies. The Home Office has the authority to seize cash linked to offences against the Immigration Acts. Any cash seized is held in a separate bank account until a judicial case decision is made. Upon decision the monies, including any interest earned, is either returned to the owner or transferred to the Home Office as a seized asset. Monies are held in separate bank accounts depending on currency to eliminate any exchange rate transactions.
Under the legal system in Scotland, the Home Office has to hold monies for people who are cautioned at court for immigration offences. A bail bond is collected and held in a separate bank account.
The assets held by the Home Office at the reporting period date to which it was practical to ascribe monetary values comprised monetary assets, such as bank balances and monies on deposit, listed securities, motor vehicles and other valuables. They are set out, including interest, in the table immediately below.
| | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | Citizenship Ceremony Fee | 6,382 | 6,168 | | Proceeds of Crime (GBP) | 1,951 | 3,274 | | Bail Bond Accounts | 172 | 233 | | Total GBP | 8,505 | 9,675 |
| | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | Proceeds of Crime (Euro) | 938 | 1,349 | | Total Euro | 938 | 1,349 |
| | 2014-15 | 2013-14 | |----------------------|---------|---------| | Proceeds of Crime (US Dollar) | 207 | 244 | | Total US Dollar | 207 | 244 | 22. Entities within the departmental boundary
The entities within the departmental boundary during 2014-15 were as follows:
Entities consolidated
The Home Office departmental boundary encompassed the central Government Department, one executive agency and four Non-Departmental Public Bodies. The accounts of these entities form part of the Home Office’s consolidated financial statements.
Executive Agency
Her Majesty’s Passport Office (until 30 September 2014)
Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs)
Executive NDPBs: typically established in statute and carrying out executive, administrative, regulatory and/or commercial functions.
Independent Police Complaints Commission Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner Security Industry Authority Gangmasters Licensing Authority
The accounts of the above agency/NDPBs can be found at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk.
Other Entities
College of Policing
The College of Policing is a company limited by guarantee. It is classified as an Arms Length Body by the Treasury, and is consolidated within the departmental boundary as a ‘quasi’ NDPB.
Entities within the Core Department
Advisory, tribunal and other NDPBs do not publish accounts as they do not have any money delegated to them. Where there are costs, these are met from Home Office budgets.
Advisory non-departmental public bodies: provide independent, expert advice to ministers on a wide range of issues.
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Animals in Science Committee Migration Advisory Committee National DNA Database Ethics Group Police Advisory Board for England and Wales Police Negotiating Board (ceased operating in England and Wales on 1 September 2014) Technical Advisory Board Tribunal non-departmental public bodies: have jurisdiction in a specialised field of law.
Investigatory Powers Tribunal Office of Surveillance Commissioners Police Arbitration Tribunal (ceased operating in England and Wales on 1 September 2014) Police Discipline Appeals Tribunal
Other
Anti-Slavery Commissioner Biometrics Commissioner Forensic Science Regulator HM Inspectorate of Constabulary Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration Independent Family Returns Panel Independent Monitor of the Disclosure and Barring Service Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation Intelligence Services Commissioner Interception of Communications Commissioner National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Body Police Remuneration Review Body Police ICT Company Surveillance Camera Commissioner Wimbledon and Putney Conservator.
23. Organisational Change within the Departmental Boundary
The entities consolidated within the departmental boundary during 2014-15 are listed in Note 22. The Department continued to undergo re-organisation during the year. The financial impact of Machinery of Government (MoG) changes is explained in more detail in Note 26. The key organisational changes during the year are listed below:
a On 9 April 2014, the Prime Minister announced that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA – formally a Non-Departmental Public Body of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) transferred to the Home Office;
b following a ruling from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Disclosure and Barring Service was reclassified as a Public Corporation, and hence it is no longer included within the Home Office departmental boundary;
c Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO) ceased operating as an executive agency of the Department on 30 September, and was integrated within the core Department thereafter. 24. Termination of the e-Borders contract
In July 2010 the Home Office notified Raytheon Systems Limited (RSL), a subsidiary of Raytheon Company, that its e-Borders contract with UK Border Agency had been terminated. The termination occurred before the 2009-10 accounts had been concluded, and disclosure of this termination was made in the 2009-10 accounts as a post balance sheet event. Within the 2010-11 Home Office and UK Border Agency accounts, full disclosure of the impairment charges, capital commitments and contingent liabilities was made.
The e-Borders Programme started in 2003 and it developed a prototype which successfully tested the core concept of an intelligence led, multi agency integrated border control. The e-Borders contract with RSL was intended to enhance and replace this earlier prototype, in line with the business case agreed in October 2007.
Following a full external procurement, the e-Borders contract was signed in November 2007 with RSL as the prime contractor, heading the Trusted Borders consortium. Following contract termination, the e-Borders programme continued as part of the Border Systems Programme, with the development, enhancement and replacement of legacy systems.
RSL disputed the contract termination, and the Home Office initiated arbitration proceedings in August 2010. In August 2014 the Arbitration Tribunal found that the contract had been wrongfully terminated and awarded RSL £186 million plus significant additional legal and interest costs.
In September 2014, the Home Office challenged the arbitration award, pursuant to Section 68 of the Arbitration Act. In February 2015, the High Court, found significant flaws in the Tribunal award. The High Court ordered that the award should be set aside, but granted both parties permission to appeal.
To protect the best interests of the taxpayer, including from further litigation costs, the Department reached a negotiated resolution with RSL. The settlement was a full and final payment to RSL of £150 million. This settlement represented a significant reduction on the original award made by the Arbitration Tribunal in August 2014.
On contract termination, the Home Office called in Letters of Credit amounting to £49.9 million. These had been held on the Department's balance sheet as deferred income since termination, and have subsequently been realised as part of the overall £150 million settlement.
The settlement recognises no admission of liability on the part of the Government. 25. HM Passport Office Internal Restructure
On 30 September 2014, Her Majesty’s Passport Office ceased to be an executive agency of the Home Office and was consolidated into the Core Home Office. This was an internal restructure and as such no restatement was made to the 2013-14 Core Home Office numbers to reflect the change. The analysis below shows the 2013-14 Core Home Office accounts Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure and Statement of Financial Position if a restatement had been required. In addition, no restatement was made to the 2014-15 numbers to reflect the first six months of the year. The analysis below shows the impact that a restatement would have had on the 2014-15 Core Home Office numbers.
| | 2013-14 Core Home Office (1) | 2013-14 HM Passport Office (2) | 2013-14 Combined Core Home Office (3) | 2014-15 Core Home Office (4) | 2014-15 HM Passport Office (5) | 2014-15 Combined Core Home Office (6) | |----------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | £000 | | Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure | | | | | | | | Administrative staff costs | 239,546 | 21,739 | 261,285 | 235,915 | 8,373 | 244,288 | | Other Administrative costs | 204,514 | 19,478 | 223,992 | 302,413 | 14,257 | 316,670 | | Administration income | (41,469) | (39,059) | (80,528) | (58,663) | (21,942) | (80,605) | | Programme staff costs | 869,979 | 78,908 | 948,887 | 940,954 | 50,021 | 990,975 | | Other Programme costs | 12,213,261 | 201,834 | 12,415,095 | 13,421,607 | 125,162 | 13,546,769 | | Programme income | (1,428,945) | (412,519) | (1,841,464) | (1,624,511) | (258,377) | (1,882,888) | | Grant-in-Aid | 105,134 | – | 105,134 | 110,357 | – | 110,357 | | Total | 12,162,020 | (129,619) | 12,032,401 | 13,328,072 | (82,506) | 13,245,566 |
| Statement of Financial Position | | | | | | | | Property, plant and equipment | 1,022,704 | 66,721 | 1,089,425 | 1,068,459 | – | 1,068,459 | | Intangible assets | 401,354 | 86,042 | 487,396 | 457,497 | – | 457,497 | | Long term trade and other receivables | 42 | – | 42 | – | – | – | | Assets classified as held for sale | 22,961 | – | 22,961 | 2,491 | – | 2,491 | | Inventories | 6,650 | 4,393 | 11,043 | 12,713 | – | 12,713 | | Trade and other receivables | 297,460 | 25,313 | 322,773 | 380,209 | – | 380,209 | | Cash and cash equivalents | 206,173 | – | 206,173 | 140,915 | – | 140,915 | | Trade and other payables | (1,379,883) | (92,782) | (1,472,665) | (1,399,193) | – | (1,399,193) | | Provisions | (267,226) | (6,723) | (273,949) | (900,706) | – | (900,706) | | Long term trade and other payables | (290,362) | (2,811) | (293,173) | (290,261) | – | (290,261) | | Pensions Liability | (332) | – | (332) | (353) | – | (353) | | Total Assets Less Liabilities | 19,541 | 80,153 | 99,694 | (528,229) | – | (528,229) |
| General fund | (170,781) | 71,204 | (99,577) | (786,592) | – | (786,592) | | Revaluation reserve | 190,654 | 8,949 | 199,603 | 258,716 | – | 258,716 | | Pensions reserve | (332) | – | (332) | (353) | – | (353) | | Total | 19,541 | 80,153 | 99,694 | (528,229) | – | (528,229) |
Notes (1) Core Home Office excludes HM Passport Office for 2013-14. (2) HM Passport Office results for 2013-14. (3) Combined total for Core Home Office and HM Passport Office for 2013-14. (4) Core Home Office, including HM Passport Office for the second half of 2014-15. (5) HM Passport Office results for the first six months of 2014-15. (6) Combined total for Core Home Office and HM Passport Office for 2014-15. Balances transferred from HM Passport to the Home Office
On 1 October 2014, the following balances were transferred from HM Passport Office to the Core Home Office as a result of the internal restructure.
| Statement of Financial Position | £000 | |---------------------------------|------| | Property, plant and equipment | 59,133 | | Intangible assets | 84,259 | | Inventories | 3,337 | | Trade and other receivables | 4,761 | | Trade and other payables | (68,445) | | Provisions | (6,705) | | Long term trade and other payables | (2,432) | | **Total Assets Less Liabilities** | **73,908** |
General fund 65,583 Revaluation reserve 8,325 Total 73,908 26. Machinery of Government and group designation changes
On 9 April 2014 the Prime Minister announced that the Gangmasters Licencing Authority (GLA), which had previously been part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, would become part of the Home Office.
In 2014-15, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) carried out a review of the designation of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), a Non-Departmental Public Body of the Home Office. This review determined that DBS should instead be classified as a Public Corporation, and that this should be applied retrospectively to transactions made and balances held by DBS.
| Impact on Core Department & Agencies | GLA | DBS | Impact on Departmental Group | |-------------------------------------|-----|-----|-----------------------------| | 2013-14 | 2013-14 | 2013-14 | 2013-14 | | Operating costs: | | | | | Administrative staff costs | – | 574 | (7,568) | (6,994) | | Other Administrative costs | – | 227 | 1,520 | 1,747 | | Administration income | – | – | 6,048 | 6,048 | | Programme staff costs | – | 2,259| (16,758) | (14,499)| | Other Programme costs | – | 1,259| (108,756) | (107,497)| | Programme income | – | (3,734)| 123,150 | 119,416 | | Grant-in-Aid (GLA) | 1,270| (1,270)| – | – | | Total | 1,270| (685) | (2,364) | (1,779) |
Statement of Financial Position
| Property, plant and equipment | – | 46 | (1,713) | (1,667) | | Intangible assets | – | 620 | (34,274) | (33,654)| | Trade and other receivables | – | 90 | (13,563) | (13,473)| | Cash and cash equivalents | – | 709 | (12,261) | (11,552)| | Trade and other payables | – | (668)| 17,197 | 16,529 | | Provisions | – | – | 1,040 | 1,040 | | Long term trade and other payables | – | (39) | 11,135 | 11,096 | | Total Assets Less Liabilities | – | 758 | (32,439) | (31,681)|
| General fund | – | 468 | (32,074) | (31,606)| | Revaluation reserve | – | 290 | (365) | (75) | | Total | – | 758 | (32,439) | (31,681)| Statement of Financial Position:
| Property, plant and equipment | – | 81 | (2,262) | (2,181) | | Intangible assets | – | 743 | (24,633) | (23,890) | | Trade and other receivables | – | 79 | (20,938) | (20,859) | | Cash and cash equivalents | – | 980 | (16,141) | (15,161) | | Trade and other payables | – | (927) | 13,133 | 12,206 | | Provisions | – | – | 1,137 | 1,137 | | Long term trade and other payables | – | (57) | – | (57) | | **Total Assets Less Liabilities** | – | 899 | (49,704) | (48,805) |
| General fund | – | 618 | (48,627) | (48,009) | | Revaluation reserve | – | 281 | (1,077) | (796) | | **Total** | – | 899 | (49,704) | (48,805) |
2013-14 Statement of Parliamentary Supply
The 2013-14 numbers reported in the Statement of Parliamentary Supply have not been restated to take account of the Machinery of Government and group designation changes mentioned above, as the amounts involved are not material. If the 2013-14 numbers had been restated, they would have had the following impact on the 2013-14 outturn:
| Resource DEL | 2013-14 | 2013-14 | 2013-14 | | GLA | DBS | GLA | DBS | GLA | DBS | | Administration costs | 801 | – | 801 | | Programme costs | (216) | (2,364) | (2,580) | | **Total Resource DEL** | 585 | (2,364) | (1,779) |
| Resource AME | – | (877) | (877) | | **Total Resource** | 585 | (3,241) | (2,656) |
| Net cash requirement | 1,270 | – | 1,270 |
| Capital DEL | 44 | (8,166) | (8,122) | | Capital AME | – | – | – | | **Total Capital** | 44 | (8,166) | (8,122) |
In addition to the changes mentioned above, the National Fraud Authority ceased operations on 31 March 2014 with assets transferred to the City of London Police on 1 April 2014. As the amounts involved with this transfer were immaterial, the results of the prior year have not been restated. 27. Events after the Reporting Period
The Police ICT Company was launched on 1 April 2015. The company will aim to support and enable policing and other associated bodies to make best use of technology to deliver effective and efficient policing and improve public safety.
John Hayes was appointed Minister of State for Security on Monday 11 May.
Lord Ahmad was appointed as Minister for Countering Extremism on 13 May 2015 (jointly with the Department for Transport).
These financial statements were authorised for issue on the same date that the Comptroller and Auditor General signed his certificate.
## ANNEX – Core Tables
### HOME OFFICE
**Total departmental spending 2009-10 to 2015-16**
| Table 1 – Public Spending | £’000 | |---------------------------|-------| | | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | | **Resource DEL** | | | | | | | | | Crime and Policing Group | 5,642,682 | 9,139,314 | 8,881,331 | 8,262,650 | 8,345,349 | 8,602,371 | 8,161,404 | | Office for Security and Counter Terrorism | 814,501 | 807,786 | 880,553 | 970,908 | 695,834 | 701,265 | 718,634 | | UK Border Agency | 1,713,561 | 1,704,436 | 1,311,786 | 608,651 | - | - | - | | Immigration Enforcement | - | - | - | - | 437,606 | 437,487 | 432,103 | | UK Visas & Immigration | - | - | - | - | -253,235 | -187,800 | -448,262 | | International & Immigration Policy | - | - | - | - | 35,744 | 34,793 | 32,040 | | Border Force | - | - | - | - | 611,243 | 507,933 | 518,987 | | HM Passport Office | 90,439 | 5,002 | -43,245 | -69,836 | -54,868 | -59,075 | -130,478 | | Enablers | 251,147 | 195,492 | 166,444 | 350,157 | 769,491 | 825,643 | 678,037 | | Arms Length Bodies (Net) | 436,620 | 421,820 | 413,144 | 238,320 | 75,617 | 106,123 | 122,330 | | National Fraud Authority | 3,943 | 4,021 | 5,995 | 8,809 | 11,830 | - | - | | Area Based Grants | 80,925 | 71,243 | 66,909 | 28,751 | - | - | - | | European Solidarity Mechanism | -1 | - | - | 908 | - | - | 1 | | Criminal Records Bureau | -4,616 | 1,527 | 270 | -14,783 | - | - | - | | **Total Resource DEL** | 9,029,201 | 12,350,641 | 11,683,187 | 10,995,778 | 10,571,301 | 10,979,794 | 10,053,109 |
Of which:
- **Staff costs**
- 1,314,069
- 1,389,038
- 1,268,011
- 1,250,769
- 1,324,756
- 1,345,838
- 1,316,392
- **Purchase of goods and services**
- 1,995,000
- 2,212,994
- 1,795,940
- 1,983,369
- 1,972,319
- 2,131,748
- 2,090,920
- **Income from sales of goods and services**
- -1,173,552
- -1,369,732
- -1,194,189
- -1,209,861
- -1,361,206
- -1,214,943
- -1,673,097
- **Current grants to local government (net)**
- 6,414,746
- 9,903,879
- 9,537,501
- 9,044,789
- 8,670,253
- 8,901,629
- 8,469,606
- **Current grants to persons and non-profit bodies (net)**
- 446,340
- 124,731
- 178,019
- 44,389
- 30,107
- 37,975
- 168,257
- **Current grants abroad (net)**
- -13,556
- -18,730
- -28,689
- -42,895
- -2,858
- -42,823
- -93,280
- **Subsidies to private sector companies**
- -
- -
- -
- 272,020
- 4,587
- 3,055
- -
- **Rentals**
- 308,680
- -
- 278,027
- 100,417
- 66,678
- 110,805
- 27,200
- **Depreciation**
- 161,952
- 444,216
- 176,151
- 202,478
- 232,382
- 235,631
- 217,688
- **Take up of provisions**
- -
- -
- 11,754
- -
- -
- -
| | 2009-10 Outturn | 2010-11 Outturn | 2011-12 Outturn | 2012-13 Outturn | 2013-14 Outturn | 2014-15 Outturn | 2015-16 Plans | |----------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|---------------| | Other resource | -424,478 | -335,755 | -339,338 | -649,697 | -365,717 | -529,121 | -468,487 | | Unallocated funds - | | | | | | | -2,090 | | resource | | | | | | | | | Resource AME | | | | | | | | | AME Charges | -102,713 | 179,006 | 1,424 | 2,935 | 95,998 | -41,709 | 6,135 | | Police Superannuation| 754,193 | 720,594 | 1,059,297 | 1,232,860 | 1,286,042 | 1,883,758 | 1,318,864 | | AME Charges Arms | 28,138 | 14,708 | 7,454 | -3,368 | - | - | 1 | | Length Bodies (Net) | | | | | | | | | Total Resource AME | 679,618 | 914,308 | 1,068,175 | 1,232,427 | 1,382,040 | 1,842,049 | 1,325,000 | | Of which: | | | | | | | | | Current grants to local government (net) | 763,262 | 728,336 | 1,066,899 | 1,239,647 | 1,284,844 | 1,429,975 | 1,324,999 | | Net public service pensions | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Depreciation ¹ | 30,126 | 69,750 | 7,803 | 7 | 194 | 7,207 | - | | Take up of provisions| 39,420 | 117,418 | 83,146 | 42,454 | 137,162 | 491,254 | 1 | | Release of provision | -152,839 | -1,196 | -90,126 | -49,962 | -49,603 | -86,570 | - | | Other resource | -351 | - | 453 | 281 | 9,443 | 141 | - | | Total Resource Budget| 9,708,819 | 13,264,949 | 12,751,362 | 12,228,205 | 11,953,341 | 12,821,843 | 11,378,109 | | Of which: | | | | | | | | | Depreciation ¹ | 192,078 | 513,966 | 183,954 | 202,485 | 232,576 | 242,838 | 217,688 | | Capital DEL | | | | | | | | | Crime and Policing Group | 284,949 | 261,641 | 105,853 | 137,671 | 125,971 | 145,118 | 112,300 | | Office for Security and Counter Terrorism | 206,824 | 153,103 | 92,103 | 77,124 | 64,292 | 78,375 | 86,420 | | UK Border Agency | 182,750 | 163,333 | 173,188 | 86,970 | - | - | - | | Immigration Enforcement | - | - | - | - | 4,482 | 2,685 | 500 | | UK Visas & Immigration | - | - | - | - | 9,356 | 1,688 | 3,000 | | International & Immigration Policy | - | - | - | - | 8,618 | 4,706 | 1,500 | | Border Force | - | - | - | 53,430 | 54,719 | 43,562 | 50,200 | | HM Passport Office | 111,382 | 67,295 | 23,272 | 19,341 | 11,441 | 24,715 | 15,000 | | Enablers | 2,633 | -2,497 | 34,003 | 22,020 | 57,878 | 59,568 | 80,300 | | Arms Length Bodies (Net) | 151,270 | 56,943 | 28,450 | 17,889 | 25,972 | 12,334 | 14,100 | | National Fraud Authority | 274 | 67 | 207 | - | - | - | - | | Area Based Grants | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Criminal Records Bureau | 354 | 4,054 | 1,931 | - | - | - | - | | Total Capital DEL | 940,436 | 703,939 | 459,007 | 414,445 | 362,729 | 372,751 | 363,320 | | | 2009-10 Outturn | 2010-11 Outturn | 2011-12 Outturn | 2012-13 Outturn | 2013-14 Outturn | 2014-15 Outturn | 2015-16 Plans | |--------------------------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|---------------| | **Of which:** | | | | | | | | | Capital support for local | 317,455 | 285,971 | 173,640 | 174,462 | 150,013 | 191,742 | 133,300 | | government (net) | | | | | | | | | Capital grants to persons & | -1,564 | -10 | - | 1,108 | -5 | 9 | 500 | | non-profit bodies (net) | | | | | | | | | Capital grants to private | 46,168 | 22,950 | 28,236 | 18,132 | 19,951 | 24,169 | 29,200 | | sector companies (net) | | | | | | | | | Capital support for public | - | 28,700 | - | - | - | - | - | | corporations | | | | | | | | | Purchase of assets | 527,717 | 301,862 | 243,988 | 199,170 | 174,845 | 194,778 | 217,166 | | Income from sales of assets | -4,181 | -4,391 | -4,507 | - | -2,065 | -29,553 | -23,000 | | Other capital | 54,841 | 68,857 | 17,650 | 21,573 | 19,990 | -8,394 | 19,220 | | **Capital AME** | | | | | | | | | **Of which:** | | | | | | | | | Total Capital Budget | 940,436 | 703,939 | 459,007 | 414,445 | 362,729 | 372,751 | 363,320 | | **Total departmental spending**| 10,457,177 | 13,454,922 | 13,026,415 | 12,440,165 | 12,083,494 | 12,951,756 | 11,523,741 | | of which: | | | | | | | | | Total DEL | 9,807,685 | 12,610,364 | 11,966,043 | 11,207,745 | 10,701,648 | 11,116,914 | 10,198,741 | | Total AME | 649,492 | 844,558 | 1,060,372 | 1,232,420 | 1,381,846 | 1,834,842 | 1,325,000 |
1 Includes impairments 2 Pension schemes report under FRS 17 accounting requirements. These figures therefore include cash payments made and contributions received, as well as certain non-cash items. 3 Total departmental spending is the sum of the resource budget and the capital budget less depreciation. Similarly, total DEL is the sum of the resource budget DEL and capital budget DEL less depreciation in DEL, and total AME is the sum of resource budget AME and capital budget AME less depreciation in AME. 4 The numbers in this table cannot always be reconciled to the numbers in the accounts because they are taken at a different point in time from OSCAR, the HMT’s database. We strive to ensure that they are taken as close to the date of the accounts as possible. These numbers were taken as at 22 May 2015.
## Table 2 – Public Spending Control, Outturn year, 2013-14
| | 2014-15 Original Plans | 2014-15 Adjusted Plans† | 2014-15 Final Plans | 2014-15 OUTTURN | |----------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|---------------------|----------------| | | Resource | Capital | Resource | Capital | Resource | Capital | Resource | Capital | | **Spending in** | | | | | | | | | | **Departmental** | | | | | | | | | | **Expenditure Limits (DEL)** | | | | | | | | | | **Voted expenditure**| | | | | | | | | | Of which: | | | | | | | | | | Crime and Policing Group | 8,496,997 | 127,500 | 8,496,997 | 127,500 | 8,630,053 | 146,274 | 8,711,548 | 145,118 | | Office for Security and Counter Terrorism | 684,296 | 102,182 | 684,296 | 102,182 | 707,070 | 81,075 | 701,265 | 78,375 | | Immigration Enforcement | 443,494 | - | 443,494 | - | 462,199 | 2,800 | 437,487 | 2,685 | | UK Visas & Immigration | -264,728 | 6,000 | -264,728 | 6,000 | -254,084 | 8,000 | -187,800 | 1,688 | | International & Immigration Policy | 37,264 | 6,000 | 37,264 | 6,000 | 36,980 | 6,000 | 38,720 | 4,706 | | Border Force | 519,184 | 75,400 | 519,184 | 75,400 | 522,789 | 57,360 | 518,987 | 43,562 | | Her Majesty’s Passport Office | 3,000 | 18,450 | 3,000 | 18,450 | -25,854 | 18,491 | -59,075 | 24,715 | | Enablers | 696,110 | 44,950 | 696,110 | 44,950 | 945,753 | 49,400 | 712,539 | 59,568 | | Arms Length Bodies (Net) | 114,093 | 39,900 | 114,093 | 39,900 | 111,424 | 21,175 | 106,123 | 12,334 | | European Solidarity Mechanism (Net) | 1 | - | 1 | - | 1 | - | - | - | | Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) | 100 | - | 100 | - | - | - | - | - | | **Total Spending in DEL** | 10,729,811 | 420,382 | 10,729,811 | 420,382 | 11,136,331 | 390,575 | 10,979,794 | 372,751 |
## Spending in Annually Managed Expenditure (AME)
| | 2014-15 | 2014-15 | 2014-15 | 2014-15 | |----------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | | Resource | Capital | Resource | Capital | | **Voted expenditure**| 1,378,222 | - | 1,378,222 | - | | | 2,117,222 | - | 2,062,049 | - | | | 2014-15 Original Plans | 2014-15 Adjusted Plans† | 2014-15 Final Plans | 2014-15 OUTTURN | |----------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|---------------------|----------------| | | Resource | Capital | Resource | Capital | Resource | Capital | Resource | Capital | | AME Charges | 3,682 | - | 3,682 | - | -76,319 | - | -41,709 | - | | Police Superannuation| 1,374,540 | - | 1,374,540| - | 2,193,540| - | 2,103,758| - | | AME Charges | - | - | - | - | 1 | - | - | - | | Arms Length Bodies (Net) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | **Total Spending in AME** | 1,378,222 | - | 1,378,222| - | 2,117,222| - | 2,062,049| - | | **Total** | 12,108,033| 420,382 | 12,108,033| 420,382 | 13,253,553| 390,575 | 13,041,843| - |
† Figures for Adjusted Plans have been adjusted for machinery of government changes effected during 2014 to reflect the Final Plans structure where applicable.
The numbers in this table cannot always be reconciled to the numbers in the accounts because they are taken at a different point in time from OSCAR, the HMT’s database. We strive to ensure that they are taken as close to the date of the accounts as possible. These numbers were taken as at 22 May 2015.
### Table 3 – Capital Employed
| HOME OFFICE | 2009-10 outturn | 2010-11 outturn | 2011-12 outturn | 2012-13 outturn | 2013-14 outturn | 2014-15 outturn | 2015-16 plans | |-------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|---------------| | **Assets and liabilities on the statement of financial position at end of year:** | | | | | | | | | **Assets** | | | | | | | | | **Non-current assets** | | | | | | | | | Intangible | 108,803 | 223,051 | 283,437 | 398,451 | 487,538 | 458,579 | 435,650 | | Tangible | 1,177,624 | 1,170,331 | 940,547 | 927,292 | 1,089,425 | 1,057,926 | 1,005,030 | | of which: | | | | | | | | | Land and buildings | 641,366 | 559,415 | 536,892 | 550,353 | 607,886 | 663,800 | 630,610 | | Plant and machinery | 71,739 | 63,607 | 132,464 | 128,353 | 213,541 | 189,319 | 179,853 | | Vehicles | 21,343 | 13,561 | 13,709 | 11,486 | 17,422 | 16,996 | 16,146 | | Information Technology | 65,745 | 90,561 | 116,983 | 107,686 | 119,588 | 89,683 | 85,199 | | Furniture and Fittings | 28,664 | 23,998 | 21,653 | 20,170 | 10,478 | 9,948 | 9,451 | | Payment on Account and Assets under Construction | 348,767 | 419,189 | 118,846 | 109,244 | 120,510 | 88,180 | 83,771 | | Other | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Investments | 18,068 | 18,068 | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | | **Current Assets** | 651,528 | 803,131 | 525,458 | 419,575 | 561,420 | 546,559 | 519,231 | | **Liabilities** | | | | | | | | | Payables (\<1 year) | -1,445,927 | -1,431,338 | -1,392,610 | -1,434,247 | -1,472,678 | -1,403,624 | -1,333,381 | | Payables (>1 year) | -307,456 | -299,950 | -301,171 | -290,709 | -293,173 | -289,553 | -274,740 | | Provisions | -234,803 | -87,658 | -190,381 | -180,297 | -273,949 | -680,459 | -855,771 | | **Capital employed within core department** | -32,163 | 395,635 | -134,719 | -159,934 | 98,293 | -310,572 | -503,982 | | ALB net assets | -30,077 | -166,359 | 8,290 | -24,122 | 38,734 | 41,232 | 39,170 | | **Total capital employed in departmental group** | -62,240 | 229,276 | -126,429 | -184,056 | 137,027 | -269,340 | -464,811 | | Resource DEL | 2009-10 Outturn | 2010-11 Outturn | 2011-12 Outturn | 2012-13 Outturn | 2013-14 Outturn | 2014-15 Outturn | 2015-16 Plans | |--------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|---------------| | Crime and Policing Group | 32,143 | 39,576 | 34,191 | 38,546 | 42,928 | 16,354 | 41,209 | | Office for Security and Counter Terrorism | 57,028 | 56,557 | 54,599 | 48,444 | 52,309 | 49,109 | 50,336 | | UK Border Agency | 236,310 | 240,748 | 160,911 | 106,910 | - | - | - | | Immigration Enforcement | - | - | - | - | 9,079 | 8,581 | 7,821 | | UK Visas & Immigration | - | - | - | - | 14,726 | 29,588 | 16,072 | | International & Immigration Policy | - | - | - | - | 23,917 | 21,378 | 22,411 | | Border Force | - | - | - | 21,675 | 2,569 | 2,224 | 2,300 | | HM Passport Office | 47,579 | 2,631 | 5,381 | 3,463 | 4,120 | 1,585 | -9,721 | | Enablers | 226,696 | 179,881 | 146,479 | 180,730 | 308,357 | 343,162 | 224,772 | | Arms Length Bodies (Net) | 80,791 | 71,685 | 64,471 | 48,987 | 20,763 | 32,763 | 22,965 | | National Fraud Authority | 3,943 | - | 861 | 583 | 639 | - | - | | Criminal Records Bureau | -4,616 | 6,269 | 6,472 | -29 | - | - | - | | **Total administration budget** | **679,874** | **597,347** | **473,365** | **449,309** | **479,407** | **504,744** | **378,165** |
**Of which:**
- **Staff costs**
- 231,637
- 239,263
- 278,194
- 293,676
- 288,186
- 271,056
- 245,069
- **Purchase of goods and services**
- 428,724
- 479,399
- 166,387
- 135,439
- 136,672
- 202,806
- 177,437
- **Income from sales of goods and services**
- -156,484
- -145,913
- -85,024
- -21,313
- -21,879
- -15,777
- -23,559
- **Current grants to local government (net)**
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -26
- 1
- -
- **Current grants to persons and non-profit bodies (net)**
- -
- -
- 7
- 89
- 146
- -
- **Current grants abroad (net)**
- -367
- -
- -865
- -
- 20
- -
- -
- **Rentals**
- 155,345
- -
- 89,398
- 102,664
- 117,522
- 101,950
- 29,600
- **Depreciation**
- 6,532
- 13,118
- 12,050
- 10,378
- 11,575
- 23,434
- 6,200
- **Take up of provisions**
- -
- -
- 10,924
- -
- -
- -
- -
- **Other resource**
- 14,487
- 11,480
- 2,301
- -71,542
- -52,752
- -78,872
- -54,492
- **Unallocated funds – resource**
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -2,090
The numbers in this table cannot always be reconciled to the numbers in the accounts because they are taken at a different point in time from OSCAR, the HMT’s database. We strive to ensure that they are taken as close to the date of the accounts as possible. These numbers were taken as at 22 May 2015.
### Table 5 – Staff in Post
**Home Office Staff Numbers – Headcount Full Time Equivalent 2012-13 to 2014-15**
| | 2012-13 Outturn | 2013-14 Outturn | 2014-15 Outturn | 30.5.2014 NFA6 | 2014-15 Leavers | |----------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|----------------|----------------| | **Home Office – Core** | | | | | | | Civil Servants Paid | 11,152 | 22,246 | 27,825 | -1,199 | | | Civil Servants Unpaid| 700 | 1,330 | 1,509 | -673 | | | Non Civil Servants | 604 | 2,752 | 2,222 | | | | **Total** | 12,456 | 26,328 | 31,556 | -1,872 | | | **United Kingdom Border Agency** | | | | | | | Civil Servants Paid | 10,426 | - | - | | | | Civil Servants Unpaid| 469 | - | - | | | | Non Civil Servants | 1,372 | - | - | | | | **Total** | 12,267 | - | - | | | | **HM Passport Office** | | | | | | | Civil Servants Paid | 3,180 | 3,361 | - | | | | Civil Servants Unpaid| 99 | 108 | - | | | | Non-Civil Servants | 5 | - | - | | | | **Total** | 3,134 | 3,284 | 3,469 | | | | **National Fraud Authority** | | | | | | | Civil Servants Paid | 46 | \*\* | - | - | -\*\* | | Civil Servants Unpaid| 4 | - | - | | | | Non Civil Servants | 0 | \*\* | - | - | -\*\* | | **Total** | 50 | 9 | - | - | -9 |
### Key workforce changes during 2014-15:
| | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 30.5.2014 | 2014-15 | |----------------------|---------|---------|---------|-----------|---------| | **Total Home Office including Agencies** | | | | | | | Civil Servants Paid | 24,804 | 25,609 | 27,825 | -1,199 | | | Civil Servants Unpaid| 1,271 | 1,437 | 1,509 | -673 | | | Non Civil Servants | 1,981 | 2,760 | 2,222 | - | | | Unknown | 81 | 73 | 71 | - | | | **Total** | 28,137 | 29,879 | 31,627 | -1,872 | | | **Non Departmental Public Bodies** | | | | | | | Paid Staff | 5,293 | 1,457 | 1,818 | | | | Unpaid Staff | 82 | 17 | 14 | | | | Agency/Contractors | 167 | 62 | 92 | | | | **Total** | 5,542 | 1,537 | 1,924 | | | | **Total Home Office including Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies** | | | | | | | **Grand Total** | 33,679 | 31,416 | 33,551 | | |
**Notes:**
01. This information has been extracted from Data View, the Department’s single source of Office for National Statistics (ONS) compliant monthly snapshot corporate Human Resources data.
02. Outturn figures are accurate as at 31 March of each year and include all current employees on that date.
03. Figures are subject to rounding +/- 1.
04. Staff numbers are National Statistics published on the ONS website and have been collated on a different basis to the staff numbers in note (7) in the main body of the annual accounts, which are based on average numbers for the financial year 2014-15.
05. Figures are reported using ONS Definitions:
- Civil Servants Paid includes permanent, temporary, fixed-term appointments (FTA), incoming loans paid (Other Government Departments (OGD)), outgoing loans paid (OGD) and outgoing secondments paid (Non-OGD).
- Civil Servants Unpaid includes permanent unpaid, temporary unpaid, FTA unpaid, incoming loans unpaid (OGD) and outgoing loans unpaid (OGD).
- Non-Civil Servants includes agency employees, incoming secondments unpaid (Non-OGD) and contractors non-paid.
06. National Fraud Authority closed on 31st March 2014, 9 (FTE) staff remained to facilitate the winding up of its business, moving on to other areas of the Home Office by 30th May 2014.
07. Home Office no longer has any Executive Agencies. United Kingdom Border Agency ceased Agency status on 1st April 2013 with 12,268 (FTE) staff moved in to core Home Office. 3,578 HM Passport Office staff moved in to core Home Office on 1st October 2014.
08. Figures for HM Passport Office for unpaid civil servants and non civil servants have been merged, as the FTE of non civil servants is less than 5.
09. Figures for the National Fraud Authority for paid civil servants and non civil servants and for paid and unpaid civil servant staff moving to other Home Office areas, have been redacted and replaced with \*\* to prevent the disclosure of figures less than 5.
10. Unknown: these employees were moving between businesses within the department at 31 March each year.
11. The Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are:
- Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS);
- Gangmaster Licensing Authority (GLA);
- Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC);
- Office of the Immigration Service Commissioner (OISC);
- Security Industry Authority (SIA)
The DBS are included in this staff table as an NDPB but for the purposes of the accounts they are not included. Country and Regional Analysis – Core Tables 6, 7 & 8
1. **Tables 6, 7 and 8** show analyses of the department’s spending by country and region, and by function. The data presented in these tables are consistent with the country and regional analyses (CRA) published by HM Treasury in the *November 2014 release*. The figures were largely taken from the Online System for Central Accounting and Reporting (OSCAR) during the summer of 2014 and the regional distributions were completed by the following autumn (taking on board any revisions to departmental totals). Please note that totals may not sum due to rounding.
2. The analyses are set within the overall framework of Total Expenditure on Services (TES). TES broadly represents the current and capital expenditure of the public sector, with some differences from the national accounts measure Total Managed Expenditure. The tables show the central government and public corporation elements of TES. They include current and capital spending by the department and its NDPBs, and public corporations’ capital expenditure, but do not include capital finance to public corporations. They do not include payments to local authorities or local authorities own expenditure.
3. TES is a cash equivalent measure of public spending. The tables do not include depreciation, cost of capital charges, or movements in provisions that are in departmental budgets. They do include pay, procurement, capital expenditure, and grants and subsidies to individuals and private sector enterprises. Further information on TES can be found in Appendix E of *PESA 2014*.
4. The data feature both identifiable and non-identifiable spending: a. Identifiable expenditure on services – which is capable of being analysed as being for the benefit of individual countries and regions. b. Expenditure that is incurred for the benefit of the UK as a whole and cannot be disseminated by individual country or region is considered to be non-identifiable.
5. Across government, most expenditure is not planned or allocated on a regional basis. Social security payments, for example, are paid to eligible individuals irrespective of where they live. Expenditure on other programmes is allocated by looking at how all the projects across the department’s area of responsibility, usually England, compare. So the analyses show the regional outcome of spending decisions that on the whole have not been made primarily on a regional basis.
6. The functional analyses of spending in **Table 8** are based on the United Nations Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG), the international standard. The presentations of spending by function are consistent with those used in Chapter A of the CRA November 2014 release. These are not the same as the strategic priorities shown elsewhere in the report.
### Table 6
Total identifiable expenditure on services by country and region, 2009-10 to 2013-14
| Home Office | National Statistics | £ million | |------------------------------|---------------------|-----------| | | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | | North East | 56 | 40 | 41 | 51 | 57 | | North West | 156 | 113 | 112 | 138 | 154 | | Yorkshire and the Humber | 110 | 80 | 81 | 101 | 110 | | East Midlands | 85 | 62 | 64 | 82 | 87 | | West Midlands | 118 | 86 | 86 | 107 | 120 | | East | 109 | 79 | 81 | 104 | 110 | | London | 264 | 194 | 184 | 211 | 262 | | South East | 161 | 117 | 120 | 154 | 164 | | South West | 98 | 71 | 74 | 95 | 100 | | Total England | 1,157 | 841 | 842 | 1,044 | 1,164 | | Scotland | 34 | 24 | 30 | 49 | 37 | | Wales | 62 | 45 | 45 | 57 | 61 | | Northern Ireland | 12 | 8 | 10 | 17 | 13 | | UK identifiable expenditure | 1,265 | 918 | 928 | 1,167 | 1,275 | | Outside UK | - | - | - | - | - | | Total identifiable expenditure | 1,265 | 918 | 928 | 1,167 | 1,275 | | Non-identifiable expenditure | 2,197 | 1,769 | 1,663 | 1,529 | 977 | | Total expenditure on services| 3,462 | 2,687 | 2,591 | 2,695 | 2,252 |
### Table 7
Total identifiable expenditure on services by country and region, per head 2009-10 to 2013-14
| Home Office | National Statistics | £ per head | |------------------------------|---------------------|------------| | | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | | North East | 22 | 16 | 16 | 20 | 22 | | North West | 22 | 16 | 16 | 19 | 22 | | Yorkshire and the Humber | 21 | 15 | 15 | 19 | 21 | | East Midlands | 19 | 14 | 14 | 18 | 19 | | West Midlands | 21 | 15 | 15 | 19 | 21 | | East | 19 | 14 | 14 | 18 | 19 | | London | 33 | 24 | 22 | 25 | 31 | | South East | 19 | 14 | 14 | 18 | 19 | | South West | 19 | 13 | 14 | 18 | 19 | | England | 22 | 16 | 16 | 20 | 22 | | Scotland | 7 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 7 | | Wales | 21 | 15 | 15 | 18 | 20 | | Northern Ireland | 6 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 7 | | UK identifiable expenditure per head | 20 | 15 | 15 | 18 | 20 | 1
30
56
56
3.3 Law courts
3.4 Prisons
3.5 R&D public order and safety
3.6 Public order and safety not elsewhere.classified.
Total public order and safety
TOTAL HOME OFFICE EXPENDITURE ON SERVICES
25
-
25
North East
3.2 Fire-protection services
of which: other police services
of which: immigration and citizenship
3.1 Police services
3. Public order and safety
Home Office
North West
178 153
153
81
4
68
-
68
Yorkshire and The Humber 110
110
58
3
49
-
49
East Midlands 87
87
46
2
39
-
39
West Midlands 119
119
63
3
53
-
53
East 110
110
58
3
49
-
49
London 262
262
138
7
117
-
117
164
164
87
4
73
-
73
South East
National Statistics
614
30
-
-
-
517
-
517
England
100 1,161
100 1,161
53
3
44
-
44
South West
Scotland 37
37
20
1
-
-
-
16
-
16
Wales 61
61
32
2
-
-
-
27
-
27
Northern Ireland 13
13
7
0
-
-
-
6
-
6
## Outside UK
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
£ million
673
33
-
-
-
566
977
977 2,249
977 2,249
-
-
-
-
-
-
977
977 1,543
Not Identifiable
Expenditure on services by sub-function, 2013-14
Grand Total
Table 8
Home Office Annual Report and Accounts 2014-15
## Glossary
| Acronym | Description | |---------|-------------| | ACMD | Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs | | ACS | Approved Contractor Scheme | | ALBs | Arm's Length Bodies | | AME | Annually Managed Expenditure | | ARAC | Audit and Risk Assurance Committee | | BME | Black and Minority Ethnic | | CAESER | Corporate Assessment of Environmental, Social & Economic Responsibility | | CBI | Confederation of British Industry | | CCL | Consultancy & Contingent Labour | | CETV | Cash Equivalent Transfer Value | | CIA | Chief Internal Auditor | | CJS | Criminal Justice System | | CMIP | Contract Management Improvement Plan | | CPS | Crown Prosecution Service | | CS | Corporate Security | | CSA | Chief Scientific Adviser | | CSA | Child Sexual Abuse | | CTRIU | Counter-Terrorism Internet referral Unit | | DBS | The Disclosure and Barring Service | | DCLG | Department for Communities and Local Government | | DRD | Data Retention Directive | | DRIPA | Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act | | DSAB | Digital Services at the Border | | DSB | Diversity Strategy Board | | DUP | Departmental Unallocated Provision | | DVLA | Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency | | EEA | European Economic Area | | EMB | Executive Management Board | | ETS | Educational Testing Service | | FNOs | Foreign National Offenders | | FOI | Freedom of Information (FOI) | | FReM | Financial Reporting Manual | | FTE | Full Time Equivalent | | GBS | Government Buying Standards | | GGC | Greening Government Commitments | | GLA | Gangmasters Licensing Authority | | GRAA | Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 | | HMPO | Her Majesty’s Passport Office | | HMRC | HM Revenue and Customs | | HO | Home Office | | HODS | Home Office Disability Support Network | | IA | Information Assurance | | IA | Internal Audit | | IAOs | Information Asset Owners | | IAU | Internal Audit Unit | | ICIBI | Independent Chief Inspector of Borders & Immigration | | ICT | Information Communications Technology | | IE | Immigration Enforcement | | IPCC | Independent Police Complaints Commission | | ISC | Intelligence and Security Committee | | ISIL | Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant | | ITTs | Invitations To Tender | | JESIP | Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme | | LGBT | Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender | | MoG | Machinery of Government | | NCA | The National Crime Agency | NDPBs Non-Departmental Public Bodies NED Non-Executive Director NGC Nominations and Governance Committee NGSVCV National Group on Sexual Violence against Children and Vulnerable People OCPA Office of Commissioner for Public Appointments OISC Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner ONS Office for National Statistics PAC Public Accounts Committee IPCC Independent Police Complaints Commission PCC Police and Crime Commissioners PCC Police Complaints Commission PCPF Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund PHSO Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman PIC Portfolio and Investment Committee PIF Police Innovation Fund PIPU Police Integrity and Powers Unit PSRU Police Strategy and Reform Unit PSTU Police Science and Technology Unit QDS Quarterly Data Summary SB Supervisory Board SCS Senior Civil Servant SELT Secure English Language Test SIA Security Industry Authority SIO Specified Information Order SIRO Senior Information Risk Owner SLGRS Senior Leadership Group on Risk and Safety SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises SoPS Statement of Parliamentary Supply SPL Shared Parental Leave SR13 Spending Round 2013 SSRB Senior Salaries Review Body tCO2e tonnes of carbon dioxide TPIMS Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures UKVI UK Visas and Immigration VFM Value for Money
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3106-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 184,
"total-input-tokens": 424059,
"total-output-tokens": 150523,
"total-fallback-pages": 1
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
70,
1
],
[
70,
482,
2
],
[
482,
727,
3
],
[
727,
2025,
4
],
[
2025,
2025,
5
],
[
2025,
4702,
6
],
[
4702,
8397,
7
],
[
8397,
11710,
8
],
[
11710,
15698,
9
],
[
15698,
18234,
10
],
[
18234,
19019,
11
],
[
19019,
22775,
12
],
[
22775,
25411,
13
],
[
25411,
29029,
14
],
[
29029,
33938,
15
],
[
33938,
37932,
16
],
[
37932,
42603,
17
],
[
42603,
45171,
18
],
[
45171,
49680,
19
],
[
49680,
54088,
20
],
[
54088,
58120,
21
],
[
58120,
62214,
22
],
[
62214,
66642,
23
],
[
66642,
67690,
24
],
[
67690,
70296,
25
],
[
70296,
73254,
26
],
[
73254,
74931,
27
],
[
74931,
75949,
28
],
[
75949,
78811,
29
],
[
78811,
81839,
30
],
[
81839,
85336,
31
],
[
85336,
89374,
32
],
[
89374,
90593,
33
],
[
90593,
93396,
34
],
[
93396,
95600,
35
],
[
95600,
99321,
36
],
[
99321,
102593,
37
],
[
102593,
105593,
38
],
[
105593,
109245,
39
],
[
109245,
112575,
40
],
[
112575,
115088,
41
],
[
115088,
118237,
42
],
[
118237,
122270,
43
],
[
122270,
125580,
44
],
[
125580,
129538,
45
],
[
129538,
132078,
46
],
[
132078,
134255,
47
],
[
134255,
136026,
48
],
[
136026,
136870,
49
],
[
136870,
137704,
50
],
[
137704,
141438,
51
],
[
141438,
145532,
52
],
[
145532,
148052,
53
],
[
148052,
151454,
54
],
[
151454,
154976,
55
],
[
154976,
157766,
56
],
[
157766,
160102,
57
],
[
160102,
162613,
58
],
[
162613,
165927,
59
],
[
165927,
167840,
60
],
[
167840,
171527,
61
],
[
171527,
174235,
62
],
[
174235,
177647,
63
],
[
177647,
180489,
64
],
[
180489,
184155,
65
],
[
184155,
188908,
66
],
[
188908,
190812,
67
],
[
190812,
193772,
68
],
[
193772,
195848,
69
],
[
195848,
197358,
70
],
[
197358,
201262,
71
],
[
201262,
204833,
72
],
[
204833,
208479,
73
],
[
208479,
212750,
74
],
[
212750,
216641,
75
],
[
216641,
220731,
76
],
[
220731,
225163,
77
],
[
225163,
229042,
78
],
[
229042,
233666,
79
],
[
233666,
237950,
80
],
[
237950,
241632,
81
],
[
241632,
245735,
82
],
[
245735,
250189,
83
],
[
250189,
254422,
84
],
[
254422,
258177,
85
],
[
258177,
260975,
86
],
[
260975,
262410,
87
],
[
262410,
267228,
88
],
[
267228,
270520,
89
],
[
270520,
274069,
90
],
[
274069,
276078,
91
],
[
276078,
276302,
92
],
[
276302,
278748,
93
],
[
278748,
281575,
94
],
[
281575,
283720,
95
],
[
283720,
286284,
96
],
[
286284,
288146,
97
],
[
288146,
289991,
98
],
[
289991,
291582,
99
],
[
291582,
293898,
100
],
[
293898,
294509,
101
],
[
294509,
297688,
102
],
[
297688,
301256,
103
],
[
301256,
308369,
104
],
[
308369,
310310,
105
],
[
310310,
317075,
106
],
[
317075,
320313,
107
],
[
320313,
324014,
108
],
[
324014,
327896,
109
],
[
327896,
331516,
110
],
[
331516,
335532,
111
],
[
335532,
339432,
112
],
[
339432,
343129,
113
],
[
343129,
346499,
114
],
[
346499,
350397,
115
],
[
350397,
354078,
116
],
[
354078,
357607,
117
],
[
357607,
358236,
118
],
[
358236,
363599,
119
],
[
363599,
365639,
120
],
[
365639,
368764,
121
],
[
368764,
371680,
122
],
[
371680,
374621,
123
],
[
374621,
378659,
124
],
[
378659,
380905,
125
],
[
380905,
384639,
126
],
[
384639,
387476,
127
],
[
387476,
391123,
128
],
[
391123,
395081,
129
],
[
395081,
397971,
130
],
[
397971,
401634,
131
],
[
401634,
404335,
132
],
[
404335,
410942,
133
],
[
410942,
420291,
134
],
[
420291,
425083,
135
],
[
425083,
429094,
136
],
[
429094,
430126,
137
],
[
430126,
431448,
138
],
[
431448,
434336,
139
],
[
434336,
435775,
140
],
[
435775,
438826,
141
],
[
438826,
442256,
142
],
[
442256,
444579,
143
],
[
444579,
448392,
144
],
[
448392,
450242,
145
],
[
450242,
453658,
146
],
[
453658,
457659,
147
],
[
457659,
458912,
148
],
[
458912,
465877,
149
],
[
465877,
466993,
150
],
[
466993,
469375,
151
],
[
469375,
472128,
152
],
[
472128,
475892,
153
],
[
475892,
480136,
154
],
[
480136,
483161,
155
],
[
483161,
485996,
156
],
[
485996,
489266,
157
],
[
489266,
491715,
158
],
[
491715,
493956,
159
],
[
493956,
495683,
160
],
[
495683,
497539,
161
],
[
497539,
500043,
162
],
[
500043,
508094,
163
],
[
508094,
508818,
164
],
[
508818,
511615,
165
],
[
511615,
513419,
166
],
[
513419,
514027,
167
],
[
514027,
514027,
168
],
[
514027,
514027,
169
],
[
514027,
516942,
170
],
[
516942,
521494,
171
],
[
521494,
525530,
172
],
[
525530,
528058,
173
],
[
528058,
529533,
174
],
[
529533,
531635,
175
],
[
531635,
534395,
176
],
[
534395,
537006,
177
],
[
537006,
540776,
178
],
[
540776,
543613,
179
],
[
543613,
547065,
180
],
[
547065,
548272,
181
],
[
548272,
550855,
182
],
[
550855,
552180,
183
],
[
552180,
552180,
184
]
]
} |
b800ba52082396ab4a8a64e597d4a6b0d0b2b1bc | Dear Stakeholder
Consultation conclusion: Holding Highways England to account – ORR’s monitoring framework and enforcement policy for Highways England
The second Road Investment Strategy (RIS2) sets out the funding available to Highways England covering the financial years 2020/21 to 2024/25.
Ahead of the start of RIS2, we consulted on an updated monitoring framework and enforcement policy for Highways England, titled Holding Highways England to account. The consultation on our draft policy ran from 6 January to 14 February 2020.
I would like to thank all those who took the time to respond to our consultation. The responses we received have allowed us to reflect on stakeholder views on our proposals and their impact.
This marks the conclusion of a piece of work which we had always intended to complete ahead of the second road period, though many of us are of course working in very different circumstances at present.
We have been engaging closely with Highways England in recent days and weeks, and will be continuing to do so in the weeks ahead, taking a pragmatic approach to our work as Monitor in the present circumstances.
Overview of consultation responses
We received 17 responses from a range of parties including Highways England, Transport Focus, Sub-national Transport Bodies (STBs) and local government, as well as trade associations, a community group and other respondents spanning the vehicle recovery industry, the supply chain, and academia.¹
Of those who responded directly to our consultation questions, all supported our proposal to bring our monitoring framework and enforcement policy into a single document, and almost all supported our intent to focus on early resolution to resolve issues wherever possible. Almost all agreed with our proposal to introduce hearings as an additional tool in our policy. Most respondents agreed that fines should always be a last resort. While many respondents supported our approach of seeking to
¹ We agreed to accept late responses from the Highways Term Maintenance Association (HTMA), the RAC and No Expressway Group (Woburn Sands) avoid fines being taken from money that would otherwise be spent on the network, there were some differing views on how this should be achieved.
We also identified a number of wider themes across the consultation responses which are discussed in turn below. We have also set out where we have made changes to our policy in response to the issues raised.
Some respondents also chose to highlight to us concerns which were not directly related to the matters on which we were consulting. We will be considering these matters as part of our business as usual activities as Monitor and will respond to those concerns as appropriate.
Our final published policy is available on our website here.
Yours sincerely
Graham Richards Consultation: summary of themes arising and ORR’s response
Combining our monitoring framework and enforcement policy Of those who responded directly to our consultation questions, all agreed with our approach in setting out a single document covering our monitoring framework and enforcement policy. A number of respondents felt this was an appropriate change given that the activities of monitoring and enforcement are interlinked. Highways England also agreed that combining the two documents was appropriate as this reflects the continuum of activity which occurs in practice.
One respondent, No Expressway Group (Woburn Sands), provided comments on our Monitoring Highways England’s network investment document, which sets out more information about how we monitor Highways England’s network investment plans. We are currently considering our approach to that document and will consider the feedback received in the context of that work stream.
Focusing on early resolution Of those who answered, almost all agreed that we should focus on early resolution to resolve issues wherever possible. Norfolk County Council felt that ORR should be able to meaningfully intervene on projects either at an individual scheme level, or clusters of schemes, and highlighted specific concerns relating to the delivery of improvement schemes on the A47.
Regarding the points raised by Norfolk County Council, there is an established change control process through which government can approve changes to the RIS and investment plan. This can include changes to the original timescales that were envisaged for RIS1 schemes to start work. Once changes have been approved by government, we then monitor and report on delivery of the revised programme. Three of the schemes raised by Norfolk County Council have been subject to this process, and are now expected to start work in road period 2, meaning that we will monitor delivery against the revised programme. RIS2 states that the fourth scheme (A47 Great Yarmouth Junctions) is also committed for road period 2 (2020-25), though its scope is under review in light of the new Great Yarmouth third river crossing.3
Midlands Connect said the early resolution principle is helpful but that it lacks a vital component, and recommended that there should be a clear and regular check that Highways England has sought external and expert views on if/how their schemes can be delivered more effectively and/or efficiently. Transport for the North made the point that it may be that the best investment for the Strategic Road Network (SRN) is improving the Major Road Network (MRN). While we recognise the points raised by
______________________________________________________________________
2 https://orr.gov.uk/\_\_data/assets/pdf_file/0009/23400/Monitoring-network-investment-conclusion.pdf
3 See RIS2: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/872252/road-investment-strategy-2-2020-2025.pdf STBs, ultimately it is for government to set the investment plan for the SRN and MRN. In this context we note and support the intent, as set out in DfT’s investment planning guidance for the MRN and Large Local Majors Programme for decision-making across both these and the RIS programmes to be joined up.
Hearings We asked respondents whether they agreed with our proposal to include hearings as a tool in our policy. Of those who answered this question, almost all were supportive of having hearings as a tool in our policy. The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) agreed with option 2, (as set out in our impact assessment), to focus the use of hearings on the investigation and early resolution stage.
Survive and Transport for the South East (TfSE) felt that hearings should bring additional transparency to our process. Other respondents commented on the importance of allowing affected parties or representative groups to be included in hearings, and that hearings should be able to take into account the views of localities, especially those of the local transport authority.
Balfour Beatty disagreed with the inclusion of hearings as a tool, and thought that hearings seem unlikely to be necessary, given our ability to investigate directly, or use other tools in our policy. Other respondents, while recognising the role that hearings could play, raised wider comments. For example, the Mineral Products Association (MPA) noted that hearings could risk being more about blame than evidence, while the Highways Term Maintenance Association (HTMA) said it was important for ORR to retain the capacity to hear views and evidence in private.
We welcome the engagement on hearings, and intend to proceed with the inclusion of hearings as set out in our policy, where consideration of their use would be focused in stage 2, investigation and early resolution. As well as being a useful mechanism to collect information and evidence, we expect the inclusion of hearings to provide an incentive for Highways England to resolve issues in order to avoid the need for a hearing. Therefore we believe that the addition of hearings serves a useful function in its own right, in addition to the other tools available to us.
With regard to the comments raised by respondents, a hearing is only one tool available to us. We continue to expect to be able to engage with and/or take evidence from stakeholders outside of the forum of a hearing. And, whilst we expect hearings to be “on the record”, we are not proposing that hearings are open to the general public. Any published record of a hearing would also respect commercial confidentiality.
Highways England accepted that hearings can be a useful addition, and said that it would be happy to work with ORR to further develop the concept to enable clarity around the expectations, who may be involved and when a hearing may be used. The company was also keen to understand our approach to transparency in relation to hearings. We recognise that hearings are a new tool in our policy, and therefore we consider it important that we retain flexibility to use them in a variety of circumstances, and to determine which parties are involved based on the nature of the issue, whilst also considering the most proportionate approach and the other tools available to us. We agree that transparency is an important principle, and we have therefore added additional text to our policy on hearings to make it clear that we would expect to agree the accuracy of any written record with those involved.
**Fines**
We asked respondents whether they agreed that a fine should always be a last resort. Of the 12 stakeholders who answered, 9 were in agreement with this approach, including Highways England, who said that any additional financial demand would reduce its ability to deliver service and outputs that benefit customers and the economy.
The MPA and Norfolk County Council both provided narrative responses and identified the risks associated with fines. For example the MPA identified the risk of depleting the company’s operating budget which could have further consequential impacts, and as such agreed that other measures should probably be sought first. Norfolk County Council disagreed with fines being sanctioned where this would only reduce the amount of funding for scheme delivery. In its response Balfour Beatty said that fines are inappropriate and meaningless as monies are just being returned to government.
We recognise that some stakeholders may disagree with the principle of imposing fines when money is returned to government. However, as Monitor we have been given the power to issue fines as part of our enforcement powers under the Infrastructure Act 2015, and our enforcement policy is expected to set out when and how this power may be used. We agree that a fine should be a last resort, and our policy makes this clear.
We also asked respondents about our approach to setting the level of any fine, and whether they agreed that we should seek to avoid taking money out of the business that would otherwise be spent on operating and maintaining the network and, where appropriate, consider setting fines at a level that enables Highways England to fund fines from management remuneration should it choose to do so. In practice, this would mean performance related or variable pay, which is by its nature discretionary.
Of the 13 respondents who addressed this point, 7 agreed with our approach. Another respondent (HTMA) was sympathetic, but was also concerned about the possibility that it may promote unintended consequences, and wanted further clarity.
______________________________________________________________________
4 Although it did not respond to the individual questions, the RAC agreed with the proposals in the consultation document. on how this system would operate in practice. The MPA said that any fines should be commensurate with the seriousness and culpability of the contravention. In its response Balfour Beatty presumed that performance bonuses would already be impacted through a failure to meet targets.
TfSE and Midlands Connect disagreed with our approach, stating that fines should be reinvested in other transport projects. On this point, our powers under the Infrastructure Act allow us to require Highways England to pay a fine to the Secretary of State. We do not have powers to direct government on the use of these funds – and therefore it is beyond our remit to determine how the monies levied from any fine are spent once they are returned to government.
Highways England agreed that we should seek to avoid taking money out of the business that would otherwise be spent on operating and maintaining the network. However it disagreed with our proposed approach. It said that sizing fines to be capable of being funded from management remuneration, which in practice would mean Performance Related Pay (PRP) or variable pay, encroached on the remit of its Board and Remuneration Committee. It pointed out that PRP can and has already been reduced in relation to performance. It was also concerned that such an approach could create a public pressure for ORR to issue a fine, and for it to then reduce PRP/variable pay. It also raised practical considerations, such as timing, and the impact on positive incentives to deliver. In conclusion, it proposed that we seek to set the level of fines by alternative means.
After continued discussion with Highways England about its representation Highways England suggested alternative wording for our policy. In particular it thought that the reference point for the size of fine being management remuneration should be removed from our policy. We have considered this as a hybrid between the two options we originally set out in our impact assessment. It maintains the intent of option 2 to protect the funding for Highways England's day-to-day operations. But, without a specific alternative mechanism for sizing fines, it reflects the open-ended flexibility of option 1.
We have reflected carefully on the points raised, particularly by Highways England, who would be most directly impacted by our approach to fines.
Under our current enforcement policy, which has been in place during the first road period, we set out the likely maximum amount we would fine Highways England at 1% of Highways England's average annual funding, around £25m. We set this significantly below the 10% of turnover limit that is typical in other regulated sectors to reflect Highways England's status as a public sector body, and where fines are likely to have a reputational impact. Given the increase in funding announced for the second road period, without changes our policy could create an impression we could fine Highways England around £50m for the most serious instance of non-compliance. Overall respondents supported our objective of seeking to minimise the risk that fines reduce the funding for Highways England to do its day job. And Highways England considers any additional financial demand (which would logically include any fine we impose) would reduce its ability to deliver. Therefore we believe the option to scale fines so they could be funded from resources that would otherwise be used for management remuneration (meaning discretionary pay, like PRP) remains the best way to achieve our objective, whilst maintaining fines as an appropriate and proportionate tool to incentivise the company.
It is important to note that our proposed approach provides a mechanism for setting the size of fines. It does not direct Highways England to fund fines from management PRP. Our policy is clear that the decision on how to fund any fine remains for Highways England to make. Our policy also retains the flexibility to scale fines differently, if we determine it to be appropriate. We have made some amendments to the wording of the key clause in our policy in order to make this intent clearer.
We have also considered the points raised by Highways England and others on the need for our approach to avoid unintended consequences, as well as the practical considerations raised by Highways England relating to timing and impact on positive incentives to deliver. We have made some changes to our policy as a result.
We have amended our policy so that it is clear that any decisions the company has already taken to reduce PRP would be a factor both in determining whether to proceed with a fine, and also, when calculating the quantum of any fine. Taken together the net effect of these and any mitigating and aggravating factors could potentially reduce a fine to zero (or increase it, depending on the circumstances). We have also clarified the process for notifying Highways England of our intent to take statutory enforcement action, should we decide to do so.
Other themes arising from consultation responses
We also identified a number of wider themes across the consultation responses which are discussed in turn below. We have also set out where we have made changes to our policy in response to feedback.
Economic and environmental outcomes
Some STB responses said that we should set out more clearly how and who we will engage to monitor Highways England’s performance in relation to economic and environmental outcomes, or that there should be a clearer focus on monitoring performance in these areas. A number of respondents were also interested in how our approach to monitoring fits into wider government policy on climate change. For example, England’s Economic Heartland commented on the need for our monitoring to ensure Highways England’s approach is consistent with the government’s 2050 target to achieve net zero emissions. Our approach will be guided by the expectations that are set out for Highways England in the RIS and in its Licence. The performance specification sets out government’s high-level expectations for Highways England and the SRN during each road period, and draws on specific aspects of the government’s long-term vision for the road network and how it supports the economy and the environment, as well as safety and mobility. Much of the detail of what we monitor is therefore set out in the performance specification and investment plan which will necessarily change from RIS to RIS. Therefore we have not attempted to capture the detail of all of the outcomes we monitor in our policy.
However, the RIS2 performance specification will cover more aspects of Highways England’s environmental performance than in RIS1. This means that in RIS2 we will monitor and report on Highways England’s performance against a new KPI on air quality, as well as a new biodiversity metric. We will also monitor and publicly report on Highways England’s progress towards reducing its own carbon emissions. The target for this measure will be set during road period 2. We will also monitor and publicly report on carbon emissions from the supply chain. And we will continue to monitor the company’s work to mitigate noise important areas, as well as delivery of the Designated Funds programme. In RIS2 this will include a new Environment and Wellbeing Fund to support environmental and community wellbeing outcomes across the SRN.
We also expect Highways England to continue to carry out post-opening project evaluations (POPEs) during RIS2, which assess whether the expected costs and benefits of schemes have been achieved. We will monitor Highways England on its use of intelligence from POPEs to build the evidence base to support future investment decisions across the whole portfolio.
**Stakeholder engagement**
Stakeholder engagement was a further theme in the consultation responses. For example some STB respondents wanted us to state more explicitly how local and regional bodies such as local highways authorities (LHAs) and STBs will be involved in the monitoring process.
To allow us to assess Highways England’s performance in the round we gather information from a range of sources, including talking to key stakeholders and members of the supply chain. This helps us understand issues and risks to Highways England delivering its objectives. We expect our ongoing programme of stakeholder engagement to continue to support this. We currently attend quarterly liaison meetings with STBs – and welcome the opportunity to develop and build on these relationships during road period 2.
There are also specific aspects of our monitoring work that might require us to consider how Highways England is engaging with its stakeholders. For example, as part of the RIS2 performance specification we will report on a new performance indicator relating to the company’s work with local highways authorities to review diversion routes for unplanned events, as well as monitoring a commitment to investigate a new metric on delays on the local road/SRN boundary.
We also recognise that the landscape in which Highways England operates is changing with the advent of new stakeholders such as STBs, and where the MRN also means greater focus on the interaction between the SRN and the local road network. Against this context we are commissioning work this year to review how Highways England engages with key local and regional partners. This will include exploring which aspects of Highways England’s functions are most important to local and regional stakeholders, engaging with Highways England to understand how it is already involving local and regional stakeholders in its planning and delivery of its functions, and identifying any barriers to engagement. We expect this work to make recommendations to us on how we could incorporate local and regional stakeholder feedback into our routine monitoring functions. In response to the feedback received via the consultation we have added new text to our policy that recognises that we may need to draw on the insight of stakeholders, including local and regional bodies, when gathering information.
We have also considered the request made by England’s Economic Heartland to name STBs as a key stakeholder in the monitoring process, and to amend our policy to reflect how effective Highways England has been in meeting the priorities identified by STBs. We have considered this within the context of our remit and role. And particularly, that in advising government on future RISs, we do not make decisions about the investment programme, or which schemes go ahead.
As Monitor we want to retain the flexibility to engage with a broad range of stakeholders where it may assist our work monitoring the RIS and assessing Licence compliance, and also advising on future RISs. There is a risk that by naming specific stakeholder groups in our policy, we may exclude others whose views we may wish to seek when carrying out our work.
Highways England’s Licence also sets out a duty to cooperate for the purposes of coordinating day-to-day operations, and long-term planning, and includes a wide range of stakeholders with whom the company should co-operate when complying with this duty. And, as above, the RIS might also set further expectations on Highways England in terms of working with stakeholders. In other words, there are a number of sources which may determine who we need to engage with when carrying out our work. Therefore we are not persuaded that naming specific stakeholder groups in our policy is beneficial.
However, we recognise the important role of STBs, and also, that STBs are seeking a collaborative approach to the development of RIS3. We set out our approach to advising on RIS2 in December 2016, where looking at how plans were informed by stakeholder engagement formed part of our assessment. We will consider how our approach may need to evolve to consider this new environment ahead of RIS3.
User focus Transport Focus agreed with our proposals but felt that our draft *Holding to account* document missed an opportunity to put the interests of those using Highways England’s roads at the heart of our approach. It felt that both the framework and document should be geared to the consumer, including the impact on road users of Highways England failing to deliver a requirement of the RIS or its Licence. It felt that our strategic objective could be re-defined to make this clearer.
The Infrastructure Act sets out a number of factors we must have regard to when carrying out our duties as Monitor. These include the interests and safety of users, and also, the economic and environmental impact of the way Highways England achieves its objectives, as well as the long-term maintenance and management of highways. These factors are not in any order of priority and it is for us to give appropriate weight to all factors when considering enforcement in each individual case. However our policy is clear both when assessing concerns, and when determining whether to take statutory enforcement action, we will consider the impact of the contravention on users of the SRN.
ORR’s overall objective is to protect the interests of rail and road users, both now and in the future. And our role as Monitor is focused on delivering better outcomes for road users and taxpayers. In defining our strategic objective we are clear that our role is focused on benefiting all those who use, or are affected by, the SRN. In response to feedback from Transport Focus we have amended our policy to set out in more detail the user groups this includes (whilst recognising that this may not be an exhaustive list). On our strategic objective specifically, we welcome the feedback received. Our strategic objectives are considered on a cyclical basis and we will take into account the views expressed by Transport Focus in the next iteration of this cycle.
**Safety**
Survive, which brings together the roadside recovery industry, urged us to consider the position of roadside breakdown/recovery workers when we are reviewing the safety performance of Highways England. As with the economic and environmental areas discussed above, our safety monitoring is based on the RIS and Licence. It includes reporting on Highways England’s progress towards the target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSIs) on the SRN, and a suite of supporting indicators. KSI data would include recovery workers in the wider population, although the KSI data we report on, which is collected by police forces in England, does not disaggregate KSIs for recovery workers as a group. We therefore welcome the opportunity to engage with Survive to understand its views and consider this in our wider monitoring of safety.
Survive also urged ORR to monitor the effectiveness of smart motorways in all their formats. The government has recently published the results of its stocktake on smart motorway safety. ORR will now need to give consideration to any implications arising for our work as Monitor. Lorry parking
The Road Haulage Association highlighted the importance of addressing lorry parking provision through RIS2. We expect improvements to lorry parking to come within the scope of the company’s Designated Funds programme, under the Users and Communities Fund. Unlike the enhancements programme, these funds are not specified in advance, but instead Highways England will work with stakeholders to invest the funds over the course of road period 2. Our role will be to monitor the company’s management of its designated funds. The RHA also felt that there was more to do to achieve better planning of roadworks. We will consider this feedback in our engagement with Highways England.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/3107-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 11,
"total-input-tokens": 20662,
"total-output-tokens": 5723,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2117,
1
],
[
2117,
2844,
2
],
[
2844,
5765,
3
],
[
5765,
8769,
4
],
[
8769,
11552,
5
],
[
11552,
14567,
6
],
[
14567,
17437,
7
],
[
17437,
20445,
8
],
[
20445,
23513,
9
],
[
23513,
26595,
10
],
[
26595,
27288,
11
]
]
} |
f7bdfe239ad74117bec1574cc63bcbe7b9a4e7a1 | Achieving access for all
A guide for staff of Croydon Council to equality for disabled people
Clear print Alternative Text formats Clear Text Guide Disability Etiquette The Disability Discrimination Act Using Correct Language and Equality Terminology Disability Protocol Facts Common Courtesies Offering Assistance Communicating with people who are deaf or hard of hearing Assisting blind and partially sighted people Assisting people who use crutches, sticks or wheelchairs People with speech impairments Supporting people with learning disabilities Interviewing disabled people Organising a meeting or event
To access this guide in different formats please ring 020 8686 4433 x4052 Achieving Equality for all
Croydon Council’s Commitment to Disabled People
It is widely accepted that disabled people have fewer opportunities and a lower quality of life than non-disabled people. The social model of disability worked out by disabled people, drawing on their own experiences, demonstrates that in reality most barriers to inclusion are a result of the way society is organised rather than caused by disabled peoples’ impairments.
Croydon Council has adopted the social model of disability. We believe that negative attitudes and lack of awareness are the main barriers to disabled people achieving full equality.
The Council also recognises that disabled people can be excluded further due to their ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation and/or age. The Council’s work towards achieving equality for disabled people will take into account the extra discrimination that disabled people experience on these grounds.
We are committed to working towards removing barriers which exclude disabled people through:-
- Examining our own policies, practices and procedures for potential discrimination.
- Advising and supporting all departments on the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act.
- Promoting greater awareness amongst Council staff, contractors and partners of ways of overcoming these barriers to inclusion and
- Working with those organisations and individuals who share our values to achieve change.
In particular we will:
- Continue to support groups run by and for disabled people.
- Work closely with the Mobility Forum to make Croydon a more accessible borough for people with disabilities and older people.
- Implement the recommendations of the Best Value Review on access to services by people with a disability.
- Ensure staff have appropriate guidance and training on providing equal access to information and services.
- Continue to consult with disabled staff and service users to monitor progress on meeting our commitments.
- Continue the programme of work aimed at ensuring all the Council’s buildings which are open to the public, meet the requirements for physical access by the end of 2004. Disability Protocol
A Guide for Croydon Council Employees on meeting, working and communicating with disabled people
Produced by the Direct Payment Support Service and disabled members of the Direct Payments User Group for Croydon Council, Equalities Unit.
About this Guide
Disabled people have a right to expect quality service, which is non-discriminatory. This is the philosophy of Access for All which has now been reinforced through The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 The Disability Discrimination Act
introduced new laws and measures aimed at ending the discrimination which many disabled people face. The Act makes it unlawful for employers to treat disabled people less favourably than someone else because of their disability, unless there is a good reason. The Council, as a provider of services, has a responsibility under the Act to treat disabled people no less favourably than they treat other people.
This Guide is designed to help Croydon Council staff to understand and implement best practice for disabled people whether as job applicants, employees or service users.
The Guide also aims to raise awareness and give practical advice about many aspects of communication, both in daily life and in the workplace with people with physical, sensory and learning disability. Using Correct Language and Terminology
The use of language is constantly changing. The best way to demonstrate awareness and to avoid offence is to keep in touch with disabled people and to respect their preferences. Each person with a disability is, first and foremost, an individual, so avoid group phrases like, ‘The disabled’ use instead ‘People with Disabilities’ or ‘Disabled people’. Don’t describe a disabled person in terms of a condition.
Some words and phrases may cause offence. For example ‘The handicapped’. Many people with disabilities find this an offensive term because it may imply that they cannot function on a par with others. Others words refer to the person in terms of their condition: spastic, epileptic, cripples, victims of……, invalid, mental handicap, wheelchair bound. Words that are less likely to cause offence: a wheelchair user, someone who has cerebral palsy, a person with epilepsy, someone with learning difficulties.
Disability Protocol
Many people recognise the environment causes problems for many people with mobility or sensory disabilities. Consistently, disabled people report that – whilst an accessible environment and well considered facilities are important to meeting their needs – of equal importance is the attitude, knowledge and consideration of staff.
Patronising behaviour by staff is offensive, potentially discriminatory and could lead to a claim against the Council and/or employees under the ‘Disability Discrimination Act 1995’.
By recognising this, and by understanding the feelings of disabled people themselves, employees can do much to guard against unintentional discrimination in recruitment and service delivery.
Some Facts
- There are over 8 million disabled people in the UK, roughly 1 in 8 of the population.
- More than 50% are of working age.
- 1 out of every 4 consumers in the UK is either disabled or has a disabled person in their immediate circle.
Remember:
- Being disabled is not the same as being ill. Most disabled people are perfectly well.
- People with disabilities don’t always have problems getting around. Less then 5% use wheelchairs.
- You can’t always tell if a person is disabled just by looking at them. Some people may have disabilities that you can’t see, such as deafness or people with learning difficulties. Common Courtesies
Most disabled people are unlikely to need any more assistance than anyone else. Many service users may have disabilities that are not obvious until they approach you. For example you cannot always tell instantly if a person is deaf or partially sighted.
The key is to respond normally and in the manner in which you would like to treated.
- If you think a customer may need assistance, ask them before you do anything.
- If they do need assistance, always ask them the best way to help and listen carefully to any instructions before acting.
- Never talk down to a disabled person as though you were talking to a child. This is particularly important for people who have learning difficulties.
- Never lean on or grab a person’s wheelchair without their permission. Generally, if they want help they will ask for it.
- Remember to always talk to a disabled person directly, not though friends or companions.
- Remember that a disabled person’s wheelchair is part of their ‘body space’
- In the case of guide dog users, never refer to the dog first or attempt to feed the dog treats without the permission of the owner.
- Don’t be embarrassed about using common expressions when talking to disabled people. It really is not unusual to hear a blind person say: ‘I’ll see you later, then’.
- Make sure you are aware of all facilities for disabled service users, so you can respond to any enquiries honestly and efficiently.
Offering Assistance
- Most disabled people will not need any extra help or assistance.
- The most common reason for needing assistance will be the physical layout of the building. This could be for several reasons from such things as poorly lit signs, through to steps and heavy doors.
- Like everybody else, disabled people are all individuals – some of whom will be quite confident in approaching you to ask for assistance. Others may be reluctant, embarrassed or less confident about asking for your help.
- If you think a disabled person may need assistance, the best thing to do is ask them a simple question such as ‘Is there anything I can do to help?’ or ‘Would you like some assistance?’
- Until you have asked the disabled person, never assume what help is required. Remember it is perfectly acceptable for them to turn down your offer of assistance if it is not required. Communicating with people who are deaf or hard of hearing
Remember there are different degrees and types of deafness, and different ways for deaf people to communicate. In general, many people have faint or distorted hearing, some have no useful hearing at all. Many can join in a conversation by using a hearing aid or lip reading and some use sign language. When you meet a person who is deaf or hard of hearing always:
- Speak at a normal pace, allow a little more time, and be aware the listener needs to look at your face as you talk.
- Always try to position yourself so your face can be seen clearly, particularly when using a glass-fronted kiosk.
- When talking to a deaf person who lip-reads, look directly at them to make communication easier. Always try to keep your hand away from your face as this hinders effective lip-reading.
- Background noise can make it difficult for people who use a hearing aid; it distorts and blurs sound. Be prepared to repeat yourself if the person cannot hear you clearly.
- Try not to raise your voice as you speak as this actually distorts speech and makes it harder to understand.
- Do not panic if you are not immediately understood; try re-phrasing your sentence, cut out any long or unusual words.
- Always speak face to face when addressing a person who has hearing difficulties.
- If necessary, write things down. This may be useful if the person uses sign language. Ordinary facial expressions and gestures may help to get your message across.
- Always make sure you have the deaf person’s attention before speaking.
- Always talk directly to the deaf person not their friend or colleague.
- Where loop systems are installed they must be regularly and professionally tested. It is important to repair items promptly when they are found to be faulty.
Assisting blind and partially sighted people
Most partially sighted people use neither a guide dog nor a white cane. This is because most blind or partially sighted people retain a degree of useful vision.
The difficulties most likely to be encountered are low light levels that significantly reduce the vision they have. As a result, some visually impaired people may need assistance in finding their way around.
- Look out for people using a white cane, or with a guide dog.
A red band on a white cane indicates that the person is also deaf or hard of hearing. Disability Protocol
- Identify yourself clearly and politely, when introducing yourself.
- If you suspect that a person is blind or partially sighted, ask if they require assistance.
- When giving change to a visually impaired person always count out the money as you hand it to them.
- If you think the person might need help on unfamiliar ground, say: ‘Let me offer you my arm’. Never grab a blind person’s arm to guide them.
- Think before you give directions to a person who is partially sighted.
- When offering a seat, place the person’s hand on the back or arm of the chair.
- Remember not to leave the person talking to an empty space. Say if you are going to move away.
- As you guide them, describe your surroundings and potential obstacles (e.g., Approach of stairs or doors)
- Speak normally and clearly without shouting. Do not point but give clear verbal instructions.
- Describe the location of the destination in relation to Emergency Exit(s) and the procedure for evacuation.
- When a blind person purchases food or drink, place or hold the items in front of them and explain where they are in relation to the person’s hands.
- Many blind people are familiar with the clock method for locating items, e.g. your drink is at 1.00 o’clock.
Assisting people who use crutches, sticks or wheelchairs
- For some stick or crutch users, stairs may be difficult. Where you have alternative access for wheelchair users, consider asking if when using sticks or crutches they would find this alternative access more convenient.
- People who need sticks or crutches may find it hard to use their hands when standing up, for example, to count money, or to fill in a form.
- Remember that counters may be too high for wheelchair users to reach. Where this is the case, you may need to come around to the front of the counter to provide the service required.
- Don’t lean on the person’s wheelchair. It’s part of the body space of the person using it.
- If there are different arrangements for evacuating a wheelchair user in case of emergency, ensure that you explain the procedure clearly to them.
- If the building has alternative access for wheelchair users, make sure you can explain the arrangements to any customer who telephones for information in advance.
- If possible when talking to a service user in a wheelchair, try to crouch down so that you are at the same eye – level to avoid the person getting a stiff neck. People with speech impairments
Some people have speech impairments that may make it difficult for you to understand precisely what they are trying to say. The key is to listen carefully and concentrate on what the person is trying to say.
- Concentrate fully on the person who is talking to you.
- Be patient if you do not understand at first.
- Resist the temptation to interrupt and finish sentences for the person.
- Try to ask questions that require short answers, or even a nod or shake of the head.
- If you are still not certain, it is important to repeat and confirm what you believe has been said.
- If all else fails ask the person if they will write down what they are trying to say.
- Never pretend that you have understood when you have not. This can lead to a range of embarrassing situations for you as well as the customer.
Supporting people with learning disabilities
- For the majority of people with learning disabilities, there will be no need to offer any additional support. But some may have difficulty in reading or understanding signs, price lists or other information. In addition, many learning disabled people experience difficulty in understanding or using money.
- Always speak directly to the person, even if a companion replies.
- Never treat an adult with a learning disability like a child.
- Speak clearly and be prepared to repeat things if you were not understood the first time.
- If necessary, write your message and suggest the person shows it to a friend or family member, include you name and telephone number, and suggest the person speaks to you another time.
- Always count out change when handing it to a person with a learning disability. Disability Protocol
Interviewing disabled people
- Only ask questions about your customer’s disability if it is relevant. Before you ask questions about someone’s life, ask yourself whether you would put this question to any other customer or client.
- Don’t assume your customer can’t do certain tasks. Disabled people often develop new ways of tackling everyday challenges.
- Form your own judgements from discussions with the people themselves, as you would with anyone else. Don’t rely on third parties.
Organising a meeting or event
Before organising a meeting or an event, think about the following:
- The venue should be totally accessible to people with physical or sensory impairment. For example, there must be a level or ramp entrance into the building, hearing loop installed in the meeting room and, if needed, provision should be made for signers to attend.
- If you think there may be access problems, let the person know and discuss a possible solution.
- Check that car parking spaces near to the building are available.
- Ensure suitable toilet facilities are available within the building.
- When inviting people always ask them to tell you if they have any specific requirements.
- Always ensure written materials are available in other formats, i.e. large print, Braille, audio cassette, etc.
- Arrangements should be made for guide dog toileting and watering when the user is in an event or meeting.
- Helpers may be needed for wheelchair users and others.
- Check exit and egress and other emergency fire evacuation procedures.
See the Council guide on organising a conference or other public meeting for full guidance. Contents
1. Making Information Accessible
2. Making text accessible
3. Making yourself heard
4. Improving access for people with a learning disability
5. Improving access for people with Mental Health issues
6. OHP or Powerpoint Presentations
7. Code of Good Practice
8. Organising a conference, seminar or other public meeting Making Information Accessible
Far too often, when communicating with other people, we forget that the way we communicate is not accessible to everyone. Failing to recognise this may not only result in a breach of the Disability Discrimination Act but also breach the Human Rights Act. This guide outlines ways in which we can avoid causing embarrassment and offence as well as ensuring that information is accessible to as many people as possible.
Those who may have specific requirements:
- People with visual impairments
- People who are registered blind
- People who are hard of hearing
- People who use a hearing aid
- People who are profoundly deaf
- People with a learning disability
- People who speak English as a second language
- People with dyslexia
- People with other reading difficulties
- People with “colour blindness”
- People with mental health issues.
The following brief guides give some basic information on how we can make Council letters, leaflets etc more widely accessible but as a first step remember the following:
- Check with the person or group your are communicating with if there are any access requirements.
- Plan the text formats you will need before printing publicity.
- Always budget for accessible formats when preparing publicity.
- Seek advice don’t assume.
- Clearly display how to obtain text in alternative formats.
- Clearly display access facilities at reception desks etc., (e.g. availability of induction loop).
- If not on “typetalk” include a minicom and fax number on information and publicity.
Detailed information on communicating with people who have a visual impairment is available free from the RNIB at: www.seeitright@rnib.org.uk Making text accessible
Most people who have a visual impairment, including the majority of those who are registered blind, can read text if we present it in the right way. Advances in new technology have now also opened up more ways of presenting text to people who have no sight at all.
Clear print
- All text should be in a minimum of 12pt and Arial font. This is accessible to the majority of people with visual impairments and therefore reduces the requirement for large print requests. This meets RNIB guidelines also.
- Ensure there is always a good contrast between print and background paper. When using coloured paper or background tints these should be very pale with a dark print. Black print on white or yellow background is the most accessible.
- Use matt paper. Glossy (art) paper reflects light and can make print difficult to read.
- Use uppercase letters sparingly. A couple of words for a heading are OK but not for body text.
- Reverse (negative) print can be used but the font type should be strong such as Arial or Univers. Some people with specific visual impairments prefer this.
- Align left for text, this keeps spacing even. Don’t justify or split words at the end of a line.
- Line length should ideally be about 50-65 characters. Some blind or partially sighted people may prefer less.
- Where using columns ensure the margins clearly separate the text or, where space is limited, use a vertical line between columns.
Alternative Text formats
- Using e-mail or computer diskette is the most easily accessible format for many blind or partially sighted people. In Rich Text Format (RTF) and with the right computer programmes it can be converted into speech or enlarged to a personally accessible point size.
- All text documents should be capable of being reproduced in 16 –22 point sizes.
- Information on computer diskette or computer file can easily be converted into braille.
- Text read onto audio tape is accessible not only by people with a visual impairment but also people with a learning disability, dyslexia or other reading difficulty. It can also be read into community languages other than English.
- Braille is a system of raised dots which is used by blind people who need to read text silently or to be used in meetings. Making text accessible
- Moon, a system of raised curves and lines, is used by a very small number of people, mostly elderly. It is easier to learn but even bulkier than braille.
- Video tape is a very accessible format for people with a learning disability. Where a video tape is produced for general access it should be subtitled and signed.
- CD –Rom is also a very widely accessible format.
- The internet is an area of access used by people with a visual impairment and of course also makes information more accessible to people with mobility impairments.
- Plans and maps can be printed in raised outline through RNIB.
- The telephone is accessible to most visually impaired people.
- All printed information should be available on request in large print, braille or audio-tape and in languages other than English. For information and advice contact the Translating and Interpreting Service on 020 8407 1369.
Clear Text Guide
- Always use plain language and where possible keep text as simple as possible.
- Where technical terms cannot be avoided explain these.
- Keep text clearly separated from graphics and/or artwork.
- Include picture or symbol formats where possible. This helps to make the information more accessible to people with reading difficulties.
- Keep sentences to one point of information. Avoid long sentences. This helps people with memory or concentration difficulties.
- Keep paragraphs short, about 5 – 7 lines and to one subject.
- Do not use jargon or acronyms. Making yourself heard
Access to information is not just about the printed word. Much information is communicated verbally. For those who are deaf or have a hearing impairment this can result in receiving inaccurate information or no information at all.
- All offices should have a minicom line or be on typetalk.
- All information should be in text as well as verbal formats. This is especially important at reception desks.
- Where videos are being used to convey information these should include subtitles and preferably be signed as well.
- All reception desks should have a loop system which is clearly signed. Where there is more than one desk in close proximity this may not be possible but visitors must be able to access all information from a desk with a loop.
- There should always be a minimum of one interview room with a loop system in any public contact area.
- Offer the use of a confidential room if personal information may be discussed. With a hard of hearing person you may have to speak louder resulting in information being overheard at a reception desk. Information may also be picked up by other hearing aid users through the loop system.
- When inviting people to an interview or meeting, publicise access facilities such as loop systems.
- If you know in advance that a visitor has a hearing impairment ask how they would prefer to communicate. British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters should be booked through the Translating and Interpreting Service tel: 8407 1369.
- If using an interpreter always speak to the individual, not the interpreter.
- Make sure a deaf person is looking at you before speaking, a gentle touch on the shoulder or arm will attract attention.
- Keep your hands away from your mouth and always face the person when speaking. The person may be lip-reading. This ensures you can be understood without the person having to specifically inform you they are lip-reading.
- Face the light don’t sit back to the window or light.
- Do not shout. Speak clearly with a normal rhythm.
- In a meeting always speak one at a time.
- If you are talking to deaf and hearing people, don’t forget the deaf people.
- When interviewing always have a pen and paper with you. Written notes may help you clarify information.
- Any open presentation, roadshow, exhibition or public meeting should have a signer or palantype operator present. See Checklist for Organising a Conference. (Palantype is more suitable for conference style meetings than roadshows).
More detailed information on communicating with hard of hearing, deaf and deafblind people is available from the RNID website at: www.rnid.org.uk
Croydon Council Equalities Unit Nov 02 Improving access for people with a learning disability
Learning disability covers a wide range of differing abilities. As with other disabilities do not assume someone can or cannot access information. Be guided by them. Follow the guidelines on making text accessible.
Also:
- Use drawings, pictures or widely recognised symbols, to illustrate information. Remember to keep graphics to the right side of the page. Using pictures, like a storyboard, can be very useful.
- There is a special Wigit software programme called ‘Writing with Symbols’ for people with a learning disability. It is therefore better used for targeted information not general information. The recipient usually needs to be supported by a named person or key worker.
- Hand signs, taken from the Makaton and Singalong vocabularies, are used by many people with a learning disability and/or a hearing impairment. These can help a person to understand information more easily.
- Putting information on video can be especially helpful. It can help with understanding and retaining the information being given.
- Some people with a learning disability can find meeting a strange person or a strange environment especially stressful. If interviewing someone with a learning disability do not rush them. Allow them the time and space to express themselves. Being welcoming and informal can also help the person relax and gain confidence in you.
- If inviting someone with a learning disability to a meeting, arrange for a named person to meet them, at least on arrival. This will help to overcome any anxiety.
- Give information in a clear manner using commonly used language not jargon. If technical terms have to be used be ready to explain.
- At the end of an interview go through what you have discussed. Write the information down and give to them. Some people with a learning disability can have difficulty remembering what they have been told or may not have fully understood. Improving access for people with Mental Health issues
About one in four people will have some form of mental illness in their lifetime. Mental illness can impact on a person’s ability to access information and even physical mobility. The guidance on making text accessible will help people with mental health issues.
Most of the time people with a mental health issue will have no different requirements than anyone else. However if you suspect that someone may be unwell at the time the following may be helpful:
- Breaking information up into bullet points or “bite size” chunks. This is more likely to encourage someone to read the text. A whole page of text is very off putting.
- Offer the opportunity for a meeting. It may be more effective to speak to the person than send them a letter or leaflet.
- Meetings early in the morning can be inaccessible, ask what time would be suitable for them.
- When meeting someone with a mental health issue remember that anxiety can make the impact of their illness greater;
- Arrange meetings with a named person and confirm in writing
- Allow the person time to compose him or herself
- Do not rush them or become impatient
- Do not be judgmental about behaviour which may appear inappropriate to you
- Don’t assume challenging behaviour will lead to violence. The person may not be able to control their feelings. Remain calm and patient, don’t become aggressive
- Write down information or if you are handing over a letter or leaflet, go through it with them. OHP or Powerpoint Presentations
It is important to remember when using OHP slides or Powerpoint that people with Visual Impairments may find it difficult or impossible to read the information on the screen. The following guidance will help to overcome this.
- Limit the amount of text per slide and use a large, bold Arial or other Helvetica type print. About 20 - 30 words per slide is a useful guide.
- Think how graphics such as pie charts, graphs or other graphics will be presented. Unless it can be easily read from a distance it may be more appropriate to just keep this information to a text format.
- When using Powerpoint make sure there is a clear colour and tone contrast between text and background.
- Don't use fancy font styles, artwork or text moving about, or in and out. Ensure there is time for the text to be read slowly before moving on to the next slide.
- Always read out everything that is on the screen.
- The text in all Powerpoint handouts should be in a minimum of Arial 12pt.
- Put text of OHP or powerpoint presentations onto diskette for easy transcription into large print or braille. Code of Good Practice
- Plan ahead
- Do not make assumptions
- Consult disabled users, staff and organisations
- Ensure staff are trained on disability awareness
- Audit barriers to access
- Ensure access requirements are included within budgets
- Publicise adjustments and other access aids
- Monitor access to the service
- Regularly review accessibility of service
- Don’t promise what can’t be provided Organising a conference, seminar or other public meeting
Checklist for accessibility
1. Planning the conference/meeting
- Facilities for disabled people should be at the top of the agenda during the initial planning process.
- Ensure all access requirements are costed and included within the budget.
- All meetings, conferences or other events to which the public are invited should provide sign language interpretation.
- Book sign language interpreters as far in advance of the date as possible (where the event is due to last more than 45 mins, 2 signers must be booked) – see section 6.
- Venues for conferences or other public events must meet the following minimum standards.
2. Arranging the venue
- Check that access to and within the venue is level.
- Where there are steps or other changes of level, check that there is a ramp, stair lift or passenger lift suitable for people using electric and manually propelled wheelchairs. Check that lift buttons are accessible from a wheelchair.
- Are doors on automatic openers? Which way do they open? Where there are manually opened doors check that there will be someone to assist with opening if the doors cannot be fixed open.
- If a stage, platform or other raised area is to be used for speakers, check that a ramp with a maximum rise of 1:12 and minimum width of 1000mm can be provided.
- Does the venue have accessible toilets? Can they be reached on the level or by ramp or lift? Accessible toilets should be on the same floor as the event or at very least in the same building. Are they well signed, do they work and is access ensured? NB: A venue with no accessible toilet is not accessible.
- Does the venue have an induction loop? Ensure a few days before the event that it is working and on the day that it is switched on.
- The seating area should allow for aisles wide enough for wheelchairs to access comfortably and seats removable to accommodate wheelchair users alongside friends etc.
- Check that facilities around the building are clearly signed i.e. Print is black, on contrasting background and at eye level.
- Check that parking is available on the level, within 50 metres of the entrance and, where appropriate, there are rop kerbs. Do not rely on venue staff to confirm these facilities. Arrange a visit to the venue to check for yourself.
Where adjustments have to be made, to ensure reasonable access for disabled people, these should not be at an extra cost.
Seminar/workshops are part of the event check that these rooms meet access standards.
3. Arranging speakers
Ask speakers if they are aware of the social model of disability and disability etiquette and make them aware that Croydon Council prefers to use the social model. If not send them the brief outline of the social model and some basic guidance on disability etiquette in the appendix to this guide.
Check if speakers have any access and dietary requirements.
Ask speakers to provide a brief outline of their speeches including any technical terms about 2 weeks before the conference so these can be passed on to signers.
If using OHP or Powerpoint provide speakers with guidance at Appendix B
Ask speakers to provide handouts etc (preferably on computer diskette), in advance, in Arial 12pt. so these can be transcribed onto tape, large print etc.
4. Publicising the meeting:
Leaflets/posters advertising the meeting should meet minimum print standards. The typeface should be bold and have a clear contrast with the background. No fancy font styles or printing over artwork.
Matt card or paper should be used for leaflets or posters.
All publicity should prominently state how to obtain information in alternative formats.
If it is not possible to meet the 12pt minimum print size for all print on leaflets, how to obtain the leaflet in large print format or on diskette, tape or braille should be in at least 12pt, and preferably larger, on the front page.
All publicity should be available, on request, in large print (minimum 16pt) on diskette, tape or braille.
Where the notice of conference/meeting includes a registration form a facility for notifying access requirements should be included on the form. This should include:
- Written materials in large print, on tape, braille or diskette and whether translation into a community language is required (excludes braille)
- Dietary requirements (e.g. vegetarian, gluten free, Kosher, Halal)
- Sign language interpretation (BSL sign language interpreters should be booked as a matter of course but individuals may need to be seated near the front, or to one side of the hall, to access this)
- A telephone number and named person(s) to ring to discuss access requirements
- Registration should be available by phone, tape or e-mail.
5. Joining information
All participants should be sent a guide to access the venue and other facilities. This should include:
- Public transport, road and pedestrian directions to the building. Parking arrangements and access to the building including location of ramps, lifts, automatic opening doors and direction of door opening.
How to locate toilets and other facilities within the building (highlighting location of accessible toilets) and whether access is level or via lift, ramp etc.
Any seating arrangements to access loop or signer.
Buffet/refreshment arrangements and location within building.
If workshops are part of the event, access to and facilities at these rooms.
All conference/meeting papers should be in a minimum of Arial 12pt and available in accessible formats.
6. Booking signers
Signers should be booked through the Council’s Interpreting and Translation Service (tel: 020 8407 1369). Charges are made for signing.
Where attendance is by open invitation signers must be booked.
For events which are by specific invitation, the invite must provide for notification of requirement for sign language interpretation. Signers should be at least provisionally booked until it is certain that they are no longer needed.
Unless the meeting provides for short breaks at least every 45 minutes, two signers should be booked. For conferences at least two signers must be booked.
7. Arranging refreshments
Check that caterers can provide for specific dietary requirements such as Halal, Kosher, gluten free.
If participants state they have specific dietary requirements contact the person for information you can pass on to the caterer (e.g. requirements on food preparation).
Ensure that the refreshment area has sufficient room for people with visual or mobility impairments to move round easily.
Arrange for some tables and chairs to be available for people who need to sit or need to rest their plate or cup.
Ensure help is available, it is very difficult to sign and hold a plate and glass of wine.
Ensure that food for a buffet is labelled e.g. beef, chicken, pork etc, not just meat and that vegetarian, halal, kosher etc food is separate and labelled (vegan food should also be identifiable from vegetarian).
8. Final checks
About a week before the conference check the loop system is working, if possible take a hearing aid user with you to do this.
Ensure that reception staff (yours and/or the venue’s) are aware that disabled people will be attending and are aware of any assistance required and disability etiquette.
Ensure that any other adjustments required by the venue have been made or will be available on the day.
Check with caterers that they are clear about dietary requirements.
Ensure that speakers notes have been sent to the signers.
Ensure that you have handouts/agendas/conference packs in the accessible formats requested. The Social Model of Disability has been defined by disabled people themselves to more accurately reflect the real barriers disabled people face.
The social model recognises that in the main it is the attitudes of non-disabled people and society generally which creates the barriers not the impairment of the disabled person.
The Medical Model views the disability as having an impact on the ability to carry out normal day to day activities which in turn creates the barriers. The medical model therefore creates a view of dependency by the disabled person. The medical model also fails to recognise that disabled people often develop different ways of carrying out those activities.
**Language:** certain words or phrases can give offence. The general rule is to not use phrases which suggest that disabled people are always frail, need pity or charity.
- Use the term disabled people or people with a disability, not “the disabled”. The opposite of disabled is non-disabled not able-bodied.
- Don’t use terms such as “the blind”, “the deaf”, “the mentally ill” etc, use instead terms such as blind people or people with mental health problems. This avoids implying that disabled people belong to a uniform group separate from society.
- Say wheelchair user never wheelchair bound or confined to a wheelchair. Wheelchairs are a liberating device and mobility aid. Also avoid terms such as wheelchair athlete – it is the wheelchair user who is the athlete not the wheelchair.
- Always say someone with.../ someone who has ... never victim of.../ crippled by ... suffers from.../ afflicted by... or “an invalid”.
e.g. Peter who has epilepsy - not Peter, an epileptic or who suffers from epilepsy.
- Do not use terms such as spastic, handicapped, cripple, retarded, mentally defective even if there are no disabled people present.
- The term “mental handicap” has been replaced by the term learning disability or learning difficulty. These are the terms acceptable to people with a learning disability (difficulty).
- Say deaf without speech not deaf and dumb.
- For more information on “etiquette” refer to the Council’s Disability Protocol. Achieving access for all
These guidelines were adopted by Croydon Council Equalities & Community Partnerships Cabinet Committee on 18 November 2002
For further information please contact
Equalities Unit Room 6.19 Taberner House Park Lane Croydon CR9 3JS
Tel: 020 8686 4333 x4052 email: equalities@croydon.gov.uk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2016-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 24,
"total-input-tokens": 47168,
"total-output-tokens": 9327,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
687,
1
],
[
687,
2841,
2
],
[
2841,
3322,
3
],
[
3322,
4140,
4
],
[
4140,
6455,
5
],
[
6455,
8783,
6
],
[
8783,
11155,
7
],
[
11155,
13586,
8
],
[
13586,
15276,
9
],
[
15276,
16935,
10
],
[
16935,
17264,
11
],
[
17264,
18956,
12
],
[
18956,
21238,
13
],
[
21238,
22747,
14
],
[
22747,
25423,
15
],
[
25423,
27384,
16
],
[
27384,
28910,
17
],
[
28910,
30029,
18
],
[
30029,
30437,
19
],
[
30437,
32656,
20
],
[
32656,
35394,
21
],
[
35394,
38091,
22
],
[
38091,
40241,
23
],
[
40241,
40556,
24
]
]
} |
0b3600633c72cc35dcb644b2e799eb8491bdb98e | Personnel Services Division
Corporate Services
London Borough of Croydon
Policy on
Rewarding
Additional Duties
JUNE 2004 Assessing Rewards for Additional Duties
Has Departmental Personnel been consulted to identify whether or not additional duties need to be performed?
YES
Has the existence of a secondment opportunity been ruled out?
YES
Are the additional duties to be undertaken for a continuous period of at least 4 weeks and no longer than 6 months? (except in emergency situations Personnel have agreed).
NO
Consider employing an agency temporary worker.
YES
Are the additional duties at the same level as the employee’s normal duties and outside the remit of their normal duties (but not part of their personal development plan) (e.g. temporary project).
NO
Are the additional duties at the same level as the employee’s normal duties and outside the remit of their normal duties (but not part of their personal development plan) (e.g. temporary project).
NO
Consider employing an agency temporary worker.
YES
Do the additional duties arise from a specific higher-graded post?
NO
Will the employee undertake 100% of the duties of a specific post?
YES
Pay the employee the higher salary. Set end date in 6 months.
NO
Pay overtime/TOIL/ (or Plain Time for PT Workers up to full time hours).
YES
May be eligible for an additional payment. Does job evaluation (through Department Personnel) of the additional duties result in a grade higher than the appointee’s substantive post?
NO
Consult Departmental Personnel to re-examine options for covering workload
YES
Consult Departmental Personnel to re-examine options for covering workload
NO
Consult opportunity for developing an employee via the secondment scheme
PLEASE NOTE: This is an illustration. The full procedure must be followed.
1. **Scope**
1.1 The need for employees to take on additional duties can arise whilst a vacancy exists, during periods of absence, leave or reorganisation or because project work beyond normal requirements has to be undertaken. The purpose of following this policy and procedure is to enable a service to function effectively. It should only be used as a short term measure up to a maximum of 6 months. Management of this policy and procedure is the joint responsibility of service managers and departmental personnel officers. It should only be used if application of the secondment scheme is not a possibility. Posts of all grades are covered by this scheme. Its application is made easier by single status, which enables transition from former manual grades to admin posts.
1.2 **Secondment Scheme**
If the full duties of a post need to be covered for at least 6 months, or if the skills, knowledge and experience required for the role may be present elsewhere in the Council (e.g. for administration, finance, personnel or IT work), the Secondment scheme should be followed. The Secondment Scheme requires that the post is advertised internally and filled following the Successful Staff Selection policy. This broadens opportunities for development to all Council staff in a fair and non-discriminatory way. In some circumstances, secondment opportunities may be opened up to partner/voluntary or other government organisations.
1.3 This policy:
(a) applies to all Croydon Council employees except Chief Officers, school-based staff and teachers, to whom other arrangements apply.
(b) replaces the previous Acting Up Policy (taking on extra duties of a higher grade) and arrangements for paying Honoraria (payments made to reward employees whilst in "acting up" positions).
(c) eradicates the notion of an ‘acting up allowance’. Employees either receive the full rate of pay for a post or an additional payment for carrying out additional duties.
(d) incorporates the Council's principles of equality, transparency and management accountability.
(e) provides a flexible and efficient method to reward employees carrying out duties in excess of those contained within their job description.
1.4 **Terminology**
**Additional Duties**
Extra duties and responsibilities that differ from an employee's substantive job description. Additional Payment
Payment for performing additional duties less than 100% of another post. Not to be paid for performing 100% of the post - this should be rewarded by paying the evaluated grade for the job. Pay and conditions must be agreed before the new arrangement starts.
Secondment
A development opportunity whereby an employee may experience working at a higher level for a period of at least 6 months. Should always be considered in preference to the Rewarding Additional Duties scheme.
End Date
This is a preset end date of the arrangement, after which the line manager must review the situation and reconsider options to manage the team’s workload. Under no circumstances should employees be assimilated into a higher graded post without applying for a post advertised according to the Council’s staff selection policy.
2. Framework
2.1 It is for the line manager, in conjunction with Departmental Personnel, to decide which scheme to follow. The Secondment Scheme, wherever possible, takes priority over both the Rewarding Additional Duties scheme and the option to employ an external agency worker.
2.2 There is a step by step procedure to follow when deciding if this policy should be used, how it should be applied and when alternative policies would provide a more fitting solution (see flowchart).
3. Key Principles
3.1 The need to maintain service delivery is the main reason for implementing the Rewarding Additional Duties policy. A decision should be taken promptly and the most appropriate person selected to undertake the additional duties. The principles of equality of opportunity and the Council’s recruitment practices must apply to any decision. Particular attention should be paid to the possibility of making reasonable adjustments to enable disabled employees to be considered. A corporate fund is available to support such adaptations.
3.2 Temporary cover arrangements can offer employees an opportunity to broaden their experience, acquire new skills and may lead to a gateway to promotion. Additional duties can provide development opportunities to staff who have hitherto not received such opportunities. Staff with relevant experience should, however, be considered before others. If there are no such staff, consideration should be given to those who demonstrate the required potential to do the job.
3.3 The ability to be flexible and adaptable to change is expected of all staff and managers. Good performance where the quality and quantity of work is produced to standards and deadlines, or to defined competencies, should be the norm. Additional financial reward should not be used to recognise good performance, nor should it apply to the carrying out of duties reasonably required of the postholder, as contained in their job description.
3.4 Managers are responsible for ensuring that, in covering additional duties, staff are not overloaded in terms of their volume of work. They need to bear in mind the requirements of the Working Time Regulations and Health and Safety at Work legislation. Service objectives should be reprioritised if necessary.
3.5 Managers should ask staff to consider the risks involved by taking on any financial commitments afforded to them whilst being paid at a higher level which may not be sustainable on return to a substantive grade.
3.6 Opportunities should be offered in the first instance to a ringfenced group of all appropriate employees. The selection process must be seen to be fair and unbiased. Personnel must be involved in decisions about how to proceed when a change in status of a vacancy occurs, for example when a temporary vacancy becomes permanent.
3.7 In certain work locations, like care homes, emergency cover decisions may have to be arranged at very short notice. Ring fence decisions should be made in advance so there is a procedure to follow when, for example, a manager does not show up for work. In this way an instant decision can be made about who the most appropriate person is to take on additional duties for a very short period of time. This is one circumstance where the 4 week minimum duration can be disregarded and extra pay can be awarded to the person taking on the manager's tasks.
4. Procedure
4.1 A decision needs to be made about how to deal with the need for additional duties to be undertaken. Recruitment of external temporary cover should not automatically be decided upon in preference to utilising the skills, knowledge and experience of existing employees. The decision will involve assessment of the volume, duration (at least 4 weeks) and grade of additional duties balanced against available resources within the Council and impact on current workloads.
4.2 A short application form (see Appendix 2) will enable all interested employees to be considered to take on additional duties. Managers must be able to justify their selection against criteria where more than one applicant has expressed an interest.
4.3 When deciding how to share additional duties between various employees, managers should bear in mind the Council's Equal Opportunities Policy and the fact that some employees are only able to undertake a limited amount of additional hours (eg working parents). Consideration should always be given to the impact additional work could have on different categories of workers. 5. **Impact of Sickness Absence or Ill-Health**
5.1 Where sickness absence during such an arrangement gives rise to operational difficulties the primary concern is effective and efficient service delivery. Another employee can be selected (using the same selection process) to carry out the duties. The first arrangement should be allowed to run its course. Where applicable the Corporate sickness and ill-health procedure should be followed to measure the impact of carrying out additional duties has had on the employee.
6. **Duties at the Same Level**
6.1 If the duties are at the same level as those of the substantive post (as measured under the Job Evaluation Scheme) and simply reflect an increase in workload volume, a calculation should be made of the additional hours which need to be worked before identifying who is to do them. Extra hours should be rewarded either at the agreed overtime rate relating to the substantive post (for posts up to and including PO6) or by time off in lieu (or by plain time for a part-time worker up to full-time hours). It should be clarified and agreed in advance when additional hours are to be worked and how the outcome of these activities will be measured. This should be completed by the line manager and Departmental Personnel before the arrangement commences.
6.2 If staff are working to their full capacity and take on same-grade additional duties, e.g. if additional duties have arisen from a project or to provide cover for an absent colleague of the same grade, part of their substantive post will need to be covered in an alternative way or objectives may need to be re-prioritised if additional hours are to be avoided.
7. **Duties at a Higher Level**
7.1 Where an employee is required to undertake additional duties and responsibilities which are calculated under the Job Evaluation Scheme at a higher level than their substantive post, an additional payment should be paid. This can apply to situations involving the take up of either some or all of the duties of a more senior post. If only some of the higher level duties are to be covered, the depth and breadth of the duties and responsibilities should be assessed by departmental personnel using the Job Evaluation Scheme.
7.2 Where an employee undertakes the full duties of a higher graded post, certain terms and conditions related to that post will apply to that person for the duration of the arrangement. This will not affect the rights of the substantive postholder. Such measures will be decided on a case by case basis and made known before employees are invited to apply.
7.3 Absence due to maternity leave or sickness (especially when there is a disability related reason for it) will not trigger an early review of the arrangement (which could be deemed discriminatory). The arrangement should continue until its pre-arranged end date is reached (a maximum of 6 months).
7.4 If an annual pay award or increment becomes relevant during the period, it should also be implemented at the higher salary level. This will ensure that the employee is paid the correct rate for the job they are doing. 7.5 Where additional duties are not linked to a specific senior post, Job Evaluation of the extra duties alone may result in a grade higher than the substantive post, resulting in entitlement to additional payment. Job Evaluation must never be used in this context to upgrade a person permanently, however; only to evaluate the temporary level of the post.
7.6 The employee must be reminded of their substantive status and that the temporary arrangement is not a permanent promotion.
8. Calculating Additional Payments
8.1 There are two dimensions to the calculation: the percentage of the total job performed and the duration of the arrangement. If 100% of the post is being covered, the full rate of pay for the higher graded post must be paid. Where only part of a post is being covered, the difference in salary between the substantive post and the lowest spinal column point of the more senior grade should be paid. The additional payment will be equivalent to at least one spinal column point if the salary scales of the two posts overlap. In other circumstances it will be the equivalent to the difference between the substantive salary and the first spinal point of the higher grade e.g. employee who is on scp 34 at grade SO2 and undertakes duties of a PO1 post will be granted an additional payment equivalent to the difference between scp 35 and 34.
8.2 Please see 'Guidelines for calculating Additional Payments', the agreement to be signed by the employee and the application form for an additional payment.
9. Recording and Monitoring
9.1 A record form for an additional payment (Appendix 1) should be completed and a copy should be kept on the employee's personal file.
9.2 All such arrangements must be monitored periodically by Departmental Personnel and Personnel Services to determine access rates for different groups, review the length and reasons for such arrangements and ensure consistency of application. Departments will complete a monitoring sheet for each employee who applies and forward an annual statistical report to Personnel Services. This will show all rewarding additional duties arrangements, including the grades of substantive postholders, grades of posts being covered, time period involved and percentage of duties covered. If a need for continuation beyond the originally agreed period arises, Departmental Personnel must review the reasons for the cover and consider a permanent solution to the vacancy. All such cases must be included in the annual report to Personnel Services.
Departments will need to justify new, ending and continuing arrangements and clearly identify funding available to support them. Application To Take On Additional Duties
Name: Department: Current Job Title: Current Grade: Section: Location: Contact No: Post (or Part Post) applied for: Grade:
Using the attached Job Description and Person Specification, please show below why and how you meet the shortlisting criteria for the post. Only those applicants who meet these criteria will be shortlisted.
Signed (applicant): Date:
You may attach additional sheets if necessary
# APPENDIX 2
## RECORD OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENT ARRANGEMENT
Submitted by: Tel: Date:
Department: Job Title:
To be completed by the relevant Line Manager with advice from Departmental Personnel
| Department: | Division/Section: | |-------------|-------------------| | Additional duties/post to be covered: | | Status: | | (e.g. temporary, permanent, fixed term) | | Grade of additional duties/post: | | Name of Recipient: | | Employee Number: | | Substantive Job Title and Grade: | | Gender: | Ethnic Origin: | Disabled | Y/N? | | Brief outline of situation: | | What alternative solutions have been considered (Explain why alternatives were rejected): | | Description of work that needs to be covered: | | Method used for selecting the individual: (eg. breadth of pool, ring-fenced group selected, staff selection procedure followed, etc.) | | Start date: | End date: | What would be the consequences if the additional responsibilities were not covered?
Additional payment proposed and basis of calculation (Specify whether to be paid as a lump sum or monthly)
Approved by: (Chief Officer)
Name:
Designation:
Signature: (Chief Officer)
Date:
A copy of this form to be kept on the postholder's personal file. **EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES MONITORING**
The Council is required to monitor all its Personnel Policies and Procedures to identify any possible concerns about unfair treatment to particular groups of staff. You are therefore asked to provide the following information to the monitoring process. How you complete this form has no connection to the evaluation of your application in any way.
| Question | Options | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Do you consider yourself to have a disability (i.e. a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities)? | Yes ☐ No ☐ | | If you have a disability what equipment, adaptations or adjustments to working conditions would assist you in carrying out your duties? | | | What is your current Grade? | | | What Grade is the post/part post you are applying to cover? | | | For office use only: | successful ☐ unsuccessful ☐ | | Outcome of application | | | What is your religion? | | | Please tick one box only. | | | None ☐ 1 Christian ☐ 2 Buddhist ☐ 3 Hindu ☐ 4 Muslim ☐ 5 Sikh ☐ 6 Jewish ☐ 7 Other ☐ 90 | | | If “other” please specify:- | | | What is your gender? | Male ☐ Female ☐ | | Which of the following best describes your ethnic origin? Please tick one box only. | | | (a) White: British ☐ 20 Irish ☐ 21 Other ☐ 22 | | | (b) Mixed: | | | White & Black Caribbean ☐ 30 | | | White & Black African ☐ 31 | | | White & Asian ☐ 32 | | | Other Mixed Group ☐ 33 | | | (c) Asian or Asian British: | | | Indian ☐ 40 | Pakistani ☐ 41 | | Bangladeshi ☐ 42 | Other Asian ☐ 43 | | (d) Black or Black British: | | | Caribbean ☐ 50 | African ☐ 51 | | Other Black background ☐ 52 | | | (e) Chinese or other ethnic group: | | | Chinese ☐ 60 | Any other ethnic group ☐ 70 | | If “other” please specify:- | | | What is your Sexuality? | | | Please tick one box only. | | | Heterosexual ☐ Gay Man or Lesbian ☐ | | | Bisexual ☐ Prefer not to say | | | In which Department do you work? | | | Education ☐ Executive Office ☐ Planning and Transportation ☐ | | | Finance ☐ Environmental, Cultural and Sports Services ☐ | | | Housing ☐ Corporate Services ☐ Social Services ☐ | | GUIDELINES FOR PAYING ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS
1. KEEPING RECORDS
All arrangements made for additional payments must be recorded on the Council’s Personnel and Payroll system. Where 100% of a higher graded post is being undertaken, the first action should be to transfer the employee from their substantive post to the higher graded position. The end date should be recorded on page 703 of IMPPS. This will ensure that all pay and benefits relating to that post are automatically awarded. It will also remind Departmental Personnel when the situation ends.
If only some of the duties of a post are being covered or additional work is of a project nature, it is possible to record this as a temporary arrangement on page 780 of IMPPS where there is a 'Notes' facility on screen. This will produce a reminder report in a similar way.
An end date should be set in advance, recorded and adhered to. The employee will revert back to their substantive post on the Personnel and Payroll System after the end date.
2. CALCULATING ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS - PERCENTAGES OF HIGHER GRADED POSTS
The following examples show how additional payments may be calculated.
Payment should be based on the lowest scale point within the higher grade. Code 061 should be entered on to screen 600 of IMPPS to ensure the right amount of pay is paid. (N.B. This code should not be used for recording any other type of allowance. This will need to be re-calculated every time a pay award or increment becomes effective.)
Examples (based on 2002 pay rates). All figures have been rounded down here for easier understanding. Actual calculations need to be exact.
1. A PO2 (Scp 35) post becomes vacant and will take 12 weeks to fill. Two SO1 post holders (at 29 and 31) will share 50% of the duties of the PO2 post, the remainder being covered by more senior colleagues. -
i. Difference between scp 29 and scp 35 = £2,583 Additional payment = 12/52 x 2,583 x 25% = £149
ii. Difference between scp 31 and scp 35 = £2,472 Additional payment = 12/52 x 2,472 x 25% = £142
Although the two SO1 post holders are paid different amounts, this is consistent because it reflects the different additional effort required as well as the difference between their substantive grade and those of the higher graded duties.
2. A PO8 (scp 54) post-holder has been on sick leave for 4 weeks and is expected to be away for approximately a further 4 months.
A PO4 post-holder (on scp 44) has been covering 75% of the duties of the PO8 post for the past 4 weeks and will assume the full duties for the remainder of the sick leave - Difference between scp 44 and scp 54 = £9,867 Additional payment = 1/12 x 9,867 x 75% = £616 Plus 1/12 x 9,867 = £822 per month until PO8 returns to work.
3. SAME GRADE ADDITIONAL DUTIES
In cases of increased duties of the same grade (for example temporary project work, covering a vacant post), Departmental Personnel should consult the Head of Personnel Services to discuss the possibility of additional payment.
4. ADDITIONAL PAYMENT AGREEMENT
This statement is to be incorporated into a letter to the employee receiving an additional payment. It is to be signed by any member of Council staff who will be receiving an additional payment for taking on additional duties at a more senior level than their substantive post.
"I understand that this arrangement will end after a maximum of six months. Management have the discretion to end the arrangement earlier giving one month's notice. I may also end it in the same way.
I understand that the maximum length of entitlement to any enhanced terms and conditions will be for the duration of my taking on additional duties, and in any event will last up to a maximum of 6 months."
Name: Signature:
Date:
Reason for Additional Payment:
End Date: Appendix 5
Ending Acting Up and Honoraria Arrangements
Is the employee covering a vacant post?
Are they receiving an Honorarium or Additional Payment?
Are they covering the full duties of the post?
All arrangements to be reviewed/given an end date by 31 December 2003
End the arrangement by 31 March 2004 & review method of fulfilling the post/duties long term/permanently if necessary
Job Evaluate the extra duties and reward them appropriately
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2017-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 14,
"total-input-tokens": 24555,
"total-output-tokens": 5750,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
127,
1
],
[
127,
1827,
2
],
[
1827,
4169,
3
],
[
4169,
6821,
4
],
[
6821,
9504,
5
],
[
9504,
12631,
6
],
[
12631,
15291,
7
],
[
15291,
15738,
8
],
[
15738,
16628,
9
],
[
16628,
16973,
10
],
[
16973,
23113,
11
],
[
23113,
25317,
12
],
[
25317,
26927,
13
],
[
26927,
27389,
14
]
]
} |
eb90ec2dec86a6f6dc4c22b2a9a250fa4013d38f | Dear Tony
I am writing to thank you for agreeing to lead the new London Borough of Croydon Improvement and Assurance Panel. This letter formally confirms your appointment by the Secretary of State as Chair of the Panel and confirms the terms of reference that we have agreed for your work.
The establishment of an Improvement and Assurance Panel for Croydon was one of the main recommendations of Chris Wood’s non-statutory review of the London Borough of Croydon which is due to be published on 1 February 2021. The intention to appoint the Panel will be announced to the Council in the 20 January Ministerial letter from Luke Hall MP to Cllr Hamida Ali, the Leader of the Council.
The purpose of this Panel is:
- To provide external advice, challenge and expertise to the London Borough of Croydon in developing and implementing their Improvement Plan; and
- To provide assurance to the Secretary of State of the London Borough of Croydon’s progress in delivering this Plan.
The terms of reference we have agreed for your work are attached to this letter. They highlight that, as a first step in its role, the Panel will provide an initial assessment of the Improvement Plan incorporated into the Council’s request for exceptional financial support (received 15 December 2020) by early February 2021. More generally and in the longer term, the Panel will provide advice and challenge to the Council on the full range of their improvement activities.
The Secretary of State will need regular assurance that the Council is working at pace to deliver the scale of change that is needed. As mentioned above, we have agreed that you will submit your first report to the Secretary of State by 5 February 2021. This will include your assessment of whether the Recovery Plan is sufficient to help the Council to meet its Best Value Duty. Following this, you will provide regular reports to the Secretary of State until the end of March 2024 when we hope that the work of the Board can conclude. If you have any questions, please do get in touch at any time. Max Soule, Deputy Director for Local Government Stewardship, will be the lead official in my team for your work.
I am copying this letter to the Leader and Chief Executive of the London Borough of Croydon. It will also be published on gov.uk.
Your sincerely,
CATHERINE FRANCES London Borough of Croydon Improvement and Assurance Panel
Terms of Reference
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has established the London Borough of Croydon Improvement and Assurance Panel (“the Panel”). The Panel will provide advice and challenge to the Council alongside assurance to the Secretary of State as the Council seeks to improve its strategic financial governance and budgetary control in response to the findings of Chris Woods non-statutory review.
Purpose
1. The purpose of the Panel is:
- To provide external advice, challenge and expertise to the London Borough of Croydon in developing and implementing their Improvement Plan; and
- To provide assurance to the Secretary of State of the London Borough of Croydon’s progress in delivering this Plan.
2. This will involve:
- Providing regular advice and challenge to the Council on the full range of their improvement activities.
- In the first instance, the Panel is asked to provide an initial assessment of the Improvement Plan incorporated into the Council’s EFS request (received 15 December 2020) by early February 2021.
- The Panel will also work with the Council to develop a clear assessment of its current assets and, where appropriate, a disposal strategy.
- More generally, the Panel will provide an assessment of on delivery against the milestones set out in the Council’s Improvement Plan which draws on the recommendations of the non-statutory report and reports from other reviews commissioned by the Council and which are identified as part of the Exceptional Financial Support that is being offered to the Council by central government.
- Providing written commentaries on the Council’s progress to the Secretary of State each quarter, including recommending the use of Best Value powers (such as the appointment of Commissioners) if the Council fails to demonstrate progress. These commentaries will be published.
3. The Panel will convene for the first time in January 2021 and is expected to conclude by March 2024 unless circumstances mean that, on advice from the Panel, the Secretary of State decides to use his Best Value powers under the Local Government Act 1999.
4. Panel meetings will be held in private and any minutes produced will not be published.
5. Following on from the initial assessment of the Council’s EFS request, and work on assets, the Panel’s will work with MHCLG officials to plan a timetable for its reports linked to key milestones in the Council’s improvement journey.
Membership
6. The Panel membership will comprise:
- **Independent Chair and governance lead** – Tony McArdle, (ex-CEO of Lincolnshire CC and currently Lead Commissioner at Northamptonshire CC)
- **Independent external member (finance lead)** – Margaret Lee (currently Executive Director, Corporate and Customer Services and previously CFO, Essex CC); and
- **Independent external member (commercial and asset disposal)** – Phil Brookes (Crown Representative, worked on Nottingham rapid non-statutory review).
7. Membership of the Panel is not fixed: it will be assessed and adjusted as necessary as its role evolves in line with developments at the Council. At the same time, the Panel will seek to work closely with other advisers working with the Council in particular focussing on those providing support on Children’s Services and Adult Social Care.
Costs
08. Any costs associated with the Panel will be met by the London Borough of Croydon.
09. Panel members will be paid a fee for their work. We would expect this to be in line with the fees paid to previous members of review teams or improvement panels of £600 - £800 per day plus reasonable expenses, including travel and subsistence. The fees will be paid on a personal basis.
10. Panel members will need to work flexibly as the demands of the role requires. However, the London Borough of Croydon may wish to agree in advance the number of days advice to be provided by each Board member over a 12-month period. For example, Birmingham City Council agreed their non-executive advisers would each provide 12 days/year; the Grenfell Recovery Taskforce were each appointed to work in Kensington and Chelsea for 2-3 days/week or maximum of 120 days/ year.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2018-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 6836,
"total-output-tokens": 1535,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1995,
1
],
[
1995,
2338,
2
],
[
2338,
4639,
3
],
[
4639,
6593,
4
]
]
} |
7431b37c4f75b08101160bf56f6584ff662b6be2 | Oil and Gas in the Political Marketplace in Somalia
Joakim Gundel
Overview The prospects around hydrocarbons (oil and gas) and future oil concessions have been accelerating in Somalia since 2012. The potential in this sector is already an important factor in political dynamics in the country, as seen for example in the ongoing maritime dispute with Kenya, as well as through the interests of several different countries and the involvement of a number of commercial actors.
This memo argues that, while legislation and regulation, at least nominally, has been progressing in the last 3-4 years, it remains unfinished but now frames the operation of the political marketplace, with control over the Ministry of Petroleum and Somalia Petroleum Agency (SPA) constituting the key motivations of political elites and associated bargaining. Control of these ‘institutions’ enables access to informal flows of money as well as allows control over the allocation of sub-contracts, which are likely to come from the various grants and loans that will become available through the debt relief process. Control over contracts is a major issue in Somalia’s political economy and political marketplace.
The memo highlights the underlying dynamics behind the regulatory developments and the push for – arguably premature – auctioning. It suggests that speculation is feeding the political marketplace in Somalia; speculation in future oil wealth (in the short-term through foreign oil companies that are willing to pay access fees, rents and other inducements up front). In addition, speculation on the operational sub-contracts that exploration will generate (logistics, security, accommodation and hospitality). These drivers are elevated in the current pre-election period, where potential unconditional cash injections and the political trading around key positions – and the control or influence of contracts – in the emerging ‘institutions’ are important dynamics.
The establishment of the federal government in Mogadishu, in 2012, has changed the organisation of this sector bringing it under a central authority where for years previously arrangements were made with regional authorities. In addition, past controversies associated with Soma Oil (Coastal Exploration) and TGS (Spectrum) still cast a shadow over the Somali petroleum sector and serve a useful purpose in highlighting the reputational risks of opaque engagement in this area and the need for proper regulation and oversight. Analytical framework and methodology
1. The political marketplace framework outlines that transactional politics is more important than institution-building in contexts such as Somalia, and that new resources, such as from hydrocarbon prospects are likely to become - or are already part of - the political budgets, calculations and networks of Somali actors. In this light, while legislation and regulation play a part in organising the sector and associated political dynamics, this is often to provide the appearance that formal, technical requirements are in place, disguising the real political processes taking place behind the scenes.
2. The role of mineral rents in the organisation and operation of political marketplaces is often extremely important as can be seen in other contexts; in Sudan for example, control of oil and gold drove dynamics in this marketplace. In the case of Somalia, the short-term and longer-term potential rents associated with the oil/gas sector are drawing in commercial investment and political positioning. The dynamics of the political marketplace determine how that positioning plays out, with this memo suggesting that the President's office (and allies) is exerting a centralising hold where previously these rents were decentralised.
3. The memo is based on 39 interviews with a range of key informants, including Somali analysts, long-term aid experts, government officials (present and former), businesspeople, and oil sector experts. The interviews were carried out remotely between March and August 2020, as well as in person in Mogadishu, by an experienced researcher. A range of media sources, published documents and reports as well as other grey literature were consulted for the study.
Background
4. From the 1970s, geologists have demonstrated that Somalia has a promising geology for hydrocarbons. The most promising areas for oil and gas prospecting by the 1980s was believed to be found in eight petroleum basins. More recently, the prospects of offshore deposits were surveyed in 2014 by Soma Oil (now renamed Coastal Exploration) and Spectrum Geo (acquired in 2019 by TGS of Houston) in 2015, showing that the prospects of offshore oil is promising (see Map 1).
5. The risk that politically influenced positioning around potential oil resources could deepen Somalia's underlying tensions and lead to conflict was emphasised in a UN report in 2014 which recommended a moratorium on oil licensing until Somalia had the political and institutional stability to manage the vast funds that could be generated. Post-civil war initiatives to regulate the oil and gas sector have been ongoing since 2008 and are important to the operations of the political marketplace as well as to the perceptions of progress to reach critical benchmarks by the international community. In 2012, a new Petroleum Law had to be drafted to bring the 2008 law in accordance with the new provisional constitution (Article 44), which stated that the allocation of natural resources must be negotiated and jointly agreed upon by the Federal Government and the Federal Member States together.
1 See: https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/Conflict-Research-Programme/crp-memos/PMF-TOC-Feb-2020.pdf 2 In another CRP report, the concept of the 'frontstage' and 'backstage' was used to illustrate the disconnect between the technical and political aspects of food/cash aid analysis and programming. See: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/103138/ 3 See: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/101291/ 4 Barnes, Sydney U. 1976. “Geology and Oil Prospects of Somalia, East Africa.” 5 Hussein, A.A. (2012) Somalia’s Oil and Gas Potential - A frontier country that will be open for oil and gas exploration in 2013, December 27, 2012, https://hiiraan.com/op4/2012/dec/27479/somalia_s_oil_and_gas_potential.aspx 6 Soma Oil actually only facilitated and paid for the survey, which sub-contracted SeaBird to do the actual survey. 7 Kearns, H. Berryman, J. Hodgson, N. and Rodriguez, K. (2016) Offshore Somalia: East Africa’s Oil Frontier, Spectrum, GeoExpro Magazine, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2016 https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2016/05/offshore-somalia-east-africa-s-oil-frontier; Davidson, Lindsay & Arthur, T. & Smith, G. & Tubb, S. (2017). Geology and hydrocarbon potential of offshore SE Somalia. Petroleum Geoscience. 24. petgeo2016-154. 10.1144/petgeo2016-154. accessed at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320985861_Geology_and_hydrocarbon_potential_of_offshore_SE_Somalia 8 See UN Monitoring Group Report: https://www.ecoi.net/en/file/local/1199912/1226_1426687824_n1452986-727.pdf 9 Reitano, T. and Shaw M. (2013), Briefing: Peace, Politics and Petroleum in Somalia, African Affairs, October 2013, Vol. 112, No. 449 (October 2013), pp. 666-675 (by Oxford University Press). 6. However, a new Petroleum Law was not passed by the Parliament until May 2019, and the Upper House did not pass it until January 2020. It was finally ratified and signed by President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo on February 8, 2020. Delays in the legislative process concerned the content of the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA), Resource Sharing Agreement (RSA) and the establishment of the regulatory institutions, such as the Somali Petroleum Authority (SPA); these in turn concern the relative power of central vis-à-vis regional authorities in the still nascent federal arrangement in Somalia.
7. The UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea (UN SEMG) reported in October 2014 that increasing commercial activity in the oil and gas sector in Somalia without a resolution to constitutional and legal disputes surrounding the control of natural resources increased the risk of conflict. In 2015, the UN SEMG again raised these issues regarding the Soma Oil agreement which led to an investigation by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and caused further delay to the legislative process. A report by the Adam Smith Institute (ASI), in 2014, raised many of the same issues as the UN SEMG, and made a number of recommendations including in the area of technical support and the need for ‘constitutional consensus’ as a precondition to such support.
8. The issues raised by the ASI and UN Monitoring Group reports prompted international partners to engage with the FGS on developing the legal frameworks for the oil sector. The World Bank (WB) took the lead on this in 2016 and produced a review of the legal framework for the petroleum sector. One of the key recommendations of their report was that a consultative process with the FMS needed to take place regarding the powers of the various organs with respect to petroleum administration, ownership and revenue allocation. The WB report also suggested that the petroleum law should set the main principles for contracting and that a model PSA should be developed. Due to the risks of creating dangerous and destabilizing competition between the various actors, it was recommended that no exploratory drilling by international oil companies would be permitted until a new legal and fiscal framework for petroleum was agreed upon.
10 Obbia Basin (corresponding to the Mudug Basin and Somali Embayment), Coriole Basin (corresponding to the Somali Coastal Basin), and the Juba-Lamu Basin (corresponding to the Lamu Embayment). 11 http://somalialicensinground.com/wp-content/uploads/SOMALI-PETROLEUM-LAW-2020-2.pdf 12 See: https://www.ecoi.net/en/file/local/1199912/1226_1476687824_n1452986-727.pdf 13 Adam Smith International (2014), Needs Assessment for the Development of Somalia’s Extractive Industries, March 2014, Adam Smith International. 14 World Bank (2016), Review of the legal, regulatory, and fiscal framework of Somalia for the Petroleum Sector, Federal Republic of Somalia, FINAL REPORT, 4 August 2016, World Bank. 9. Hence, a Revenue Sharing Agreement (RSA) was negotiated between the Federal Government (FGS) and the Federal Member States (FMS) in Baidoa, in June 2018. The international partners, World Bank and IMF (who by then had been engaged in the debt relief process) had used the debt relief process, which has been underway for some years in Somalia, as a lever to encourage agreement. The RSA was not passed by legislation until 20 May 2019. It established that the FGS will retain 55% of revenue from future offshore oil production and 30% from onshore output, with the FMS and the local communities receiving the remainder. This was written into the new Petroleum Law passed in February 2020. However, the Financial Governance Committee (FGC) raised concern that there could be significant disparities in the revenue shares between the FMSs, and therefore advised in June 2020 that the terms of the agreement be reviewed periodically. Areas of the RSA remain contentious. For example, Puntland believes the Petroleum Law breaches Article 44 of the 2012 Constitution, which declares that the principles of federalism rather than centralism should be the key principle of governance.
10. The Soma Oil controversy is an important reminder of the complications of engaging in an unregulated environment. The promising offshore reserves were clearly sparking impatience, not only from the Government officials, but also from UK based Soma Oil & Gas and Norwegian Spectrum Geo. Both companies had been pushing and assisting the government to initiate the oil licensing process, in their attempts at acquiring their rewards for their support to the Ministry of Petroleum. While sale of survey data was the business interest of Spectrum, Soma Oil, a UK company which involved the ex-PM, Hassan Khaire, attempted to gain access to 12 oil blocks (See Map 2) while also dictating the terms of the production sharing agreement (PSA). This event has ultimately served a useful purpose as it highlights the reputational risks of opaque engagement in this area and the need for proper regulation and oversight.
15 The formal title was the Agreement on Ownership, Management and Sharing of Revenues from the Natural Resources of the Country (Oil & Minerals) - also called the Baidoa Agreement. 16 See CRP memo on debt relief and the political marketplace: https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/projects/conflict-research-programme/publications/memos 17 Somalia Moves Step Closer to Reviving Oil Sector with New Terms, Bloomberg, 28 June 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/somalia-moves-step-closer-to-reviving-oil-sector-with-new-terms 18 Financial Governance Report 2020, Federal Government of Somalia, World Bank, EU, IMF, AfDB, July 2020. https://mof.gov.so/sites/default/files/2020-08/Financial%20Governance%20Report%202020%20-%20English%20Report.pdf 19 Financial Governance Report 2020, Federal Government of Somalia, World Bank, EU, IMF, AfDB, July 2020. https://mof.gov.so/sites/default/files/2020-08/Financial%20Governance%20Report%202020%20-%20English%20Report.pdf 20 The seismic surveys conducted by Soma Oil & Gas and Spectrum Geo, suggest that Somalia has promising oil reserves along the Indian Ocean coast, between the cities of Garad and Kismayo. Total offshore deposits could be as high as 100 billion barrels. See Somalia Readies for Oil Exploration, Still Working on Petroleum Law, Voice of America, February 13, 2019. https://www.voanews.com/africa/somalia-readies-oil-exploration-still-working-petroleum-law 21 Announced on 6 August 2013 of the Oil and Gas Agreement Signed between Somalia and Soma Oil, according to a presentation by Soma Oil & Gas entitled Unlocking Somalia’s Potential, at Eastern African Oil Conference in Nairobi, 29-30 April 2014. https://www.voanews.com/africa/somalia-readies-oil-exploration-still-working-petroleum-law 11. Despite the emphasis that is being placed on regulation, Somali authorities still appear to be unduly rushing the oil licensing process. A February 2019 oil and gas conference, held in London, took place with a model Production Sharing Agreement presented, but with neither the legal framework nor institutions in place. The FGC raised concerns about the PSA because it was different from the previously designed model and was not aligned with the Procurement Law.
12. A requirement of the new Petroleum Law is that a regulating institution - the Somali Petroleum Authority (SPA) - is established within six months from the date of the law's ratification, which would be by the launch of the Oil Licensing Round in August 2020. Henceforth, the responsibility of negotiating oil exploration and production contracts and concessions would lie with the SPA. However, the board of the SPA, its Chairman and CEO was not appointed until July 30, only a few days after the Parliament had dismissed PM Hassan Khaire, who resigned under duress on July 25. This was controversial because according to Article 97(4) of the provisional constitution, the cabinet, which is the only authority that can make such appointments, is effectively dissolved if the PM is removed. The appointment was therefore made by a Cabinet that de jure was dissolved by law and thus not legitimate.
13. The composition of the SPA has raised questions among many observers, where Article 19 (3b) states that the members of the SPA must be selected for their knowledge, professionalism, competence, and integrity. This does not appear to be the case. Article 19 (3d) is particularly important for understanding why the setting up of the SPA is a key transactional element in the political marketplace because it states that the members of the SPA shall hold office - assuming good behaviour - for a period of four years, that is beyond the forthcoming elections. If this is respected, placing favoured candidates in this agency would be advantageous to the incumbent ruling cabal, because it would enable them to maintain influence in the oil sector even if they lose the elections.
______________________________________________________________________
22 Financial Governance Report 2020, Federal Government of Somalia, World Bank, EU, IMF, AfDB, July 2020. https://mof.gov.so/sites/default/files/2020-08/Financial%20Governance%20Report%202020%20-%20English%20Report.pdf 23 Federal Republic of Somalia, Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, Somali Petroleum Law, Signed February 2020, Mogadishu, Somalia 24 Federal Republic of Somalia, Provisional Constitution, Adopted August 1, 2012, Mogadishu, Somalia 25 The ruling cabal were often referred to by Somalis as FFK (“Farmajo, Fahad & Khaire”); President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (Farmajo), (now ex) Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khaire and the Director General of the National Intelligence and Security Agency, Fahad Yasin Dahir). 14. Since 2017, strains between the FGS and the FMSs have been widely reported reflecting the tensions between centralized and decentralized power, with the incumbent FGS representing a centralizing ‘turn’ in Somalia’s political evolution (supported by Ethiopia and Eritrea); the heavily contested elections in South West State (SWS) and Jubbaland being the prime examples. Influence by the FGS over the FMSs has included appointments within the SPA. Having gained influence over SWS, Galmadug and Hirshabelle, the FGS was able to rush the new Petroleum Law through the Upper House, which the President was able to sign quickly on 8 February 2020.
15. In terms of implications for the political marketplace analysis, two elements emerged as important:
α) Ensuring the launch of the oil licensing round in the hope of signing several PSA’s to obtain funds to finance the upcoming election campaigns.
β) Ensuring that it is “your people” who sit in the controlling positions of the SPA (which maintains more permanency than the Minister of Petroleum) to secure control over licensing and contracting negotiations.
16. Finally, although the Petroleum Law has been passed through the legislature and signed by the President, and the SPA board has been appointed (although controversially), the regulatory and institutional frameworks are still not entirely in place, and past practices still cast a shadow over the prospects of oil licensing and exploration in Somalia. These are listed in Annex I.
Key Actors in the Hydrocarbon Sector in Somalia
Oil Companies
17. Somalia has never had the commercial companies and political leadership with available capital and capability to pursue oil and gas production on their own. Exploration for oil and gas has therefore been driven forward by a combination of foreign oil companies, foreign states, international organizations such as the World Bank, and local Somali actors and the Government(s) of Somalia trying to attract investments.
18. The most important “firms” in the oil sector are the so-called Oil Majors. Many of these household names were involved in Somalia in the 1960s and 70s. Following the collapse of the state in 1991, Conoco-Phillips, Amoco (BP since 2001), Shell (Pecten), Chevron, ENI (Agip) and TOTAL all declared “force majeure” until Somalia become stable again. The most important block concessions in February 1991 (see Map 3) were held by Pecten (now in joint venture Shell/Exxon), Conoco-Phillips, Chevron, Amoco (Now BP), and ENI (Agip).
26 See: https://www.somtribune.com/2018/12/27/icg-blames-villa-somalia-on-muscling-in-on-southwest-election-inflaming-crisis/; https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/horn-africa/somalia/b158-ending-dangerous-standoff-southern-somalia
27 See for World Bank (1988), Petroleum Exploration Promotion Project, Project Completion Report, December 8, 1988, and Reitano, T. and Shaw M. (2013), Briefing: Peace, Politics and Petroleum in Somalia, African Affairs, October 2013, Vol. 112, No. 449 (October 2013), pp. 666-675 (by Oxford University Press). 19. Over the last 2-3 decades different national and regional authorities have signed agreements with major and minor companies, complicating the concessionary landscape. For example, in February 2001, TOTAL signed an exploration agreement with the Transitional National Government (TNG). The agreement reportedly granted TOTAL the right to explore in the Indian Ocean off southern Somalia (See Map 3), but also triggered more than a decade of disputes between various transitional federal governments and the provincial authorities regarding the rights to oil. In 2012, the TFG Minister for Petroleum, informed the oil companies who had claimed “force majeure” that their legacy concessions would remain effective if they were interested and encouraged them to return. The letter also specified that any permits or contracts acquired after 1991 were considered invalid. This also invalidated all licenses entered by smaller companies, some of whom have signed agreements with authorities in Somaliland, Puntland and Galmudug.
20. To date, only Shell/Exxon has actively claimed a continued interest and made an agreement with the Ministry of Petroleum; signed in June 2019, a settlement letter confirms their exclusive petroleum exploration and production rights over the offshore blocks in Somalia under a concession agreement that has been under force majeure since 1991 (see Map 2). The letter enables a payment to be made for the renewal of the rights. In October 2019, Shell and Exxon reportedly paid USD 1.7 million in retrospective charges to the Government of Somalia to maintain this concession. BP (Amoco), CONOCO and ENI (Agip) had previously confirmed their interest in retaining their old concessions, but further developments are not yet clear.
21. The Oil Majors do not yet appear to have been playing any pro-active role in trying to re-activate their old concessions or pursue explorations in other areas of Somalia. The is due to the both the security risks and the unclear legal and institutional frameworks and where smaller companies are less restricted by these factors. The recent decline in oil prices associated with
______________________________________________________________________
28 Oil Contracts: The deals and companies in Somalia, by T. Rooble, Goobjoog News, August 9, 2015. [http://goobjoog.com/english/oil-contracts-the-deals-and-companies-in-somalia/](http://goobjoog.com/english/oil-contracts-the-deals-and-companies-in-somalia/)
29 Somalia says Shell, Exxon agree to pay $1.7 million for oil blocks lease, Reuters, October 29, 2019. [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-somalia-oil/somalia-says-shell-exxon-agree-to-pay-17-million-for-oil-blocks-lease-idUSKBN1X70V9](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-somalia-oil/somalia-says-shell-exxon-agree-to-pay-17-million-for-oil-blocks-lease-idUSKBN1X70V9) Covid-19 will add to this risk perception. Shell and Conoco have occasionally responded to some of the smaller companies when they have encroached on their concessions under force majeure to protect them. But other than that, they have remained largely passive. However, this may change as the FGS intensifies its licencing.
22. Major oil companies are known to act in coordination with their respective national governments. While these relationships are opaque, it is possible and even likely that geopolitical and some commercial interests are part of the underlying international engagement in Somalia in this sector.
23. The oil and gas industry is also populated by smaller companies who either work on behalf of the oil majors or independently. These are companies with the risk appetite to operate in contexts which carry significant operational risks for the oil majors. Their strategy usually involves exploration and finding oil, in order that their interests are either bought out by oil majors, or so that they can partner with oil majors to co-develop finds. These companies are not able to raise the sizeable investments required to start oil production and are therefore not very useful partners if future oil extraction is to benefit development in Somalia.
24. Hence, while the Oil Majors have remained inactive since 1990, exploration activities have been driven by these smaller adventurous companies hoping to ‘hit the jackpot’. Most of these companies have been brought in through connections made by Somali actors, particularly in Puntland, Somaliland and present-day Galmudug. There are many examples of companies who have been active in this small-scale exploration.
25. In addition to these companies, Norwegian Spectrum Geo (now TGS) was contracted by the FGS to carry out seismic surveys in 2015. TGS (Spectrum) is a company who specialises in geo-surveys and makes money by selling their data to oil prospectors; they keep the rights to the data and speculate in getting their investment back by selling the data. TGS stand to gain from the auctioning of oil exploration licenses, as oil companies may be interested in purchasing their survey data and are therefore actively backing the Ministry of Petroleum in advancing the oil licensing round.
Foreign countries and external oil interests in Somalia
26. Many foreign countries will be aware of and interested in the potential oil and gas reserves in Somalia given both its potential geopolitical importance as well as commercial profits. The United Kingdom, Norway and the United States are three countries that stand out in this regard, but Qatar, UAE, Turkey, Kenya and Ethiopia are also amongst countries with interests in the Somali oil and gas sector.
27. The international donor countries, and the International Financial Institutions (IFIs), such as the World Bank and IMF, also eye future oil extraction as a major revenue that would enable Somalia to serve future development loans, which would become available once Somalia reaches the debt relief completion point. Thus, debt relief and oil sector development are linked.
28. The UK’s interest in this sector developed alongside its leadership of a renewed state-building programme under David Cameron’s government. The controversial Soma Oil case illustrated
______________________________________________________________________
30 Shell clings firmly to its concession, Africa Intelligence, 01/03/2013, https://www.africaintelligence.com/eastern-and-southern-africa_business/2013/03/01/shell-clings-firmly-to-its-concession.107947287.org 31 Such as Range Resources and Africa Oil Corp in Puntland, Liberty Petroleum in Galmudug, and Genel Energy and RAK Gas in Somaliland. 32 Kearns, H. Berryman, J. Hodgson, N. and Rodriguez, K. (2016) Offshore Somalia: East Africa’s Oil Frontier, Spectrum, GeoExpro Magazine, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2016 https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2016/05/offshore-somalia-east-africa-s-oil-frontier 33 Somalia to auction oil blocks starting August, Goobjoog News, May 13, 2020. http://goobjoog.com/english/somalia-to-auction-oil-blocks-starting-august/ 34 See: See CRP memo on debt relief and the political marketplace: https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/projects/conflict-research-programme/publications/memos this, which came under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office in 2015 but was ultimately dropped referencing insufficient evidence. Several analysts perceive UK Aid to be partially aligned with areas of high hydrocarbon potential, though it is worth noting that some of these areas are also areas with long-term vulnerable and marginalised populations.
29. Several interviewees suggest that US engagement in Somalia reflects an increasing awareness of the potential of hydrocarbon finds, following the more recent surveying. In 2017, the US Ambassador to Somalia encouraged American oil companies to consider investing in Somalia. The US is likely interested in protecting the old legacy concessions (Exxon, Conoco, Chevron, Amoco), which involves a major part of the onshore deposits. The UK may be working to protect overlapping interests with the US with regards to the joint Shell/Exxon offshore concessions and the BP (former Amoco) legacy concessions. The US may also be interested in preventing global rivals such as China from accessing Somali oil and gas.
30. Furthermore, several analysts claim that both the US and UK have been deeply involved in the political disputes and government selection processes in the Federal Member States, in particular South-West State, Jubaland and Galmudug, with the main underlying rationale being influence over prospective oil resources.
31. Unlike the United States and United Kingdom, Norway does not have legacy concessions to protect, however, they gained an important entry point through ex-Prime Minister, Hassan Ali Khaire, a Norwegian citizen, who has a background in this sector through his association with Soma Oil. Norway has been providing capacity building and technical support to the Ministry of Petroleum, and Spectrum Geo (now merged with TGS) is a Norwegian company. Norway is of course an oil producer itself and can bring expertise and guidance to Somalia, but nevertheless can fall victim to the dynamics of the political marketplace.
32. Arab state rivalries have also been playing out in Somalia in recent years, reflecting tensions and conflict in the Gulf, as well as maritime competition and expanding trade opportunities. The UAE and Turkey for example, are major investors in Somali ports, which will be key for any future oil operations. Turkey has been formally invited to become involved in offshore oil exploration, as part of an MoU signed in late 2019.
33. Neighbouring Kenya and Ethiopia are also highly relevant parties, in terms of trade relations as well as in relation to oil. As indicated earlier the maritime dispute with Kenya concerns hydrocarbon finds. Ethiopia’s stance towards Somalia has changed considerably since the election of President Abiy Ahmed, and while it has its own oil extraction process underway in its Somali Regional State, being landlocked Ethiopia has potential interests in establishing oil pipelines to the Somali coast, such as through the seaport of Hobyo, which is relatively close to the major oil fields in the Somali region of Ethiopia.
______________________________________________________________________
35 See: http://goobjoog.com/english/american-oil-exploration-invested-in-somalia-says-us-diplomat/ 36 Hussein Salah Kassim, Yet another British ploy in Somalia, April 02 2019, https://hornpost.net/2019/04/02/yet-another-british-ploy-in-somalia/; Abdirahman Omar, The US Joins The Scramble Somalia’s Oil, May 16 2019, https://hornpost.net/2019/05/16/the-us-joins-the-scramble-somalias-oil/; http://goobjoog.com/english/american-oil-exploration-invested-in-somalia-says-us-diplomat/. 37 https://www.radiodalsan.com/en/2019/04/29/norways-oil-agenda-in-somalia/ 38 Email communication with NORAD. 39 https://hornpost.net/2019/03/31/why-saudi-arabia-qatar-and-turkey-are-battling-over-somalia/ 40 https://www.nordicomonitor.com/2020/02/02/turkey-set-up-mechanism-to-explore-oil-gas-and-mining-opportunities-in-somalia/ Somali Actors and Dynamics around Oil Funds in the Political Marketplace
34. Until the recent withdrawal of Prime Minister Hassan Khaire, the ruling cabal in Mogadishu were commonly referred to as the FFK.41 This cabal represent a centralising ‘turn’ in Somalia’s political evolution that has led to well documented tensions with the Federal Member States, evident in regional elections since 2018, as well as with opposition groups in the capital, Mogadishu. These individuals and networks represent political elites (and their various backers) vying for power, influence, and access to resources within Somalia’s Federal system.
35. Control over the Ministry of Petroleum and the Somalia Petroleum Authority is of key interest in the political dynamics and positioning within the oil and gas sector, as these institutions will control oil and gas licensing and resources in the short run as well as in the long run as or if institutionalization of the Somali government develops. Until very recently, most of the post-civil war efforts at initiating oil extraction in Somalia had been based on personal and illicit deals, and/or by opaque contracts without any proper legal regulatory frameworks. The development of the Ministry of Petroleum and the SPA provide a structure through which control must now be established by interested and competing parties.
36. Research for this memo finds, unsurprisingly, that the Ministry of Petroleum appeared to be under the tight control of the (ex-) Prime Minister and the President respectively, who were at times collaborating and at other times competing for control. A political marketplace framework – and the opinion of many analysts – suggests that the short-term control over resources that is a principal goal in elite politics in Somalia, particularly in advance of an election. These resources concern a) potential payment of fees, rents, and other inducements (which have already been taking place over the years, at a small scale), and b) the sub-contracts that will materialise with exploration agreements. Positioning to benefit from this, through the appointments of key positions, is already part of the activities of this marketplace. The recent appointments of the Somalia Petroleum Authority (SPA) is an example of this kind of practice.
37. In terms of fees and payments, examples are already evident, such as with the US $1.7m payments by Shell and Exxon and the earlier Soma Oil share allocation to ex-PM Hassan Khaire. The size of the political budgets in Somalia have been and still are relatively small compared to other similar countries. Usually the “winning” conglomerates are successful because they achieve control over the larger sources of funds to be used in political budgets. However, political conglomerates - or firms - in the Somali context are rarely very fixed blocks as individuals easily shift sides as opportunities arise. In other words, no individual actors or groups in Somalia’s fragmented political scene can dominate others. However, although these funds are relatively modest, they can still play a significant role in paying off parliamentarians and other necessary political bribes in the political games associated with election periods, which may improve election (or re-election) chances.
38. The provision of logistics, security, accommodation and hospitality services are already well-established in Somalia, and have long been part of the political economy of aid, particularly in the humanitarian sector.42 Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs), both international and Somali have been providing these services for many years, as a recent CRP memo discussed.43 As, or if, commercially viable hydrocarbon deposits are identified, infrastructure will be required, such as roads, pipelines, storage facilities, port facilities and airstrips, which will provide further contracting opportunities. There are already Somali businessmen who were previously involved in food aid contracting and who have moved into
41FFK refers to President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (Farmajo), (now ex-) Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khaire and the Director General of the National Intelligence and Security Agency, Fahad Yasin Dahir. 42 See: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/103138/ 43 See: https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/Conflict-Research-Programme/crp-memos/Norman-private-military-mogadishu-final.pdf construction and down-stream petroleum services who are likely to be seeking contracts that may be derived from infrastructural projects and other investments related to development of the oil and gas sector.44
39. The potential development of the oil and gas sector also sees an interesting connection with the debt relief process, as newly available loans and grants may provide the finance for infrastructure development to support oil exploration and extraction, and which would be paid back with revenues from this sector.45
40. When considering the immediate returns as well as the medium to longer term returns, the stakes are high in the hydrocarbon sector in Somalia, for the Somali political (and business) elite. A key part of the dynamic of the political marketplace will be to ensure that one’s ‘own people’ are firmly in control of all the key posts that control and regulate oil exploration licensing and production sharing agreements. Therefore, the rationale behind the political games concerning petroleum regulations and laws, and the resulting delays, in recent years, is essentially about securing ‘your people’ into key positions. The political game surrounding the controversial appointment of the SPA is an example of this. The FGS and foreign actors meddling in the power struggles over the selection of leadership in the FMS is another example; the FMS appoints most of the SPA members.
41. Furthermore, prior to 2012, oil funds and related revenue primarily played into regional actors’ hands, and while payments to regional authorities did not necessarily amount to much, they would most likely have been influential in the local political marketplace. The Soma Oil arrangement in 2011/12 changed this dynamic with a major foreign government supporting a private ‘oil’ company in the complete absence of legislation and regulation.
Conclusions
42. This study has outlined the growing significance of hydrocarbons to Somalia’s geopolitical position and in turn to the dynamics of the political marketplace. The establishment of the federal government in Mogadishu, in 2012, has changed the organisation of this sector bringing it under a central authority where for years previously arrangements were made with regional authorities; this development has inevitably caused or contributed to tensions between the FGS and the FMSs, evident since late 2018.
43. The development of the legislative and regulatory framework and agencies is still unfinished but now frames the operation of the political marketplace, with control over the Ministry of Petroleum and Somalia Petroleum Agency constituting the key motivations of political elites and associated bargaining. Control of these ‘institutions’ enables access to informal flows of money as well as allows control over the allocation of sub-contracts, which are likely to come from the various grants and loans that will become available through the debt relief process. Control over contracts is a major issue in Somalia’s political economy and political marketplace.46
44. As this memo illustrates for the oil and gas sector, the dynamics of the political marketplace involve speculation as to both short-term and long-term revenues; in the latter case the potential reserves in Somalia may ultimately not be commercially viable or accessible although they are clearly attracting the interest of many actors.
45. It is also important to note that 2020 has seen the swift - although controversial - passing of necessary legislation and the appointments of positions in key institutions, such as the Judicial Service Commission, Anti-Corruption Commission and the Somalia Petroleum Authority. The
44 See: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/103138/ 45 See CRP Debt Relief and the Political Marketplace memo: https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/projects/conflict-research-programme/publications/memos 46 See: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2020/04/30/humanitarian-response-covid-19-somalia-capital-flight-debt-relief-violence/ fact that these processes have taken place appears to reflect that a consolidation of power within the President's office has taken place.
46. The agreements with Soma Oil (Coastal Exploration) and TGS (Spectrum) were controversial and still cast a shadow over the Somali petroleum sector. Without the regulating effect of the Petroleum Law and the regulatory institutions in place, the Government did not have a legitimate right to enter contracts with foreign petroleum exploration companies in the first place. If credibility around the Somali petroleum sector is to be re-established, the FGS and the Ministry of Petroleum need to bring clarity and transparency to the current status of these contracts.
47. The recent low oil market and price, further reduced by the Covid-19 pandemic as well as the shift to green technologies in response to climate change, all raise questions as to the eventual viability of hydrocarbon extraction in Somalia. Nevertheless, the FGS's (assisted by TGS) push for exploration continues unabated, and with an apparent silent acceptance by the international community. Annex I.
**Outstanding legislative and regulatory issues:**
- The Model PSA must be aligned with the requirements of the Procurement Act. All tendering and award of oil and gas concessions is governed by the provisions of both the 2016 Procurement Act and 2020 Petroleum Act.
- The fiscal terms of the Model PSA must be aligned with the Extractives Industries Income Tax (EIIT) Bill. Enactment of the EIIT Bill is a HIPC Completion Point benchmark.
- Other elements include the development of the capacities of accountability and oversight institutions, i.e. judiciary, parliamentary committees, constitutional court etc. For instance, there is also a need for establishing clarity on and strengthening the parliamentary and FMS oversight over MoPMR and SPA activities.
- The National Resources Council or Commission also need to be set up according to the Baidoa Agreement.
- Somaliland’s (SL) claim for independence even though it lacks international recognition needs to be solved. Currently SL has issued its own licenses to Genel Energy & RAK Gas, and are pursuing their own Petroleum Law and PSAs.
- Some Federal Members States, Puntland in particular, has consistently not recognized the SPA nor the Petroleum Law, because they see their influence over oil exploration under their territory diminished and under centralized control. This questions the status of the SPA as well as the Petroleum Law given the spirit of federalism as set out in the provisional Constitution of Somalia.
- The actual status and role of the existing agreements with Soma Oil (now Coastal Exploration) and TGS (Spectrum) and needs to be clarified and documented to the public.
- The Petroleum Law requires holders of legacy rights to convert them into PSAs by February 2021 or lose their rights. This could lead to another controversy given the deficiencies of the institutional and legal framework and the ongoing political election crisis.
- Finally, Somalia has not signed up for the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which is the global standards for good governance of oil, gas and mineral resources management. The author is grateful to comments provided by Abdisalam Mohamed, Mohamed Gaas, Alex de Waal, Claire Elder and Aditya Sarkar.
This research memo is part of the CRP project ‘Oil and Development Finance in the Political Marketplace in Somalia’ led by Joakim Gundel. Authors: Joakim Gundel (joakim.gundel@gmail.com) Editorial guidance and input: Nisar Majid (n.majid1@lse.ac.uk)
Suggested citation: J.Gundel. 2020. ‘Oil and Gas in the Political Marketplace in Somalia’, Conflict Research Programme, London: LSE.
Find out more about the Conflict Research Programme
Connaught House The London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE
Contact: Amy Crinnion, Programme Manager Tel: +44 (0)20 7849 4631 Email: intdev.crp@lse.ac.uk
lse.ac.uk/conflict
This information can be made available in alternative formats, on request. Please contact: Intdev.Crp@lse.ac.uk
The London School of Economics and Political Science is a School of the University of London. It is a charity and is incorporated in England as a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Acts (Reg no 70527).
The School seeks to ensure that people are treated equitably, regardless of age, disability, race, nationality, ethnic or national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation or personal circumstances.
Disclaimer: This material has been funded by UK aid from the UK government; however the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.
Please note that the information provided is accurate at the time of writing but is subject to change.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2019-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 14,
"total-input-tokens": 30165,
"total-output-tokens": 10432,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2491,
1
],
[
2491,
7282,
2
],
[
7282,
10266,
3
],
[
10266,
14128,
4
],
[
14128,
17022,
5
],
[
17022,
20083,
6
],
[
20083,
22861,
7
],
[
22861,
27074,
8
],
[
27074,
30959,
9
],
[
30959,
35360,
10
],
[
35360,
39357,
11
],
[
39357,
40464,
12
],
[
40464,
42589,
13
],
[
42589,
44178,
14
]
]
} |
4badc942a79f261a04a8e8b2d65b25d530d84fc8 | ## Contents
| Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Foreword | 03 | | Introduction | 05 | | What is Risk Analysis? | 07 | | Strengthening the FSA Risk Analysis Process | 08 | | The Use of Science and Evidence in Risk Analysis | 09 | | Risk Assessment | 10 | | ‘Other’ Evidence Considered | 13 | | Handling Uncertainty and Chief Scientific Adviser Assurance | 14 | | Risk Management Advice | 16 | | RISK Communication | 17 | | Case Study - FSA Evidence Package for NHS Hospital Food Review | 18 | | CSA Reflections: Future Challenges and Opportunities | 20 | | References and Acknowledgements | 22 | Chief Scientific Adviser’s Foreword
“A strong, scientific, evidence-based approach has been, and will always be, integral to the Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) mission to ensure food is safe, is what it says it is, and to empower consumers to make informed choices in relation to food.
Central to both the FSA’s work and how it works is risk analysis. The FSA has been preparing for changes since the June 2016 EU referendum. However, since 2018, we stepped-up our preparations, conducting a detailed review of our whole risk analysis process: how we conduct human health risk assessment, build evidence of ‘other’ influencing factors, formulate an informed position and our advice, and communicate this with others.
This, my 9th and final Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) science report, provides a summary of the FSA’s strengthened risk analysis process and explains how science lies at its heart. It does so at a time when we will be putting more national emphasis on it, than ever before. We believe this process is world-leading in food safety regulation, particularly in ensuring transparency, public understanding and trust in the advice we provide.
The FSA is fundamentally committed to the principles of inclusive, rigorous and accessible evidence generation, evidence use and risk communication. As CSA, my job is to provide independent assurance of the rigour of FSA science and the appropriate use of scientific evidence. However, it’s important to recognise that science and the evidence it produces are continuously developing, and that for a range of reasons, we must often formulate a position in the face of uncertainties. Our risk analysis process makes clear the existence of such uncertainties and will be reviewed when new evidence makes this possible. The benefits of our principles, and the transparency of our public health messaging is further emphasised against the current backdrop of COVID-19 and growing public interest in the use of science to inform government policy.
Given the critical nature of science and evidence in driving the FSA’s policy-making, the review of the FSA risk analysis process was conducted in parallel with a range of other associated efforts, designed to reinforce the FSA’s scientific and analytical capability and capacity. This included doubling the size of its Risk Assessment Unit, expanding the independent Scientific Advisory Committees (SACs) and creating new specialist Joint Expert Groups (JEGs), that increased the combined capacity of our SACs and JEGs to more than 100 independent advisory experts. Through this action and in collaboration with the devolved administrations, the FSA is in a position of strength.
Our risk analysis process seeks to maintain public confidence in a robust regulatory regime that upholds high standards of food and feed safety across the whole of the United Kingdom, and supports our international reputation as an excellent, science-led and accountable regulator.”
Professor Guy Poppy, FSA Chief Scientific Adviser INTRODUCTION
Currently, all home-produced and imported food and feed products sold in the UK have to comply with EU regulations. EU food and feed safety regulations are governed by the risk management decisions of the European Commission, taking into consideration risk assessments of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
From 1 January 2021, European legislation on food and feed safety will move into UK law, providing a continuation of rules. However, leaving the EU means that the FSA, alongside colleagues from Food Standards Scotland (FSS), is responsible for many of the combined risk analysis functions previously carried out by EFSA and the European Commission.
DEFINING RISK
Hazard: Something that has the potential to cause harm. For example, Campylobacter (a type of bacteria that can be found on chicken) is a hazard.
Risk: The likelihood that a hazard will cause harm and how severe the effects could be. For example, eating undercooked chicken or poor hygiene practices during preparation make it much more likely that Campylobacter will make you ill.
The FSA’s top priority is to ensure that UK food is safe and what it says it is, and we work hard to ensure that the high standard of food safety and consumer protection we enjoy in this country is maintained. If rules need to change or we need to act to protect consumers in the UK, we’ll provide independent advice and recommendations to consumers, Ministers and others to do so, like we have done on the consumption of ‘runny’ eggs. The delivery of an effective and trustworthy regulatory regime for food and feed safety outside the EU has required careful preparation, steered by the planning and leadership of the FSA Board. This has been particularly important given the expectation of an increased volume and scrutiny of our risk analysis advice and recommendations.\\textsuperscript{3,4,5,6,7}
This report introduces the principles and processes we have established so that our risk analysis is robust and transparent, and based on the best and most up-to-date science and evidence available. Delivering an effective approach to risk analysis underpins everything we do and our ambition to be recognised as an excellent, accountable, modern regulator.
We have worked closely and collaboratively with government departments across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to develop our risk analysis process. We are proud of our four-country approach to deliver a regulatory regime that is effective for the whole of the UK. WHAT IS RISK ANALYSIS?
Risk analysis is the process of estimating risks to human and/or animal health, identifying and implementing measures to control the risks, and communicating these risks and measures to relevant parties. It has three components: risk assessment, led by science and evidence; risk management, the consideration of management options available by policy officials; and risk communication.
COMPONENTS OF RISK ANALYSIS
Risk assessment involves using a scientific approach to identify and define hazards, and to estimate potential risk to human and/or animal health. This includes evaluating the likely exposure to risks from food and other sources.
Risk management is the consideration of potential measures to either prevent or control the risk. It takes into account risk assessment and consumers’ wider interests in food to formulate a response.
Risk communication is the exchange of information and opinions throughout the risk analysis process. This can be between risk assessors, risk managers, consumers, industry, the academic community and any other interested parties. It includes understanding consumers’ concerns, publishing risk assessment findings, and distributing advice.
Food, food production/manufacturing and supply chain processes can expose consumers to a variety of risks. Risks include chemical, microbiological, radiological and food hypersensitivity issues including from things such as additives, flavourings, genetically modified (GM) foods, chemical contaminants and food contact materials.
Our risk analysis process is consistent and structured, but also agile and flexible in response, allowing us to provide robust risk management recommendations which protect public health in relation to food.
The outputs of the risk analysis process include advising on:
- Developing food and feed safety standards and controls based on scientific evidence; e.g. policies, guidance, controls and enforcement
- Pre-market approvals and post-market reviews of regulated food and feed products;
- Risk-based import controls;
- Handling incidents and food crime. STRENGTHENING THE FSA RISK ANALYSIS PROCESS
The FSA’s risk analysis has always aligned with international guidance, including that from Codex Alimentarius\\textsuperscript{9,10,11}. In reviewing our process, we have further drawn on the independent advice of our Science Council, with additional input and development by our Advisory Committee for Social Science (ACSS). We have considered their advice regarding establishing and communicating risk and uncertainty\\textsuperscript{12}, accessing scientific capability and gaining assurance from this\\textsuperscript{13}, and detecting future risks better\\textsuperscript{14}.
We began our risk analysis review already in a position of experience and strength, and our revised process sets an international standard in transparent risk management advice. We are confident that our process is world leading.
The new elements we have added are:
1. A clearer separation between our risk assessment and risk management to ensure the scientific integrity of risk assessment
2. An expanded role for our Scientific Advisory Committees (SACs), strengthened by recruiting additional experts and by establishing three new Joint Expert Groups (JEGs)
3. A new UK process for authorising regulated products such as food and feed additives, enzymes, flavourings, novel foods, GM food and feed THE USE OF SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE IN RISK ANALYSIS
Scientific evidence, independent expert advice and assurance on the interpretation and use of science are integral to our risk analysis process and responsibilities as an excellent, accountable and transparent regulator. Our risk analysis process has three primary elements: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication.
RISK ASSESSMENT Risk assessors and other specialists deliver the science behind our advice. They are responsible for identifying and characterising hazards, assessing levels of exposure and characterising risks to health, or providing evidence on for example, potential economic impacts or consumer perceptions on an issue. The evidence collected by our scientists supports risk managers in developing the right advice.
We use the independent advice of scientific experts to help us ensure that our advice is based on the best and most recent scientific evidence. This includes our:
- Scientific Advisory Committees (SACs)
- Joint Expert Groups (JEGs)
- Register of Specialists
RISK MANAGEMENT Risk managers consider which approaches could be implemented to manage and control risk. They will consult with interested parties and take into account factors relevant for the protection of consumers’ health and their wider interests in relation to food. Risk managers propose advice and recommendations.
RISK COMMUNICATION Risk communication is embedded across our risk analysis framework, ensuring iterative exchange of opinions, understanding and options throughout the process.
We provide clear explanations of risk assessment findings and the basis of risk management decisions, using evidence-based and outcome focused methods to communicate with consumers, industry stakeholders and other interested parties.
To do this effectively, we use insights from social science to understand the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of the people with whom we are communicating.
Delivery of risk assessment and other scientific evidence from our risk assessors and analysts to risk managers RISK ASSESSMENT
For the public to trust in our scientific rigour, we must establish confidence in our public health risk assessment. FSA risk assessors consider many factors in risk assessments, including what supporting tools and approaches are needed. These will vary depending on how new the hazard is, its complexity, and the food and feed production pathways involved.
FSA RISK ASSESSMENT CAPABILITY AND CAPACITY
DR AMIE ADKIN, HEAD OF FSA RISK ASSESSMENT UNIT
“Our role as risk assessors is to ensure that the best available scientific evidence is placed at the heart of decision making in a transparent and unbiased manner. Our strategic science plan details our focus to build our scientific excellence together with our SACs, to be prepared for the future, and grow our influence and impact. To bring this into fruition and in response to growing expectations, the FSA Risk Assessment Unit has more than doubled in size since 2017. If you consider our statisticians, economists and social scientists as well, the FSA Science, Evidence and Research Division now constitutes a team of approximately 100 scientific experts and support staff, providing the capability, capacity and resilience needed as the competent food and feed safety authority.” In addition to our own dedicated FSA risk assessors, we work with four independent, expert SACs to assimilate scientific information and evaluate its relevance and influence, helping to ensure that our advice is based on the best and most recent scientific evidence. SAC members are appointed on a voluntary basis and are drawn from a wide, multidisciplinary field including specialist academics and experienced practitioners. The independent advice and support that SAC members (and our other advisory structures) provide, makes a real difference to public interests and health. The four FSA SACs involved are:
- The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT);
- Advisory Committee for the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF);
- Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP);
- Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF).
To bolster the FSA’s SACs outside the EU, we have appointed 35 supplementary committee members and created three new JEGs for regulated products, that work to the same principles as our SACs.
The four SACs will continue to provide risk assessment advice for risk-based standards and controls, while the JEGs will tackle most work required for regulated products. The three new JEGs focus on:
- Food Contact Materials
- Additives, Enzymes and Other Regulated Products
- Animal Feed and Feed Additives
Web pages further describing the risk analysis and regulated product authorisation processes are available for businesses on food.gov. ‘OTHER’ EVIDENCE CONSIDERED
When considering how to advise on risk management, there are a number of ‘other legitimate factors’ which need to be evaluated. The FSA is supported by other specialist analysts including our statisticians, economists and social scientists that provide ‘other’ evidence, further supporting clear, rational and justifiable risk management decisions.
Our social scientists also provide benefit in helping to create effective risk communication by understanding the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of the people with whom we are communicating.
The additional factors we consider will vary according to the food or feed safety risk. In addition to human health risk assessment, they will generally include:
- Wider consumer interests like impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security
- Consumer habits, perceptions, acceptability and preferences, including likely consumer behaviours in response to risk and emerging trends
- Economic impact: impacts of the risk itself, the cost and benefit of implementing risk management options and consideration of who will bear these costs and who will benefit
- Technical and feasibility considerations i.e. capability and capacity to implement risk management options, the ability to enforce/verify controls, and consideration of scientific/technological advances
These factors must be clearly identified and communicated to avoid misrepresentation of human health risk assessment evidence or uncertainty in why risk management recommendations have been made. In any given scenario, each factor will have a different weight and impact on the final risk management options advised. It is therefore important that we demonstrate all the factors risk managers should consider in their decision-making process. HANDLING UNCERTAINTY AND CHIEF SCIENTIFIC ADVISER ASSURANCE
In risk management, each of the options must be individually considered, including the impact of any uncertainties.
There is virtually always an element of uncertainty in both science and food and feed safety decision-making, sometimes caused by missing data but also by natural variabilities. The ACMSF has helped us in applying consistent multidimensional representation of risks in risk assessment.
In many cases, we may have to announce a risk analysis position before waiting for more evidence to emerge in order to protect public health. Even when time is less of a restricting factor, uncertainty can either be irreducible or take disproportionate resources to reduce.
In circumstances where uncertainty remains about the nature or likelihood of the risk to public health, a precautionary principle may be used. In accordance with legal requirements, where this happens, the risk management action taken must be:
- Proportionate;
- No more restrictive to trade than necessary to achieve a high level of health protection;
- Feasible technically and economically;
- Reviewed within a reasonable period of time.
The precautionary principle is rooted in international trade law. It is applied where measures are needed to safeguard public health and there is insufficient scientific evidence to undertake a satisfactory risk assessment. In those circumstances, temporary risk management measures may be applied whilst further science is undertaken.
The transparency of our risk analysis process is important to ensure the integrity of our risk assessment science and evidence against decisions that may be motivated by other factors. This is one of the reasons why the FSA will publish the science and evidence underpinning its assessments and advice to health Ministers, who will be responsible for taking key risk management decisions. The precautionary principle has been at the heart of much discourse in Europe. An example being the regulation of GM crops and the introduction of some ‘new’ plant breeding techniques. In this case, human health risk assessment evidence may suggest such products are safe to consume but uncertainties have been used to justify the adoption of the precautionary principle, alongside risk management decisions influenced by other factors.
By taking uncertainty and variability into account, we can make better, more transparent decisions about the control of risks. We can also weigh up risks and benefits in taking more time and resource to address sources of uncertainty.
**RISK ANALYSIS IS ITERATIVE**
Risk analysis is iterative and can evolve/change over time. We continuously review our position as new evidence is made available and monitor the relevance, effectiveness and impact of risk management decisions. A good case example is FSA advice in relation to the consumption of ‘runny’ eggs.
In the late 1980s, *Salmonella enteritidis* caused the largest and most persistent epidemic of foodborne infection attributable to a single subtype of any pathogen. It is estimated that >525,000 people in England and Wales alone became ill as a result of this. As such, the FSA advised that vulnerable groups should not consume raw or lightly cooked eggs because of the risk of serious illness.
Throughout the ‘90s and ‘00s, a suite of control measures (notably poultry vaccinations) were introduced, backed by private assurance scheme codes of practice. This has dramatically reduced the number of cases of human infection.
In 2015, the ACMSF reviewed the scientific evidence. Based on the committee’s recommendations, the FSA subsequently reviewed its advice, amending it to state that consumers – including vulnerable groups – can now safely eat raw or lightly cooked UK hen eggs or foods containing them. We will continue to assess the Salmonella evidence base and will further review our guidance as we believe necessary. ROLE OF THE CHIEF SCIENTIFIC ADVISER (CSA)
The Chief Scientific Adviser provides senior assurance on the scientific rigour and integrity of FSA, SAC and JEG evidence and its use. This includes oversight of our processes, for example: internal and external peer review; identifying, considering and communicating uncertainties and their impacts; and weighting different pieces of evidence appropriately. Weighting can vary depending on the balance of all the factors within the completed ‘evidence package’. This senior scientific assurance helps others take confidence in the use of science and evidence in FSA risk analysis.
RISK MANAGEMENT ADVICE
The ‘evidence package’ containing the human health risk assessment and evidence reports on other legitimate factors will be presented to FSA risk managers. Having this clear separation between the roles and responsibilities of our risk assessors, other analysts, and risk managers is important to ensure the scientific integrity of risk assessment.
Risk managers will use this evidence to develop risk management options and recommendations. This may include consideration of options in consultation with other government departments, the devolved administrations and stakeholders.
Ultimately, the FSA Board has oversight of the risk analysis process. When believed necessary for substantial or contentious risk management issues, the Board will consider the risk management options and finalise advice and recommendations provided to Ministers and others. For such issues, the Board may engage in initial scoping discussions at earlier stages of the risk management process, before any decisions are made. This will allow it to derive confidence that an appropriately broad set of impacts is being used when framing risk management advice.
The CSA will be involved in the consultation process and Board discussions to provide assurance on the interpretation and weighting of the scientific evidence. Frequent interaction between risk assessors, risk managers and risk communicators is essential at all stages of the analysis process. It ensures shared understanding, which is especially important in relation to uncertainties.
There are three principles involved in our risk communication, which we aim to adhere to regardless of whether an issue is urgent, high profile, or simply one that we wish to raise awareness of:
1. **Communicate openly.** Both internally and externally, we provide clear explanation of risk assessment findings and the other legitimate factors forming the basis of risk management decisions. We consult with others on our draft risk management options and review as necessary, and we publish our evidence so stakeholders can make an informed judgement on our processes and decisions. This is consistent with the FSA Code of Practice on Openness.
2. **Maintain the FSA’s national and international trustworthiness.** We work across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and closely with our FSS counterparts in Scotland to develop joined up communication that is consistent across the UK. At the same time, we recognise where each country has specific needs and tailor our approach accordingly.
3. **Understand the audience’s point of view.** We understand that people process risk and respond to uncertainty in different ways. We listen to the communities that we hope to communicate with and involve them in the creation of messages to make it as understandable as possible. The approach may be different for different stakeholders.
We regularly seek the support of the ACSS and communication professionals in:
- Understanding perceptions, beliefs, knowledge, attitudes and behaviours
- Balancing clarity and exactness
- Applying behavioural science principles
- Involving communities in creating messages and evaluating the effectiveness of our communication CASE STUDY - FSA EVIDENCE PACKAGE FOR NHS HOSPITAL FOOD REVIEW
The FSA has been supporting on the NHS Hospital Food Review of the food provided in NHS facilities for patients, visitors and staff. This follows a recent incident where meat in pre-packed sandwiches was linked to *Listeria* infections in hospital patients and six people sadly died.
The FSA has presented a risk analysis evidence package to the reviewers. It presents evidence from a range of sources and draws on experiences and lessons from food safety incidents associated with hospitals. This is one of the first use cases that has helped test our clearer separation of risk assessment and risk management, utilising the tools/structures put in place to facilitate consistent evidence package exchange between risk assessors and risk managers.
A comprehensive assessment of the risks posed by *Listeria* to patients in a hospital setting is challenging due to a number of evidence gaps and uncertainties. A ‘risk profile’ was compiled, which includes steps such as hazard identification, exposure assessment (i.e. how likely is the hazard to occur and to whom), and hazard characterisation (i.e. what are the consequences)?
We compared the hypothetical food safety risks for the production of foods on-site (within hospitals) vs sourcing food pre-packed from external suppliers. This involved considering factors such as consistency of supply and traceability; the nature of ingredients used (i.e. raw or pre-cooked); the amount of human contact and mechanisation; post production storage; distribution within hospital; and time to reach consumers. We also considered that food establishments which receive a higher food hygiene rating during inspections are less likely to be the source of foodborne disease outbreaks(^{18,19}). Food produced on-site using fresh ingredients may present more theoretical risk factors than food sourced pre-packed from external suppliers, but it is not possible to say which poses a higher overall risk. Our ‘other legitimate factors’ highlighted how behavioural insights could improve compliance with food hygiene best practices and therefore reduce the risk of *Listeria*. This involves learning from successful behavioural interventions, like improving hand hygiene in health care, then targeting the riskiest behaviours which can result in foodborne infection in hospitals.
FSA risk managers have advised that better acknowledgement of individual responsibilities throughout the supply chain to hospital wards alongside better adherence to existing FSA guidance would help reduce the risk of vulnerable groups contracting listeriosis.
*Listeria is widespread in the environment and can contaminate a range of foods. Foodborne listeriosis is rare in comparison to other foodborne pathogens, with only 135 cases in England and Wales in 2017*. Listeria may cause illness in healthy adults but can be much more serious for those who have weakened immune systems, and also the elderly, pregnant women and infants. Further information can be found on the *Listeria guidance page* on our website. CSA REFLECTIONS: FUTURE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
“This, my 9th CSA Science Report, is my last as the FSA’s Chief Scientific Adviser. I have been proud and inspired to be part of the FSA’s work to keep consumers safe and to represent the breadth of its multidisciplinary scientists.
Thanks to the FSA’s risk analysis process, the UK is in a position of ‘prepared strength’ when it comes to food and feed safety. Clear, honest communication will continue to be central to consumers’ trust in the FSA, as it will be between risk managers and risk assessors to ensure the right questions are being asked and that evidence is used appropriately.
We have an ongoing commitment to the open and transparent use of evidence; being clear on what we do and do not know, where we need to seek further evidence on an issue, how evidence is used and why we think a course of action is correct. This is fundamental to the principles against which the FSA was created 20 years ago, in order to protect consumers, in the wake of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. It is this commitment to scientific integrity and rigour that makes our advice to Ministers and others authoritative. It is reassuring to see the role that science and scientists are playing in the UK response to COVID-19 and very pleasing to see that experts are ‘back in fashion’, providing a common language across departments, to help address a complex and difficult situation. Throughout my time at the FSA and as a CSA, science is often the glue that brings professions together to tackle challenges, and I think the FSA has delivered on what it was established to do in ensuring UK citizens can have food that is safe and that they can trust. Lessons are being learnt across government from COVID-19, with respect to bringing science visibly to the fore of decision making, and how to deal with and communicate uncertainty.
As with all science, it is reasonable and encouraged for others to challenge our evidence and its use as new and emerging evidence comes to light, as was the case for consumption of runny eggs and the Salmonella risk to vulnerable groups. However, if the FSA is to be judged by its scientific ‘excellence’ then the FSA should be equally clear to others on what it considers ‘quality’ evidence and the quantity of evidence required to trigger new analysis, reducing the burden and potentially harmful impact of perhaps anecdotal challenge.
As the FSA reaches its 20th anniversary, many challenges and opportunities lay ahead for the resilience of UK food safety and authenticity. The past 20 years have brought many foreseeable changes and challenges to the food system but also many one could not have predicted in the late 1990’s. As the food system continues to change, hopefully to one which will improve human and planetary health, the FSA must have the best risk analysis process to facilitate change and continue to protect public health.
The development of a National Food Strategy is welcomed to help address the multiple needs of our food system and I will continue to champion the significance of food and feed safety and the excellence of FSA science whilst leading the Strategic Priorities Fund Food Systems Programme to transform the UK food system for healthy people and a healthy environment.” ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
With thanks for the contributions of Lisa Nelson, Beth Davies, Joanne Edge, Gwen Aherne, Michelle Patel, Vanna Nasser Aldin, Linden Jack and Ben Goodall.
REFERENCES
01. FSA business guidance after EU exit
02. FSA advice on Campylobacter
03. FSA Board Paper 18-09-09 - Risk analysis: process, governance, communication
04. FSA Board Paper 18-12-11 - Risk analysis: process
05. FSA Board Paper 19-03-08 - Risk analysis: assurance
06. FSA Board Paper 19-09-07 - The FSA’s approach to uncertainty and risk
07. FSA Board Paper 20-01-14 - Risk analysis process: update
08. FSA Board Paper 19-09-17 - Incidents and resilience annual report 2018/19
09. Food safety risk analysis: A guide for national food safety authorities
10. Codex Alimentarius guidelines
11. World Health Organisation principles and methods for the risk assessment of chemicals in food
12. FSA Science Council Working Group on Risk and Uncertainty Final Report
13. FSA Science Council Working Group on Capability and Assurance Final Report
14. FSA Science Council Working Group on Food System Risks and Horizon Scanning Final Report
15. FSA Board paper 19-09-19 - Science update 2019
16. AMCS ad hoc group on eggs: An update on the microbiological risk from shell eggs and their products
17. FSA policy on openness
18. An overview of the FSA’s Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS)
19. Food Control journal article: As clean as they look? Food hygiene inspection scores, microbiological contamination, and foodborne illness
20. Public Health England report: Listeriosis in England and Wales Summary for 2017
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2022-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 23,
"total-input-tokens": 38066,
"total-output-tokens": 7202,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
0,
1
],
[
0,
1244,
2
],
[
1244,
3019,
3
],
[
3019,
4262,
4
],
[
4262,
5777,
5
],
[
5777,
6780,
6
],
[
6780,
8885,
7
],
[
8885,
10218,
8
],
[
10218,
12289,
9
],
[
12289,
13548,
10
],
[
13548,
14128,
11
],
[
14128,
15077,
12
],
[
15077,
16871,
13
],
[
16871,
18780,
14
],
[
18780,
20810,
15
],
[
20810,
22766,
16
],
[
22766,
24658,
17
],
[
24658,
26669,
18
],
[
26669,
27761,
19
],
[
27761,
28949,
20
],
[
28949,
31074,
21
],
[
31074,
32652,
22
],
[
32652,
32652,
23
]
]
} |
691cdd72b63730bc01bd7bf7f787e1aef2b40215 | Child sexual exploitation
Definition and a guide for practitioners, local leaders and decision makers working to protect children from child sexual exploitation
February 2017
# Contents
Introduction 3
Section A – advice for all practitioners who work with children 5
What is child sexual exploitation? 5 Potential indicators of child sexual exploitation 9 How are children sexually exploited? 9 How does child sexual exploitation affect children? 11 How to respond: working with young people 12 What does the particular nature of exploitation mean for practice? 13
Section B – advice for managers and strategic leaders 15
The child sexual exploitation context 16 Prevention 18 Educating practitioners 19 Educating children and young people 21 Educating parents and carers 21 Educating communities 22 Introduction
Child sexual exploitation is a crime with devastating and long lasting consequences for its victims and their families. Childhoods and family life can be ruined and this is compounded when victims, or those at risk of abuse, do not receive appropriate, immediate and on-going support. The first response to children, and support for them to access help, must be the best it can be from social workers, police, health practitioners and others who work with children and their families.
In *Putting Children First* (July 2016) the Government set out its ambitions to support vulnerable children to lead safe and positive lives, to become successful adults and to have the kind of happy childhood that we want for all our children. We want children and families to have confidence in turning to practitioners for help and protection from abuse, neglect and exploitation. This help and protection should be provided in a timely, enduring and flexible manner, and be the best it can possibly be. This requires children, parents and carers affected by child sexual exploitation to feel part of the solution and confident they will be believed. Practitioners should work together to reduce the immediate risk of harm to children and collaborate to develop long term strategies to improve children’s life chances.
This applies as much to child sexual exploitation as to other forms of abuse or neglect. The hidden nature of child sexual exploitation and the complexities involved means professional curiosity, and always being alert to the issue, is vital.
About this advice
This advice is non-statutory, and has been produced to help practitioners, local leaders and decision makers who work with children and families to identify child sexual exploitation and take appropriate action in response. This includes the management, disruption and prosecution of perpetrators.
This advice replaces the 2009 guidance *Safeguarding children and young people from sexual exploitation*. It should be read alongside *Working Together to Safeguard Children* (most recent updates available on gov.uk) which continues to provide statutory guidance covering the legislative requirements on services to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, including in relation to child sexual exploitation.
A child is anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. Throughout this advice the terms ‘child’ and ‘children’ are used to refer to all those under the age of 18.
Who is this advice for?
This advice is intended to help all those working with children, and their parents and carers, to understand child sexual exploitation and what action should be taken to identify and support victims. The online annexes to this document set out work to tackle perpetrators, another critical element of an holistic response.
**Section A** is for everyone whose work brings them into contact with children and families, including those who work in early years, children’s social care, health, education (including schools), the police, adult services and youth offending teams. This section sets out first the background to the nature of child sexual exploitation, followed by a series of guiding principles. It is relevant to those working in the statutory, voluntary or the independent sectors, and applies in relation to all children and young people irrespective of whether they are living at home with their families and carers or away from home.
**Section B** is for those in strategic and management roles who are planning responses to child sexual exploitation within local authorities and other agencies working in partnership. It is relevant for Local Safeguarding Children Boards and any new arrangements required in legislation. However, all practitioners may find this information useful to support effective front-line practice on child sexual exploitation.
This advice is not intended to be a ‘step by step’ approach to addressing child sexual exploitation. It sets out the definition of child sexual exploitation; highlights potential vulnerabilities and indicators of abuse; and sets out appropriate action to take in response, using professional judgment and curiosity. Although it focuses on child sexual exploitation, the principles outlined here are those set out in *Working Together* covering all forms of exploitation, abuse and vulnerability in childhood and adolescence. The signs of abuse rarely present in clear, unequivocal ways (The Munro Review of Child Protection, 2011). What is important is that those working with children and families understand the totality of a child’s experience in order to assess the nature and level of risk faced by children and respond swiftly and proportionately. Section A – advice for all practitioners who work with children
What is child sexual exploitation?
Child sexual exploitation is a form of child sexual abuse. Sexual abuse may involve physical contact, including assault by penetration (for example, rape or oral sex) or non-penetrative acts such as masturbation, kissing, rubbing and touching outside clothing. It may include non-contact activities, such as involving children in the production of sexual images, forcing children to look at sexual images or watch sexual activities, encouraging children to behave in sexually inappropriate ways or grooming a child in preparation for abuse (including via the internet).
The definition of child sexual exploitation is as follows:
*Child sexual exploitation is a form of child sexual abuse. It occurs where an individual or group takes advantage of an imbalance of power to coerce, manipulate or deceive a child or young person under the age of 18 into sexual activity (a) in exchange for something the victim needs or wants, and/or (b) for the financial advantage or increased status of the perpetrator or facilitator. The victim may have been sexually exploited even if the sexual activity appears consensual. Child sexual exploitation does not always involve physical contact; it can also occur through the use of technology.*
Like all forms of child sexual abuse, child sexual exploitation:
- can affect any child or young person (male or female) under the age of 18 years, including 16 and 17 year olds who can legally consent to have sex;
- can still be abuse even if the sexual activity appears consensual;
- can include both contact (penetrative and non-penetrative acts) and non-contact sexual activity;
- can take place in person or via technology, or a combination of both;
- can involve force and/or enticement-based methods of compliance and may, or may not, be accompanied by violence or threats of violence;
- may occur without the child or young person’s immediate knowledge (through others copying videos or images they have created and posting on social media, for example);
- can be perpetrated by individuals or groups, males or females, and children or adults. The abuse can be a one-off occurrence or a series of incidents over time, and range from opportunistic to complex organised abuse; and
- is typified by some form of power imbalance in favour of those perpetrating the abuse. Whilst age may be the most obvious, this power imbalance can also be due to a range of other factors including gender, sexual identity, cognitive ability, physical strength, status, and access to economic or other resources. Child sexual exploitation is a complex form of abuse and it can be difficult for those working with children to identify and assess. The indicators for child sexual exploitation can sometimes be mistaken for ‘normal adolescent behaviours’. It requires knowledge, skills, professional curiosity and an assessment which analyses the risk factors and personal circumstances of individual children to ensure that the signs and symptoms are interpreted correctly and appropriate support is given. Even where a young person is old enough to legally consent to sexual activity, the law states that consent is only valid where they make a choice and have the freedom and capacity to make that choice. If a child feels they have no other meaningful choice, are under the influence of harmful substances or fearful of what might happen if they don’t comply (all of which are common features in cases of child sexual exploitation) consent cannot legally be given whatever the age of the child.
**Child sexual exploitation is never the victim’s fault, even if there is some form of exchange:** all children and young people under the age of 18 have a right to be safe and should be protected from harm.
One of the key factors found in most cases of child sexual exploitation is the presence of some form of exchange (sexual activity in return for something); for the victim and/or perpetrator or facilitator.
Where it is the victim who is offered, promised or given something they need or want, the exchange can include both tangible (such as money, drugs or alcohol) and intangible rewards (such as status, protection or perceived receipt of love or affection). It is critical to remember the unequal power dynamic within which this exchange occurs and to remember that the receipt of something by a child/young person does not make them any less of a victim. It is also important to note that the prevention of something negative can also fulfil the requirement for exchange, for example a child who engages in sexual activity to stop someone carrying out a threat to harm his/her family.
Whilst there can be gifts or treats involved in other forms of sexual abuse (e.g a father who sexually abuses but also buys the child toys) it is most likely referred to as child sexual exploitation if the ‘exchange’, as the core dynamic at play, results in financial gain for or enhanced status of, the perpetrator.
Where the gain is only for the perpetrator/facilitator, there is most likely a financial gain (money, discharge of a debt or free/discounted goods or services) or increased status as a result of the abuse.
If sexual gratification, or exercise of power and control, is the only gain for the perpetrator (and there is no gain for the child/young person) this would not normally constitute child sexual exploitation, but should be responded to as a different form of child sexual abuse. How common is child sexual exploitation?
The signs and indicators of all forms of abuse can be difficult to detect and child sexual exploitation is no exception. A variety of factors can make it difficult to accurately assess how prevalent child sexual exploitation is. Many children who are sexually exploited may have been victims of other forms of abuse; the grooming methods that may be used can mean that children who are sexually exploited do not always recognise they are being abused, which can also affect detection rates. What is clear is that child sexual exploitation can occur in all communities and amongst all social groups and can affect girls and boys. All practitioners should work on the basis that it is happening in their area.
Who is vulnerable to child sexual exploitation?
Any child, in any community: Child sexual exploitation is occurring across the country but is often hidden so prevalence data is hard to ascertain. However, areas proactively looking for child sexual exploitation are uncovering a problem. All practitioners should be open to the possibility that the children they work with might be affected.
Age: Children aged 12-15 years of age are most at risk of child sexual exploitation although victims as young as 8 have been identified, particularly in relation to online concerns. Equally, those aged 16 or above can also experience child sexual exploitation, and it is important that such abuse is not overlooked due to assumed capacity to consent. Account should be taken of heightened risks amongst this age group, particularly those without adequate economic or systemic support.
Gender: Though child sexual exploitation may be most frequently observed amongst young females, boys are also at risk. Practitioners should be alert to the fact that boys may be less likely than females to disclose experiences of child sexual exploitation and less likely to have these identified by others.
Ethnicity: Child sexual exploitation affects all ethnic groups.
Heightened vulnerability factors: Working Together makes clear the requirements for holistic assessment. Sexual exploitation is often linked to other issues in the life of a child or young person, or in the wider community context. Practitioners should be alert to the fact that child sexual exploitation is complex and rarely presents in isolation of other needs and risks of harm (although this may not always be the case, particularly in relation to online abuse). Child sexual exploitation may be linked to other crimes and practitioners should be mindful that a child who may present as being involved in criminal activity is actually being exploited.
Practitioners should not rely on ‘checklists’ alone but should make a holistic assessment of vulnerability, examining risk and protective factors as set out in the statutory guidance Working Together. Sexual exploitation can have links to other types of crime. These include:
- Child trafficking;
- Domestic abuse;
- Sexual violence in intimate relationships;
- Grooming (including online grooming);
- Abusive images of children and their distribution;
- Drugs-related offences;
- Gang-related activity;
- Immigration-related offences; and
- Domestic servitude.
The following vulnerabilities are examples of the types of things children can experience that might make them more susceptible to child sexual exploitation:
- Having a prior experience of neglect, physical and/or sexual abuse;
- Lack of a safe/stable home environment, now or in the past (domestic violence or parental substance misuse, mental health issues or criminality, for example);
- Recent bereavement or loss;
- Social isolation or social difficulties;
- Absence of a safe environment to explore sexuality;
- Economic vulnerability;
- Homelessness or insecure accommodation status;
- Connections with other children and young people who are being sexually exploited;
- Family members or other connections involved in adult sex work;
- Having a physical or learning disability;
- Being in care (particularly those in residential care and those with interrupted care histories); and
- Sexual identity.
Not all children and young people with these vulnerabilities will experience child sexual exploitation. Child sexual exploitation can also occur without any of these vulnerabilities being present. Potential indicators of child sexual exploitation
Children rarely self-report child sexual exploitation so it is important that practitioners are aware of potential indicators of risk, including:
- Acquisition of money, clothes, mobile phones etc without plausible explanation;
- Gang-association and/or isolation from peers/social networks;
- Exclusion or unexplained absences from school, college or work;
- Leaving home/care without explanation and persistently going missing or returning late;
- Excessive receipt of texts/phone calls;
- Returning home under the influence of drugs/alcohol;
- Inappropriate sexualised behaviour for age/sexually transmitted infections;
- Evidence of/suspicions of physical or sexual assault;
- Relationships with controlling or significantly older individuals or groups;
- Multiple callers (unknown adults or peers);
- Frequenting areas known for sex work;
- Concerning use of internet or other social media;
- Increasing secretiveness around behaviours; and
- Self-harm or significant changes in emotional well-being.
Practitioners should also remain open to the fact that child sexual exploitation can occur without any of these risk indicators being obviously present. Practitioners should also be alert to the fact that some risk assessments have been constructed around indicators of face-to-face perpetration by adults and may not adequately capture online or peer-perpetrated forms of harm. It is also important to remember that risk assessments only capture risk at the point of assessment and that levels of risk vary over time, and that the presence of these indicators may be explained by other forms of vulnerability rather than child sexual exploitation.
The first step for practitioners is to be alert to the potential signs of abuse and neglect and to understand the procedures set out by local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. Those working with children and families should access training through those multi-agency arrangements to support them in identifying vulnerability, risk and harm. This will help practitioners to know what action to take and to develop a shared understanding about what best practice looks like.
How are children sexually exploited?
Child sexual exploitation takes many different forms. It can include contact and non-contact sexual activities and can occur online or in person, or a combination of each.
The following illustrative examples, although very different in nature and potentially involving different sexual or other offences, could all fall under the definition of child sexual exploitation: • A 44 year old female posing as a 17 year old female online and persuading a 12 year old male to send her a sexual image, and then threatening to tell his parents if he doesn’t continue to send more explicit images; • A 14 year old male giving a 17 year old male oral sex because the older male has threatened to tell his parents he is gay if he refuses; • A 14 year old female having sex with a 16 year old gang member and his two friends in return for the protection of the gang; • A 13 year old female offering and giving an adult male taxi driver sexual intercourse in return for a taxi fare home; • A 21 year old male persuading his 17 year old ‘girlfriend’ to have sex with his friends to pay off a drug debt; • A mother letting other adults abuse her 8 year old child in return for money; • A group of men bringing two 17 year old females to a hotel in another town and charging others to have sex with them; and • Three 15 year old females being taken to a house party and given ‘free’ alcohol and drugs, then made to have sex with six adult males to pay for this.
These examples are not exhaustive: other forms of child sexual exploitation occur and new forms continue to develop. Nor are they mutually exclusive – some children will suffer abuse across a range of scenarios, either simultaneously or in succession.
Most child abuse occurs within the home. In cases of child sexual exploitation the risk of harm is generally external or in the community.
Child sexual exploitation may occur without the child being aware of events, or understanding that these constitute abuse. Online exploitation includes the exchange of sexual communication or images and can be particularly challenging to identify and respond to. Children, young people and perpetrators are frequently more familiar with, and spend more time in, these environments than their parents and carers. Those who work with and care for children can struggle to remain up-to-date with the latest sites and potential connection points, so practitioners should always seek specialist support if unsure about online environments. Online child sexual exploitation allows perpetrators to initiate contact with multiple potential victims and offers a perception of anonymity, with children and young people, and perpetrators, potentially saying and doing things online they wouldn’t do offline. Where exploitation does occur online, the transfer of images can be quickly and easily shared with others. This makes it difficult to contain the potential for further abuse.
**Children can be perpetrators as well as victims**
Children can be both experiencing child sexual exploitation and perpetrating it at the same time. Examples might include a child who is forced to take part in the exploitation of another child under duress, or a child who is forced to introduce other children to their abuser under threats to their family’s safety. These situations require a nuanced approach that recognises and engages with the young person's perpetration within the context of their own victimisation.
Children who perpetrate child sexual exploitation require a different response to adult perpetrators. Responses may involve criminal justice pathways at times, however every child who displays harmful sexual behaviour should also have their safeguarding and welfare needs actively considered in line with Working Together.
Different agencies should work together to: (a) identify any prior victimisation and understand how this has contributed to the perpetration; and (b) map the environments and contexts in which peer-perpetrated child sexual exploitation occurs, looking at the social norms or power dynamics at play which may have influenced the perpetration of abuse. Dependent on the issues emerging, this will likely need both an individually-based response and wider work to address harmful social norms or power dynamics that enable the abuse to occur.
**How does child sexual exploitation affect children?**
The long-term consequences of any form of child abuse can be devastating and early identification and providing support as soon as problems emerge is critical.
Child sexual exploitation damages children and like any form of abuse it can have long-lasting consequences that can impact on every part of a child’s life and their future outcomes. Child sexual exploitation has been shown to affect:
- Physical (including sexual) and mental health and well-being;
- Education and training and therefore future employment prospects;
- Family relationships;
- Friends and social relationships, current and as adults; and
- Their relationship with their own children in the future.
Child sexual exploitation is complex and children are often reluctant to disclose experiences of exploitation due to misplaced feelings of loyalty and shame. Many may not recognise what they are experiencing as abuse or that they require support or intervention, believing they are in control or in a healthy consensual relationship.
Online annexes to this document set out in greater detail the context of adolescent development and risk. How to respond: working with young people
Child sexual exploitation is never the victim’s fault: As stated above, all children and young people have a right to be safe and should be protected from harm.
“What I want is staff who sit down and talk to you calmly and they don’t judge you … you want someone to understand why you did what you did”
“Instead of shouting at me and saying ‘why did you do it?’ …[They should be] letting you get your point across first, then putting their point across and about how they see it differently, instead of just saying that was wrong” (young person cited in Warrington 2013)
Early sharing of information is key to providing effective help where there are emerging problems. As above, it is essential to have in place effective child protection services and procedures for sharing information. For guidance on sharing information, which includes a myth-busting guide, see Information Sharing: Advice for practitioners providing safeguarding services to children, young people, parents and carers. Wherever possible practitioners should share confidential personal information with consent. However, where there are concerns that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, practitioners should be willing to disclose information without consent where the public interest served by protecting the child from harm outweighs the duty of confidentiality. Section B below sets out the framework that is required to support effective practice.
Safeguarding children is everyone’s responsibility. As above, all practitioners should assume that in the course of their work with children they will encounter children at risk of sexual exploitation. All practitioners working with children and families need to know where to get help: Local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements will set out the process for referring concerns about the welfare of children to local authority children’s social care. Anyone can make a referral and ask for advice. If a child is considered to be in immediate danger the police should be contacted.
Any practitioner working with a child who they think may be at risk of child sexual exploitation should follow the guidance set out in Working Together and share this information with local authority children’s social care. You should refer any concerns about a child’s welfare to local authority children’s social care. If you believe a child is in immediate risk of harm, you should contact the police.
Managers of services should ensure they are facilitating this type of sharing culture within their agencies and across their local multi-agency partnerships.
- All practitioners working with children and families should respond in ways that are:
- Child-centred: recognising children and young people’s rights to participate in decisions about them in line with their maturity, and focusing on the needs of the child. Other considerations, such as the fear of damaging relationships with children or adults, get in the way of protecting children from abuse and neglect. Practitioners should view a referral as the beginning of a process of inquiry, not as an accusation. Victims may be resistant to intervention and some may maintain links with their abusers, even after attempts to help protect them;
- **Developed and informed by the involvement of a child’s family and carers wherever safe and appropriate:** a holistic assessment will take account of the wishes and feelings of children and the views of their parents/carers;
- **Responsive and pro-active:** everyone should be alert to the potential signs and indicators of child sexual exploitation, as well as other forms of abuse, and exercise professional curiosity in their day to day work. It is better to help children and young people as early as possible, before issues escalate and become more damaging;
- **Relationship-based:** practitioners should establish and maintain trusting relationships with children and young people, and continue to exercise professional curiosity and create safe spaces for disclosure; and
- **Informed by an understanding of the complexities of child sexual exploitation:** it is important to avoid language or actions that may lead a young person to feel they are not deserving of support or are in some way to blame for their abuse.
“All young people can be worked with. It’s about finding the right worker...[and the professional] staying strong, staying tough and going along the roller-coaster ride with the young person...The worker needs to always be there to support you whenever you need it...It doesn’t go away overnight. It takes time.” (young person quoted in the consultation exercise for this advice, 2016)
**What does the particular nature of exploitation mean for practice?**
It is important that continued contact is not misinterpreted as informed choice or an indication of absence of harm. Practitioners should maintain their relationships with children and young people, and continue to exercise professional curiosity and create safe spaces for disclosure. Continued contact with perpetrators should be seen as part of the complex power dynamic of the abusive relationship, similar to that in some situations of domestic abuse. Practitioners should continue to reach out to victims and not make the offer of services dependent on formal disclosure. Many victims are only able to disclose after the provision of support, often months or even years down the line.
“I was throwing hints to people an all. I was throwing hints ‘cause I didn’t want it comin’ out of my own mouth. I wanted people to work it out ... I was getting myself drunk so I could come out with it, ‘cause I couldn’t say it when I was like sober. I was like ‘I can’t say it’” (young person cited in Beckett 2011) Parents/carers, teachers, youth workers, other professional workers or, as is often the case, a mixture of the above may have a valuable perspective to add. This will inform the contextual understanding and help to identify changes that represent something more than adolescent behaviours (see online annexes covering adolescent development) and make sense of the range of vulnerabilities the child or young person may be facing. As Working Together makes clear, it is important all such perspectives, alongside that of the child/young person, are incorporated in all risk assessments.
**Working with families**
Parents and carers can feel excluded in work with children and young people who are, or who are at risk of being, sexually exploited by perpetrators external to the family. Where assessment shows it is safe and appropriate to do so, parents and families should be regarded as a part of the solution. It is crucial to work with them not only to assess the risks of harm faced by the young person or child but to help them understand what the young person has experienced, the risks they face and how they can be supported and protected. The parents may need direct support and help to improve family relationships and keep their child safe. Section B – advice for managers and strategic leaders
Local authorities have overarching responsibility for safeguarding all children in their area. Their statutory functions under the 1989 and 2004 Children Act(s) include specific duties in relation to children in need and children suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm (under sections 17 and 47 of the Children Act 1989).
Local agencies, including the police and health services, also have a duty under section 11 of the Children Act 2004 to ensure they consider the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people when carrying out their functions.
Under section 10 of the Children Act 2004, these agencies are required to cooperate with local authorities to promote the wellbeing of children and young people in each local authority area. Practitioners are responsible for ensuring they fulfil their role and responsibilities in a manner consistent with the statutory duties of their employer.
An effective local multi-agency plan to combat child sexual exploitation requires clear leadership, guidance and support, delivered according to the overarching Working Together principles. It requires contributions from all multi-agency partners in accordance with local multi-agency arrangements. The effectiveness and implementation of multi-agency plans and arrangements to tackle child sexual exploitation should be monitored by the Local Safeguarding Children Board or its successor body. This should include ensuring joint-agency training is available.
Those planning an effective local multi-agency response to child sexual exploitation should follow the process for managing risk of harm to children and putting their needs first, as set out in Working Together.
Specifically, an effective response is one that:
- Is collaborative and multi-agency (including statutory, voluntary and community sectors) with clear roles and responsibilities and clear lines of communication and accountability;
- Has clear and purposeful leadership across local safeguarding partners;
- Is locally informed and based on an up-to-date understanding of the local problem profile, but also informed by national learning;
- Is underpinned by effective information sharing and intelligence sharing. All multi-agency partners should follow the guidance set out in Working Together, for example taking part in strategy discussion and child protection conferences;
- Locates child sexual exploitation within a wider context of risk and harm, and moves beyond a case by case response to identify wider patterns of concern; • Encompasses preventative, protective (immediate safeguarding) and responsive approaches, focusing on both victims and perpetrators (and recognising the potential for overlap between the two);
• Provides help and ongoing support that is responsive to individual need, strengths-based in approach and available over the longer-term (recognising that disclosure, resilience-building and recovery can take time);
• Supports staff to ‘work with risk,’ where required, in order to support a young person to become an active partner in their recovery and reintegration and achieve longer term meaningful change rather than temporary enforced compliance;
• Provides a response to children and young people with harmful sexual behaviours that recognises their vulnerabilities and needs, is holistic and provides early help and specialist services to these children and young people and their parents/carers; and
• Provides a system for flagging or applying appropriate markers on to systems in order to ensure effective record keeping and retrieval and assist information sharing (this should be based on the policy definition of child sexual exploitation and not just the criminal offences of that name).
The child sexual exploitation context
• Viewing child sexual exploitation within a wider continuum of exploitation, violence and abuse: Child sexual exploitation is not a catch all category for all forms of sexual harm in adolescence. It should therefore be viewed within the wider continuum of sexual abuse and other relevant issues such as trafficking, modern slavery, domestic abuse and other gendered violence and going missing. The necessary focus on child sexual exploitation should not overshadow a focus on other manifestations of abuse.
• Abuse outside of families: Though child sexual exploitation can occur in the family, in most cases the response to exploitation may require services to consider a broader perspective than intra-familial child abuse. The response may need to address risk of harm posed outside the family home and draw in partners such as local businesses, licensing authorities, and other sectors. This reflects the context in which perpetrators are operating.
• Agencies should move beyond a reactive approach: (one that removes the individual from harm) to one that also addresses the existence of harm and/or proactively prevents that harm.
• Local understanding: Every area should have its own data and intelligence, of which child sexual exploitation should form a part. Local multi-agency plans should be based on an inter-agency assessment of the local profile of perpetration. This requires effective local arrangements for sharing and collating intelligence and other information about communities, environments, perpetrators and victims.
- **Engaging with diversity:** The evidence base demonstrates that some cohorts of children and young people – males, children with disabilities, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and/or Transgender and Black and Minority Ethnic children, for example – may be less likely to have their abuse identified or responded to. Local areas should ensure responses are accessible, relevant and sensitive to the needs of all children and young people.
- **Cross-area working:** Cases of child sexual exploitation frequently cross local authority, police force and even country boundaries in terms of the movement of both perpetrators and victims. A singular area focus cannot therefore adequately capture patterns of harm and risk.
- **Inter-agency working:** While significant progress has been made here, challenges remain. Important areas for improvement include:
- the practical implementation of information sharing guidance;
- common risk assessment processes, as set out in *Working Together*, that follow an evidence-based model which looks at risk factors, vulnerability, protective factors and resilience and which prioritises professional judgement and does not rely on simplistic scoring;
- clarity about professional roles and thresholds for action across universal, targeted and specialist services;
- more effective sharing and recording of intelligence;
- better co-ordination of statutory and voluntary sector services; and
- more streamlined management of multiple agencies’ engagement with victims and their families.
- **Enhancing children’s and young people’s resilience and strengthening the protective factors** around them are critical strands of prevention. Resilience is about being able to overcome adversities and avoid negative consequences. It is not a character trait; it involves both internal capabilities and external resources. Resilience is therefore never a substitute for support.
- **Openness to learning and improvement:** There has been considerable learning in recent years around how better to identify and respond to child sexual exploitation. Sources of support and how to access learning in this area can be found in the online annexes. Prevention
The harmful effects of child sexual exploitation are serious and far-reaching for victims, their families and wider communities. The ideal is therefore to prevent the abuse happening in the first place. This section focuses on how we can protect children and young people through awareness-raising and resilience-building work.
A local multi-agency plan should:
- Educate all children and young people about the nature and risks of child sexual exploitation and other forms of related harm (both online and offline) and how to access support;
- Recognise that children and young people can be both victims and perpetrators of child sexual exploitation;
- Promote the resilience of children and young people and their families and strengthen the protective factors around them;
- Identify and support those settings, such as schools and colleges, in which children and young people can form healthy and safe relationships;
- Supplement universal initiatives with targeted work with groups of particularly vulnerable children and young people, such as those in care, whilst being careful not to stigmatise specific groups;
- Provide complementary messages to parents and carers about risks to their children (online and offline) and how to access support if they have concerns.
- Consider the levels of knowledge and understanding of the wider workforce, so that everyone working with children and young people can play their role in prevention; and
- Educate the wider community so they can identify and report concerns and seek support.
Although messages and methods of delivery will vary according to the nature and needs of the audience, all education and awareness raising initiatives should:
- Be grounded in an evidence-based understanding of child sexual exploitation (both online and offline);
- Challenge myths and misconceptions about who is perpetrating and experiencing this form of abuse;
- Send a clear message that all forms of child sexual exploitation are abuse;
- Recognise the potential overlap between victims and perpetrators;
- Challenge any victim-blaming and promote the rights of all victims to protection and support; • Provide information on where and how to report concerns and access support; and
• Be inclusive and accessible to the intended audience, in terms of language and delivery methods and ensure information is tailored and relevant to diverse groups such as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Black and Minority Ethnic and/or deaf or disabled children and young people.
Educating practitioners
• **Readiness of the professional workforce:** *Working Together* recognises that everyone who works with children has a responsibility for keeping them safe – that includes all those who work in social care, adult services, education, health settings, early years, youth work, youth justice, the police, and voluntary and community workers. Local safeguarding arrangements should provide high-quality training and other learning and developmental activities that are rooted in evidence, tailored to different professional groups and responsive to local learning needs.
• **Staff support and supervision:** Creating the right organisational environment and ensuring good quality professional leadership and practice supervision are essential for developing and sustaining effective practice. Supervision can help to:
o ensure progress and actions are reviewed so cases do not ‘drift’;
o maintain focus on the child or young person;
o test the evidence base for assessment and intervention;
o address the emotional impact of the work on the practitioner; and
o support reflective practice and help practitioners recognise where personal values and attitudes might be leading to risky practice, assumptions or ‘blind spots’.
All practitioners working with children and young people, whether in specialist or universal roles, should:
• Ensure they are aware of local multi-agency protocols in relation to child sexual exploitation;
• Recognise learning and development around this as an essential part of their role;
• Discuss learning needs in relation to child sexual exploitation with their supervisor or manager;
• Identify and access training opportunities that reflect their professional role (online annexes provides an overview of key messages that training should cover);
• Reflect on learning from training and other activity with their manager, and consider how it will impact on practice; • Review their learning needs over time, striving to continuously improve their knowledge, skills and understanding; and
• Actively engage in supervision and use it as an opportunity to test out thinking, have practice constructively challenged and discuss support needs.
Professional training and local protocols should clearly outline the roles and responsibilities of different practitioners in safeguarding children from harm (see Working Together). Training should address the complexities of identifying and responding to child sexual exploitation, emphasising:
• Practitioners’ safeguarding responsibilities and local reporting routes;
• Child sexual exploitation is a form of child sexual abuse;
• Child sexual exploitation can take many different forms (online and offline) and affect any child or young person;
• All under 18s are entitled to protection and support and that safeguarding duties do not depend on a child or young person’s desire to be safeguarded;
• The need to understand the impact of trauma on behaviour and presentation;
• The need to look beyond presenting behaviours and exercise ‘professional curiosity’;
• The need to apply professional judgment, supported by effective supervision and robust tools, in decision-making and practice;
• The power of professional reactions to facilitate or close down access to support and protection;
• The practical implementation of information sharing guidance where there are concerns about child sexual exploitation; and
• The development of practical skills in facilitating conversations with children and young people, and with their parents/carers.
Training alone is not sufficient to ensure a skilled and confident workforce, however. Training should be accompanied by:
• Opportunities to learn from other practitioners – for example, shadowing, co-working and peer observation;
• Ongoing high-quality supervision;
• A focus on reflective practice to help practitioners navigate complexity; and
• A recognition of the emotional impact that such work can have on practitioners, and access to support in order to manage this. Educating children and young people
Although there is not as yet any proven blueprint for the most effective means of communicating messages around child sexual exploitation to children and young people, the evidence base highlights some important principles:
- **The need for early and continuous education**: We are increasingly learning about cases of child sexual exploitation that involve younger children, particularly in the online sphere. If children and young people are not educated about the risk of child sexual exploitation (and other forms of sexual abuse) before perpetrators approach them, they are left unprotected. Schools may want to consider how to build in effective, age-appropriate education, which sensitively supports younger children on these issues and which forms part of a planned programme of study across key stages. This should be accompanied by wider resilience-building work.
- **Use all potential avenues of communication**: Schools, colleges and other educational settings have a critical role to play. Personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) lessons are an obvious route for educating children and young people about the risks of child sexual exploitation and other forms of harm, as are pastoral services and school nurse services. Consideration should also be given to how messages can be delivered outside mainstream education, for example, in youth clubs, community settings or the family home.
- **Adopt a holistic approach**: Risk of child sexual exploitation should be addressed as part of a wider programme of work on sexuality and sexual development, choice and consent, healthy relationships, harmful social norms and abusive behaviours and online safety. This should build on existing initiatives (around online safety for example) and ensure messages dovetail across these different programmes of work. Educative work should engage both boys and girls and should address both risk of perpetration and risk of victimisation (and the potential for overlap).
- **Contextual considerations**: Messages around child sexual exploitation should be delivered within a safe non-judgmental environment, by credible individuals who are confident discussing the issues and able to challenge unhelpful perceptions. Where specific vulnerabilities are identified (going missing, gang-association or drug/alcohol misuse, for example) more targeted educative work should be undertaken, while taking care to avoid stigmatisation or labelling. Accessible and appropriate support should be immediately available should any issues of concern be identified during education activity.
Educating parents and carers
Parents and carers have a critical role to play in helping to protect children and young people from child sexual exploitation. They can educate their children about sex, healthy relationships and abuse, enhance resilience, provide a safe base and ensure open channels of communication. They are also well placed to support early identification by identifying emerging vulnerabilities or potential indicators of abuse and seeking support before risks escalate. In order to support them, practitioners should ensure that parents/carers:
- Understand the risks of both online and offline child sexual exploitation and recognise this as something that could affect their child;
- Know the potential indicators of child sexual exploitation;
- Know where and how to access support;
- Are reassured that services will, as appropriate, work in partnership with them to try to protect their child;
- Have support to manage the emotional impact of child sexual exploitation on their child, themselves and on family relationships; and
- Have support that is tailored to their specific circumstances and needs, for example, support that recognises their culture or faith, and are helped to overcome any barriers such as language.
**Educating communities**
**Harnessing the wider community:** Those who do not necessarily ‘work with children’ also have a contribution to make to tackling child sexual exploitation. Hoteliers, taxi drivers, park wardens, refuse collectors and retail workers (amongst others) may hold vital information about the movement of victims and perpetrators. Emergency services, including the Fire and Ambulance Services, and local community and religious groups can also play a key role. Educating those who work in local services and businesses (including the night-time economy) about what to look for, and how to report concerns, can significantly enhance local disruption and protective capabilities.
This focus should also include members of the wider local community who may observe concerns within their areas – for example, those living near a party house location who may see victims coming and going. Educating people about child sexual exploitation, the things to look out for and where to report concerns, will significantly enhance the protective capabilities of our communities. This practice advice was produced by the Department for Education. It is adapted from a review of evidence produced by the University of Bedfordshire and Research in Practice. To view this extended practice advice see www.beds.ac.uk/ic/publications
© Crown copyright 2017
This publication (not including logos) is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
To view this licence: visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 email psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk write to Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London, TW9 4DU
Reference: DFE-00056-2017
About this publication: enquiries www.education.gov.uk/contactus download www.gov.uk/government/publications
Follow us on Twitter: @educationgovuk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/educationgovuk
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2023-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 23,
"total-input-tokens": 41973,
"total-output-tokens": 10387,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
177,
1
],
[
177,
831,
2
],
[
831,
3507,
3
],
[
3507,
5554,
4
],
[
5554,
8188,
5
],
[
8188,
11074,
6
],
[
11074,
13937,
7
],
[
13937,
15408,
8
],
[
15408,
18007,
9
],
[
18007,
20952,
10
],
[
20952,
23114,
11
],
[
23114,
26093,
12
],
[
26093,
28910,
13
],
[
28910,
30164,
14
],
[
30164,
32760,
15
],
[
32760,
35389,
16
],
[
35389,
37729,
17
],
[
37729,
39888,
18
],
[
39888,
42213,
19
],
[
42213,
44329,
20
],
[
44329,
47241,
21
],
[
47241,
49291,
22
],
[
49291,
50270,
23
]
]
} |
694e70fcd9c8365e813eb58b2df7bce12917566a | **BENCHMARK THEME 9: EFFICIENCY** To be used in conjunction with main CSIT benchmark to provide an additional focus on efficiency
**CRITERION 9.1: SERVICES ARE REGULARLY BENCHMARKED AND THE RESULTS USED TO FOCUS IMPROVEMENT.**
| Level 1: Poor | Level 2: Fair | Level 3: Good | Level 4: Excellent | |--------------|--------------|--------------|-------------------| | There is little or no evidence that the key features are in place or that there is commitment to putting them in place. | There is evidence of concrete progress towards putting the key features in place. | There is evidence that the key features are in place. | There is evidence that the key features are in place and have made an impact on performance and results. | | Service performance has not been regularly benchmarked against recognised comparators. | Service performance is being benchmarked against recognised comparators. | Service performance has been regularly benchmarked against recognised comparators. | Service performance has been regularly benchmarked against recognised comparators and improvements made as a result. |
| Key features of an excellent organisation | Your evidence | Scoring | Improvement priority | |-----------------------------------------|---------------|---------|----------------------| | A | The organisation’s information systems provide an integrated approach to resource management. Cost and activity data is captured and this information has been used effectively for benchmarking and to drive improvements. (From use of resources 5.6 A) | | | | B | The organisation has carried out a rigorous benchmarking exercise regularly. The exercise has compared overall Value for Money including cost and income generation. | | | | C | Where services have been identified as less efficient than comparator services actions have been taken to address areas for improvement. | | | **CRITERION 9.2: CULTURE AND SPORT ASSETS ARE FULLY UTILISED.**
**Level 1: Poor.** There is little or no evidence that the key features are in place or that there is commitment to putting them in place. The organisation does not utilise all its physical assets to maximum capacity.
**Level 2: Fair.** There is evidence of concrete progress towards putting the key features in place. The organisation is working towards utilising all its physical assets to maximum capacity.
**Level 3: Good.** There is evidence that the key features are in place. The organisation utilises all its physical assets to maximum capacity.
**Level 4: Excellent.** There is evidence that the key features are in place and have made an impact on performance and results. The organisation utilises all its physical assets to maximum capacity and can demonstrate continuous improvement in the use of its assets over a number of years.
| Key features of an excellent organisation | Your evidence | Scoring | Improvement priority | |------------------------------------------|---------------|---------|----------------------| | A | The organisation has used its available assets creatively to develop and improve services over time. (Use of resources 9.5 A) | | | | B | The organisation has a strategic asset management plan that maximises the performance of assets, and ensures they have a direct and significant impact on achieving corporate objectives. (Use of Resources 9.5 B) | | | | C | The organisation uses all its physical assets to capacity. All opportunities to rationalise service points and reduce overall asset costs have been considered and either discounted or taken. | | | | D | The organisation has investigated all opportunities to co-locate culture and sport services in other buildings e.g. Building schools for the future, integrated leisure and wellbeing centres, joint service centres. | | | | E | The organisation has explored all relevant opportunities for making available spare capacity in its assets to other council services, partners or other parties through commercial arrangements. | | | | F | The organisation has considered all opportunities to transfer assets to the third sector. | | | | G | The organisation has reviewed with adjoining councils joint service provision where assets and services duplicate provision. | | | **CRITERION 9.3: SHARED SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT HAVE BEEN USED TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY**
| Level 1: Poor | Level 2: Fair | Level 3: Good | Level 4: Excellent | |--------------|--------------|--------------|-------------------| | There is little or no evidence that the key features are in place or that there is commitment to putting them in place. | There is evidence of concrete progress towards putting the key features in place. | There is evidence that the key features are in place. | There is evidence that the key features are in place and have made an impact on performance and results. | | The organisation has not considered or introduced appropriate ways of sharing services and management costs. | The organisation is introducing appropriate ways of sharing services and management costs. | The organisation has introduced appropriate ways of sharing services and management costs. | The organisation has introduced appropriate ways of sharing services and management costs and as a result can demonstrate ongoing improvements in efficiency. |
| Key features of an excellent organisation | Your evidence | Scoring | Improvement priority | |-----------------------------------------|---------------|---------|----------------------| | A | The redesign of services and processes has increased productivity and reduced time and cost while maintaining or improving quality. (use of resources 5.3 B) | | | | B | Partnering arrangements and long-term supplier relationships have assisted improvements in efficiency and service delivery. (use of resources 5.3 D) | | | | C | Arrangements for sharing back office services have been considered and introduced wherever possible including with adjoining councils or partners. | | | | D | Arrangements for sharing management have been considered and introduced wherever possible including with adjoining councils and partners. | | | **CRITERION 9.4: CULTURE AND SPORT SERVICES HAVE BEEN PROCURED TO DELIVER REQUIRED OUTPUTS, OUTCOMES AND VALUE FOR MONEY**
| Level 1: Poor | Level 2: Fair | Level 3: Good | Level 4: Excellent | |--------------|--------------|---------------|-------------------| | There is little or no evidence that the key features are in place or that there is commitment to putting them in place. | There is evidence of concrete progress towards putting the key features in place. | There is evidence that the key features are in place. | There is evidence that the key features are in place and have made an impact on performance and results. | | The current service provider(s) were not procured following a rigorous option appraisal process and there has been no recent review to ascertain if they are providing value for money and delivering the required outputs and outcomes. | Plans are in place to review the current service provider(s) and if value for money cannot be demonstrated a procurement process will take place including a rigorous option appraisal process. | The current service provider(s) was recently procured following a rigorous option appraisal and are delivering the required outputs and outcomes cost effectively. | The current service provider(s) was procured following a rigorous option appraisal and regular reviews continue to show they offer value for money in terms of costs and the outputs and outcomes being delivered. |
| Key features of an excellent organisation | Your evidence | Scoring | Improvement priority | |-----------------------------------------|---------------|---------|----------------------| | A | The organisation has a good track record of strategic commissioning and procurement of goods and services to support improvement and efficiency, including through the LSP. (Use of resources 5.3 C) | | | | B | The organisation regularly reviews the provision of its culture and sport services and considers if alternative service delivery models may be more capable of and delivering required outputs and outcomes as set out in strategic plans more efficiently. | | | | C | As part of the most recent procurement processes the organisation undertook a rigorous option appraisal before contracting for services. | | | **CRITERION 9.5: CULTURE AND SPORT SERVICES ARE BEING COMMISSIONED BY PARTNERS TO DELIVER THEIR REQUIRED OUTCOMES**
**Level 1: Poor.** There is little or no evidence that the key features are in place or that there is commitment to putting them in place.
The organisation is not considered an effective delivery partner and has never been commissioned to deliver a range of outcomes on behalf of partners.
**Level 2: Fair.** There is evidence of concrete progress towards putting the key features in place.
The organisation is seeking to be commissioned to deliver a range of outcomes on behalf of partners.
**Level 3: Good.** There is evidence that the key features are in place.
The organisation is considered an effective delivery partner and has been commissioned to deliver a range of outcomes on behalf of partners.
**Level 4: Excellent.** There is evidence that the key features are in place and have made an impact on performance and results.
The organisation has been commissioned to deliver a range of outcomes on behalf of partners over a number of years.
| Key features of an excellent organisation | Your evidence | Scoring | Improvement priority | |------------------------------------------|---------------|---------|----------------------| | A | The organisation is represented on the key strategic partnerships with commissioning responsibility e.g. health, adult social care and childrens services and plays a full part in the strategic commissioning processes. | | | | | B | The organisation presents an integrated and unified presence to potential commissioners of culture and sport services. In two tier areas this includes arrangements for joint working between districts and between district and county services. | | | | | C | Capacity has been built among third sector clubs and organisations to enable them to access and support the commissioning process. | | | | | D | The organisation has mapped commissioning opportunities available and has taken steps to fully understand the needs of communities and those commissioning services and is able to adapt services to meet these needs. | | | | | E | Competency and skills are being developed in the organisation to support commissioning. | | | | | F | An evidence base has been built to demonstrate the potential | | | | | Themes and criteria | Evidence and probes | |--------------------|---------------------| | **Efficiency.** | | | **CRITERION 9.1:** services are regularly benchmarked and the results used to focus improvement. | • Recent use of recognised benchmarking services such as the National Benchmarking Service, APSE and CIPFA or an equivalent.\
• Joint benchmarking exercises between similar councils or groups of councils leading to shared learning and support.\
• Evidence of specific action to addressed identified improvement areas. | | **Criterion 9.2:** culture and sport assets are fully utilised. | • Evidence exploring opportunities for bringing services together in a single building to release assets for sale or other uses.\
• Evidence of culture and sport assets being offered to other departments or partners to house other services e.g. libraries becoming generic customer service points for the council, leisure centres being used as health and wellbeing centres or for social care activity.\
• Evidence of culture and sport services being integrated in other services points such as community sports facilities in new schools under the BSF scheme\
• Evidence of councils planning service provision across council boundaries to avoid overlap and duplication. Use of share access arrangements to service between councils.\
• Evidence of assets being formally transferred to third sector organisations or community trusts to generate income and investment opportunity. | | **Criterion 9.3:** shared services and management have been used to improve | • Evidence that back office costs have been shared across organisations.\
• Evidence of private contractors or trusts collaborating to provide efficient strategic management. | | Efficiency | Criterion 9.4: Culture and sport services have been procured effectively to deliver required outputs, outcomes and value for money | |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | • Councils sharing strategic management particularly in two tier areas. | | | • Evidence that current delivery arrangements have recently been reviewed and confirmed as delivering value for money. | | | • Evidence that recent procurement exercises have been rigorous and have considered all the available options | | | • Evidence that capacity is being built in the third sector among local clubs and organisations so they can be commissioned to help deliver services effectively. | | | • Evidence that skills and competencies are being developed to both commission and be commissioned. |
| Criterion 9.5: Culture and sport services are being commissioned by partners to meet their required outcomes | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | • Senior managers and elected members participate in the key partnerships and help shape commissioning policy and ensure culture and sport needs are taken into account in needs assessments. | | • Evidence of service mapping to identify all relevant commissioning opportunities and clarity on key outcomes and outputs required by the commissioners. Evidence the providers understand what the commissioner want and need to achieve. | | • Evidence that service fragmentation has been addressed so that commissioners can access culture and sport services as easily and efficiently as possible. | | • Evidence in two tier areas of collaboration between providers to maximise efficient commissioning processes. | | • Clear communication channels between commissioners and providers. | | • Evidence that skills and competencies are being developed to both commission and be commissioned. | | • Evidence that capacity is being built in the third sector among local clubs and organisations so they can be commissioned to help deliver services effectively. | | • Evidence of county sport partnerships and arts partnerships facilitating better collaboration between providers. | | • Good evidence base to substantiate bids for commissioning. | | • Effective performance management arrangements so progress and performance can be monitored and reported easily to commissioners. | | Evidence of VFM benchmarking to underpin pricing of bids. | | Evidence of activity to achieve and maintain relevant accreditation and meet legal requirements of the contract. |
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2024-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 8,
"total-input-tokens": 13914,
"total-output-tokens": 3199,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1885,
1
],
[
1885,
4222,
2
],
[
4222,
6106,
3
],
[
6106,
8360,
4
],
[
8360,
10670,
5
],
[
10670,
12437,
6
],
[
12437,
15093,
7
],
[
15093,
15271,
8
]
]
} |
bf4f6c3dcafab4d8c88d41415520b1963e6e2904 | In - Year Settlement stencil
To The Student Loans Company 100, Bothwell Street Glasgow G2 7JD
SLC Customer No: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (IF KNOWN)
IR Ref: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
SELF ASSESSMENT: - EARLY SETTLEMENT
Borrower’s Name \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
NINO \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Date of birth __/__/\_\_\_\_
Agent / Personal Representative\* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
The above borrower has
☐ Died – Date of Death __/__/\_\_\_\_
☐ Emigrated from __/__/\_\_\_\_ New Address: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Early settlement has been requested and tax liability for the year __/__/\_\_\_\_ has been informally agreed. No Student Loan repayment via Self Assessment has been included.
The taxpayer / agent / personal representative\* has been advised to contact you regarding settlement of the Student Loan.
Contact Name: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Tel: No: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
- Delete as appropriate
Office Stamp
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2025-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1994,
"total-output-tokens": 265,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1055,
1
]
]
} |
31e25bd0b843a80179829de1e5adf8fb34a2090f | ## Order Of Deduction Working sheet
| Working sheet | Box 1 | |---------------|------| | Earnings for student loan purposes | |
| SL deductions per Student Loan deduction tables | Box 2 | |------------------------------------------------|------| | | |
| Attachable earnings for priority AEO / DEO | Box 3 | |-------------------------------------------|------| | | |
| Amount of priority AEO / DEO to be deducted | Box 4 | |---------------------------------------------|------| | | |
| Net attachable earnings after AEO / DEO (Box 3 – Box 4) | Box 5 | |----------------------------------------------------------|------| | | |
| Level of protected earnings per most recent AEO / DEO | Box 6 | |-------------------------------------------------------|------| | | |
| Maximum amount of Student Loan deductions in pay period | Box 7 | |--------------------------------------------------------|------| | Net attachable earnings less level of protected earnings (Box 5 – Box 6) | |
| Amount of SL deductions to be made = lower of calculated SL deductions (Box 2) and the maximum amount of SL deductions (Box 7) | Box 8 | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | | |
**Note:** Do not carry forward any balance of deductions not made because the maximum deductions, (Box 6) is less than the ‘normal’ amount of SL deductions calculated per the Student Loan Deduction tables, (Box 2).
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2026-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 1771,
"total-output-tokens": 364,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
1465,
1
]
]
} |
e5fad0c4993d85233d141274b31dc14824340900 | Autumn 2010 survey report for:
ORR
Returns: 250 Response rate: 83%
Your engagement index
54%
| Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2010 | Difference from CS High Performers | |---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------| | +3 | -2 | -8 |
See the appendix for further details
The three elements of engagement and their component questions are:
Say: speaks positively of the organisation...
B50. I am proud when I tell others I am part of ORR
B51. I would recommend ORR as a great place to work
Stay: emotionally attached and committed to the organisation...
B52. I feel a strong personal attachment to ORR
Strive: motivated to do the best for the organisation...
B53. ORR inspires me to do the best in my job
B54. ORR motivates me to help it achieve its objectives
Drivers of engagement
Employee engagement is shaped by experiences at work, as measured by nine themes in the survey. The table below shows how you performed on each of these themes, ranked by the strength of association with engagement. The themes which have the strongest association with engagement should be the focus for action. See the appendix for further details.
| Theme score % positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2010 | Difference from CS High Performers | |------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------| | Leadership and managing change | 39% | +5 | +2 | -7 | | My work | 79% | +2 | +8 | +4 | | My line manager | 70% | +3 | +5 | +2 | | Pay and benefits | 65% | +9 | +28 | +22 | | Resources and workload | 75% | +5 | +2 | -2 | | Inclusion and fair treatment | 72% | +3 | -1 | -4 | | Learning and development | 46% | +1 | +3 | -3 | | Organisational objectives and purpose | 78% | +6 | -3 | -9 | | My team | 84% | +5 | +7 | +4 |
= Statistically significant difference from comparison The three themes which have the strongest association with engagement are shown below. Questions are ranked by difference from the Civil Service 2010 benchmark (CS2010).
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
\* indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
| Leadership and managing change | Strength of association with engagement: | |--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------| | B48. I have the opportunity to contribute my views before decisions are made that affect me | 46% | +11 * | +14 * | | B41. Directors and deputies in ORR are sufficiently visible | 56% | +11 * | +11 * | | B47. ORR keeps me informed about matters that affect me | 62% | +16 * | +8 * | | B44. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by ORR's directors and deputies | 41% | +5 | +5 * | | B46. When changes are made in ORR they are usually for the better | 25% | -1 | +2 * | | B42. I believe the actions of directors and deputies are consistent with ORR's values | 41% | +10 * | +1 | | B49. I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in ORR | 38% | +9 * | -2 | | B43. I believe that the board has a clear vision for the future of ORR | 30% | -7 * | -5 * | | B45. I feel that change is managed well in ORR | 21% | -2 | -7 * | | B40. I feel that ORR as a whole is managed well | 33% | 0 | -8 * |
| My work | Strength of association with engagement: | |---------|-----------------------------------------| | B05. I have a choice in deciding how I do my work | 84% | +1 | +14 * | | B02. I am sufficiently challenged by my work | 83% | +4 | +10 * | | B04. I feel involved in the decisions that affect my work | 59% | +6 | +10 * | | B03. My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment | 81% | +2 | +9 * | | B01. I am interested in my work | 89% | -2 | +1 |
| My line manager | Strength of association with engagement: | |-----------------|-----------------------------------------| | B15. I receive regular feedback on my performance | 68% | +4 | +8 * | | B13. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by my manager | 76% | -1 | +7 * | | B11. My manager is open to my ideas | 84% | -2 | +7 * | | B16. The feedback I receive helps me to improve my performance | 63% | +7 * | +6 * | | B18. Poor performance is dealt with effectively in my team | 43% | +12 * | +5 * | | B09. My manager motivates me to be more effective in my job | 67% | 0 | +5 * | | B12. My manager helps me to understand how I contribute to ORR's objectives | 63% | +3 | +5 * | | B10. My manager is considerate of my life outside work | 83% | +3 | +5 * | | B14. My manager recognises when I have done my job well | 81% | +1 | +5 * | | B17. I think that my performance is evaluated fairly | 66% | +1 | +5 * |
## All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.
- ^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
- ◊ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
### My work
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2010 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|--------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B01. I am interested in my work | 49 | 41 | 6 | | | 89% | -2 | +1 | -2 ◊ | | B02. I am sufficiently challenged by my work | 32 | 51 | 8 | 5 | | 83% | +4 | +10 ◊ | +5 ◊ | | B03. My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment | 29 | 52 | 10 | 6 | | 81% | +2 | +9 ◊ | +5 ◊ | | B04. I feel involved in the decisions that affect my work | 15 | 43 | 20 | 16 | 5 | 59% | +6 | +10 ◊ | +2 ◊ | | B05. I have a choice in deciding how I do my work | 28 | 57 | 9 | 5 | | 84% | +1 | +14 ◊ | +8 ◊ |
### Organisational objectives and purpose
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2010 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|--------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B06. I have a clear understanding of ORR's purpose | 26 | 54 | 12 | 6 | | 80% | +6 | -4 ◊ | -9 ◊ | | B07. I have a clear understanding of ORR's objectives | 19 | 55 | 16 | 8 | | 74% | +6 | -3 ◊ | -12 ◊ | | B08. I understand how my work contributes to ORR's objectives | 27 | 52 | 12 | 6 | | 79% | +5 | -1 | -7 ◊ |
## All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
△ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
| My line manager | :Strength of association with engagement | |-----------------|-----------------------------------------| | B09. My manager motivates me to be more effective in my job |  | | B10. My manager is considerate of my life outside work |  | | B11. My manager is open to my ideas |  | | B12. My manager helps me to understand how I contribute to ORR's objectives |  | | B13. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by my manager |  | | B14. My manager recognises when I have done my job well |  | | B15. I receive regular feedback on my performance |  | | B16. The feedback I receive helps me to improve my performance |  | | B17. I think that my performance is evaluated fairly |  | | B18. Poor performance is dealt with effectively in my team |  |
| My team | :Association with engagement not identified | |---------|-------------------------------------------| | B19. The people in my team can be relied upon to help when things get difficult in my job |  | | B20. The people in my team work together to find ways to improve the service we provide |  | | B21. The people in my team are encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things |  |
## All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.
- ^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
- ♦ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
### Learning and development
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2010 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|--------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B22. I am able to access the right learning and development opportunities when I need to | 12 | 47 | 20 | 14 | 8 | 59% | -3 | +3 ♦ | -4 ♦ | | B23. Learning and development activities I have completed in the past 12 months have helped to improve my performance | 12 | 47 | 28 | 11 | | 59% | +7 ♦ | +11 ♦ | +6 ♦ | | B24. There are opportunities for me to develop my career in ORR | 6 | 19 | 36 | 25 | 15 | 25% | -5 | -4 ♦ | -11 ♦ | | B25. Learning and development activities I have completed while working for ORR are helping me to develop my career | 7 | 34 | 36 | 14 | 9 | 41% | +4 | 0 | -5 ♦ |
### Inclusion and fair treatment
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2010 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|--------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B26. I am treated fairly at work | 23 | 56 | 12 | 4 | | 79% | +5 | +1 | -2 ♦ | | B27. I am treated with respect by the people I work with | 26 | 58 | 11 | | | 84% | -1 | +1 | -3 ♦ | | B28. I feel valued for the work I do | 19 | 49 | 18 | 10 | 4 | 67% | +3 | +7 ♦ | +3 ♦ | | B29. I think that ORR respects individual differences (e.g. cultures, working styles, backgrounds, ideas, etc) | 18 | 41 | 23 | 10 | 8 | 59% | +6 | -12 ♦ | -16 ♦ |
## All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.
- ^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
- ◊ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
### Resources and workload
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2010 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|--------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B30. In my job, I am clear what is expected of me | 20 | 62 | 12 | 6 | | 81% | +5 | -1 | -5 ◊ | | B31. I get the information I need to do my job well | 11 | 59 | 17 | 11 | | 70% | +15 ◊ | +3 ◊ | 0 | | B32. I have clear work objectives | 18 | 58 | 14 | 7 | | 76% | +3 | +2 | -3 ◊ | | B33. I have the skills I need to do my job effectively | 29 | 60 | 8 | | | 88% | +2 | 0 | -2 ◊ | | B34. I have the tools I need to do my job effectively | 18 | 52 | 17 | 11 | | 71% | +5 | -1 | -5 ◊ | | B35. I have an acceptable workload | 11 | 58 | 15 | 12 | 4 | 69% | +4 | +7 ◊ | +2 | | B36. I achieve a good balance between my work life and my private life | 15 | 55 | 16 | 11 | | 71% | +1 | +1 | -3 ◊ |
### Pay and benefits
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2010 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|--------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B37. I feel that my pay adequately reflects my performance | 13 | 54 | 18 | 8 | 6 | 68% | +11 ◊ | +30 ◊ | +23 ◊ | | B38. I am satisfied with the total benefits package | 13 | 52 | 21 | 9 | 4 | 65% | +5 | +26 ◊ | +18 ◊ | | B39. Compared to people doing a similar job in other organisations I feel my pay is reasonable | 14 | 48 | 20 | 12 | 7 | 62% | +10 ◊ | +31 ◊ | +23 ◊ |
## Leadership and managing change
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2010 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B40. I feel that ORR as a whole is managed well | 5 | 28 | 32 | 23 | 12 | 33% | 0 | -8 △ | -20 △ | | B41. Directors and deputies in ORR are sufficiently visible | 10 | 46 | 21 | 18 | 5 | 56% | +11 △ | +11 △ | -3 △ | | B42. I believe the actions of directors and deputies are consistent with ORR's values | 5 | 36 | 29 | 20 | 10 | 41% | +10 △ | +1 △ | -11 △ | | B43. I believe that the board has a clear vision for the future of ORR | 4 | 26 | 43 | 20 | 8 | 30% | -7 △ | -5 △ | -17 △ | | B44. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by ORR's directors and deputies | 4 | 36 | 33 | 18 | 8 | 41% | +5 △ | +5 △ | -7 △ | | B45. I feel that change is managed well in ORR | 17 | 28 | 31 | 21 | | 21% | -2 | -7 △ | -18 △ | | B46. When changes are made in ORR they are usually for the better | 4 | 21 | 44 | 23 | 8 | 25% | -1 | +2 △ | -6 △ | | B47. ORR keeps me informed about matters that affect me | 11 | 51 | 21 | 11 | 6 | 62% | +16 △ | +8 △ | 0 | | B48. I have the opportunity to contribute my views before decisions are made that affect me | 7 | 38 | 26 | 21 | 8 | 46% | +11 △ | +14 △ | +7 △ | | B49. I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in ORR | 34 | 23 | 23 | 16 | | 38% | +9 △ | -2 △ | -9 △ |
## Engagement
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2010 | Difference from CS High Performers | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|--------------------|------------|----------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B50. I am proud when I tell others I am part of ORR | 6 | 34 | 42 | 13 | 4 | 41% | +5 | -14 | -23 | | B51. I would recommend ORR as a great place to work | 8 | 36 | 31 | 18 | 7 | 44% | +3 | +2 | -8 | | B52. I feel a strong personal attachment to ORR | 8 | 28 | 36 | 19 | 9 | 36% | +6 | -10 | -18 | | B53. ORR inspires me to do the best in my job | 7 | 29 | 42 | 16 | 6 | 36% | +3 | -3 | -13 | | B54. ORR motivates me to help it achieve its objectives | 6 | 31 | 41 | 14 | 8 | 37% | +4 | +1 | -9 |
## Taking action
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2010 | Difference from CS High Performers | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|--------------------|------------|----------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B55. I believe that directors and deputies in ORR will take action on the results from this survey | 14 | 40 | 26 | 12 | 8 | 53% | +20 | +16 | +6 | | B56. I believe that managers where I work will take action on the results from this survey | 17 | 52 | 22 | 4 | 5 | 69% | +18 | +23 | +16 |
### Data Security
**C01. I know where to go to find out about how to handle personal and sensitive information**
| % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | |------------------|---------|------------|------------|---------------------| | 17 | 68 | 11 | | |
Differences are based on '% Positive' score
- 4 | Difference from previous survey +2 | Difference from CS2010
**C02. In the past 12 months, have you received training on handling data and procedures to protect personal and sensitive information?**
| % Yes | % No | |-------|------| | 64 | 36 |
Differences are based on '% Yes' score
- 28 | Difference from previous survey -14 | Difference from CS2010
### Your plans for the future
**D01. Which of the following statements most reflects your current thoughts about working for ORR?**
| Statement | % | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2010 | |------------------------------------------------|---|---------------------------------|-----------------------| | I want to leave ORR as soon as possible | 10%| +1 | +2 | | I want to leave ORR within the next 12 months | 13%| -2 | +2 | | I want to stay working for ORR for at least the next year | 35%| -1 | +9 | | I want to stay working for ORR for at least the next three years | 42%| +3 | -13 |
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
♦ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
### The Civil Service Code
**E01. Are you aware of the Civil Service Code?**
| % Yes | % No | |-------|------| | 89 | 11 |
Differences are based on '% Yes' score
+5 | Difference from previous survey +8 | Difference from CS2010
**E02. Are you aware of how to raise a concern under the Civil Service Code?**
| % Yes | % No | |-------|------| | 50 | 50 |
Differences are based on '% Yes' score
+3 | Difference from previous survey -2 | Difference from CS2010
**E03. Are you confident that if you raised a concern under the Civil Service Code in ORR it would be investigated properly?**
| % Yes | % No | |-------|------| | 64 | 36 |
Differences are based on '% Yes' score
+9 | Difference from previous survey +2 | Difference from CS2010
## All questions by theme
### Discrimination, harassment and bullying
**F01. During the past 12 months, have you personally experienced discrimination at work?**
| % Yes | % No | % Prefer not to say | |-------|------|---------------------| | 10% | 83% | 6% |
- 13% Previous survey
- 10% CS2010
**F03. During the past 12 months, have you personally experienced bullying or harassment at work?**
| % Yes | % No | % Prefer not to say | |-------|------|---------------------| | 12% | 84% | 4% |
- 9% Previous survey
- 10% CS2010
For respondents who selected ‘Yes’ to question F01.
**F02. On which of the following grounds have you personally experienced discrimination in the past 12 months? (multiple selection)**
| Response count | |----------------| | Age -- | | Caring responsabilities -- | | Disability -- | | Ethnic background -- | | Gender -- | | Gender reassignment or perceived gender -- | | Grade, payband or responsibility level -- | | Main spoken/written language or language ability -- | | Religion or belief -- | | Sexual orientation -- | | Social or educational background -- | | Working location -- | | Working pattern -- | | Any other grounds -- | | Prefer not to say -- |
*Please note: Counts of fewer than ten responses are suppressed and replaced with ‘--’*
For respondents who selected ‘Yes’ to question F03.
**F04. Who were you bullied or harassed by at work in the past 12 months? (multiple selection)**
| Response count | |----------------| | A colleague -- | | Your manager -- | | Another manager in your part of ORR 12 | | Someone you manage -- | | Someone who works for another part of ORR -- | | A member of the public -- | | Someone else -- | | Prefer not to say -- |
*Please note: Counts of fewer than ten responses are suppressed and replaced with ‘--’*
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
♦ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison Appendix
Glossary of key terms
| Term | Definition | |-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | % positive | The proportion who selected either “agree” or “strongly agree” for a question (or all questions within a theme in the case of Theme score % positive). | | Previous survey | Comparisons to the previous survey relate to the results from the 2009 Civil Service People Survey. Where a question is flagged as changed since the last survey comparisons should be treated with caution as changes to wording may affect how people respond to the question. | | CS2010 | The CS2010 benchmark is the median percent positive across all organisations that participated in the 2010 Civil Service People Survey. | | CS High Performers | For each question, this is the upper quartile score across all organisations that have taken part in the 2010 Civil Service People Survey. |
Rounding
Results are presented as whole numbers for ease of reading, with rounding performed at the last stage of calculation for maximum accuracy.
Statistical significance: ♦
Statistical testing has been carried out on the comparisons between this year’s results and your previous survey, CS2010 results and CS High Performers results to identify differences that are statistically significant. You can therefore be confident that the difference represents a real difference in opinion between the results.
The employee engagement index
The survey includes five questions that make up the engagement index (B50-B54). The index score represents the average level of engagement in that unit and ranges from 0 to 100. An index score of 0 represents all respondents in that unit saying they strongly disagree to all five engagement questions and a score of 100 represents all respondents saying they strongly agree to all five engagement questions.
The drivers of engagement
While the engagement index shows the average level of engagement, it does not show what you can do to improve engagement. Nine themes have been included in the survey to measure employees’ experiences at work. A statistical technique, stepwise regression, is used to identify the extent to which each of these themes has an association with engagement. The themes identified as having an association are called the ‘Drivers of engagement’. The strength of association with engagement varies by theme and is illustrated by a 4-bar icon, as shown below. Themes with a full 4-bar icon have the strongest association with engagement.
Confidentiality
This survey was carried out as part of the 2010 Civil Service People Survey, which is managed by the Cabinet Office on behalf of all the participating organisations. The Cabinet Office commissioned ORC International to carry out the survey. ORC International is a member of the Market Research Society, and is bound by their strict code of conduct and confidentiality rules. These rules do not allow for the breakdown of results to the extent where the anonymity of individuals may be compromised. Groups of less than 10 respondents will not be reported on, however their responses do contribute to the overall scores for the unit and organisation they belong to and the overall Civil Service results.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2027-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 11,
"total-input-tokens": 47288,
"total-output-tokens": 7737,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2022,
1
],
[
2022,
4818,
2
],
[
4818,
8238,
3
],
[
8238,
9968,
4
],
[
9968,
13541,
5
],
[
13541,
17503,
6
],
[
17503,
20589,
7
],
[
20589,
23531,
8
],
[
23531,
26039,
9
],
[
26039,
28020,
10
],
[
28020,
31400,
11
]
]
} |
e2ee591cdf513543e72924c51c190e9a38be21c8 | Autumn 2011 survey report for:
ORR
Returns: 238 Response rate: 85%
Your engagement index
53%
| Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | Difference from CS High Performers | |---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------| | -1 | -3 | -9 |
The three elements of engagement and their component questions are:
Say: speaks positively of the organisation...
B50. I am proud when I tell others I am part of ORR
% Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | |------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------| | 42% | +1 | -11 |
B51. I would recommend ORR as a great place to work
% Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | |------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------| | 41% | -3 | -2 |
Stay: emotionally attached and committed to the organisation...
B52. I feel a strong personal attachment to ORR
% Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | |------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------| | 38% | +1 | -8 |
Strive: motivated to do the best for the organisation...
B53. ORR inspires me to do the best in my job
% Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | |------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------| | 37% | +1 | -1 |
B54. ORR motivates me to help it achieve its objectives
% Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | |------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------| | 35% | -1 | 0 |
Drivers of engagement
Employee engagement is shaped by experiences at work, as measured by nine themes in the survey. The table below shows how you performed on each of these themes, ranked by the strength of association with engagement. The themes which have the strongest association with engagement should be the focus for action. See the appendix for further details.
| Theme score % positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | Difference from CS High Performers | |------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------| | Leadership and managing change | 36% | -3 | -2 | -11 | | My line manager | 67% | -2 | +3 | 0 | | My work | 77% | -2 | +6 | +1 | | Learning and development | 49% | +3 | +6 | -2 | | Pay and benefits | 47% | -18 | +15 | +7 | | Resources and workload | 72% | -3 | 0 | -3 | | Inclusion and fair treatment | 70% | -2 | -3 | -7 | | My team | 81% | -3 | +4 | +1 | | Organisational objectives and purpose | 73% | -4 | -8 | -13 |
= Statistically significant difference from comparison
## Top three key driver themes in more detail
The three themes which have the strongest association with engagement are shown below. Questions are ranked by difference from CS2011.
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
♦ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
| Leadership and managing change | Strength of association with engagement: | |--------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | B41. Directors and deputies in ORR are sufficiently visible | 54% | -2 | +9 ♦ | | B48. I have the opportunity to contribute my views before decisions are made that affect me | 43% | -3 | +7 ♦ | | B47. ORR keeps me informed about matters that affect me | 59% | -3 | +4 ♦ | | B46. When changes are made in ORR they are usually for the better | 24% | -1 | +2 | | B44. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by ORR's directors and deputies | 36% | -5 | 0 | | B42. I believe the actions of directors and deputies are consistent with ORR's values | 35% | -6 | -4 ♦ | | B49. I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in ORR | 34% | -3 | -4 ♦ | | B45. I feel that change is managed well in ORR | 20% | -1 | -8 ♦ | | B40. I feel that ORR as a whole is managed well | 29% | -4 | -11 ♦ | | B43. I believe that the board has a clear vision for the future of ORR | 24% | -5 | -15 ♦ |
| My line manager | Strength of association with engagement: | |-----------------|------------------------------------------| | B09. My manager motivates me to be more effective in my job | 70% | +3 | +7 ♦ | | B11. My manager is open to my ideas | 85% | +1 | +6 ♦ | | B15. I receive regular feedback on my performance | 66% | -2 | +6 ♦ | | B13. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by my manager | 74% | -2 | +3 ♦ | | B14. My manager recognises when I have done my job well | 79% | -2 | +3 ♦ | | B16. The feedback I receive helps me to improve my performance | 61% | -2 | +3 ♦ | | B10. My manager is considerate of my life outside work | 81% | -2 | +2 | | B12. My manager helps me to understand how I contribute to ORR's objectives | 59% | -4 | +1 | | B17. I think that my performance is evaluated fairly | 62% | -5 | 0 | | B18. Poor performance is dealt with effectively in my team | 36% | -7 ♦ | -1 |
| My work | Strength of association with engagement: | |---------|------------------------------------------| | B05. I have a choice in deciding how I do my work | 81% | -3 | +10 ♦ | | B04. I feel involved in the decisions that affect my work | 59% | +1 | +10 ♦ | | B02. I am sufficiently challenged by my work | 81% | -2 | +6 ♦ | | B03. My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment | 77% | -4 | +5 ♦ | | B01. I am interested in my work | 89% | -1 | 0 |
### All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.
- ^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
- ✤ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
#### My work
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|--------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B01. I am interested in my work | 49 | 40 | 7 | 89% | -1 | 0 | -3 ✤ | | | | B02. I am sufficiently challenged by my work | 33 | 48 | 10 | 6 | 81% | -2 | +6 ✤ | +2 | | | B03. My work gives me a sense of personal accomplishment | 30 | 47 | 14 | 6 | 4 | 77% | -4 | +5 | 0 | | B04. I feel involved in the decisions that affect my work | 12 | 47 | 22 | 11 | 7 | 59% | +1 | +10 | 0 | | B05. I have a choice in deciding how I do my work | 23 | 58 | 11 | 6 | 81% | -3 | +10 ✤ | +4 | |
#### Organisational objectives and purpose
| Question | % Strongly agree | % Agree | % Neither | % Disagree | % Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------|-----------|------------|--------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B06. I have a clear understanding of ORR's purpose | 22 | 58 | 10 | 8 | 80% | -1 | -4 ✤ | -10 | | | B07. I have a clear understanding of ORR's objectives | 18 | 49 | 18 | 12 | 66% | -8 | -12 ✤ | -18 | | | B08. I understand how my work contributes to ORR's objectives | 23 | 51 | 17 | 7 | 74% | -5 | -7 ✤ | -12 | |
## All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
▽ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
| My line manager | Strength of association with engagement | |-----------------|----------------------------------------| | B09. My manager motivates me to be more effective in my job |  | | B10. My manager is considerate of my life outside work |  | | B11. My manager is open to my ideas |  | | B12. My manager helps me to understand how I contribute to ORR's objectives |  | | B13. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by my manager |  | | B14. My manager recognises when I have done my job well |  | | B15. I receive regular feedback on my performance |  | | B16. The feedback I receive helps me to improve my performance |  | | B17. I think that my performance is evaluated fairly |  | | B18. Poor performance is dealt with effectively in my team |  |
| My team | Strength of association with engagement | |---------|----------------------------------------| | B19. The people in my team can be relied upon to help when things get difficult in my job |  | | B20. The people in my team work together to find ways to improve the service we provide |  | | B21. The people in my team are encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things |  |
### Learning and development
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B22. I am able to access the right learning and development opportunities when I need to | 15 | 47 | 24 | 8 | 6 | 62% | +3 | +8 | -2 | | B23. Learning and development activities I have completed in the past 12 months have helped to improve my performance | 10 | 51 | 31 | 5 | | 61% | +2 | +17 | +9 | | B24. There are opportunities for me to develop my career in ORR | 8 | 23 | 32 | 21 | 17 | 30% | +5 | -1 | -9 | | B25. Learning and development activities I have completed while working for ORR are helping me to develop my career | 11 | 30 | 33 | 16 | 10 | 41% | 0 | +2 | -4 |
### Inclusion and fair treatment
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B26. I am treated fairly at work | 25 | 47 | 16 | 6 | 6 | 72% | -7 | -6 | -9 | | B27. I am treated with respect by the people I work with | 30 | 56 | 9 | | | 86% | +2 | +2 | 0 | | B28. I feel valued for the work I do | 18 | 47 | 14 | 13 | 7 | 66% | -2 | +6 | -1 | | B29. I think that ORR respects individual differences (e.g. cultures, working styles, backgrounds, ideas, etc) | 18 | 38 | 25 | 13 | 6 | 56% | -2 | -14 | -20 |
## All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
♦ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
| Resources and workload | Strength of association with engagement | |------------------------|----------------------------------------| | B30. In my job, I am clear what is expected of me |  | | B31. I get the information I need to do my job well |  | | B32. I have clear work objectives |  | | B33. I have the skills I need to do my job effectively |  | | B34. I have the tools I need to do my job effectively |  | | B35. I have an acceptable workload |  | | B36. I achieve a good balance between my work life and my private life |  |
| Pay and benefits | Strength of association with engagement | |------------------|----------------------------------------| | B37. I feel that my pay adequately reflects my performance |  | | B38. I am satisfied with the total benefits package |  | | B39. Compared to people doing a similar job in other organisations I feel my pay is reasonable |  |
### Leadership and managing change
#### Strength of association with engagement
| Question | Strongly agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strongly disagree | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------|---------|----------|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B40. I feel that ORR as a whole is managed well | 26 | 34 | 24 | 13 | | 29% | -4 | -11 | -25 | | B41. Directors and deputies in ORR are sufficiently visible | 9 | 45 | 23 | 17 | 5 | 54% | -2 | +9 | -5 | | B42. I believe the actions of directors and deputies are consistent with ORR's values | 5 | 30 | 36 | 17 | 12 | 35% | -6 | -4 | -16 | | B43. I believe that the board has a clear vision for the future of ORR | 21 | 44 | 21 | 11 | | 24% | -5 | -15 | -26 | | B44. Overall, I have confidence in the decisions made by ORR's directors and deputies | 4 | 32 | 36 | 20 | 8 | 36% | -5 | 0 | -12 | | B45. I feel that change is managed well in ORR | 18 | 32 | 34 | 15 | | 20% | -1 | -8 | -17 | | B46. When changes are made in ORR they are usually for the better | 23 | 45 | 22 | 8 | | 24% | -1 | +2 | -7 | | B47. ORR keeps me informed about matters that affect me | 11 | 47 | 25 | 12 | 4 | 59% | -3 | +4 | -3 | | B48. I have the opportunity to contribute my views before decisions are made that affect me | 5 | 38 | 28 | 22 | 7 | 43% | -3 | +7 | -1 | | B49. I think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in ORR | 7 | 27 | 27 | 22 | 16 | 34% | -3 | -4 | -12 |
## All questions by theme
This section shows the results for each question in the survey, by theme.
- ^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
- ♦ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
| Engagement | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B50. I am proud when I tell others I am part of ORR | 42% | +1 | -11 ♦ | -24 ♦ | | B51. I would recommend ORR as a great place to work | 41% | -3 | -2 | -14 ♦ | | B52. I feel a strong personal attachment to ORR | 38% | +1 | -8 ♦ | -16 ♦ | | B53. ORR inspires me to do the best in my job | 37% | +1 | -1 | -12 ♦ | | B54. ORR motivates me to help it achieve its objectives | 35% | -1 | 0 | -10 ♦ |
| Taking action | % Positive | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | Difference from CS High Performers | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | B55. I believe that directors and deputies in ORR will take action on the results from this survey | 45% | -8 | +6 ♦ | -5 ♦ | | B56. I believe that managers where I work will take action on the results from this survey | 58% | -10 | +10 ♦ | +2 | | B57. Where I work, I think effective action has been taken on the results of the last survey | 35% | - | +6 ♦ | -2 |
### Your plans for the future
C01. Which of the following statements most reflects your current thoughts about working for ORR?
| Statement | % Yes | % No | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | Difference from CS High Performers | |------------------------------------------------|-------|------|----------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | I want to leave ORR as soon as possible | 10% | 90% | -1 | +2 | 0 | | I want to leave ORR within the next 12 months | 18% | 82% | +5 | +7 | +3 | | I want to stay working for ORR for at least the next year | 38% | 62% | +3 | +10 | +3 | | I want to stay working for ORR for at least the next three years | 35% | 65% | -7 | -19 | -26 |
### The Civil Service Code
Differences are based on '% Yes' score
| Question | % Yes | % No | Difference from previous survey | Difference from CS2011 | Difference from CS High Performers | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|------|----------------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------------------| | D01. Are you aware of the Civil Service Code? | 91% | 9% | +2 | +5 | -1 | | D02. Are you aware of how to raise a concern under the Civil Service Code? | 62% | 38% | +12 | +3 | -4 | | D03. Are you confident that if you raised a concern under the Civil Service Code in ORR it would be investigated properly? | 59% | 41% | -6 | -5 | -12 |
^ indicates a variation in question wording from your previous survey
♦ indicates statistically significant difference from comparison
### Discrimination, harassment and bullying
**E01. During the past 12 months, have you personally experienced discrimination at work?**
| Year | Yes | No | Prefer not to say | |------|-----|----|------------------| | 2011 | 13 | 80 | 7 | | 2010 | 10 | 83 | 6 |
**E03. During the past 12 months, have you personally experienced bullying or harassment at work?**
| Year | Yes | No | Prefer not to say | |------|-----|----|------------------| | 2011 | 12 | 82 | 5 | | 2010 | 12 | 84 | 4 |
For respondents who selected 'Yes' to question E01.
**E02. On which of the following grounds have you personally experienced discrimination in the past 12 months? (multiple selection)**
| Ground | Response count | |---------------------------------------------|----------------| | Age | -- | | Caring responsibilities | -- | | Disability | -- | | Ethnic background | -- | | Gender | -- | | Gender reassignment or perceived gender | -- | | Grade, pay band or responsibility level | -- | | Main spoken/written language or language ability | -- | | Religion or belief | -- | | Sexual orientation | -- | | Social or educational background | -- | | Working location | -- | | Working pattern | -- | | Any other grounds | 12 | | Prefer not to say | -- |
*Please note: Counts of fewer than ten responses are suppressed and replaced with ‘--’*
For respondents who selected 'Yes' to question E03.
**E04. Who were you bullied or harassed by at work in the past 12 months? (multiple selection)**
| Person | Response count | |---------------------------------------------|----------------| | A colleague | -- | | Your manager | -- | | Another manager in my part of ORR | 14 | | Someone you manage | -- | | Someone who works for another part of ORR | -- | | A member of the public | -- | | Someone else | -- | | Prefer not to say | -- |
*Please note: Counts of fewer than ten responses are suppressed and replaced with ‘--’* Glossary of key terms
| Term | Definition | |-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | % positive | The proportion who selected either "agree" or "strongly agree" for a question (or all questions within a theme in the case of Theme score % positive). | | Previous survey | Comparisons to the previous survey relate to the results from the 2010 Civil Service People Survey. Where a question is flagged as changed since the last survey comparisons should be treated with caution as changes to wording may affect how people respond to the question. | | CS2011 | The CS2011 benchmark is the median percent positive across all organisations that participated in the 2011 Civil Service People Survey. | | CS High Performers | For each question, this is the upper quartile score across all organisations that have taken part in the 2011 Civil Service People Survey. |
Rounding
Results are presented as whole numbers for ease of reading, with rounding performed at the last stage of calculation for maximum accuracy.
Statistical significance: 🌟
Statistical testing has been carried out on the comparisons between this year’s results and your previous survey, CS2011 results and CS High Performers results to identify differences that are statistically significant. You can therefore be confident that the difference represents a real difference in opinion between the results.
The employee engagement index
The survey includes five questions that make up the engagement index (B50-B54). The index score represents the average level of engagement in that unit and ranges from 0 to 100. An index score of 0 represents all respondents in that unit saying they strongly disagree to all five engagement questions and a score of 100 represents all respondents saying they strongly agree to all five engagement questions.
The drivers of engagement
While the engagement index shows the average level of engagement, it does not show what you can do to improve engagement. Nine themes have been included in the survey to measure employees' experiences at work. A statistical technique, stepwise regression, is used to identify the extent to which each of these themes has an association with engagement. The themes identified as having an association are called the 'Drivers of engagement'. The strength of association with engagement varies by theme and is illustrated by a 4-bar icon, as show below. Themes with a full 4-bar icon have the strongest association with engagement.
Confidentiality
This survey was carried out as part of the 2011 Civil Service People Survey, which is managed by the Cabinet Office on behalf of all the participating organisations. The Cabinet Office commissioned ORC International to carry out the survey. ORC International is a member of the Market Research Society, and is bound by their strict code of conduct and confidentiality rules. These rules do not allow for the breakdown of the results to the extent where the anonymity of individuals may be compromised. Groups of less than 10 respondents will not be reported on, however their responses do contribute to the overall scores for the unit and organisation they belong to and the overall Civil Service results.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/2028-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 11,
"total-input-tokens": 26765,
"total-output-tokens": 6998,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3079,
1
],
[
3079,
5830,
2
],
[
5830,
9252,
3
],
[
9252,
10857,
4
],
[
10857,
14079,
5
],
[
14079,
15448,
6
],
[
15448,
18584,
7
],
[
18584,
21125,
8
],
[
21125,
23454,
9
],
[
23454,
26296,
10
],
[
26296,
29813,
11
]
]
} |
4bbad2120184c204d33b306bf354df61b83c4ec2 | The 2015 English Indices of Deprivation Source: DCLG 2015
Calderdale is the 89th most deprived Local Authority District in England and....
There are 19 neighbourhoods in the 10% most multiple deprived areas in England, 13 neighbourhoods in the 11-20% most multiple deprived and ...
...neighbourhoods in the 21-30% most multiple deprived areas in England
The number of neighbourhoods that fall within 30% most deprived areas in England by type of deprivation (domain) 4,5
| Domain | 0-10% most deprived | 11-20% most deprived | 21-30% most deprived | |-------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------| | Income | 20 | 12 | 16 | | Employment | 20 | 19 | 13 | | Education / Skills | 16 | 10 | 11 | | Health / Disability | 16 | 15 | 21 | | Crime | 10 | 15 | 18 | | Barriers | 1 | 3 | 6 | | Living Environment | 33 | 26 | 11 |
Weighting for overall rank: 22.5% Income, 22.5% Employment, 13.5% Education / Skills, 13.5% Health / Disability, 9.3% Crime, 9.3% Barriers, 9.3% Living Environment
1 This is one of a series of Calderdale IMD 2015 Factsheets confirming the number of LSOAs in the 30% most deprived in England for Calderdale and its wards. The full series is available from the Calderdale Dataworks website 2 District Average Rank of Average IMD Score. Other measures are available. There are 326 Local authority districts in England 3 LSOAs are small neighbourhood areas. There are 128 in Calderdale and 32844 in England 4 IMD multiple deprivation scores and ranks are based on a combination of weighted scores from seven different domains. 5 There are two supplementary indices called Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) and Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index (IDAOPI). They do not contribute to the overall score.
Calderdale IMD 2015 Infographic
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1574-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 1,
"total-input-tokens": 2512,
"total-output-tokens": 617,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2325,
1
]
]
} |
c317d3ecd55c0064beaf91e86f8d71a71b692bc6 | The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019
The English Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019 (IMD 2019) is the latest official Government measure of relative deprivation for small areas. It is based on seven individual domains called Income, Employment, Education Skills and Training, Health and Disability, Crime, Barriers to Housing and Services, and Living Environment. There are also two supplementary indices for the Income domain of children in families with income deprivation (IDACI) and people aged 60+ with income deprivation (IDAOPi).
| Ward | Number of LSOAs | |-----------------------------|-----------------| | | 10% Most Deprived | >10% - 20% Most Deprived | >20% - 30% Most Deprived | Total | | Brighouse | 1 | 7 | | 7 | | Calder | 8 | | | 8 | | Elland | 2 | 1 | 8 | 8 | | Greetland and Stainland | 1 | | 7 | 7 | | Hipperholme and Lightcliffe | 1 | | 7 | 7 | | Illingworth and Mixenden | 3 | 1 | 2 | 9 | | Luddendenfoot | 7 | | | 7 | | Northowram and Shelf | 4 | 2 | 1 | 8 | | Ovenden | 8 | 2 | 10 | 10 | | Park | 8 | 2 | 7 | 7 | | Rastrick | 1 | | 6 | 6 | | Ryburn | 1 | | 7 | 7 | | Skircoat | 1 | | 7 | 7 | | Sowerby Bridge | 2 | 1 | 7 | 7 | | Todmorden | 3 | | 8 | 8 | | Town | 2 | | 2 | 8 | | Warley | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | | Calderdale | 19 | 13 | 14 | 128 |
IMD 2019 includes results for small geographic areas called Lower Layer Super Output areas (LSOAs). LSOAs contain approximately 1700 residents. There are 32,844 LSOAs in England of which 128 are in Calderdale.
The table to the left summarises the number of LSOAs in Calderdale within the 10%, 20%, and 30% most deprived in England overall.
There are two maps overleaf showing: 1) IMD results for Calderdale LSOAs and 2) the change in percentage rank between IMD 2015 and IMD 2019. IoD 2019: Index of Multiple Deprivation: Calderdale
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019; ©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors IoD 2019: Index of Multiple Deprivation: Calderdale: change in percentage rank 2015 to 2019
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019; ©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors
Calderdale IoD 2019 Factsheet 1: IMD. Produced by CMBC Performance and Business Intelligence Team, October 2019.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1575-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 5150,
"total-output-tokens": 976,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3325,
1
],
[
3325,
3486,
2
],
[
3486,
3800,
3
]
]
} |
6e537c78d97629782df383d44a9e89266a5a935a | IoD 2019: Income deprivation domain
The Income Deprivation Domain measures the proportion of the population in an area that live in income deprived families. The definition of income deprivation adopted here includes both families that are out-of-work and families that are in work but who have low earnings (and who satisfy the respective means tests). The table summarises the number of neighbourhoods called LSOAs in Calderdale that are within 30% most deprived in England for this domain. There are 32,844 LSOAs in England, and 128 in Calderdale.
| Ward | Number of LSOAs | |-----------------------------|-----------------| | | 10% Most Deprived | >10% - 20% Most Deprived | >20% - 30% Most Deprived | Total | | Brighouse | 1 | 1 | 7 | 8 | | Calder | | | | 8 | | Elland | 1 | 2 | 1 | 8 | | Greetland and Stainland | | | | 7 | | Hipperholme and Lightcliffe | | | | 7 | | Illingworth and Mixenden | 3 | 2 | 1 | 9 | | Luddendenfoot | | | | 7 | | Northowram and Shelf | | | | 7 | | Ovenden | 4 | 2 | 1 | 8 | | Park | 8 | 2 | | 10 | | Rastrick | | | 2 | 7 | | Ryburn | 1 | | 1 | 6 | | Skircoat | | | | 7 | | Sowerby Bridge | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | | Todmorden | | 2 | 2 | 8 | | Town | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | | Warley | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | | Calderdale | 20 | 16 | 15 | 128 |
Measures
- Adults and children in Income Support families;
- Adults and children in income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance families;
- Adults and children in income-based Employment and Support Allowance families;
- Adults and children in Pension Credit (Guarantee) families;
- Adults and children in Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit families not already counted, and whose equalised income (excluding housing benefit) is below 60 per cent of the median before housing costs;
- Asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence support, accommodation support, or both
Source: DWP, HMRC, Home Office, 2015/16 IoD 2019: Income deprivation domain: Calderdale
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019;©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors IoD 2019: Income deprivation domain: Calderdale: change in percentage rank from 2015 to 2019
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019; ©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors
## IoD 2019: Income Deprivation Domain: Results by Ward
| Ward | Total Population\* | % Income deprived | Number Income Deprived | |-----------------------------|-------------------|-------------------|------------------------| | Brighouse | 11,123 | 12.20% | 1,357 | | Calder | 12,190 | 10.30% | 1,256 | | Elland | 12,031 | 15.00% | 1,805 | | Greetland and Stainland | 11,418 | 8.70% | 993 | | Hipperholme and Lightcliffe | 11,981 | 7.50% | 899 | | Illingworth and Mixenden | 12,473 | 20.20% | 2,520 | | Luddendenfoot | 10,672 | 9.40% | 1,003 | | Northowram and Shelf | 11,614 | 6.10% | 708 | | Ovenden | 12,585 | 25.80% | 3,247 | | Park | 15,907 | 33.60% | 5,345 | | Rastrick | 11,262 | 12.10% | 1,363 | | Ryburn | 11,441 | 9.80% | 1,121 | | Skircoat | 12,995 | 9.50% | 1,235 | | Sowerby Bridge | 11,909 | 11.60% | 1,381 | | Todmorden | 12,329 | 16.30% | 2,010 | | Town | 12,499 | 17.20% | 2,150 | | Warley | 13,403 | 16.60% | 2,225 | | **Calderdale** | **207,832** | **14.90%** | **30,967** |
- IoD 2019 Population sourced from ONS 2015 Mid-year population estimates
**Further information** Calderdale IoD 2019 factsheets and maps are available from Calderdale Dataworks open data website or performance.businessintelligence@calderdale.gov.uk. IoD 2019 complete results for England are available from the Gov.uk website. IoD 2019: Income deprivation affecting children index (IDACI)
Income Deprivation affecting children Index (IDACI) measures the proportion of children aged 0-15 in families that are in receipt of Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, Pension Credit Guarantee or Child Tax Credit below a given threshold. The table summarises the number of neighbourhoods called LSOAs in Calderdale that are within 30% most deprived in England for this domain. There are 32,844 LSOAs in England, and 128 in Calderdale.
| Ward | 10% Most Deprived | >10% - 20% Most Deprived | >20% - 30% Most Deprived | Total | |-----------------------------|-------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|-------| | Brighouse | 1 | 2 | 7 | | | Calder | | | | 8 | | Elland | 2 | 2 | 8 | | | Greetland and Stainland | | | | 7 | | Hipperholme and Lightcliffe | | | | 7 | | Illingworth and Mixenden | 3 | 3 | 9 | | | Luddendenfoot | 1 | | 7 | | | Northowram and Shelf | | | | 7 | | Ovenden | 4 | 1 | 2 | 8 | | Park | 3 | 5 | 2 | 10 | | Rastrick | | | | 7 | | Ryburn | 1 | 1 | 6 | | | Skircoat | | | | 7 | | Sowerby Bridge | | | | 7 | | Todmorden | 1 | 2 | 1 | 8 | | Town | | | | 8 | | Warley | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | | **Calderdale** | **16** | **19** | **14** | **128**|
Measures
- Adults and children in Income Support families;
- Adults and children in income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance families;
- Adults and children in income-based Employment and Support Allowance families;
- Adults and children in Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit families not already counted, and whose equivalised income (excluding housing benefit) is below 60 per cent of the median before housing costs
Source: DWP, HMRC, 2015/16 IoD 2019: Income deprivation affecting children index: Calderdale
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019; ©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors IoD 2019: IDACI: Calderdale: change in percentage rank from 2015 to 2019
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019; ©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors
## IoD 2019: Income Deprivation affecting children index (IDACI): Results by Ward
| Ward | Number of dependent children aged 0-15\* | % children in families that are income deprived | Number of children in families that are income deprived | |-----------------------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------| | Brighouse | 1,782 | 17.10% | 305 | | Calder | 2,149 | 11.30% | 243 | | Elland | 2,294 | 23.10% | 530 | | Greetland and Stainland | 2,154 | 11.30% | 243 | | Hipperholme and Lightcliffe | 2,221 | 8.00% | 178 | | Illingworth and Mixenden | 2,475 | 29.90% | 740 | | Luddendenfoot | 1,889 | 13.10% | 247 | | Northowram and Shelf | 1,956 | 7.30% | 143 | | Ovenden | 2,863 | 35.80% | 1,025 | | Park | 4,639 | 30.50% | 1,415 | | Rastrick | 1,944 | 15.70% | 305 | | Ryburn | 2,210 | 12.70% | 281 | | Skircoat | 2,413 | 11.40% | 275 | | Sowerby Bridge | 1,963 | 14.50% | 285 | | Todmorden | 2,268 | 22.20% | 503 | | Town | 2,242 | 21.00% | 471 | | Warley | 3,179 | 23.20% | 738 | | **Calderdale** | **40,641** | **19.60%** | **7,966** |
- IoD 2019 Population sourced from ONS 2015 Mid-year population estimates
**Further information** Calderdale IoD 2019 factsheets and maps are available from [Calderdale Dataworks open data website](https://dataworks.calderdale.gov.uk) or [performance.businessintelligence@calderdale.gov.uk](mailto:performance.businessintelligence@calderdale.gov.uk). IoD 2019 complete results for England are available from the [Gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk) website. IoD 2019: Income deprivation affecting older people index (IDAOPI)
Income Deprivation affecting Older People index (IDAOPI) measures the proportion of older people aged 60+ that are in receipt of Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, Pension Credit Guarantee or Child Tax Credit below a given threshold. The table summarises the number of neighbourhoods called LSOAs in Calderdale that are within 30% most deprived in England for this domain. There are 32,844 LSOAs in England, and 128 in Calderdale.
| Ward | 10% Most Deprived | >10% - 20% Most Deprived | >20% - 30% Most Deprived | Total | |-----------------------------|-------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|-------| | Brighouse | 1 | 7 | | 8 | | Calder | | | | 8 | | Elland | | | | 8 | | Greetland and Stainland | | | | 7 | | Hipperholme and Lightcliffe | | | | 7 | | Illingworth and Mixenden | 1 | 2 | 1 | 9 | | Luddendenfoot | | | | 7 | | Northowram and Shelf | | | | 7 | | Ovenden | 1 | 1 | 3 | 8 | | Park | 8 | | 1 | 10 | | Rastrick | | | | 7 | | Ryburn | | | | 6 | | Skircoat | | | | 7 | | Sowerby Bridge | | | | 7 | | Todmorden | | | 2 | 8 | | Town | | | 2 | 8 | | Warley | | | 1 | 7 | | **Calderdale** | **10** | **8** | **12** | **128**|
Measures
- Adults and children in Income Support families;
- Adults and children in income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance families;
- Adults and children in income-based Employment and Support Allowance families;
- Adults and children in Pension Credit (Guarantee) families;
Source: DWP, HMRC, 2015/16 IoD 2019: Income deprivation affecting older people index: Calderdale
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019; ©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors IoD 2019: IDAOPI: Calderdale: change in percentage rank from 2015 to 2019
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019; ©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors
## IoD 2019: Income Deprivation affecting older people index (IDAOPI): Results by Ward
| Ward | No. of Older people aged 60 or over\* | % older people that are income deprived | No. of older people that are income deprived | |-----------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | Brighouse | 3,058 | 11.70% | 358 | | Calder | 3,157 | 11.80% | 373 | | Elland | 2,901 | 14.60% | 424 | | Greetland and Stainland | 2,678 | 10.40% | 279 | | Hipperholme and Lightcliffe | 3,139 | 9.80% | 308 | | Illingworth and Mixenden | 2,979 | 14.70% | 438 | | Luddendenfoot | 2,821 | 9.20% | 260 | | Northowram and Shelf | 3,279 | 7.50% | 246 | | Ovenden | 2,223 | 22.70% | 505 | | Park | 1,911 | 47.50% | 908 | | Rastrick | 3,220 | 11.60% | 374 | | Ryburn | 2,677 | 11.50% | 308 | | Skircoat | 3,248 | 9.70% | 315 | | Sowerby Bridge | 2,955 | 12.90% | 381 | | Todmorden | 3,119 | 15.60% | 487 | | Town | 2,741 | 17.50% | 480 | | Warley | 2,901 | 11.90% | 345 | | **Calderdale** | **49,007** | **14.00%** | **6,861** |
- IoD 2019 Population sourced from ONS 2015 Mid-year population estimates
**Further information** Calderdale IoD 2019 factsheets and maps are available from Calderdale Dataworks open data website or performance.businessintelligence@calderdale.gov.uk. IoD 2019 complete results for England are available from the Gov.uk website.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1576-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 12,
"total-input-tokens": 23217,
"total-output-tokens": 4902,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3521,
1
],
[
3521,
3677,
2
],
[
3677,
3879,
3
],
[
3879,
6207,
4
],
[
6207,
9451,
5
],
[
9451,
9626,
6
],
[
9626,
9808,
7
],
[
9808,
13870,
8
],
[
13870,
17007,
9
],
[
17007,
17186,
10
],
[
17186,
17369,
11
],
[
17369,
20948,
12
]
]
} |
a0c87621229e69e66d0996c9020b10c67a6fe0da | The Employment Deprivation domain measures employment deprivation conceptualised as involuntary exclusion of the working age population from the world of work. People who would like to work but are unable to do so through unemployment, sickness or disability. This table summarises the number of neighbourhoods called LSOAs in Calderdale that are within 30% most deprived in England for this domain. There are 32,844 LSOAs in England, and 128 in Calderdale.
| Ward | Number of LSOAs | |-----------------------------|-----------------| | | 10% Most Deprived | >10% - 20% Most Deprived | >20% - 30% Most Deprived | Total | | Brighouse | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | | Calder | 1 | 2 | 1 | 8 | | Elland | 1 | 2 | 1 | 8 | | Greetland and Stainland | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7 | | Hipperholme and Lightcliffe | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | | Illingworth and Mixenden | 3 | 2 | 1 | 9 | | Luddendenfoot | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | | Northowram and Shelf | 4 | 2 | 1 | 8 | | Ovenden | 6 | 3 | 1 | 10 | | Rastrick | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | | Ryburn | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | | Skircoat | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | | Sowerby Bridge | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | | Todmorden | 3 | 1 | 1 | 8 | | Town | 2 | 1 | 1 | 8 | | Warley | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | | Calderdale | 19 | 21 | 12 | 128 |
Measures
- Claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance, aged 18-59/64
- Claimants of Employment and Support Allowance, aged 18-59/64
- Claimants of Incapacity Benefit, aged 18-59/64
- Claimants of Severe Disablement Allowance, aged 18-59/64
- Claimants of Carer’s Allowance, aged 18-59/64
Source: DWP, 2015/16 IoD 2019: Employment deprivation domain: Calderdale
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019; ©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors IoD 2019: Employment domain: Calderdale: change in percentage rank 2015 to 2019
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019; ©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors
## IoD 2019: Employment Deprivation Domain: Ward results
| Ward | Total working age population\* | % Employment deprived | Number Employment Deprived | |-----------------------------|------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------| | Brighouse | 6,616 | 9.90% | 655 | | Calder | 7,335 | 8.70% | 638 | | Elland | 7,146 | 10.80% | 772 | | Greetland and Stainland | 6,938 | 7.50% | 520 | | Hipperholme and Lightcliffe | 7,001 | 7.10% | 497 | | Illingworth and Mixenden | 7,370 | 15.80% | 1,164 | | Luddendenfoot | 6,287 | 8.30% | 522 | | Northowram and Shelf | 6,772 | 6.50% | 440 | | Ovenden | 7,799 | 18.70% | 1,458 | | Park | 9,678 | 21.00% | 2,032 | | Rastrick | 6,439 | 11.80% | 760 | | Ryburn | 6,926 | 7.90% | 547 | | Skircoat | 7,664 | 8.40% | 644 | | Sowerby Bridge | 7,354 | 10.40% | 765 | | Todmorden | 7,331 | 12.90% | 946 | | Town | 7,853 | 15.20% | 1,194 | | Warley | 7,651 | 12.40% | 949 | | Calderdale | 124,160 | 11.80% | 14,651 |
- IoD 2019 Population sourced from ONS 2015 Mid-year population estimates. Working age population defined as aged 16 to 64 males / 59 females.
**Further information** Calderdale IoD 2019 factsheets and maps are available from [Calderdale Dataworks open data website](https://www.calderdale.gov.uk/data) or [performance.businessintelligence@calderdale.gov.uk](mailto:performance.businessintelligence@calderdale.gov.uk). IoD 2019 results for England are available from the [Gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk) website.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1577-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 4,
"total-input-tokens": 7743,
"total-output-tokens": 1669,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2915,
1
],
[
2915,
3076,
2
],
[
3076,
3265,
3
],
[
3265,
6173,
4
]
]
} |
f31fe7399dbc69c70bfe015333d2a535b868c69b | IoD 2019: Education, skills and training deprivation domain
This domain captures the extent of deprivation in education, skills and training in an area. The indicators fall into two sub-domains: one relating to children and young people and one relating to adult skills. These two sub-domains are designed to reflect the ‘flow’ and ‘stock’ of educational disadvantage within an area respectively. This table summarises the number of neighbourhoods called LSOAs in Calderdale that are within 30% most deprived in England for this domain. There are 32,844 LSOAs in England, and 128 in Calderdale.
| Ward | Number of LSOAs | |-----------------------------|-----------------| | | 10% Most Deprived | >10% - 20% Most Deprived | >20% - 30% Most Deprived | Total | | Brighouse | 1 | 7 | | 7 | | Calder | 2 | 8 | | 8 | | Elland | 1 | 2 | 8 | 8 | | Greetland and Stainland | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7 | | Hipperholme and Lightcliffe | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7 | | Illingworth and Mixenden | 3 | 2 | 1 | 9 | | Luddendenfoot | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7 | | Northowram and Shelf | 4 | 2 | 1 | 8 | | Ovenden | 6 | 3 | 1 | 10 | | Park | 2 | 7 | | 7 | | Rastrick | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | | Ryburn | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7 | | Skircoat | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7 | | Sowerby Bridge | 3 | 1 | 8 | 8 | | Todmorden | 2 | 1 | 8 | 8 | | Town | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | | Calderdale | 19 | 21 | 12 | 128 |
Measures
**Children and Young People**
- Key stage 2 attainment: scaled scores
- Key stage 4 attainment: average capped points score
- Secondary school absence
- Staying on in education post 16
- Entry to higher education
**Adult Skills**
- Adults with no or low qualifications, aged 25-59/64
- English language proficiency, aged 25-59/64
Sources: DoE National Pupil Database, 2014/15 – 2016/17 HMRC, HESA 2010/11 – 2012/13; ONS Census 2011 IoD 2019: Education, skills and training deprivation domain: Calderdale: change in percentage rank 2015 to 2019
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019; ©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors IoD 2019: Education, skills and training deprivation: Children and Young People sub domain
This is one of two sub-domains within the overall Education, Skills and training deprivation domain. This table summarises the number of neighbourhoods called LSOAs in Calderdale that are within 30% most deprived in England for this sub-domain. There are 32,844 LSOAs in England, and 128 in Calderdale.
| Ward | Number of LSOAs | |-----------------------------|-----------------| | | 10% Most Deprived | >10% - 20% Most Deprived | >20% - 30% Most Deprived | Total | | Brighouse | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7 | | Calder | | | | 8 | | Elland | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | | Greetland and Stainland | | | | 7 | | Hipperholme and Lightcliffe | | 1 | | 7 | | Illingworth and Mixenden | 2 | 2 | | 9 | | Luddendenfoot | | | | 7 | | Northowram and Shelf | | | | 7 | | Ovenden | 3 | 2 | 1 | 8 | | Park | | 2 | 2 | 10 | | Rastrick | | | | 7 | | Ryburn | | 1 | | 6 | | Skircoat | | | | 7 | | Sowerby Bridge | | | 4 | 7 | | Todmorden | | | 1 | 8 | | Town | 1 | 2 | 2 | 8 | | Warley | 1 | 2 | | 7 | | **Calderdale** | **8** | **14** | **13** | **128** |
Measures
**Children and Young People**
- Key stage 2 attainment: scaled scores
- Key stage 4 attainment: average capped points score
- Secondary school absence
- Staying on in education post 16
- Entry to higher education
Sources: DoE National Pupil Database, 2014/15 – 2016/17 HMRC, HESA 2010/11 – 2012/13 IoD 2019: Education, skills and training deprivation: Children and young people sub-domain: Calderdale
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019;©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors IoD 2019: Education, skills and training deprivation: Adult skills sub domain
This is one of two sub-domains within the overall Education, Skills and training deprivation domain. This table summarises the number of neighbourhoods called LSOAs in Calderdale that are within 30% most deprived in England for this sub-domain. There are 32,844 LSOAs in England, and 128 in Calderdale.
| Ward | Number of LSOAs | |-----------------------------|-----------------| | | 10% Most Deprived | >10% - 20% Most Deprived | >20% - 30% Most Deprived | Total | | Brighouse | 1 | 7 | | 7 | | Calder | 8 | | | 8 | | Elland | 2 | 2 | 8 | 8 | | Greetland and Stainland | 7 | | | 7 | | Hipperholme and Lightcliffe | 1 | 7 | | 7 | | Illingworth and Mixenden | 3 | 3 | 9 | 9 | | Luddendenfoot | 7 | | | 7 | | Northowram and Shelf | 7 | | | 7 | | Ovenden | 4 | 2 | 1 | 8 | | Park | 8 | 2 | 10 | 10 | | Rastrick | 1 | 7 | | 7 | | Ryburn | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | | Skircoat | 1 | 7 | | 7 | | Sowerby Bridge | 1 | 7 | | 7 | | Todmorden | 1 | 8 | | 8 | | Town | 3 | 8 | | 8 | | Warley | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | | Calderdale | 17 | 12 | 13 | 128 |
Measures
**Adult Skills**
- Adults with no or low qualifications, aged 25-59/64
- English language proficiency, aged 25-59/64
Source: ONS Census 2011 IoD 2019: Education, skills and training deprivation: Adult skills sub-domain: Calderdale
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019; ©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors
Further information Calderdale IoD 2019 factsheets and maps are available from Calderdale Dataworks open data website or performance.businessintelligence@calderdale.gov.uk.
IoD 2019 results for England are available from the Gov.uk website.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1578-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 7,
"total-input-tokens": 13142,
"total-output-tokens": 2475,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3228,
1
],
[
3228,
3228,
2
],
[
3228,
3449,
3
],
[
3449,
6513,
4
],
[
6513,
6724,
5
],
[
6724,
9586,
6
],
[
9586,
10027,
7
]
]
} |
6ab35e635d6e83360f40ab029e7a2cdbea01d8b4 | The **Health deprivation and disability domain** measures premature death and the impairment of quality of life by poor health. It considers both physical and mental health. The domain measures morbidity, disability and premature mortality but not aspects of behaviour or environment that may be predictive of future health deprivation. This table summarises the number of neighbourhoods called LSOAs in Calderdale that are within 30% most deprived in England for this domain. There are 32,844 LSOAs in England, and 128 in Calderdale.
| Ward | Number of LSOAs | |-----------------------------|-----------------| | | 10% Most Deprived | >10% - 20% Most Deprived | >20% - 30% Most Deprived | Total | | Brighouse | 1 | 2 | 7 | | Calder | | | | | Elland | 2 | 1 | 8 | | Greetland and Stainland | | | | | Hipperholme and Lightcliffe | | | | | Illingworth and Mixenden | 2 | 2 | 9 | | Luddendenfoot | 1 | | 7 | | Northowram and Shelf | | | | | Ovenden | 3 | 4 | 8 | | Park | 5 | 1 | 2 | 10 | | Rastrick | | | | | Ryburn | 1 | 1 | 6 | | Skircoat | | | | | Sowerby Bridge | 1 | | 1 | 7 | | Todmorden | | | | | Town | 2 | 1 | 1 | 8 | | Warley | | | | | **Calderdale** | **14** | **16** | **16** | **128** |
**Measures**
- Years of potential life lost: ONS Mortality data 2013 to 2017
- Comparative illness and disability ratio: DWP 2016
- Acute morbidity: HSCIC HES 2015/16 to 2016/17
- Mood and anxiety disorders: GP Prescription data 2016/17 and 2017/18; International Classification of Disease data 2013 to 2017. IoD 2019: Health deprivation and disability domain: Calderdale
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019; ©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors
Calderdale IoD 2019 Factsheet 5: Health deprivation and disability. Produced by Calderdale Council Performance and Business Intelligence Team, October 2019. IoD 2019: Health deprivation and disability domain: Calderdale: change in percentage rank 2015 to 2019
Further information
Calderdale IoD 2019 factsheets and maps are available from Calderdale Dataworks open data website or performance.businessintelligence@calderdale.gov.uk.
IoD 2019 results for England are available from the Gov.uk website.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1579-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 5474,
"total-output-tokens": 896,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
3084,
1
],
[
3084,
3414,
2
],
[
3414,
3760,
3
]
]
} |
960a85a3eff71e7769fbbee802d2a455413dbb7d | Indices of Deprivation 2019: Crime Domain
Crime is an important feature of deprivation that has major effects on individuals and communities. The Index of Crime Deprivation measures the risk of personal and material victimisation at local level. The table summarises the number of neighbourhoods called LSOAs in Calderdale that are within 30% most deprived in England for this domain. There are 32,844 LSOAs in England, and 128 in Calderdale.
| Ward | Number of LSOAs | |-----------------------------|-----------------| | | 10% Most Deprived | >10% - 20% Most Deprived | >20% - 30% Most Deprived | Total | | Brighouse | 2 | 2 | 7 | | Calder | 1 | 1 | 8 | | Elland | 1 | 2 | 1 | 8 | | Greetland and Stainland | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 | | Hipperholme and Lightcliffe | 2 | 2 | 7 | | Illingworth and Mixenden | 4 | 2 | 2 | 9 | | Luddendenfoot | 2 | 1 | 7 | | Northowram and Shelf | 3 | 1 | 7 | | Ovenden | 8 | 8 | | Park | 5 | 2 | 3 | 10 | | Rastrick | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | | Ryburn | 1 | 1 | 6 | | Skircoat | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | | Sowerby Bridge | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | | Todmorden | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | | Town | 4 | 1 | 8 | | Warley | 4 | 1 | 7 | | **Calderdale** | **30** | **21** | **24** | **128** |
Measures
Recorded crime rates for:
- Violence
- Burglary
- Theft
- Criminal damage
Sources: Home Office / NPCC Recorded crime rates 2016/17 and 2017/18 IoD 2019: Crime domain: Calderdale
Data source: MHCLG English Indices of Deprivation 2019; ©Qlik, ONS Geoportal and OpenStreetMap contributors IoD 2019: Crime domain: Calderdale: change in percentage rank 2015 to 2019
Further information Calderdale IoD 2019 factsheets and maps are available from Calderdale Dataworks open data website or performance.businessintelligence@calderdale.gov.uk.
IoD 2019 results for England are available from the Gov.uk website.
| olmocr | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | 2025-03-31T00:00:00 | {
"Source-File": "/workspace/input-pdfs/1580-pdf.pdf",
"olmocr-version": "0.1.60",
"pdf-total-pages": 3,
"total-input-tokens": 5365,
"total-output-tokens": 848,
"total-fallback-pages": 0
} | {
"pdf_page_numbers": [
[
0,
2838,
1
],
[
2838,
2982,
2
],
[
2982,
3299,
3
]
]
} |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.