Q41 Stephen Barclay: Could I put it slightly differently, Chair, given that we have the Treasury here? The witness before was extremely complimentary about the impact you have had with the 38 members of staff and the respect that you carry, which I think is a great tribute, and one we should recognise. From a Treasury point of view, has an assessment been made of the return on capital, if the team was taken to different sizes? Has anyone actually looked at that and said, "Well, if we increased it by 10%, 20% or 50%), the potential savings in other Departments might justify that cost"?
Sharon White: We haven't, but I think one of the things we want to develop is a clearer performance framework for the MPA.
Can I say two things? I would not understate the importance of the externals in terms of supplementing the core team. Certainly on the reviews I have been involved in, having really excellent externals doing the project assessment reviews has been absolutely critical.
Q42 Chair: External from elsewhere in Government, you mean.
Sharon White: Either elsewhere in Government or external to Government.
The other thing I would say, which partly comes back to the question of many projects, is that there is a process below the MPRG-the so-called Treasury Assessment panel-so with things that are still quite novel, contentious or quite risky, you will have a Treasury spending director or Treasury deputy director running through the process. We are still scrutinising some of the medium-sized projects that are still quite risky, and still have quite a lot of pound signs attached to them. My own perspective of the last six months is that this is not a resourcing picture where you want a much larger core team. Actually, I think the question about resourcing is having sufficiently sharp experts who, to be frank, do not get captured by the Department when doing a project assessment.
Amyas Morse: I want to underscore something, and this is quite a significant finding in our Report. I am only saying this because I think it is a slightly difficult answer for you to give. Of course, we are not thinking in the Report that you could have the same levels of assurance that you have in the private sector or any of these extreme things, but our assessment is that this is a success, and we admire that and recognise it. We also think it is at a stage where it is not substantially enough established to be built to last, and we say that in our Report. By that, I mean that you are very dependent on just a very few key people, principally yourself, but not just you. I think it needs to be more substantial. I am not talking about some extreme example or anything else like that, but it feels to us that it is paddling incredibly hard to achieve the results it is achieving. Good luck and well done, but if you want it to remain a permanent feature and really change things, it needs more generous resourcing than it has now, even at the relatively small level it is. I am not expressing an opinion; I am just pointing you to section 12 in our Report, which evaluates all this very clearly and which is based on all the evidence we found, and is in our agreed Report. Just be careful that you don't find that something that is a success is made vulnerable by not building it to last.
Chair: Do you want to respond to that, either of you?
Sharon White: My personal view about risk factors is to make sure we have proper succession planning for David, who I think has enormous personal leadership.
Q43 Chair: How long is your contract, out of interest? Are you on a contract?
David Pitchford: Yes, I was on a contract. It was due to expire in January, and I have been offered a permanent place.
Q44 Jackie Doyle-Price: I would be less concerned about the issue of resource if we had proper leadership throughout the system. You are trying valiantly to implement cultural change, but to deliver that throughout Whitehall it needs to be understood across Departments that this is very much a priority for the Government in general. We have had some really good stuff-last week we had the Civil Service Reform White Paper-but it is not getting through. What more can the Treasury do to stand behind this process because, ultimately, we are about delivering some serious value-for-money outcomes.
Sharon White: I do not know whether this is a point at which you would want to pursue the Treasury's role. Thinking about my diary in the last six months, the MPRG is the single biggest thing I have spent my time on because, for a Treasury spending team, it is one of our strongest levers in terms of spending control in this spending review. I think the MPA will have increasing traction where it is clear that the Treasury is taking funding decisions on the back of the appraisals.
Q45 Chair: On the extent to which this Report suggests, on page 6, paragraph 7, that you do not draw on the recommendations of the MPA for funding decisions, is that true, false or changing?
Sharon White: I think that we are doing hugely better. I know that there are some stats in there about the attendance or not of the Treasury at the MPA board. The fact is that a director-level senior person from the Treasury has always attended the MPA. I think that there is partly a misunderstanding about where Infrastructure UK fits into the Treasury. They are one of my spending groups. They head one of my spending groups. Indeed, Geoffrey Spence is so elevated, he reports directly to the Permanent Secretary, not to me. It is something we take incredibly seriously. Having the Treasury there-all respect to David-is incredibly important.
Q46 Chair: Do you draw on the MPA recommendations in your investment decisions? Sharon White: We certainly do. Can I give you a concrete example? Probably the most frequent engagement I have had in the past few months has been with DECC, which I think is a Department that is seeking to improve itself quite significantly-
Q47 Chair: This is smart meters.
Sharon White: Not just smart meters. Alongside MOD, it has the set of the most innovative, complex and difficult untested issues, whether that is carbon capture and storage, smart meters or trying to build a nuclear power station with no public subsidy. One of the things that has become very clear is that there are departmental-wide issues and challenges. We had a process where we were looking project by project, and the issue is whether the Department has the commercial capability. David has been involved in the capability review of the Department-quite interesting. We had a conversation-Treasury and the MPA-with the DECC management board, the Permanent Secretary and her DGs, to look at wider issues about how the Department is beginning to integrate its projects and to look at its commercial capability as a whole, with the Treasury spending team there.
As I say, we are not perfect. We are on a journey, but the more the Treasury is seen as making decisions on the back of this, which is beginning to happen, the more traction David will have.
Q48 Mr Bacon: Do you agree with what our previous witness, Mr Van Grondelle, said, "assurance should never be without consequences"?
Sharon White: I think that is right.
Q49 Mr Bacon: Do you think that the MPA should have a reset button in the way that Mr Van Grondelle suggested?
Sharon White: If that means that the conclusions from an assurance mean that a project needs to be re-scoped or stopped or re-sequenced, I think, yes. I very much see my job as basically to provide support to David in the conversations with the Chief Secretary-
Q50 Mr Bacon: And that the ultimate power to take that decision should rest with the Major Projects Authority in conjunction with the Treasury?
Sharon White: Exactly. It is very much a joint process.