Q71 Chair: I understand that but it has separate controls from Treasury controls. What you want to do is to merge the two.
David Pitchford: That is what we are looking to do- align those controls.
Q72 Chair: Okay. Another thing is that on page 31, the Report says that Treasury reviews MPA's assurance plans, which seems daft to me. Why do you not, again, just work together? I bet you have another group of people sitting around in the Treasury-
Sharon White: We cannot afford to have lots of people sitting around the Treasury-
Chair: Quite, I agree.
Sharon White: I don't know if this is a reference to the spending team, but the spending team, the people who actually have the interface with the Departments-
Chair: I just know how the civil service works, Sharon. There will be people inside Treasury duplicating the work done by MPA.
Sharon White: I promise you. As I say, I do not want to pretend that we are, for every Department and every spending team, in an ideal situation.
Q73 Chair: The final thing that I think is a Treasury issue, which comes up in the Report, is that you do not look at the cross-Government portfolio when you are making a decision on a particular project. It just seems such common sense to do so that I cannot understand why you do not. Perhaps you can talk us through that and what plans you have for the future.
Sharon White: Can I say a couple of things? One issue for us is going to be that we think the GMPP- the portfolio information-will be really vital in the next spending review. One of the things we did in the last spend review was to try to do a cross-Departmental comparison of value for money for different capital projects. Actually having real information on deliverability will be really important. One practical issue we have is that, as you know, the projects are just incredibly diverse, so one of the things the MPA is trying to improve is having data which are comparable across the portfolio. Where we are making progress is where we have cross-Departmental systemic issues that have arisen- as I say, DECC is one example; the MOD is another example-where there are issues about how their commercial expertise is allocated internally. I do not think this is somehow the Treasury saying that we do not use this information or that we have some "in principle" objection; it is something we will be looking to do for the next spending review, and we are trying to use the information arising across Departments to have more bite.
Q74 Chair: But this thing is not static, you see. If you do it in the CSR, you take a view at that point in time. As David Pitchford has said, things go in and out of problems. If you just do it at that point, I can see that the next CSR might take smart meters away from DECC and might put a little more money into Universal Credit, let us say, but it is wrong to do it statically. I think what the Report is trying to say to you is that this should be an ongoing, continuous process-across Departments.
Sharon White: And I guess what I am saying is that, where there are important data and information that suggest major switching, that is obviously something that the Treasury will need to look at and take seriously.
Q75 Chair: I do not know what that means.
Sharon White: For example-
Chair: No, I mean "look at and take seriously". Does that mean when we get the next spending review settlement period-when that is up and running-if projects run into trouble during that spending review, you would be quite happy to take money out of one Department and allocate it to another?
Sharon White: I think at a big level, certainly. For example, if universal credit-entirely theoretically- goes seriously off track, the Government could decide an alternative use for money, that is clearly a discussion that the Treasury is going to have: where do we want to put that money that is most going to improve growth for the economy? I guess what I am saying is that we do not have the data yet-it is in progress-from the GMPP, which allows us to do that.
Q76 Stephen Barclay: You mentioned the Universal Credit programme. With the major programmes you are looking at, do you assure whether interim milestones are in place for programme directors and SROs, so that they do not move prior to completion of those interim milestones?
David Pitchford: The application of the concept of the integrated assurance and approvals plan, which is the tool that frames that, is to have not only the approvals points, and the assurance points that inform the approvals points-did I say that right?-but to have the critical milestones for the project delivery team built into that plan as well. The really strong approach to it is that those are not moved without the agreement of the parties, and the parties are the MPA, the approvals team and the spending team.
Q77 Stephen Barclay: That is helpful, but given that you said earlier, Mr Pitchford, that a number of Departments have not implemented that, for those Departments that have not implemented that but have high-risk projects that are on your radar, have you sought any additional assurance or will you be doing so in terms of the churn of staff, because that is again an issue that this Committee has highlighted frequently?
David Pitchford: Yes, I understand you have. Yes is the answer. What we are looking to do is to do more deep dives into the projects that have not had as much attention-because of the priority aspects that I mentioned before-because the streaming, if you like, of the projects has put them into a difficult situation. For example, you have projects in Departments that have come up against deadlines. In the MO J there are projects that have come up against a whole new range of challenges because of the outcomes of the riots last year. We have had to look at how to restructure and reorganise those. A lot of those elements are beyond the control of both the Department and the project team. One of the things we can help do is see how the control process might be reapplied.
Q78 Meg Hillier: You have had a lot of plaudits today, Mr Pitchford, so congratulations on those. However, if I can refer you to page 16, figure 3, could you give us your assessment on the score card? The Prime Minster's mandate sets out eight key tasks for you as an organisation.
David Pitchford: What page is it?
Q79 Meg Hillier: Page 16, figure 3: the eight requirements of the Prime Minister's mandate. Could you tell us what progress you have made against each of those in your view and where you think the weaknesses are or the errors yet to be resolved?
David Pitchford: In terms of the portfolio, we have made great strides. Just getting it done was beyond imagination. As Mr Bacon and I discussed last time, when we started out, the quality of the management information was so unbelievably appalling that it was hard to get any traction. I think we have done well in relation to that, in isolating things we never had an understanding of before, such as the churn of SROs and project directors and what we should be doing about that. By the way, if we run out of time, I am on that as well.
Q80 Chair: In MOD are you?
David Pitchford: Yes, as well as elsewhere.