Volume 15: Government and Public Administration
6. Planning and resources
Introduction

6.1 In order to advise Ministers and to implement their decisions and policies, Departments needed appropriate resources and management systems. But funds and staff were not available on demand. There was a regular and time-consuming annual cycle, known as the Public Expenditure Survey (or 'PES round'), which involved:

1. internal debate on future priorities;
2. bidding for resources from the Treasury and preparing detailed programme-by-programme Estimates;
3. presenting these to Parliament, which voted funds accordingly; and
4. reporting back on how the voted funds had been used.

By November of each year, the level of resources for the following financial year had usually been settled, ¹ with indicative figures - ie, set out in principle but not yet approved - for the two years after that.

6.2 There was competition for resources, both within and between Departments. This was refereed by the Treasury, which was committed at the time to obtaining reductions in public expenditure and in the number of civil servants. The watchwords were 'accountability' and 'cost-consciousness'.

6.3 Public spending was also scrutinised by Parliament, through the National Audit Office (NAO) and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Accounting Officers (departmental Permanent Secretaries or Agency Chief Executives) had a personal responsibility to ensure that public funds were used properly, prudently and with regard to value-for-money. On this, they had to account directly to Parliament, by appearing before the PAC.

6.4 Throughout the period, Departments constantly developed their budgeting, accounting and management information systems. They operated within structured plans and priorities approved by Ministers, determined on a rolling three-year basis, within overall budgets. During the 1980s and 1990s, resource allocation was tied more closely to Ministers' chosen policy aims than it had been in the past.