H.M. TREASURY

Project 21: The Single Business Register

The project

1. The project is led by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in partnership with the Inland Revenue, HM Customs and Excise, the Contributions Agency and Companies House. The aim of the Single Business Register (SRB) is to facilitate better co-ordination of Government activity for every individual UK business in terms of service delivery and in terms of regulatory enforcement. The project is intended to review the following areas:

operation solutions for a business registration system which could include a physical register, a unique business identifier permitting linkage and matching of existing registration systems;

technological requirements for managing a system;

standards for managing a system (eg usage, controls, stewardship);

options for managing a system (eg use of third part service providers); and

business solutions including the requirements for complex legislative changes

Background

2.                     There have been numerous attempts, over the past 15-20 years to produce common registers and directories operating across government departments. In most cases these have been specific to a single requirement. The most successful of these examples in the UK is the ONS’s Inter Departmental Business Register (IDBR). The IDBR is a list of UK businesses produced by combining VAT, PAYE and Companies House registrations, supplemented by data from employment and production surveys. The IDBR was an important source of reference in devising the project concept for the Single Business Register.

3.                     A special group formed as part of the ‘Closer Working Initiative’ brought together the Contributions Agency, HM Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue. This group supported the broad concept of a Single Business Register and made a specific recommendation that a unifying business registration number should be established. In addition the DTI (at the time of the initial bid) had been examining the potential benefits from an integrated government /business interface along these lines.

4.                     Clearly amalgamating huge and complex systems in this manner has become more feasible in light of the significant advances in internet technology over the last two years. Opportunities brought about by improvements in technology have been augmented by initiatives such as the Government Secure Intranet (GSI) and ‘joined-up’ government.

Government Objectives

5. A key commitment in the Labour Business Manifesto aims to“ reduce the demands for information central government makes on business by developing a common database available to all government departments”. Taking this commitment as a missions statement the fundamental purpose of the SBR Project is to investigate the options for providing services to UK business which will be simpler and more responsive to their needs, whilst also reducing the burden on individual firms and the cost of administration. The project would therefore contribute to the ‘joined-up’ service that is central to the Modernising Government agenda and by establishing a basic framework the government will have a foundation to support the followings:

BOX 1. NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVES

Effective communication between the UK business community and all government departments and agencies
Better co-ordination between central and local government
Efficient operation of government service
Improved government and private sector co-operation

Project objectives

6. The project has four overarching objectives, each with a range of sub-level objectives which are set out in box 2 below. The Project Initiation Document (PID) also identified a number of key risks. All risks were rated as low likelihood in the PID.

BOX 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

1.Determine the scope for electronic business

n assess the critical information needs of transaction between Gov’t and business

n assess the requirements and interest of the UK business community

n determine the benefits of establishing a single business registration system

n consider the implications for inter-departmental data standards

2.Review the legislative or policy constraints

n determine the data protection requirements for Gov’t and business both now and in a SBR environment

n assess the future changes and the impact upon service delivery, government administration and the function of a business register

n assess the delivery of business options in relation to the best estimate of time required for legislative and policy change

n deliver the detail and justification for change to legislation and policy for each option scenario

3.Provide workable business options

n develop a business strategy that identifies options in relation to SBR requirements

n identify legislative and regulatory implications for each business scenario

n develop an IS strategy for the most cost beneficial business scenario

n identify ‘horizon’ issues that will need to be accommodated

4.Determine the technical options to inform business decisions

n consider the broad range of technology available and how it meets the criteria to satisfy processing requirements

n consider the broad range of technology available and how it meets the criteria to satisfy data integrity

n provide examples of the potential technology through the activities of market research and consultation

n look at how the best technology options may be delivered

Key risks

n unavailability of key contacts for interview

n partner departments taking action contrary to project objectives

n sickness or absence of project team member

n requirement drift for business community

n business community reaction to project proposals

Project initiation, design and specification

7. Prior to the submission for ISB funds key partners were already involved in a number of data sharing initiatives. In May 1998 the Inter Departmental Data Sharing Group produced a feasibility report which both advocated the benefits of the SBR and engendered a closer working relationship between the Contributions Agency, Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise. The report proposed that the DTI and Companies House should become ‘major players’ in the development of the register and should therefore become included in discussions before ideas became firmed up.

The DTI’s Remit

8. Business information is central to the operations of the DTI both in terms of supplying business with information to enhance competitiveness and extracting information to satisfy its regulatory functions. It became clear that whilst the DTI holds a great variety of business information a weakness is that it does not share this information in a consistent and strategic way between its own business units; its strategic partners and other Government Partners. Furthermore, many departments, particularly those with sector responsibilities, such as DETR and DCMS deal with business with which the DTI also has a relationship. The clear benefit of the project would be that these Departments would have access to the same core information via a Single Business Register.9. The ISB bid was assembled by ONS and submitted to HM Treasury. The stakeholder partners felt that the timescale for preparing and submitting bids was extremely tight but were extremely positive about the support they received from HM Treasury in dealing with queries and issues as they arose.10. The anticipated costs of the project at bid stage are set out in Table 1.

Table 1. Project costs and ISB funding (all revenue costs)
	Total bid costs (£k)
TOTAL COSTS , (all current/revenue) including stakeholder data analysis business consultation government consultation strategy paper data matching research	£550K
ISB contribution (%of total costs)	£440K (80%)
Departmental contribution (%of total costs)	£110K (20%)

10 The anticipated benefits of the project are set out in Box 3 below.

BOX 3. PROJECT BENEFITS
User group	Qualitative	Quantitative
Business community	- closer working relationship with government - simpler and better supported services - access to more services	- lower compliance costs - more accurate financial calculations
Business Reps	- closer working relationship with government - potential to provide added value service through electronic links	- lower overheads on government services - lower error correction effort
Ministers	- improved quality of statistics - improved policy monitoring - direct access to business for consultation	- reduced departmental costs
Departments	- a single reference source for numerous departments - better quality data improving operational performance - common points of reference allowing for shared service points	- reduced cost of error correction - reduced data collection costs - lower data management overheads - better justification of causes for EC funding
Eurostat	- improved quality of statistics - common data format for business related information - common classification system leading on the 5^th Framework EC programme on pan-European classification standards.	- reduced costs of error correction - reduced data collection costs

Management of the project

11. The project has established a Steering Board, comprising senior Civil Servants from the stakeholder departments, which is charged with resolving inter-departmental issues referred to it by the Project Board. The Project Board will provide overall direction and arbitration for the project and comprises senior user representatives from the stakeholder departments. The Project Board is responsible for approving all plans, resources and budgets and approving project deliverables. All day to day operational matters, and adherence to the PID is undertaken by the Project Team under the direction of an external project manager. The Project Team comprises civil servants and external contractors and adjusts to meet changes in the project schedule. Project assurance is reviewed by two user groups. Overall responsibility is with the Project Assurance User Group comprising the five lead departments in addition to representatives of other departments involved in previous discussions over establishing a Single Business Register. Stage Assurance Groups are established to review the products arising out of each stage of the project.

12. The project follows the PRINCE 2 methodology which involves the following:

a clear Project Initiation Document;

monthly highlight reports form the Project Manager; and

fortnightly stage reports submitted by the Stage Team Leaders;

At the time of SQW’s visit in March all partners felt that the project had been efficiently managed. This was attributed to the project manager and in particular a pragmatic interpretation of the PRINCE 2 methodology which had been adapted to provide a workable and effective operational framework for the project.

Project outcomes, including contingency and monitoring

13.                  The original and latest (May 2000) timescales are presented in Table 2 below. The project has been subject to major slippage as the direction and rationale for the project became increasingly uncertain. In April 1999 the project incurred delay when the DTI announced plans for the Small Business Service which was seen as having clear conflicts of project interest with the SBR project as initially specified. This was finally resolved in June 1999 through discussion amongst key stakeholders and the project operating to schedule until October 1999. It is worth noting that this specific type of risk was identified in the initial bid albeit as ‘low likelihood’. It is clear that the announcement of SBS by DTI has had major implications for the project on a number of levels. Primarily there is the question of duplication as a key function of SBS is to provide a one-stop shop for small business. Secondly, the project partnership undoubtedly suffered as a result of the DTI announcement and at the time of the SQW project visit DTI’s commitment to the project was seen to have significantly diminished by the other partners.

14.                  Partners also reported during our discussions that the business consultation carried out as part of milestone 3 in table 2 below had forced the partnership to rethink the overall objectives of producing a single register and focusing instead on less ambitious data matching where appropriate. The findings did not support the introduction of a single register and many companies reported that they would rather stay with the existing and familiar arrangements for supplying data. In particular businesses do not like the inflexibility that a numbering system enforces and many firms identified the potential costs of maintaining such systems. Importantly however businesses are not against referencing systems for critical areas of governance and would welcome a service that can unite some of these areas where the system does not increase the burden to themselves. The project team researched the policy response in Australia to similar research findings where the plan is to build a business numbering system for internal purposes by matching a series of government numbering standards. The plan for Australia is to match the company number IR tax number and their new VAT number (available from July 2000).

15.                  Milestone 5 – Strategy Paper in Table 2 below was intended to be a high-level findings report for senior civil servant consideration at that time. The Project Board agreed that the newly formed Information Age Champions Group (IACG) would be the most appropriate target for the summary paper. In response to the paper the IACG established a review group to look closer at the management of Government to Business service delivery. Members of the SBR Project Team were then invited to participate in the IACG special review team and therefore took the decision to suspend any work that may compromise the resulting decisions of the IACG following the special review team work.

Table 2. Original and revised milestones for the Single Business Register Project
	Planned timescale at bid	Revised timescale (as at February 2000)
1.Project initiation	February 99
2.Stakeholder data analysis	April 99	July 99
3.Business community consultation	June 99	August 99
4.Wider government consultation	June 99	September
5.Strategy paper	Sept 99	- delayed
6.New Milestone – Matching Research	January 2000	Awaiting result of IACG report
7.End of project report	March 2000	July 2000
8.Evaluation report	June 2000	July 2000

16 The project manager has been monitoring progress against milestones and budget to date and since our visit in March the ONS has written to HM Treasury requesting a project extention which has been granted.

Additionality, longer term effects and value for money

17 The partners were in agreement that the project was highly additional. It was argued that had the cross departmental SBR project not gone ahead then individual departments would have developed solutions specific to their own needs. This insular approach would have led to a situation where linking information would have been extremely difficult due to differing coding systems and restrictive third party agreements. Partners argued that it was the availability of ISB that led to the cross departmental approach that is central to the project adding real value to the government – business interface. There are a whole range of longer terms effects identified by partners including the following:n greater and more effective prioritisation of Government resources in dealing with business;

greater understanding and appreciation of the business viewpoint in policy making;

better understanding of the scope of governments interface with business across all departments;

savings to the business community through reduced compliance in the long run;

additional benefits to the economy through more effective regulation; and

developments in service delivery channels.

18 Partners were of the view that it was too early to say whether the project was economical, effective or efficient. The SBR is a feasibility study and by examining the entire scope of the governments dealing with business the aim is to provide the platform from which greater efficiency and cost effectiveness can be achieved in the future.

Administrative and accountability issues

19 Expenditure monitoring, and control has been exercised by the ONS’s (lead partner) Finance Officer. In line with PRINCE 2 methodology the project Board consists of an Executive (ONS Finance Office) and a Senior User (DTI, ONS, HM, C&E and IR). The executive role is to ensure that the project is value for money and balances the interests of all parties to the project. It was made clear in the PID that these judgements would be made against the principles and objectives of the ISB bid and the overarching principles of the ISB programme. The senior user is accountable for ensuring that what is produced is fit for purpose and monitoring that the product meets user needs. Quality assurance reviews have been undertaken by the user groups identified in section 11. There have been no major administrative or accountability issues.

Conclusions

20. The concept of a Single Business Register as set out in the initial bid for ISB funding is an excellent example of what the Invest to Save Budget was designed to support. The potential for cross-departmental working and synergy was clearly demonstrated and the opportunities for improvements to service delivery and savings to business were identified and supported effectively.

21. In operation the reality has been somewhat different. External factors and changes in the wider policy context have undoubtedly had an impact on the delivery of this project. This became apparent when the Small Business Service was announced in April 99. A further unexpected element was the results of the consultation with businesses which were less enthusiastic about the SBR concept that had been initially envisaged. These issues should not however detract from the notable achievements that the project has delivered and will continue to deliver in its adjusted form. The project is a feasibility study and was designed to test an approach and identify the best route to deliver the project objectives; - it has achieved this. No evidence of displacement effects came to light during our discussion with partners and additionality was clearly argued and justified. The key implication from the research can be summarised as follows:

the study discovered that most other countries have core databases supporting revenue collection and the preparation of statistics, but that these single-service systems did not meet the needs of other departments;

the study also confirmed the there is no universal business definition across government;

business research indicates that the SBR is not practicable as initially envisaged;

there is considerable merit in improving data matching and the creation of a central facility – the ‘Comprehensive Business Directory’ CBD.These finding and proposals were taken forward in an unsuccessful bid for ISB 2 funding.

Project 21: The Single Business Register

The project

Business community