HM Revenue & Customs faces a significant challenge in securing a £1.6 billion reduction in running costs over the next four years, at the same time as increasing tax revenues, improving customer service and achieving reductions in welfare payments. HMRC has reported savings of some £1.4 billion since 2005. To achieve its cost reductions it plans to implement 24 change projects and other measures including savings in the provision of IT services, improvements in productivity, reduced sickness absence and headcount reductions. The size and shape of HMRC will change substantially as it reduces staff numbers by 10,000 and significantly reduces the number of offices it operates. HMRC has established a clear vision and specified operational priorities and revenue targets. It has not yet sufficiently defined the business performance and customer service it intends to achieve by 2015. It has good information on the different costs it incurs but only limited information on the cost of its end-to-end processes and on the cost of servicing different customers groups. It also has a limited understanding of the link between the cost and value of its activities. This has restricted its ability to assess fully the impact of cost reductions on business performance. HMRC has made no allowance in its cost reduction plans for under-delivery or slippage, and currently has no reserve of proposals on which to draw. HMRC has begun to implement its cost reduction plans but has not yet assessed all the dependencies between projects and the critical path for delivery.

In challenging circumstances in 2011-12, HM Revenue and Customs maintained its performance in key strategic areas at the same time as reducing its staff and spending. The challenge for HMRC will be to make more and deeper reductions over the spending review period while increasing tax revenues, improving customer service and introducing its 'real time information' project and changes to benefits and credits. HMRC made £296 million of savings in 2011-12, exceeding its target by 19 per cent. This is about a third of the total savings it is required to make over the four years of the spending review period. However, HMRC expects these projects to save £162 million less over the spending review period than when the NAO last reported on this subject, in July 2011. This is partly because its forecasts are now more refined and realistic, and partly because, as some projects took longer to start, the benefits will take longer to be realised. HMRC has strengthened how it manages its change programme in ways that address NAO and Public Accounts Committee recommendations. The Department has also started to address the recommendations that it should improve its understanding of interdependencies between projects and of the cost and value of its activities though it has more to do in these areas. At September 2012, HMRC was on track to exceed its 2012-13 cost reduction target by £29 million. However, the reduction in planned savings being delivered by change projects means that HMRC needs to find £66 million more savings than it originally planned through other initiatives

This report identified serious concerns in a number of areas, including: unacceptable difficulties contacting HMRC by phone during peak periods; endemic delays in responding to post; and an increasing focus on online communication that may exclude those without reliable internet access. The Committee recognises that the Department performs a crucial role and operates under significant external pressures including continuing resource reductions, deficiencies in tax legislation and the legacy of the merger. It also acknowledges the commitment of management to tackling these problems and the dedication and professionalism of HMRC staff. However, it concluded that the Department has a difficult few years ahead of it, as it attempts to improve its service. The Committee makes recommendations in the following areas: Improving the service provided by contact centres; providing robust alternative to online contact; ensuring greater awareness of the impact of process changes on individuals and businesses; ensuring reductions in resources are managed in a way that is commensurate with the enabling IT and process improvements and minimises the loss of Departmental tax expertise; reviewing the division of responsibilities between HMRC and HM Treasury in relation to making tax policy, to ensure practical considerations are taken into account at the earliest possible stage; better targeting of letters that threaten serious consequences against individuals; having the National Audit Office externally audit preparations for Real-time Information, to ensure Ministers can be held accountable for progress against the Government's ambitious timetable; and examining how the Department can achieve better accountability around the settlement of large tax cases

In 2007-08, HMRC received more than a quarter of the 4 million Tax Credit renewals forms in July (the renewal deadline) and it processed half of the 8.2 million Income Tax Self Assessment returns during January to March. At busier times customers experience delays on their correspondence and receive a less responsive service. In the lead up to the Income Tax Self Assessment deadline in January 2008, HMRC answered just two thirds of the 7 million telephone calls made to its contact centres. By encouraging more customers to file tax returns online and removing the need for some returns, HMRC has smoothed peaks in workload and released resources of £7 million a year. The peak in Tax Credit renewal work has, however, increased as the deadline has been brought forward to reduce overpayments. Using different processing targets throughout the year and giving customers more information about how long their information will take to process during peak periods could help spread work out throughout the year. During busy periods, HMRC tends to process simpler Income Tax cases, postponing more complex checks and less urgent work. During peak periods, staff productivity is higher, partly reflecting the simpler cases, but HMRC also experiences increased staff sickness absence. The experience of HMRC and other organisations is that between 15 per cent and 40 per cent of contact with customers is avoidable. Reducing the number of avoidable calls by 15 per cent could release resources of up to £23 million a year or 11 per cent of its annual spending on contact centres.

This report recognizes that HMRC has restored customer service levels from a low point in 2010, when problems with the new National Insurance and PAYE system increased the number of queries. HMRC has now dealt with long-term backlogs by employing 2,500 temporary staff, enhancing phone technology and improving productivity. In 2011-12, HMRC answered 74 per cent of phone calls, against an interim target of 58 per cent. This level of service is nevertheless low. So far in 2012-13, HMRC has improved its handling of post but its performance in handling calls has been varied. Depending on the tariff they pay their phone company, customers are charged from when their call is connected even if they are held in a queue. The NAO estimates that it cost customers £33 million in call charges while they are in the queue. Most of HMRC's numbers are still 0845 numbers which result in high call charges for some customers. It is, however, investigating alternatives. NAO analysis indicates that, by the end of 2012-13 and through 2013-14, HMRC could achieve its target of answering 90 per cent of calls. However, by 2014-15, HMRC will have reduced numbers of contact centre staff so will need to redeploy large numbers of back-office processing staff to answer telephones. There is also uncertainty about the impact on call volumes of large-scale changes, such as the introduction of Real Time Information and the transition to universal credit.

This NAO report examines the progress made by the Inland Revenue (now HM Revenue and Customs) to help ensure that correct Income Tax returns are sent on time from those who are required to submit them, focusing on the following issues: the reasons why taxpayers should file them on time and accurately; the Department's performance in getting returns in by the deadline and in chasing late returns; accuracy of taxpayers in submitting returns and of the Department in processing them; and the need to make forms easier for people to complete in order to reduce compliance and processing costs. The report makes a number of recommendations for improvements focused on seven areas, including achieving the 2008 Public Service Agreement target for the proportion of taxpayers who file on time; using sanctions to encourage timeliness of tax returns; improving the accuracy of Revenue processing methods; and improving the clarity of the self assessment form.

As part of the 2010 Spending Review the government announced a significant reduction in the budget of the Department for Transport, with spending due to be 15% lower by 2014-15, in real terms, than the Department's £12.8 billion budget in 2010-11. The Department prepared early, identifying areas for budget reductions based on good analysis. But for road users, railway passengers and taxpayers, there are many questions which remain unanswered. The Department doesn't fully understand the impact of its cuts to road maintenance. There is concern that short-term budget cutting could prove counter-productive, costing more in the long-term as a result of increased vehicle damage and the higher cost of repairing the more severe road damage. Another area of concern is rail spending. The Department spends two-thirds of its budget through third party organisations such as Network Rail and Transport for London. While information and assurance have improved over some third party spending, there is still a lack of proper accountability and transparency for Network Rail. Rail budgets aren't being reduced as much as other areas, yet passengers still face high fares. The Department hands Network Rail over £3 billion each year, underwrites debt of over £25 billion and continues to treat it as a private sector company. The National Audit Office must be allowed full audit access as quickly as possible.. Better contingency plans for dealing with threats to its planned budget reductions also need to be developed - for example if some of its planned efficiency savings do not deliver or if inflation is higher than forecast