Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
HOME OFFICE,
NATIONAL OFFENDER
MANAGEMENT SERVICE,
G4S JUSTICE SERVICES
AND SERCO
HOME AFFAIRS
15 MARCH 2006
Q40 Greg Clark: What was the reason?
Mr Riall: Again, there were one
or two performance measures where we narrowly missed the required
thresholds.
Q41 Greg Clark: Do you know which
ones?
Mr Riall: For example, the requirement
to report 100% of all breaches of Adult Curfew Orders on time.
There have been occasions when we have slipped below the 100%
requirement which has resulted in a financial deduction.
Q42 Greg Clark: I understand, Sir
David, last week the Home Office had to settle, including an ex
gratia payment, with two offenders who had been tagged. Their
tags failed to work. Their bracelets came off, I understand, and
they were returned to prison. As I understand it, they alleged
that the equipment was defective and they should not have been
returned to prison and the Department had to settle out of court
on this. Can you give me an update on that, Sir David?
Sir David Normington: I am afraid
I do not know about that. I thought I had prepared myself for
all the questions that might come up but I am afraid I do not
know that. I will have to find out about that. I did not know
that that had happened.
Q43 Greg Clark: Presumably this does
not happen terribly often. Have you encountered other cases in
which you have had to settle?
Sir David Normington: No, that
is why I am surprised I do not know about it. I would have expected
to know about it, particularly if it was a significant amount
of money because I would have had to sign it off and I do not
recall doing that. I would have known if I had done it. I am sorry,
I am not aware of it.
Q44 Greg Clark: The information we
have is that the order was approved by the High Court on Tuesday
7 March, which may help you. If you are able to write to the Committee
as soon as possible that would be extremely helpful.
Sir David Normington: I will,
of course.[5]
Q45 Greg Clark: Turning to some of the
breaches and the particular point of reporting breaches on time,
Mr Taylor-Smith. You seem to regard your performance as being
satisfactory on this. Can you explain why?
Mr Taylor-Smith: For the period
that the Report covers I would not consider our performance to
be satisfactory. Our performance since the commencement of the
new contracts where there are much more appropriate service level
measures in place—the Home Office is measuring us more appropriately
on the things which are most important—in this particular
area is satisfactory.
Q46 Greg Clark: So they have changed
the measurements.
Mr Taylor-Smith: That is right.
Q47 Greg Clark: Is it still the case
that you are required to report breaches within 24 hours?
Mr Taylor-Smith: That is correct.
Q48 Greg Clark: Does that continue
to be measured under the contract, the number of failures to report
within the 24 hours?
Mr Taylor-Smith: That is correct.
Q49 Greg Clark: So that continues
to be something that you are measured on. According to the Report
at page three, paragraph 11, 22% of breaches took between one
day and three days to report and 13% took over three days. It
seems worrying that during the period this Report was being drawn
up that level of failure took place. Can you explain what was
wrong with the system that you were operating?
Mr Riall: Can I just pick up on
that point? Under the first generation of contract there was a
much greater emphasis placed on the need to verify whether a breach
had or had not occurred rather than the immediate reporting of
a suspected breach.
Q50 Greg Clark: I was talking about
what is reported here. Perhaps you can turn to page three, paragraph
11, which says that the majority of breaches were reported to
the Home Office within 24 hours but 22% took between 24 hours
and three days. That is a fact, is it not?
Mr Riall: It is a fact. The point
that I was making was particularly during the time that the NAO
Report was being put together there was much greater emphasis
placed by us as contractors on establishing whether a breach had
or had not occurred rather than reporting. Those lessons have
been learned and you will see that the standards of reporting
are significantly better.
Q51 Mr Bacon: Can I just interrupt
for a minute. You are saying there has been a significant change
in the performance since the publication of this Report.
Mr Riall: Correct, in terms of—
Q52 Mr Bacon: The Report was only
published on 1 February 2006. Did you or the Home Office inform
the NAO of this change?
Mr Riall: It is an ongoing thing.
The period that is being referred to in the Report, as I understand
it, was predominantly the first six months of 2005. A new contract
was entered into on 1 April 2005 and we are now some nine or 10
months into the new contract and there is a much tougher—
Q53 Mr Bacon: Did you or the Home
Office supply the NAO with the performance information out of
this new contract?
Mr Riall: The information supplied
to the NAO was partly out of the old contract and the first two
months of the new contract.
Q54 Mr Bacon: Only the first two
months of the new contract?
Mr Riall: Correct.
Q55 Mr Bacon: Would the NAO like
to comment on this?
Ms Murphie: When contracts are
changing it is obviously quite difficult to make an assessment
and the new contracts are quite different from the old ones. I
think if the performance is improving to that extent then that
is gratifying and that is what we would all like to see.
Mr Bacon: Perhaps if the NAO were to
revisit this subject in a few years' time we would be able to
see whether the performance had been maintained.
Q56 Greg Clark: I am not sure it
has much to do with the contract, either breaches are being reported
on time or they are not, why should that be influenced by the
contract? You were already contracted before to report breaches
within 24 hours and yet 22% took between 24 hours and three days
and 13% took more than three days. Why should the contract have
made a difference to that, that was already part of your requirement?
Mr Taylor-Smith: May I take that
up? It is worth putting it into context. This was a new service
and was the largest service of its kind in the world and when
it commenced the focus initially was very much about equipment
and technology and explanations.
Q57 Greg Clark: Sorry, can I stop
you there. That was not the case. We are talking about a sample
that the National Audit Office took last year, I assume, so we
are not talking about the beginning of your previous contract,
we are talking about a relatively short period of time ago in
which a very large number of breaches were not reported on time.
Sir David Normington: I think
you will find, and I stand to be corrected by the NAO, they took
a sample of cases adding up to 35, for instance, in the breaches
of the curfew over three years from 2002 until the end of the
contract, some cases in each year, and they looked at those. They
are reporting on that sample of 35 cases. The numbers vary in
each case but they took a sample over a period of a number of
years.
Q58 Greg Clark: Can I ask the NAO
to clarify this. Was the sample a recent sample or was it looking
back to right at the beginning?
Ms Murphie: We took a sample of
cases of Adult Curfew Orders and Home Detention Curfew Orders
but over the three years that the system had been underway.
Q59 Greg Clark: When you reviewed
these examples did you notice an improvement during those three
years?
Ms Murphie: I think that would
be difficult to say actually.
5 Ev 13 Back
| 
