House of Commons - Constitutional Affairs Committee

Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs Committee Minutes of Evidence

Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Justice

When I appeared before your Committee on 9 October, I agreed to write providing additional information on the cost of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), the C-NOMIS programme, and the number of prison staff who are members of the Prison Officers' Association. Subsequently, your Clerk also asked for further information on the delay in responding to the consultation on `Quashing Convictions', the policy area covered by Clause 26 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. I also wished to write in order to clarify a point in relation to the funding of new prison places.

QUASHING CONVICTIONS

On the "Quashing Convictions" consultation, I explained to the Committee on 9 October that the delay post-28 June was caused by my decision on taking up office to reconsider Clause 26 in the light of the comments made in response to the Consultation Paper. Clearly, there would have been little point in publishing a Government response at that stage, because the policy was under review. In principle, it would have been possible to publish a response before I assumed office, but the view was taken that consultees should be able to see the terms of the Bill provision giving effect to the policy (as it then was); and this was not available until very shortly before the Bill was published.

COST OF NOMS

In relation to the cost of NOMS, David Howarth asked (at question 88 in the transcript) "What assessment has been made of the costs and benefits of the NOMS layer?" NOMS has a total Resource budget for 2007-08 of £4,646 million. This includes £160 million for Administration Costs (including those of HMPS) which represents 3.4% of the total. Administration budgets cover the costs of all central government administration other than the costs of direct frontline service provision or support activities that are directly associated with frontline service delivery. All other expenditure is classified as programme expenditure.

The National Offender Management Service encompasses HM Prison Service, the National Probation Service, the Youth Justice Board and NOMS centre. The NOMS centre is not an additional layer. It brought together units from the Correctional Services Directorate of the Home Office and teams from HM Prison Service and the National Probation Directorate. This was an amalgamation of "back office functions" and activities that required management to cut across prison and probation, such as public protection; as well as issues such as population management, which cut across both public and private prisons. Subsequently the National Probation Directorate became fully integrated into NOMS.

NOMS will be will be publishing a Revised Strategic Business Case for the NOMS Reform Programme to update the one previously published. On Commissioning, the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Offender Management Bill assessed the performance and cost benefits from increasing commissioners' freedoms to buy from the best providers as potentially up to £288 million (on a discounted costs basis) over the next 25 years. Together with the introduction of offender management, the creation of a purchaser provider model is a core enabling measure designed to deliver an additional reduction in crime through a further 5% reduction in re-offending.

C-NOMIS

I also committed to write in relation to the costs of the C-NOMIS programme. At the time of the original full business case (2005) the project lifetime costs (2005-20) were estimated as £234 million, excluding depreciation and the cost of capital.

The current reviews suggest that these initial costs were underestimated and understated in the original business case, particularly in relation to:

— the lack of contingency to mitigate risks;

— the original costs being appropriate for the implementation of a tailored "off the shelf" product rather than the heavily rewritten product that evolved;

— the cost estimates not adequately factoring in the costs associated with ongoing changes arising from legislation and any new operational service instructions or policy changes that would be likely to come into place during the project's lifetime. These gave rise to many changes to the requirements leading to significant increase in costs;

— the project having a very optimistic timetable for deployment across the Prison and Probation services, with insufficient contingencies for delays; and

— the business case basing the projected costs on the assumption that VAT was reclaimable for the project as then described. This assumption was found not to be correct on the basis of advice from HM Revenue and Customs.

Continuing with the Programme as previously scoped and designed has been shown to be unaffordable. The revised Programme emerging from the rapid review will maintain the commitment to ensure that offender managers have access to the key information from records held within both prisons and probation and will replace unstable, at-risk IT systems across both services. Current estimates for a revised programme are projecting a lifetime cost (before depreciation and cost of capital) in the range of £450-500 million.

PERCENTAGE OF STAFF IN THE POA

I was also asked to provide details of the number of members of the Prison Officers' Association (POA) across establishments. We do not have, nor are the POA obliged to provide us with, details of the number of staff who are members of the POA. We are therefore unable to calculate the percentage of members in each establishment. The attached tables should, however, provide some useful information. The first indicates the number of staff who took part in the recent industrial action at each establishment. This includes both POA and non-POA members. The second indicates the numbers of staff of different grades who took action and the percentage against the Staff in Post figure for those grades as at the end of July 2007.

FUNDING FOR PRISON BUILDING CAPACITY PROGRAMME

Finally, I would also like to clarify the answer I gave to question 54. The question asked was "Do you have any more money from the Treasury to deal with this [prison building]?" I replied:

"This afternoon sufficient money is to be announced to meet all the current plans. We will wait and see what Lord Carter proposes. Had Lord Carter's review been concluded and decisions made on it in advance of the CSR then decisions flowing from that could have been taken into account within the CSR, but that is not the case and so we will have to do it in reverse direction".

The reply I gave is technically correct, in that we have plans in place to build the original 8,000 prison places that were announced, plus the first 500 of the additional 1,500 places that were announced this summer. Of these, at least 5,000 of the original 8,000 places plus the 500 places are due to be delivered within the current spending review period, and the remaining 3,000 of the original 8,000 places are expected to be delivered in the next CSR.

The plans, and funding, for the remaining 1,000 places (of the additional 1,500) will not be agreed until after Lord Carter has completed his report.

This means that of the full 9,500 places that have been announced, and were referred to in Q.53 by the Committee, there is funding for 5,500 within the current CSR; funding to be allocated for 3,000 places in the next CSR—where HM Treasury has acknowledged the amounts; leaving 1,000 places where the plans and funding will be agreed after Lord Carter reports on his current review.

Rt Hon Jack Straw MP

Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor

November 2007

TABLE SHOWING NUMBER OF STAFF WHO TOOK STRIKE ACTION ON 29 AUGUST 2007 (by establishment)

Establishment	Area	Full Days	Half Days	Total no of Staff
Acklington	North East	123	4	127
Albany	South Central	67	3	70
Ashwell	East Midlands	50	0	50
Askham Grange	Yorkshire & Humberside	19	0	19
Aylesbury	South Central	109	1	110
Bedford	Eastern	76	0	76
Belmarsh	High Security	193	0	193
Birmingham	West Midlands	276	1	277
Blakenhurst	West Midlands	71	4	75
Blantyre House	Kent & Sussex	0	0	0
Blundeston	Eastern	79	1	80
Brinsford	West Midlands	103	0	103
Bristol	South West	0	114	114
Brixton	London	78	0	78
Brockhill/Hewell Grange	West Midlands	58	0	58
Buckle Hall	North West	47	12	59
Bullingdon	South Central	126	0	126
Bullwood Hall	Eastern	48	0	48
Camp Hill	South Central	76	4	80
Canterbury	Kent & Sussex	0	46	46
Cardiff	Wales	53	1	54
Castington	North East	103	0	103
Channings Wood	South West	87	0	87
Chelmsford	Eastern	83	0	83
Coldingley	South Central	0	35	35
Cookham Wood/East Sutton Park	Kent & Sussex	41	0	41
Dartmoor	South West	77	0	77
Deerbolt	North East	102	0	102
Dorchester	South West	60	0	60
Dover	Kent & Sussex	8	20	28
Downview	South Central	51	0	51
Drake Hall	West Midlands	49	0	49
Durham	North East	116	0	116
Eastwood Park	South West	0	0	0
Edmunds Hill	Eastern	64	0	64
Erlestoke	South West	1	0	1
Everthorpe	Yorkshire & Humberside	97	0	97
Exeter	South West	88	1	89
Featherstone	West Midlands	22	19	41
Feltham	London	156	0	156
Ford	Kent & Sussex	1	0	1
Foston Hall	East Midlands	45	0	45
Frankland	High Security	251	0	251
Full Sutton	High Security	217	0	217
Garth	North West	141	0	141
Gartree	East Midlands	94	2	96
Glen Parva	East Midlands	53	0	53
Gloucester	South West	0	59	59
Grendon/Spring Hill	South Central	38	0	38
Guys Marsh	South West	45	7	52
Haslar	South Central	15	0	15
Haverigg	North West	99	0	99
High Down	South Central	165	0	165
High Point	Eastern	81	0	81
Hindley	North West	121	0	121
Hollesley Bay	Eastern	0	0	0
Holloway	London	104	0	104
Holme House	North East	176	0	176
Hull	Yorkshire & Humberside	176	0	176
Huntercombe	South Central	67	1	68
Kennett	North West	86	0	86
Kingston	South Central	0	0	0
Kirkham	North West	34	0	34
Kirklevington	North East	30	0	30
Lancaster Castle	North West	39	0	39
Lancaster Farms	North West	151	0	151
Latchmere House	London	0	0	0
Leeds	Yorkshire & Humberside	200	0	200
Leicester	East Midlands	55	9	64
Lewes	Kent & Sussex	61	4	65
Leyhill	South West	0	0	0
Lincoln	East Midlands	129	0	129
Lindholme	Yorkshire & Humberside	143	1	144
Littlehey	Eastern	69	0	69
Liverpool	North West	244	0	244
Long Lartin	High Security	113	0	113
Low Newton	North East	105	0	105
Maidstone	Kent & Sussex	93	0	93
Manchester	High Security	291	3	294
Moorland	Yorkshire & Humberside	198	0	198
Morton Hall	East Midlands	64	1	65
New Hall	Yorkshire & Humberside	102	0	102
North Sea Camp	West Midlands	21	3	24
Northallerton	Yorkshire & Humberside	30	0	30
Norwich	Eastern	25	75	100
Nottingham	East Midlands	114	2	116
Onley	East Midlands	98	1	99
Parkhurst	South Central	86	0	86
Pentonville	London	0	161	161
Portland	South West	70	0	70
Prescoed/Usk	Wales	43	0	43
Preston	North West	130	0	130
Ranby	East Midlands	136	0	136
Reading	South Central	60	0	60
Risley	North West	153	4	157
Rochester	Kent & Sussex	75	0	75
Send	South Central	25	0	25
Sheppy Cluster	Kent & Sussex	235	0	235
Shepton Mallett	South West	35	3	38
Shrewsbury	West Midlands	19	29	48
Stafford	West Midlands	85	0	85
Stocken	East Midlands	44	0	44
Stoke Heath	West Midlands	136	0	136
Styal	North West	88	0	88
Sudbury	East Midlands	35	0	35
Swansea	Wales	71	0	71
Swinfen Hall	West Midlands	108	0	108
The Mount	Eastern	82	0	82
The Verne	South West	47	0	47
Thorn Cross	North West	75	0	75
Wakefield	High Security	264	10	274
Wandsworth	London	146	0	146
Warren Hill	Eastern	48	12	60
Wayland	Eastern	81	0	81
Wealston	Yorkshire & Humberside	111	0	111
Wellingborough	East Midlands	72	0	72
Werrington	West Midlands	29	0	29
Wetherby	Yorkshire & Humberside	93	0	93
Whatton	East Midlands	82	0	82
Whitemoor	High Security	282	0	282
Winchester	South Central	81	15	96
Woodhill	High Security	182	2	184
Wormwood Scrubs	London	167	5	172
Wymott	North West	98	2	100
Yorkshire & Humberside TSS	Yorkshire & Humberside	0	3	3