Select Committee on Home Affairs Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the Home Office

HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE WRITTEN ANSWERS

  Please find enclosed the answers from Sir David Normington to the written questions posed by the Committee following their scrutiny of the Home Office Departmental Report 2006.

  I would also like to take this opportunity to flag a minor error in the Departmental Report 2006 to the Committee This is with regard to the reducing re-offending figures that are presented on page 104 of the report. The report understates performance against SR2000 PSA 10 as follows:

    —  Adults: the 0.2% outturn comparing performance in 2002 against a 1997 baseline is in fact against a 2000 baseline. The actual reduction against a 1997 baseline is 1.3%.

    —  Juveniles: the 1.4% outturn comparing performance in 2004 against a 1997 baseline is in fact against a 2006 baseline. The actual reduction against a 1997 baseline is 3.8%.

  These figures are correctly stated on page 2 in the main text of the report and have been published in Home Office Statistical Bulletins in both 2005 and 2006.

  The Home Office will issue an erratum slip addressing this.

Jonathan Rushton

Assistant Private Secretary to Sir David Normington

6 November 2006

HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE RESPONSES

REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION FROM HOME OFFICE

Q1.   Please provide the following information when it becomes available, ahead of the oral evidence session:

    (i)  draft Public Service Agreement targets for the Home Office proposed under the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007

  Over the last year we have been working with Treasury to inform their developing proposals on how the PSA framework as a whole should evolve in CSR07. HMT are finalising details on the direction of travel for PSAs but it is absolutely clear that a key focus of the agenda will be on strengthening the role of key stakeholders in influencing the way PSA outcomes are defined, measured and delivered. Select Committees obviously play a key role in monitoring delivery and providing effective accountability and as such, although the exact details are still to be worked out, we will of course want to involve select committees in the PSAs.

    (ii)  adult reoffending rates

  The next information is due on 9 November. This is the data for 2003.

    (iii)  "tipping point" data for Quarter 2 of 2006

  Please see the document attached at Annex A.

    (iv)  National Audit Office report to the Home Office on its SR2004 PSA data systems

  The NAO have just written to the Home Office informing us that they will be starting the audit of the SR2004 PSA data systems. We do not have a date for when this piece of work will be completed. We do, however have a copy of the NAO Audit Findings for The Home Office's data systems for the 2003-06 Public Service Agreement targets which is attached at Annex B.

    (v)  NOMS performance report—Performance Report on Offender Management Targets (PROMT) to March 2006

  The report is attached at Annex C.

    (vi)  Results of the Arrestee Survey

  The Arrestee Survey will be published shortly and we will share it with you once it becomes available.

Q2.   The information on witness attendance at court (on page 29) is not presented in the same way as last year which makes any comparison of performance impossible. Please could you provide the current year's data in percentages, as was provided last year?

  The figures for the increase in witness attendance the previous year were from information obtained from the No Witness No Justice pilot. This information is not available nationally and therefore is not available for 2005-06. In the period September 2004 to August 2005, the No Witness No Justice programme contributed to a 20% reduction in the number of trials that were ineffective due to non-attendance of a witness compared to the previous year's 27% reduction over the pilot period of July 2003 to January 2004.

PSA TARGETS—STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE II

Q3.   The target for the maximum number of escapes is 0.17%. How many escapes would this actually represent in a year?

  At the end of 2005-06, the rate of escapes from prison and prison escorts stood at 0.038% this is well within the 0.17% target. This equates to [29][1] prisoners escaping from prison and prison escorts. The target of 0.17 would have been achieved if [130] or under prisoners escaped.

  Performance is expressed in percentage terms as the prison population varies over time.

Q4.   The latest figures on adult reoffending are from March 2001. Why is the data for adult reoffending not more up to date? Who predicts the reoffending rate for adults and youths against which the reoffending target is monitored?

  The latest figures published in December 2005 show reduction in adult re-offending of 1.3% in 2002 compared to 1997. Adult re-offending is measured by the reduction in the proportion of adult offenders discharged from prison or starting a community sentence who are reconvicted within two years, compared to the predicted rate. This means that the 2002 results are measuring offenders' re-offending patterns until 2004. To ensure we capture offences which are committed within the two year period where the offender is not convicted until after the period a further six months is allowed. The next set of results will be published on the 9 November for the 2003 cohort. The 2004 cohort results will be available in Spring 2007.

  The predicted rates are based on logistic regression models (separate ones for adults and juveniles) developed by Home Office statisticians working under the National Statistics Code of Practice. The models, which are good predictors of re-offending in the baseline years, have been reviewed and validated by statisticians from outside the Home Office.

Q5.   Please summarise progress on getting prisoners into work and training, and into housing; and progress on delivering drug treatment of offenders.

  The Government has made significant progress in improving outcomes for offenders (both prisoners and those serving community sentences) including:

    —  11,988 offenders completed drug treatment programmes in prison and the community in 2005-06.

    —  77,388 prisoners secured accommodation on release in 2005-06 out of 85,180 discharged. During the first quarter of 2006-07 88% of offenders were assessed as being in suitable accommodation at the end of their period of probation service supervision compared to 86% at the start.

    —  42,879 prisoners entered education, training or employment on release from prison in 2005-06. Offenders under probation service supervision achieved 14,930 basic skills qualifications in 2005-06 and 3,763 offenders under probation supervision entered employment in the first quarter of 2006-07, 2,424 sustained it for 4 weeks or more during in the same period.

Q6.   The report (page 75) states that performance reviews identified "a number of forces with performance concerns". What were these concerns, which forces were affected and what is being done to address the concerns? Please give details of progress being made in closing the gap between the worst performing forces and the rest.

  Forces are first identified as having performance concerns when (1) their performance on sanction detections is declining. We then look further to see if they are (2) behind the average for their peers and if they are also (3) off-course to deliver the sanction detections targets implied by the targets on bringing offences to justice.

  For the forces named, at the time they were identified as having performance concerns, they would have had all three factors.

  During 2005-06 the Home Office's Police Standards Unit (PSU) has worked to support: Avon & Somerset; Cambridgeshire; Cheshire; Doncaster BCU (South Yorkshire); Hampshire; Humberside; Lincolnshire; Metropolitan Police (Lambeth and Westminster OCU); Merseyside; Northamptonshire; Nottinghamshire; and Thames Valley.

  All of this work was at the invitation of the forces concerned. The support included a detailed diagnostic examining their processes and procedures for investigating crime from initial receipt through to case disposal, and the production of a report and with detailed recommendations.

  Each force produced an Action Plan to address the areas identified for improvement, and additional support was provided from PSU as necessary. PSU also used the opportunity to harvest good practice from forces and to ensure its publication and availability to others.

  Latest results show that forces identified with performance concerns are now demonstrating significant and sustainable improvements ahead of their peers. As a direct result the national sanction detection rate continues to rise towards the notional target of 25% by 2007-08. We continue to focus on performance improvement in this area, taking account of direction of travel, performance compared to peers, and delivery of locally agreed and national targets.

Q7.   What action is being taken to assist the five Local Criminal Justice Boards whose performance on bringing more offences to justice (shown on page 26) has declined since the March 2002 baseline? Less than half of LCJBs are achieving targets in other areas (shown over pages 75/76). How does the performance in each area in 2005-06 compare to the baseline year?

    (1)  Support provided to the five LCJBs areas below their 2002 OBTJ baseline

  The areas which have performed below their baseline in 2004-05 have received a range of support, including analysis of OBTJ trends and data issues, support to LCJB performance groups, assistance in the development of action plans and the implementation of new performance management frameworks, and checkpoint reviews to assess delivery against targets.

  Performance data for the twelve months to the end of December 2005 shows that five areas brought fewer offences to justice in that period than in the baseline year, 2001-02. The table below details this.
CJS AreaBaseline year,
2001-02
Year ending
December 2005[2]
Durham13,59213,417
Gwent17,25314,985[3]
Northamptonshire13,021 11,732
Northumbria40,52540,456
West Midlands77,332 70,529


  Specific actions in the areas listed above include:

    —  a project in Northamptonshire leading to the establishment of a multi-agency OBTJ sub-group, the drafting and implementation of an action plan and in-depth performance analysis.

    —  In Gwent a TIC (taken into consideration) protocol has been agreed and assistance has been provided to enable them to improve counting of cautions data leading to the recovery of a significant number of "lost" OBtJ cautions. This has formed a key part of the support that the OCJR has given to Gwent to improve its performance in bringing offences to justice.

    —  In West Midlands the Performance Action Team was involved intensively with the LCJB by way of a) a full checkpoint review that led to a revised delivery structure, and b) a Sanction Detection improvement project.

  Since then, figures for the years ending March 2006 and June 2006 have been published, which show that (on the June basis) only three areas brought fewer offences to justice in 2005-06 than in the baseline year.
CJS AreaBaseline year,
2001-02
Year ending
March 2006
Year ending
June 2006
Gwent17,25315,116 15,786
South Wales30,09930,124 28,807
West Midlands77,332 74,01575,143


  In a number of areas, especially some of the large Metropolitan areas such as the West Midlands, success in reducing crime has impacted on their ability to bring more offences to justice in terms of absolute numbers.

    (2)  Current LCJB performance against CJS targets compared to the baseline year.

OBTJ:

  Since the year ending September 2001, there has been an almost continuous improvement in the number of offences brought to justice and the overall performance is above the planned trajectory. A provisional estimate shows that 1,346,604 offences were brought to justice in England and Wales in the 12 months ending June 2006, a 34% improvement on the 12 months ending March 2002.

Persistent Young Offenders (PYOs):

  In 1996, the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders was 142 days. The government pledged to halve the time to 71 days by March 2002 (changed to May 2002 by 2001 Manifesto). Nationally, performance is monitored by publication of figures by DCA. The pledge target is now for all areas to meet the pledge consistently. The pledge is monitored on a calendar year basis; the table below identifies annual performance since the baseline year of 1997.

PeriodDaysNumber of cases
1996142n/a
199714116,010
199812518,605
199910821,151
20009323,130
20017625,393
20026826,116
20036626,083
20046926,363
20056827,037


  The latest published data for the three month rolling average to June 2006 is 71 days.

Improving confidence in the CJS (in its effectiveness in bringing offenders to justice):

  For England and Wales the baseline year measure for the year to March 2003 was 38.6%; the most recent performance figure for the year to June 2006 was 44.2%. This is seen as a statistically significant improvement on the baseline year.

Enforcement of warrants, fine payments, community penalties and asset recovery:

    —  Failure To Appear warrants:

    Latest published data shows that as of June 2006, 37,429 warrants were outstanding compared to a baseline number of 65,321 as of August 2004.

    —  Fine payments:

    Latest published data shows that in the quarter to June 2006, 85%[4] of outstanding fines had been collected compared to a baseline of 61% in 2002-03.

    —  Community penalties and asset recovery:

    Unable to provide a comparison for these targets, as no baselining exercise was conducted prior at their introduction.




PSA TARGETS—STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE III

Q8.   The SR2002 PSA6 target contained a measure of the proportion of offenders testing positive on arrest. This was described as "not yet assessed" in the Departmental Report 2004-05, but has been omitted from the 2005-06 assessment of SR2002 PSA 6. What is the current assessment of progress against this measure?

  Drug testing of specified Class A drugs by the Drug Interventions Programme was introduced in April 2003. Following provisions introduced in the Drugs Act 2005, Testing on Arrest was introduced in two phases, the first in December 2005 and the second on 31 March 2006. Testing on Arrest is now operational in 108 DIP intensive areas, across some 175 custody suites and 23 police forces and the ongoing trend indicates that on average around 38% test positive for specified Class A drugs (heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine). Between April 2006 and August 2006 some 88,000 drug tests have been conducted. In November 2005 (prior to introduction of testing on arrest) 7,726 tests were conducted. In July 2006, 17,636 successful drug tests were conducted, an increase of 128%.

PSA TARGETS—STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE IV

Q9.   The SR2002 PSA7 target contained a performance measure on the quality of asylum decisions. How is the quality of asylum decisions measured and why is there no similar measure in the SR2004 targets?

  The SR2002 technical notes define the terms used in the Home Office PSA targets, they show how progress against the targets will be measured, and they set out success criteria for each target. The Department's PSA targets were published in the SR2002 White Paper (Cm 5571), which was presented to Parliament by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 2002. The measure for the quality of asylum decisions can be found in the technical notes under PSA7.

  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/psa-technical-note-SR02-jul-05?view=Binary

  http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/aboutus/TTB  definition  draft  techni1.pdf

  The quality of asylum decisions has been measured by (i) internal sampling of decisions by asylum senior caseworkers and (ii) external sampling by Treasury Solicitors. Additionally, there is external sampling (but not one of the measures) by UNHCR. There is an overlap between the SR periods. The quality of decisions has continued to be measured in accordance with a joint IND/UNHCR format although not reported as a PSA target. Details of the UNHCR Quality Initiative Project can be found using the following link:

www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/aboutus/QI  Third  Report.pdf?subject=UNHCR.

Q10.   The report (page 46) says that the Home Office now has the capacity to process 30% of new asylum applicants through the detention estate. What use is being made of the facilities and what percentage of new asylum applicants are actually being processed in this way?

  There are three routes for new asylum applicants to enter the detention estate—Third Country Cases, which is where an applicant's substantive claim falls to be dealt with in a safe third country, detained potential Non-Suspensive Appeal (NSA) cases, where the applicant is from a country on the list of NSA countries; and the Detained Fast Track (DFT) of the New Asylum Model (Harmondsworth for single males and Yarls Wood for females).

  Not everyone is suitable for detention whilst their Asylum claim is processed (families with children, those with ill health, etc) and the cases themselves also need to be suitable. Potential third country case will be, usually where a Eurodac hits or other evidence indicates the claim should be considered by a safe third country. Those from the designated NSA countries will go to Oakington if suitable and only cases that appear to be straightforward and capable of a quick decision will go into the detained fast track process, where the decision and any appeal are expedited.

  Each of the business areas, including NSA, DFT and the Third Country Unit (TCU), is allocated a share of beds at a monthly meeting of the Detention Board. Currently the DFT has 225 beds, NSA 117 and TCU has 200 beds.

  In recent months the average number of cases entering TCU was 93 per month, the average number entering DFT was 160 per month and the average number entering NSA was 220 per month. This equates to about 24% of the intake of 2,000 per month but this will vary from month to month taking account of available beds, applicants suitable for each detained route and other factors. The monthly meeting of the detention board takes responsibility for ensuring that the allocation beds is optimal to support business objectives.

PSA TARGETS—STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE V

Q11.   The SR2004 PSA7 target contains a measure of discrimination by organisations. This measure is stated as experiencing "slippage" although performance against the baseline has actually improved. Why did you come to this conclusion?

  In our view the rate of progress was not sufficient to give us confidence that a statistically significant fall would be achieved by 2007. The target, as set out in the SR2004 Technical Note, requires the HO to achieve a decrease in the perceptions of racial discrimination. The statistically significant fall implied is dependant on the number of respondents to the HOCS but we estimate that a fall to around (34%) would be required at the 95% confidence level. As progress had not moved from 38% in 2001 to 37% in 2005 we assessed this as slippage.

Q12.   How much funding was provided in 2005-06 to assist in the delivery of the recommendations in the report "Preventing Extremism Together", published in November 2005? How was the money used and how much remained unspent at the end of 2005-06?

  £5,788,000 of funding in 2005-06 assisted in the delivery of the recommendations in the "Preventing Extremism Together" report. The money was used as follows:

    —  £5,228,000 was awarded as Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund grants. The fund supports faith and inter-faith organisations to strengthen their capacity in order to play a fuller part in civil society and build community cohesion. It will also support inter-faith activities which bring together people from different faith groups to talk, network and learn from one another.

    —  £61,000 was used to support the creation of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB).

    —  £100,000 was used to facilitate a British-Muslim led joint campaign with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to challenge the ideology of extremism.

    —  £22,000 was used to trial a UK Youth Parliament project in which video cameras were given to a number of young people to seek the views of their peers on issues that were important to them and whether they feel they have been listened to.

    —  £65,000 was used to fund the Bradford Council of Mosques' Active Citizenship Project to develop and test educational materials and techniques to teach citizenship in Madrassahs as a complement to their traditional focus on Quranic teaching.

    —  £92,000 was provided to the Bradford Youth Development Partnership. Of this £47,000 was for their Youth Engagement Project to focus on work with those older young people who are considered to be outside the boundaries of what might be described as "normal" society. The other £45,000 was for their Women's Project which worked with young girls and women from Muslim and other communities in need of support, and engaged with institutions, to identify the relationships that they have with the institutions and the pivotal role that they play in communities.

    —  £220,000 was used to fund the Foundation for Science and Technology's 1001 Inventions Discover the Muslim Heritage in our World exhibition (funded because of its similarity to Preventing Extremism Together report's recommendation of an Islamic Way of Life Exhibition).

  As the events of 7 July were unforeseen when budgets were set at the start of the 2005-06 financial year, and the Preventing Extremism Together report recommendations did not emerge till November 2005, the funding required for this had to be taken from other budgets. It is not therefore possible to identify an underspend.

STAFFING

Q13.   What is the sickness absence rate at the Home Office and how does it compare to other government departments?

  Sickness absence rates for the Home Office in comparison to OGDs are available on the cabinet office website via the following link:

  http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/management/conditions  of  service/publications/pdf/sickabs05.pdf

Q14.   A significant rise in the number of staff working for the Identity and Passport Service is planned even before the implementation of fingerprint biometrics in passports and the National Identity Scheme. How will these further staff increases affect the Home Office's headcount reduction target?

  As a frontline service, the Identity and Passport Service is not included in the targets to reduce the size of the size of the Home Office's headquarters by 2,700 by 2008.

Q15.   Please can you explain the variance between the three permanent secretaries reported as being in post in 2004-05, and the one reported as being in post now?

  In February 2003 a new Permanent Secretary team was established comprising Sir John Gieve, Martin Narey as Commissioner for Correctional Services and Permanent Secretary for Human Resources, and Leigh Lewis as Permanent Secretary for Crime, Policing, Counter-terrorism and Delivery. The purpose was to strengthen the leadership of the Department; in particular Martin Narey and Leigh Lewis both had proven track records in transforming the performance of delivery at the front line. Martin Narey, who had been Director General of the Prison Service, took on the broader role in relation to correctional services as well as leading reforms to the Human Resources function. Leigh Lewis assumed a wide responsibility for embedding delivery across the Home Office.

  Following the departure of the three incumbents to new posts and the appointment of Sir David Normington at the beginning of 2006, the Home Office Board has been re-shaped to reflect the Department's current requirements and support the Reform Action Plan.

RESOURCES

Q16.   In addition to the commentary provided on the financial tables in Section 4 could you explain the following variances identified:

    (i)  the decreased spending on drugs in table 4.2 in 2005-06 compared to 2004-05, at a time when the number of drug-misusing offenders entering treatment is increasing.

  There were two significant changes in the treatment of budgets within the Supplementary Estimates between the 2004-05 and the 2005-06 Home Office drugs expenditure as recorded in the Departmental Reports. They were as follows:

    —  In accordance with Treasury notice PES (2005) 12—Inter-Departmental Transfers & "Hard Charging" the Department Of Health's contribution to the pooled Young People Substance Misuse Partnership Grant, £39.7 million in 2005-06 was transferred to the Home Office through "hard charging" and not the Winter Supplementary Estimates as in previous years.

    —  The Safer & Stronger Communities Fund was established in 2005-06. This saw the £11.3 million Drug Strategy Partnership Support Grant become part of the Home Office contribution and brigaded in the Home Office accounts within the Crime Reduction budgets as it was paid out through the Government Office Network.

  These changes disguise the fact that in 2005-06 there was an increase of £25.1 million Resource invested in the Drug Interventions Programme.

    (ii)  the increased expenditure on Correctional Services in table 4.2 in 2005-06 compared to (a) expenditure in 2004-05 and (b) planned expenditure for 2005-06 as set out in the 2004-05 Departmental Report.

  (a)  The sharp increase in expenditure for Correctional Services between 2004-05 and 2005-06 in table 4.2 reflects the change in responsibility and structure within the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) which required certain functions to move from HM Prison Service and the National Probation Service (NPS) to NOMS centre. These included for example, private prisons and property maintenance moved from HMPS and estate management and electronic monitoring from NPS to NOMS centre.

  (b)  the 2004-05 report did not take account of the changes in responsibility between prisons and probation and NOMS centre.

    (iii)  the variances in the Community Policy Directorate[5] spending in table 4.2 over the years 2004-05 to 2006-07.

  Expenditure has increased from £78,151,000 in 2004-05 to £147,740,000 in 2005-06. The increase is attributable to:

    —  An increase in expenditure on the Cross Cutting Review which increased from £16 million to £61 million. The Review arose from a Treasury-led initiative to transform the way in which government and the voluntary and community sector work together. In 2005-06 almost the entire budget of £62 million was spent in year compared to only £18 million out of a budget of £49 million in 2004-05 due to slower than expected disbursement of grants to the sector.

    —  ID Cards preliminary expenditure (preparation of legislation etc) amounted to £28 million in 2005-06 but was only £12.4 million in 2004-05.

    (iv)   the capital spend of only £40 million on Prisons in 2005-06 in table 4.3 compared to planned expenditure of £182 million in the 2004-05 Departmental Report.

  The 2004-05 report did not take account of the change in structure and responsibility in NOMS. Most capital expenditure on Prisons is now managed within NOMS centre.

    (v)    the capital spend of only £59 million by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in 2005-06 in table 4.3 compared to planned expenditure of £113 million in the 2004-05 Departmental report.

  The provisional underspend of £54 million is almost entirely due to cancellation of the Bicester Accommodation Centre project at a saving of £51 million. There were various other smaller underspends which account for the remainder.

    (vi)   the increase in the value of land and buildings expected over the period 2004-05 to 2007-08 in table 4.4.

  The projected increase is an estimate comprised of planned capital expenditure expected to reach the balance sheet. This forecast is an approximation based on applying the historical relationships between capital baselines and increases in the size of the asset base to the capital budgets to 2007-08. It therefore excludes assets which would exist beyond the departmental boundary for example Police Authorities. Additionally Treasury indices have been used to calculate the increased value of the land and buildings in the existing asset base.

    (vii)   planned expenditure of £222 million in 2005-06 against Objective V (in the 2004-05 Departmental Report), compared to actual expenditure of just £180 million reported in the 2006 Departmental Report. What areas of activity have contributed to the underspend?

  The reason for the drop in the 2005-06 figure from £220 million in the 2005 DR to £180 million in the 2006 DR is due to Futurebuilders. 80% of funding is classified as capital grants to the private sector. From 2006-07, such grants were re-classified by Treasury from resource to capital. The change is presented retrospectively in the 2006 DR tables. The effect can be seen in the capital line for Communities Group which has gone up by £46 million in 2005-06.

Q17.   Please can you provide a breakdown by agency of the £97 million of criminal assets recovered in 2005-06, as stated on page 24. How will the remaining £71 million not redistributed to the Police Service be spent?
Cash Forfeiture Orders (Police)£12.3 million
Cash Forfeiture Orders (HM Revenue and Customs) £18.1 million
Assets Recovery Agency  £4.1 million
Confiscation orders[6] £62 million
TOTAL£96.5 million


    —  £26 million was allocated to police forces under the police asset recovery incentive scheme.

    —  £9.1 million allocated to the Crown Prosecution Service for proceeds of crime work.

    —  £13.5 million allocated to increase front line asset recovery capacity and activity, including five multi-agency Regional Asset Recovery Teams.

    —  £2.6 million allocated to fund additional financial investigators in police forces.

    —  £1.5 million allocated to fund a Confiscation Enforcement Task Force.

    —  The remainder was used by the Home Office in recognition of its broader responsibility for tackling crime, including organised crime, and contributing towards delivery of our community safety objectives.

Q18.   How are Local Area Agreements benefiting the Home Office and the achievement of its objectives? How many Local Area Agreements contain crime reduction targets and what would the impact be on police performance targets if achieved?

  The Home Office is signed up to the principles of LAAs and its business is represented through mandatory outcomes and (from April 2007) indicators including:

    —  Reduce crime;

    —  Reduce fear of crime;

    —  Reduce the harm caused by illegal drugs;

    —  Build Respect in communities; and

    —  Reduce anti-social behaviour.

  LAAs were introduced in 2005 through 21 pilots and have been quickly rolled out, with a further 66 agreed from April 2006 and 63 due to be agreed for operation from April 2007.

  From April 2007 all LAAs (which, if round 3 is successfully agreed in March 2007 will cover the whole of England) will contain mandatory outcomes and indicators. The mandatory elements for crime are:

Outcome:

    —  Reduce Crime

Indicators:

    —  Reduction in overall British Crime Survey comparator recorded crime. Targets must be those as agreed between crime and drugs partnerships and GOs to support delivery of Home Office PSA1. A County level target will need to reflect the targets of the crime and drugs partnerships and any aggregation will need to be agreed with the GO; and

    —  Reduce the proportion of adult and young offenders and prolific and other priority offenders who re-offend.

  Local areas can include additional crime related outcomes and indicators to those above, where this reflects local priorities. The full mandatory outcomes framework is contained in the latest LAA guidance at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1164930


Q19.   How have the increased visa fees for foreign nationals (mentioned on page 83) impacted on revenue flows for the service during 2005-06? How many visas have been issued in 2005-06 compared to 2004-05? Will the service break-even for the year?

  1.  The provisional value (subject to audit) of Managed Migration's income for 2005-06 is £204.9 million, an increase over 2004-05's £115.3 million of £89.6 million.

  2.  The following table details the number of chargeable issues in 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively:
Volumes2004-052005-06
ActualActual
Business Case Unit398 529
Certificate of Approval975 13,192
Highly Skilled Migrant Programme19,286 38,317
Immigration Employment Document For Leave to Remain 54,57974,469
Immigration: Certificates Right of Abode 3,8335,248
Leave to Remain285,414 313,614
Nationality Fees(P)132,627 182,697
Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme11,446 11,168
Travel Documents Certificates of Identity 3,9567,539
Travel Documents Refugee passports20,024 15,707
Work permits167,723 148,002
Workers Registration Scheme155,245 211,016
Managed Migration total855,506 1,021,498


  3.  Fees are set on a full cost recovery basis (with certain exceptions where other considerations apply). Income and total costs for each income stream will be shown in the Home Office Resource Accounts for 2005-06, which are currently subject to audit.

Q20.   How much has so far been spent on identity card procurement?

  The Identity Cards Programme remains at pre-procurement stage and therefore there has been no expenditure on any procurement to date. However, the identity card scheme in totality has resulted in £58.2 million of expenditure since financial year 2003-04 to end of September 2006.

EFFICIENCY

Q21.   The presentation of efficiency gains over a two year period is not conventional. Can you confirm that the NOMS value for money gains in 2005-06 (figures presented on page 30) were £97 million (ie £241 million less £144 million)? Can you also confirm that value for money gains in the Police Service in 2005-06 (figures presented on page 18) were £376 million (ie £692 million less £316 million)?

  The Home Office reported VfM outturn cumulatively in the 2005-06 Departmental Report to provide a directly comparable measure of progress against the target to achieve gains worth £1,970 million pa by 2007-08. The table below describes the level of gains on a year on year and cumulative basis and will be the method we adopt in future presentation of Home Office VfM outturn.


  These are also represented with corresponding cashable values below.
Annual gains on a
2003-04 base in
2004-05 (£ million)
Of which, cashable
(£ million) in
2004-05
Annual gains on a
2003-04 base in
2005-06 (£ million)
Of which, cashable
(£ million) in
2005-06
Police316111 376184
IND305295 191190
NOMS14470 9751
HO Reform3232 66
Other4746 7052
Total845 554740483
Cumulative Total 1,584
(adjusted for
rounding)
1,037


  The figures confirm that additional gains in 2005-06 were equivalent to £96 million[7] in the National Offender Management Service and £376 million5 in the police service.

Q22.   The report (page 18) says that increases in front-line policing will contribute towards achieving the police service value for money targets. How will the staff increases be resourced and how do they increase value for money?

  The reference to increases in front line policing describes the increase in the amount of police officer time spent on front line activity, not in the number of police officers. The VFM gain is from making better use of that time. Bureaucracy reduction, exploiting new technology, more effective deployment of officers and more effective use of support staff help to increase the amount of front line policing.

Q23.   It is difficult to interpret the staffing statistics provided in table 4.11 in terms of the efficiency programme, as footnote 5 to the table indicates. Is other data available to show the split between frontline and back office staffing levels in 2005-06 and how it is planned to change over the course of 2006-07 and 2007-08?

  The staffing data in the Home Office Annual report follows the previously established pattern of breaking down staff numbers in an ongoing table showing changes over time and in greater detail in a table showing the current position.

  Because the ongoing table deals with broad areas it is not directly comparable for the efficiency exercise which is focused specifically on reduction in non-front line HQ staff. Thus the ongoing table includes Immigration and Nationality Directorate figures with Central HO, even though many thousands of IND staff are front-line rather than HQ.

  It is possible for overall figures to have increased while HQ reduction has taken place if the increase is in front-line staff outside the Gershon reductions.

  In terms of departmental progress the outturn as at the end of Q2 2006 showed that 1233.5 reductions have been achieved against the Gershon target of 2700 by March 2008.

BETTER REGULATION

Q24.   Only four out of 18 new regulations affecting in the year were aligned with the new Common Commencement Dates (6 April or 1 October). Why has the Home Office not made more use of the CCDs to assist businesses in implementing new regulations?

  This was the first year when we produced an Annual Statement. There were 19 new regulations recorded as affecting business in the Statement:

    —  four met the CCDs;

    —  seven on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill which has yet to receive Royal Assent (we anticipated that Royal Assent could be as early as May/June) and therefore have not yet been implemented;

    —  one on the statutory form for reporting money laundering under the Proceeds of Crime Act has been delayed because of the change from NCIS to SOCA;

    —  five were implementing the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and the requirement was that the licensing activity be implemented on 20 March 2006. Industry were given 12 months' notice of this date; and

    —  two were of benefit to business to implement as early as possible rather than wait for the CCDs. The Private Security Industry Act 2001 Amendment Order removed certain businesses from licensable activity (for example those who remove abandon vehicles on behalf of police or local authorities and bailiffs who clamp vehicles). The Proceeds of Crime and Money Laundering Amendment Order amended the legislation to provide a defence to accountants, tax consultants and auditors when providing legal advice against the requirement to report knowledge or suspicion of money laundering.

ESTIMATE AND ESTIMATE MEMORANDUM

Q25.   Please could you explain the follow variances:

    (i)    The reduction in grants to organisations in the voluntary sector to promote voluntary activity or community development (RfR1—G3, page 173 of HC1035) from £91.244 million in the Spring Supplementary Estimate 2005-06 to £34.029 million in the Main Estimate 2006-07.

  Grants to the voluntary and community sector were £91.244 million in the Spring Supplementary Estimate for 2005-06 and £34.029 in the Main Estimate 2006-07. The main reason for this fall is that the Cross Cutting Review which accounted for budget of some £62 million in the 2005-06 Spring Supplementary Estimate no longer exists as a grant programme in 2006-07. A key outcome of the Review was the creation of the Capacity Builders Agency (an NDPB) which received £37.5 million of grant in aid funding against subhead AI in the 2006-07 Main Estimate.

    (ii)   The reduction in grant in aid to the Commission for Racial Equality (RfR1—AH, page 174 of HC1035) from £34.450 million in the Spring Supplementary Estimate 2005-06 to £19.100 million in the Main Estimate 2006-07.

  The reduction in grant-in-aid to the Commission for Racial Equality from £34.45 million in the 2005-06 Spring Supplementary Estimate (SSE) to £19.1 million in the 2006-07 Main Estimate is due to an exceptional increase of £15.35 million in grant-in-aid in the SSE to cover the Commission's costs associated with the release of provisions in respect of winding up the Racial Equality Council ("REC") pension scheme. This was explained in the Home Office's Memorandum to HASC on the 2005-06 SE as follows:

    —  £450,000 draw down of a provision from the CRE's 2003-04 accounts to meet consultancy costs to establish the funding gap in the REC's pension scheme; and

    —  £14,900,000 draw down of a provision from the CRE's 2004-05 accounts to make a payment to plug the funding gap in the REC's pension scheme.

  The winding up of the REC pension scheme should mean that a replacement scheme (by analogy to the PCSPS) would allow the CRE to put more funding into higher priority work.

Q26.   How much has the merger between NCIS and NCS cost?

  The merging of NCIS and NCS with elements of HMRC and IND underpinned the creation of SOCA. The costs associated with the creation of SOCA were absorbed within the pre existing baseline funding of NCIS and NCS together with £8.9 million of transitional resource funding provided by the Home Office to cover the costs of the programme team and other set up costs. These costs also supported the creation of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.

Q27.   The Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group is expected to more than halve it administration budget in 2006-07. How will the Group manage such large cuts?

  CRCSG's administration budget did not halve between 2005-06 and 2006-07. As my letter to the Committee of 2 May refers, the Spring Supplementary Estimate position 2005-06 included £54.7 million from our Departmental Unallocated Provision, which was drawn down as administration and switched to fund programme activities in line with Treasury agreed rules on virement.

Q28.   What have been the operational impacts of the restrictions in (a) resource budget End Year Flexibility (to £100 million) and (b) Criminal Justice System IT Ring Fence funding (reduced by £50 million)? Under what circumstances would further EYF or CJSIT funding become available?

  (a)  The agreement in advance of EYF funding for 2006-07 and 2007-08 has provided certainty of funding to the Home Office and as such has facilitated planning and resource prioritisation. Based on stocks of resource EYF accumulated to 31 March 2005, approximately £34 million of past savings have not been made available to us. It is not possible to attribute EYF to operational requirements but as an indication £34 million represents 0.27% of the Home Office budget.

  (b)  The Treasury withheld £10 million resource and £30 million capital from the National Strategy for Police Information Services (NSPIS) Custody & Case Programme until its business case was approved and demonstrated a robust return on investment with benefits being reflected in Police Force efficiency plans. NSPIS is deploying custody management and offender case preparation applications within Police Forces. These conditions have now been met.

  The Treasury also withheld £10 million resource from the CJS IT Ring Fence budget as a whole, until the benefits to be realized from non-ring fence funded applications, but which utilise ring fence funded infrastructure, are included in Departmental efficiency plans. The CJS IT Programme is working hard to meet this condition. In the meantime, the programme is overprogrammed on existing budget allocations, and is unable to allocate budget for any additional activity this year.

Q29.   The table in section 2 shows a 28% reduction in spending on Strategic Objective 5 which supports PSA 7, the only PSA target against which the Home Office is reporting "slippage". Why was the decision taken to reduce spending in this area and what challenges will the reduced funding pose to the other government departments taking over responsibility for citizens, communities and the voluntary sector?

  Funding against Objective 5 has fallen by £69 million in the 2006-07 Main Estimate compared to the 2005-06 Spring Supplementary Estimate. This reduction is attributable in part to the fact that £28 million of funding in 2005-06 related to preliminary expenditure on the ID Cards programme which was managed by the Communities Group prior to legislation receiving Royal Assent, at which point responsibility for implementation passed to the Identity and Passports Service. This element of funding is unrelated to PSA 7.

  The remaining funding for Objective 5 is associated with two PSA targets: PSA 6 to increase the contribution of the voluntary and community sector to the delivery of public services and PSA 7 to reduce race inequalities and promote community cohesion. Most of the remaining fall in funding relates to the voluntary and community sector and PSA 6, though the work of the sector does indirectly support PSA 7. The fall in funding to the voluntary and community sector reflects a levelling off of funding after a period of "pump priming". In particular, funding for the Futurebuilders programme which is now well established is £45 million in 2006-07 compared to £58 million in 2005-06 and, as explained in response to question 25i, funding for the Cross Cutting Review in 2005-06 has now ended and the Capacity Builders Agency has been established to take forward the work.

  The main aspects of funding that relate directly to PSA 7 are the Commission for Racial Equality and the Race Cohesion Equality and Faith Unit within the Communities Group subhead G. As explained in response to question 25ii, the apparent fall in funding to CRE relates to the one off funding in 2005-06 of an old pension provision and is unrelated to core operational activity. Funding to the Race Cohesion Equality and Faith Unit was £19 million in 2005-06 and £23 million in 2006-07. Funding in support of PSA 7 has not therefore reduced.

November 2006



1   The escape figures are bracketed because they are derived from a percentage target that is dependant on the prison population. As a result they will fluctuate in line with changes in the prison population. Back

2   Figures for December 2005 correct as at 27 July 2006. Back

3   Gwent has encountered OBTJ Cautions data accuracy problems, therefore the quoted figure may be missing some OBTJs. Back

4   The way in which the rate has been calculated has been revised since the baseline period. Back

5   Note change from "Community Policing Directorate" as stated in original question. Back

6   Confiscation orders are obtained and enforced by a number of agencies including the police, HMRC, Regional Asset Recovery Teams, Crown Prosecution Service, Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office, Serious Fraud Office, Assets Recovery Agency, Department of Work and Pensions, HM Courts Service. It is not possible to provide a precise breakdown. Back

7   Final outturn for 2005-06 will be reported in the 2006-07 Autumn Performance Report. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 1 May 2007