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 Area | Baseline year,
2001-02
| Year ending
December 2005[2]
|
| Durham | 13,592 | 13,417
|
| Gwent | 17,253 | 14,985[3]
|
| Northamptonshire | 13,021 |
11,732 |
| Northumbria | 40,525 | 40,456
|
| West Midlands | 77,332 |
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 Area | Baseline year,
2001-02
| Year ending
March 2006 | Year ending
June 2006
|
| Gwent | 17,253 | 15,116
| 15,786 |
| South Wales | 30,099 | 30,124
| 28,807 |
| West Midlands | 77,332 |
74,015 | 75,143 |
| | |
|
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.
| Period | Days | Number of cases
|
| 1996 | 142 | n/a
|
| 1997 | 141 | 16,010
|
| 1998 | 125 | 18,605
|
| 1999 | 108 | 21,151
|
| 2000 | 93 | 23,130
|
| 2001 | 76 | 25,393
|
| 2002 | 68 | 26,116
|
| 2003 | 66 | 26,083
|
| 2004 | 69 | 26,363
|
| 2005 | 68 | 27,037
|
| | |
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 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:
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:
| Volumes | 2004-05 | 2005-06
|
| Actual | Actual
|
| Business Case Unit | 398 |
529 |
| Certificate of Approval | 975
| 13,192 |
| Highly Skilled Migrant Programme | 19,286
| 38,317 |
| Immigration Employment Document For Leave to Remain
| 54,579 | 74,469 |
| Immigration: Certificates Right of Abode |
3,833 | 5,248 |
| Leave to Remain | 285,414 |
313,614 |
| Nationality Fees(P) | 132,627
| 182,697 |
| Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme | 11,446
| 11,168 |
| Travel Documents Certificates of Identity |
3,956 | 7,539 |
| Travel Documents Refugee passports | 20,024
| 15,707 |
| Work permits | 167,723 |
148,002 |
| Workers Registration Scheme | 155,245
| 211,016 |
| Managed Migration total | 855,506
| 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
|
| Police | 316 | 111
| 376 | 184 |
| IND | 305 | 295
| 191 | 190 |
| NOMS | 144 | 70
| 97 | 51 |
| HO Reform | 32 | 32
| 6 | 6 |
| Other | 47 | 46
| 70 | 52 |
| Total | 845 |
554 | 740 | 483
|
| 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:
— 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
| 
