Third supplementary memorandum submitted
by the Home Office
ANSWERS TO REQUESTED QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE SESSION
A. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
REPORT
1. PSA 1The Data Limitations section
of the Autumn Performance Report explains that "...quarter
on quarter comparisons need to be interpreted carefully..."
but gives no indication of how this should be done. How should
the Committee interpret the quarter on quarter comparisons? Are
there any seasonal adjustments made in the preparation of British
Crime Survey quarterly updates?
No seasonal adjustments are made in the preparation
of BCS datasets because each dataset contains a sample that is
representative of a whole 12 month period. However, we have rolling
12 month datasets which are updated quarterly, eg July 2005-June
2006 followed on from April 2005-March 2006. This means that in
any two consecutive datasets around three-quarters of the interviews
are the same. We use standard statistical tests to check whether
differences between estimates from two different time periods
are likely to be real or due to chance (random variation). These
tests are designed only to compare two independent samples and
are therefore not suitable for making comparisons between successive
quarters. For that reason, we restrict our comparisons between
the most current 12 month period with the equivalent one 12 months
previously (eg January-December 2006 with January-December 2005).
2. What proportion of the increase in offences
brought to justice is accounted for by formal warnings for the
possession of cannabis?
Between March 2004, when formal warnings for
the possession of cannabis were introduced, and March 2006[23],
the number of all offences brought to justice has risen by 250,000.
Formal warnings account for 66,000 of this number, and so 26.4%
of the increase over this period. Formal warnings now account
for 5% of all offences brought to justice.
3. Is it possible to provide a breakdown
of the offences brought to justice figure by those who have been
convicted, cautioned etc for each of the previous years where
offences brought to justice have been measured?
This information is contained in the table below[24].
Number of offences brought to justice
over a 12 month period by outcome 1998-99 to 2005-06
England and Walesthousands of offences
| Offences brought to justice (OBTJ) |
| | |
| |
12 months ending | Offences taken into consideration1
| Penalty notices for disorder2 | Formal warnings
for
cannabis possession3
| Cautions4 | Convictions
| Total
OBTJ |
1999 March | 105 |
| | 260 | 737
| 1,103 |
2000 March | 97 |
| | 249 | 737
| 1,084 |
2001 March | 87 |
| | 229 | 679
| 996 |
2002 March | 90 |
| | 228 | 683
| 1,002 |
2003 March | 99 | 2
| | 225 | 712
| 1,038 |
2004 March | 95 | 4
| | 248 | 729
| 1,077 |
2005 March | 106 | 49
| 39 | 268 | 688
| 1,150 |
2006 March (provisional) | 117
| 110 | 66 | 327
| 707 | 1,327 |
| | |
| | | |
1 Offences taken into consideration by the court and
previously recorded by the police; figures for April 2004 onwards
include offences not previously recorded.
2 Piloted in 2002 and introduced nationally in 2004.
3 Introduced in April 2004.
4 Includes reprimands and final warnings for juveniles.
4. How is the offences brought to justice target contributing
to the prisoner population? Do you have the funds and capacity
to deal with the extra offences being brought to justice?
Published Home Office modelling of prison population projections
(Home Office Statistical Bulletin 11/06; July 2006) takes into
account the 2007-08 public service agreements on crime reduction
and offences brought to justice. This shows that the offences
brought to justice target was expected to have a small impact
on prison population, peaking at an additional pressure of approximately
+300 places in 2007, and then gradually reducing to -100 places
by 2013.
The increase in the prison population over the past 20 years
is generally attributable to increases in the average sentences
given, but more recently there has been an increase in the recalling
of offenders to prison and a decrease in the use of home detention
curfews. In response to these pressures on demand, the Home Secretary
announced in July 2006 that NOMS will deliver a programme of 8,000
additional prison places by 2012.
5. The explanation provided for the Home Office not having
met the "improvement in all areas" element of SR02 PSA
3 is that two Criminal Justice Areas had an unusually high volume
of crime in the baseline year, and that unrealistically high sanction
detection rates would have been required to meet the target.
[25]Would a target
based around sanction detection rates, rather than absolute numbers,
have taken account of the volume of crime in any one year?
In calculating numeric targets for local criminal justice
boards, a range of variables are taken into account. These include
the current level of crime in an area, future crime reduction
targets, sanction detection rates and any other recent performance
issues. Many areas have been able to achieve improvements in the
number of offences brought to justice at the same time as reducing
levels of recorded crime. However, we acknowledge that where some
areas have had significant success in reducing crime25 this has
made it increasingly difficult for them to deliver more offences
brought to justice over time.
Setting local targets based on sanction detection rates would
have the effect of taking into account the volume of recorded
crime in any given year. However, it would not adequately measure
all criminal justice outcomes. Cautions, penalty notices for disorder,
formal warnings for cannabis possession and offences taken into
consideration are outcomes that qualify both as sanction detections
and offences brought to justice. A charge or summons, though,
while counting as a sanction detection, cannot be considered as
an offence brought to justice until such time as a conviction
is secured. Determining local targets on the basis of sanction
detection rates would therefore not measure the success of the
criminal justice system in prosecuting offenders, and would remove
the incentive to improve efficiency in the courts by only recognising
pre-court outcomes.
6. PSA 4Who is providing and funding the treatment
of drug misusing offenders entering treatment? What type and length
of treatment are the offenders receiving, how many are not completing
their treatment and what measures are in place to judge the effectiveness
of the treatment programme?
Who is providing and funding the treatment of drug-misusing
offenders entering treatment?
NHS Trusts provide the majority of medical treatment services
for both drug using offenders and non-offenders, while the voluntary
sector primarily provides rehabilitation services. Funding for
drug using offenders and non-offenders comes from the same sources.
In 2000-01, all Department of Health and Home Office drug funds/grants
were placed into the Drug Pooled Treatment Budget (PTB). This
is allocated to drug treatment providers by Drug Action Teams
(DATs) partnerships on the basis of local needs assessments. Local
DAT partnerships are responsible for ensuring that services are
in place to meet the demand for treatment within allocated resources
and operate to appropriate standards. To ensure fairness and equity,
providers may have to take part in local competitive tendering
procedures.
The PTB is supplemented in each DAT partnership area by additional
mainstream funds from the NHS (Primary Care Trusts) and Local
Authorities (social services).
What type and length of treatment are the offenders receiving?
Both drug using offenders and non-offenders should have access
to the range of drug treatment services outlined in the Models
of Care (which acts as a National Service Framework for the
drug sector). The current treatment approaches include:
Advice, information and assessment services.
Needle exchange services.
Specialist community prescribing services.
GP prescribing services.
Inpatient prescribing services.
Structured one to one and group counselling services.
Structured day programmes.
Residential programmes.
The length of treatment will depend on the individual assessments
of each drug user's specific drug treatment and social care needs.
How many are not completing their treatment?
Department of Health and Home Office have made significant
progress in delivering joint drug treatment programmes. Record
numbers of drug users both offenders and non-offenders are entering
and staying in treatment:
181,390 individuals were recorded as in contact
with structured drug treatment services in England in 2005-06.
This is a 13% increase on figures for 2004-05 (160,450) and an
increase of 113% on the 1998 baseline of 85,000.
141,511 individuals (78% of those treated in the
year) either successfully completed treatment in 2005-06 or were
retained in treatment on 31 March 2006. 2004-05 figures reported
120,700 (75%).
What measures are in place to judge the effectiveness of the
treatment programme?
The National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) is
used to provide performance information on the numbers and characteristics
of individuals accessing specialist drug treatment services.
The percentage of drug users admitted into treatment in the
financial year, who were retained in treatment for 12 weeks or
more was introduced as a proxy measure of treatment effectiveness
in 2005. This measure examines early treatment experience across
the whole treatment system and is considered to assess accurately,
performance of treatment services and their programmes. This data
is used by the National Treatment Agency to performance manage
DAT partnerships.
7. SR02 PSA 6The baseline for the "Class A
drug use by vulnerable young people" element of the SR02
PSA 6 appears to have been changed from 2001 (13.3%) to 2003 (14.1%).
This masks the fact that the latest outturn figures from 2005
(14.3%) are actually a whole percentage point higher than four
years previously. Why has the baseline been changed?
No baselines were set for the vulnerable young people measures
in the SR02 PSA 6 Technical Note, as the indicators were still
in development. It was therefore decided that the baselines for
the vulnerable group measures should be amended to reflect the
published SR04 PSA Technical Note on young people and drugs, which
gives a baseline for the target as 2003-04.
The change in the baseline makes no difference to the overall
trend, which can be considered to be stable with no statistically
significant change observed either from the 2001 or the 2003 figure
when compared with the latest outturn for 2005.
8. Value for MoneyHow has the Home Office achieved
the significant transfer of staff to the regions? For example,
which Agencies or functions have transferred and where have they
relocated to?
The 2006 Autumn Performance Report (APR) recorded 1,145 relocated
posts. The principal blocks of posts include:
National Asylum Support Service regionalisation
programme319 posts, including in Leeds (54 posts),
Birmingham (51 posts), Newcastle upon Tyne (38 posts) and Glasgow
(32 posts);
Managed Migration directorate workers registration
scheme192 posts in Sheffield;
IND criminal caseworking60 posts
in Liverpool;
HM Prison Service Phoenix transactional shared
services centre224 posts in Newport (Mon);
Identity & Passport Service authentication
by interview programme37 posts in Manchester;
Misc others, including almost 240 regionally dispersed
New Asylum Model posts and 37 IND human resources posts.
Further plans include continuing transfer of IND functions
outside London/SE, transfer of Criminal Injuries Compensation
Authority posts to Glasgow and completing establishment of the
Prison Service Phoenix shared service centre in Newport.
The following table breaks down the Value for Money (VfM)
outturn numbers that were summarised on page 11 of the 2006 Autumn
Performance Report (APR); it was first supplied to the Committee
in November 2006 in response to 2006 Annual Report scrutiny questions.
| Annual gains on a 2003-04 base in 2004-05 (£m)
| Of which,
cashable (£m)
in 2004-05
| Annual gains on a 2003-04 base in 2005-06 (£m)
| Of which,
cashable (£m)
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 |
| | |
| |
We are now supplying two further tables, that (i) show how
2006 APR outturn of £1,954 million pa was made up, and (ii)
that provide a corresponding break down of the £1,972 million
pa estimated outturn that Sir David Normington reported to the
Committee orally on 12 December 2006 (at this stage, these are
internal unpublished numbers; we expect to publish updated numbers
in the 2007 Annual Report).see below.
2006-07
Q2 est outturn
(2006 APR)
| Annual gains on a 2003-04 base in 2004-05 (£m)
|
Of which, cashable (£m) in 2004-05
| Annual gains on a 2003-04 base in 2005-06 (£m)
|
Of which, cashable (£m) in 2005-06
| Annual gains on a 2003-04 base at Q2 2006-07 (£m)
|
Of which, cashable (£m) at Q2 2006-07
|
Police | 316 | 111
| 376 | 184 | 196
| 120 |
IND | 305 | 295
| 191 | 190 | 55
| 50 |
NOMS | 144 | 70
| 97 | 51 | 57 |
32 |
HO Reform | 32 | 32
| 6 | 6 | 6 |
6 |
Other | 47 | 46
| 70 | 52 | 56 |
66* |
Total | 845 |
554 | 740 | 483
| 370 | 274 |
Cumulative Total |
| | 1,584 (adjusted for rounding)
| 1,037 | 1,954 |
1,311 |
| | |
| | | |
*£10 million non-cash re-defined as cashable in final
2005-06 outturn.
Latest outturn at time of November 2006 HAC hearing
Workstream
| Total/£m |
o/w cashable/£m
|
Policing | 888 | 415
|
IND | 551 | 535
|
Asylum support cost reduction | 445
| 445 |
Other Operating Costs | 106
| 91 |
NOMS | 316 |
160 |
HMPS | 137 | 79
|
NOMS HQ | 105 | 75
|
Probation Service | 74 |
6 |
HQ reform | 44 |
44 |
Reduce posts | 1,234 FTE |
1,234 FTE |
Other (eg central procurement, IT)
| 173 | 164 |
Procurement (incl Estates) | 129
| 120 |
IT | 45 | 45
|
Total | 1,972
| 1,318 |
| | |
The tables show that gains in the three, large blocks of
Home Office expenditure (policing, NOMS, IND) accounted for £1,755
million pa. Further gains worth £217 million pa were achieved
in the headquarters, centrally managed procurement and in the
consumption of IT; these gains were not drawn out separately in
the APR.
The published technical note (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/sr2004-value-for-money-tech-note/SR2004-Value-Money-Target?version=1)
sets out how performance measurement, against Public Service Agreement
targets and other performance indicators, helps to safeguard service
quality alongside improvements in VfM.
Whilst our latest estimates show that the Department has
now surpassed the 2004 Spending Review (SR2004) target (to achieve
gains worth £1,970 million pa by 31 March 2008), we expect
(i) to sustain existing improvements during the remainder of the
SR2004 period, and (ii) to plan and begin to achieve additional
gains to underpin performance and expenditure during the period
2008-09 to 2010-11.
9. SR02 PSA 7 contains a target to turnaround 75% of manifestly
unfounded asylum cases within 28 days by 2005-06. The 2004-05
outturn against this target was 70%, but new figures for 2005-06
show performance has fallen to just 46%. Why are so many unfounded
asylum cases taking so long to remove and how does this reconcile
with the Home Office's improved performance against the Tipping
Point target?
Since the implementation of Section 94 of the Nationality,
Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 made provision for a list of countries,
originally 10, from which asylum or human rights claims should
be certified as clearly unfounded unless contra-indicated by the
evidence, 17 further countries have been added in a carefully
managed expansion.
The fast turnaround of "manifestly unfounded" cases
is now highly dependent on being able to obtain travel documents
from the national authorities of the claimant's country of origin.
A number of countries to where removal was straightforward and
did not require such documentation, have either been removed from
the designated list as a result of EU Accession, or undergone
dramatic reductions in intake following addition to the list.
The addition of sizeable intake countries requiring documentation
from the national authorities has made meeting the target exceptionally
challenging. However, efforts continue to be made to reduce the
time-scales through discussions with those national authorities.
The introduction of a list of designated countries has resulted
in a significant cut in the number of asylum applicants from these
countries.
Intake for countries that were added to the NSA list on 1
April 2003 fell by 88% from March 2003 to May 2006. For those
added on 23 July 2003 intake fell by 52% from June 2003 to May
2006 (excluding Bangladesh). Intake for India, added on 15 February
2005, fell by 44% from March 2005 to May 2006.
We are actively considering further countries for suitability
for addition to the list so we can further prevent failed asylum-seekers
from attempting to frustrate their removal from the UK by unnecessarily
prolonging the appeals process.
B. RESOURCE ACCOUNTS
10. The Comptroller and Auditor General identified significant
weakness with financial controls: what steps are being taken to
address these?
Our Finance Improvement Strategy is well underway. It is
a four phase programme over three years and we are in the second
phase. We have obviously tried to address the most fundamental
issues first.
Finance Improvement Strategy
The Finance Improvement Strategy comprises four phases.
Consolidation is complete. We have undertaken
a detailed assessment of the risk and controls environment;
Stabilisationwe are implementing actions
from the remediation plan and are moving to timely and accurate
reconciliations where these are not already in place;
Sustainwe will further embed an enhanced
culture of financial control across the organisation. This will
become our chief focus in April 2007;
Building excellencethis will developed
from September 2007 onwards.
Financial Improvementkey action taken to achieve improvement
in accounts production and financial control:
The financial accounting function has been relocated
and there has been significant restructuring within the Accounting
and Finance Unit;
The number of professionally qualified staff involved
in accounts production has more than doubled, more are being recruited
and a training programme is in place so that all staff are appropriately
skilled and to increase the resilience of the team;
The accounts production process has been strengthened;
A strong leadership team is in place and an Assurance
Board has been set up to provide regular and systematic oversight
of the improvement programme. The Board includes representatives
from the National Audit Office, HM Treasury and Audit Committee.
The Audit Committee and Permanent Secretary oversee progress of
the programme;
A senior advisor on financial management has been
recruited from HM Treasury to help drive forward the wider Financial
Management reform programme.
The Comptroller and Auditor-General has acknowledged progress
made, stating that "the Home Office has worked to address
many of the fundamental problems in the 2004-05 accounts and has
been able to provide a much improved set of accounts for 2005-06.
This situation represents a significant step forward for the Home
Office".
11. How will the department's ongoing reform programme
deliver improvements in financial management? What action is being
taken to develop the skills and knowledge of Home Office staff
involved in financial management?
The Financial Improvement Strategy (described above) is designed
to improve financial controls and the accounts production process.
One element of this is to provide training and support to the
finance community. The Head of Finance Professionalism Team is
taking a range of measures, including delivering training for
budget holders and finance managers.
Alongside this, one of the four strands of the Reform programme
is to create a Home Office "with resources matched to priorities".
The objective of this strand is "to ensure that we have
systems and behaviours so financial and operating decisions are
both planned and prioritised to operate within constraints".
Projects within the strand concern:
Financial allocations process.
Financial reporting and ministerial involvement
in decision-making.
Decision making processes.
Organisation for policy making
All of these projects will contribute to improved financial
management. The second project, in particular, aims "to improve
our financial decisions by improving the quality and timeliness
of financial information and explaining the implications of financial
decisions". Steps to achieving this include:
1. Improving the presentation and accessibility of financial
data to different audiences, in particular Home Office Board members
and Ministers to increase their engagement with and awareness
of financial management issues;
2. Improve timeliness, accuracy and context of financial
information available to decision-makers;
3. Improve financial awareness and capability across the
Home Office including through better quality training and guidance
focused specifically at the needs of different finance roles;
4. Establish our accounting system Adelphi (the Oracle
based ERP system) as the recognised single definitive accurate
source of financial information.
12. The department has written off £27.6 million
on the Bicester Asylum Accommodation Project, and approximately
£4.7 million on police force mergers (note 33). Why weren't
these projects stopped sooner?
Bicester Accommodation Centre
The Bicester Accommodation Centre project was halted in June
2005 when it became clear that the costs of proceeding would outweigh
the benefits that such centres could bring to the system. In particular:
(a) The rate of asylum applications fell sharply in the
preceding period (the monthly rate, which peaked at over 8,000
in 2002 was a little over 2,000);
(b) Significant progress had been made in the efficient
handling of applications;
(c) Accordingly, asylum support costs had fallen by some
£280 million between 2002-03 and 2004-05;
(d) IND's five-year strategy, published in February 2005,
introduced the concept of the New Asylum Model, with a remodelled
approach to dealing with asylum applications; and
(e) Delays to the Bicester project caused by planning
and judicial challenges promised to increase the costs of the
centre.
The confluence of these changes in early 2005 meant significant
revisions to the assumptions about the speed of processing and
the cost of accommodation upon which the case for Accommodation
Centres had been made. It was against this background that a reassessment
of the case was put to incoming Ministers following the 2005 general
election and a decision was made in June to terminate the project.
Police force reform mergers
Costs and savings associated with the police restructuring
programme were refined in early 2006 towards the end of the consultation
period with forces and police authorities. When robust figures
were available, Ministers decided the costs outweighed the benefits
and that the programme should be wound down. Ministers also decided
that some compensation for costs already incurred by authorities
would be appropriate.
13. Why is the financial performance against the budgeting
boundary (reported over pages 9-12 of the Resource Accounts) only
"estimated" for 2005-06? When will these figures be
finalised and what would subsequent changes mean for the department's
future resources?
Resource accounts and resource budgets are prepared on different
bases. The final budgetary outturn can be determined only after
adjustments to the resource accounts are finalised and audited
by the NAO. Due to the short period between finalising the resource
accounts figures and signature of the accounts by the Accounting
Officer by 30 November statutory deadline, it was not possible
to process budgetary impacts before the accounts were signed off.
Final outturns against budgets will be published by HM Treasury
in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper in the summer.
14. Why were the appropriations in aid for the Passport
Service so significantly underestimated? What plans are there
for the surplus generated by the Passport Service?
Due to the increased focus on identity authentication, the
cost base of the Passport Service has increased significantly
in recent years, resulting in increased passport fees. Furthermore,
cheaper overseas travel has generated a large increase in passport
volumes. Although the impact on costs and income was factored
into resource budgets and monitored on a monthly basis, the changes
were not fed through when drawing up the Estimates to be presented,
resulting in limits for Appropriations-in-Aid and expenditure
that were too low. The Management Accounts team responsible for
monitoring the Home Office budgeting boundary has now taken on
responsibility for monitoring the Estimates boundary to ensure
that this problem does not recur.
In accordance with the Treasury's Fees and Charges Guide,
statutory fees are approved by Treasury on a full cost recovery
basis. Due to the significant fluctuation in the cost base of
the Identity and Passport Service projected between 2005-06 and
2006-07, the Treasury approved a fee smoothing arrangement expected
to deliver a surplus of £15 million in 2005-06 to be offset
by a deficit of £15 million in 2006-07. The 2005-06 surplus
will be made available to IPS as End Year Flexibility in the Spring
Supplementary Estimate 2006-07. The increased costs anticipated
in 2006-07 relate to:
the development and roll-out of the Authentication
By Interview programme which involves authenticating the identity
of first time adult applicants by interviewing them in person.
The programme has involved the acquisition and depreciation of
a network of local offices;
the roll-out of the Personal Identity Process
(PIP) biometric footprint checks to all offices for all first
time adult applicants; and
the complete roll-out of the E-Passport which
contains additional security features and a biometric chip.
15. Page 18 of the Resource Accounts (section entitled
"Future Developments") states that the Home Office will
be undertaking "a number of Zero Based Reviews in areas such
as the police workforce, probation, asylum, police IT and drugs".
Why have these areas been particularly singled out for Zero Based
Reviews and how will you use the results of these reviews given
that the Home Office Comprehensive Spending Review budget settlement
has already been announced?
These areas were chosen in conjunction with the Treasury
for a range of reasons; they represented a significant area of
spend in the overall Home Office budget, they were areas of significant
growth since the last CSR in 1998, service delivery is regional
or local so options for comparison and benchmarking could be considered.
The results of the Zero Based reviews will inform the internal
budgeting process for the Home Office and contribute to our Value
for Money programme. They will allow us to focus on our core objectives
of protecting the public and continue to deliver value for money
for the taxpayer.
16. The Statement on Internal Control notes that the Board
is looking to reduce the level of risk exposure faced by the Home
Office in future years. What are the current high level Home Office
risks? Exactly how is the Home Office Board managing these on
a weekly basis? How is the Department's reduced risk appetite
likely to impact on resources and the achievement of particular
PSA targets? Which particular risks are less likely to crystallise
in future as a result?
What are the current high level Home Office risks?
Risks are assessed and regularly updated at a number of levels
in the Home Office. Current top level risks cover the threat of
terrorism, prison capacity, processes and systems, and skills
and capability issues.
Exactly how is the Home Office Board managing these on a weekly
basis?
The Home Office Board discusses risk every Monday morning
at the weekly senior managers meeting. This meeting is attended
by Home Office Board members and by the department's senior directors.
Each week one or more of the departmental corporate risks, or
the risk register of a business area, are examined. The Board
agreed to discuss risk in this way so that the department's senior
directors could see for themselves, at first hand, how the critical
risks to the department were being handled, and to appreciate
the priority the Board set on managing them. Risk is also a standing
item on the quarterly Home Office Board meeting agendas, where
the Board look at risk in more depth.
How is the department's reduced risk appetite likely to impact
on resources and the achievement of particular PSA targets?
The Board's risk appetite is one of the factors that influence
resource allocation decisions. For example:
the department is increasing the investment in
prison places;
it increased the resource input into the preparation
of its accounts; and
in the future the department may consider the
trade-offs between the quality and quantity of non-financial information.
In these examples the Board seek to reduce the department's
risk exposure in areas they have determined to be corporate risks.
In some cases the risks are related to PSA targets for example:
In order to reduce the likelihood of a failure
of the performance management framework the Board invest resource
in terms of their own time, commissioning advice from performance
analysts and ensuring that staff throughout the organisation see
the improvement of performance as part of their role. Good quality
performance management will help us deliver the outcomes expressed
as PSA targets.
And many of the Home Office PSA targets seek to reduce risks
to the public and so the PSAs are therefore aligned with the Department's
reduced appetite for risk. However, the PSA targets do not seek
to cover the full range of activities undertaken by the Home Office,
whereas the Home Office approach to risk management does.
Which particular risks are less likely to crystallise in future
as a result?
The department has mitigating actions in place for all its
corporate risks which reduce the likelihood that they will crystallise
and/or the magnitude of the impact if they were to crystallise.
17. Could you provide the Committee with an update on
the number and percentage of temporary staff in the Accounts and
Finance Unit? Why are you experiencing such difficulties in recruiting
permanent staff?
75% of all AFU staff (including the Adelphi Service Centre)
are permanent. The number of permanent staff in the Accounts branch
has increased from two to 14 over the last year.
18. What were the reasons for the problems with reconciling
payroll and personnel data? How many staff does the Home Office
employ (Q7)?
The Home Office used to hand over files to the receiving
Departments when somebody transferred from the Home Office to
another Department and this created problems in tracking the number
of staff employed by the department. Copies are now kept of personnel
files for staff moving to Other Government Departments, to retain
evidence for the NAO.
Home Office passed NAO audit this year by producing satisfactory
evidence of employee existence (such as photographs held by the
Departmental Security Unit for passes, and system access records).
The number of whole time equivalents employed by the Home
Office for all bodies included in the Consolidated Resource Accounts
is 89,494 (this includes HM Prison Service, National Probation
Service, UK Passport Service, and the Criminal Records Bureau).
There is 20,371 permanently employed staff within the core Home
Office. Figures quoted are per Note 9 of the Home Office Resource
Accounts and relate to the period up to March 2006
(Please note: The figure of 77,840, which was provided to
the Committee in response to question 7 (Mr Streeter), relates
to October 2006 and excludes National Probation Service Staff).
19. Can you confirm how many employees were dismissed
from the Home Office in 2005-06. It would be useful to have a
breakdown by reasons for dismissal and pay band; and comparative
figures for the past 10 years both for the Home Office and for
Government overall
530 staff were dismissed from the HO and its agencies
between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2006. Of these 111 came from
Core or IND, 392 from HM Prison Service and 27 from Identity and
Passport Service. [Data from ADELPHI, for Core and IND and from
the HR units of HPMS and IPS respectively]
Of the Core and IND figure (111): 56 were dismissed
for inefficiency and 55 on disciplinary grounds.
Available historical data for Core including IND, and
agencies are listed in table below
CORE & IND
Dismissal type | 1996
| 1997 | 1998 |
1999 | 2000 | 2001
| 2002 | 2003 |
2004 |
Disciplinary Grounds | 13 |
16 | 9 | 4 | 13
| 27 | 32 | 34 |
13 |
Inefficiency | 5 | 8
| 4 | 12 | 10 |
10 | 22 | 65 | 12
|
Other | 0 | 0 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0
| 0 | 2 | 5 |
Total (Core and IND)1 | 18
| 24 | 13 | 16
| 23 | 37 | 54
| 101 | 302
|
| | |
| | | |
| | |
1 Data 1996 to 2004 is from the archive of the Home Office
personnel system. A small number of dismissal cases which cannot
be broken by department have been removed to prevent possible
double counting with agency figures below.
2 Data to close of PIMMS (personnel manpower management system)
August 2004.
HM Prison Service1
Dismissals | 2001-02
| 2002-03 | 2003-04
| 2004-05 | 2005-06
|
Total1 | 179 |
272 | 366 | 562
| 392 |
1 The number of dismissals from the Prison Service increased significantly in 2003 due to a greater number of medical inefficiency dismissals as a result of more robust management of sickness absence from that time. The information includes dismissals for: inefficiency, conduct and performance reasons.
| | | |
| |
IPS Dismissals |
2001-02 | 2002-03 |
2003-04 | 2004-05 |
2005-06 |
Total | 34 |
33 | 23 | 21
| 27 |
20. What is the timetable for producing the 2006-07 Resource Accounts? Does the NAO concur that your timetable is realistic and achievable?
| | | |
| |
The deadline for completion of the 2006-07 Resource Accounts
is 30 September 2007. The accounts will be laid when Parliament
reconvenes after the summer recess.
The NAO have agreed and are keen to keep to this realistic
timetable in order to ensure that quality is retained and improved.
21. Note 1.12 to the Resource Accounts explains that classification
of administration and programme expenditure changed in 2005-06.
Please can you tell the Committee which Home Office activities
were affected by this reclassification?
As part of the Spending Review 2004 settlement covering the
years 2005-06 to 2007-08, the Treasury agreed to re-classify the
following areas of expenditure from administration to programme:
Prison establishments on the basis that keeping
in custody those who have been committed by the courts represents
frontline service delivery. With the creation of National Offender
Management Service, the scoring of prison establishment costs
needed to be aligned with the costs of the probation service which
fall within programme.
Immigration and nationality work where asylum
caseworkers and immigration officers at ports and airports provide
frontline services.
Several departments were affected by this round of reclassifications
in response to the recommendation made by Sir Peter Gershon in
his report "Releasing resource to the front line: Independent
Review of Public Sector Efficiency". The reclassifications
were set out in HM Treasury's Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses
2005 (PESA).
22. The auditors' remuneration and expenses for the core
department have increased from £137,000 in 2004-05 to £557,000
in 2005-06 (in Note 10). To what extent does this represent the
extra work that the NAO had to do as a result of the poor financial
management in the Home Office?
The increase in the audit fee is due to increased costs incurred
by the NAO in auditing the 2005-06 Resource accounts. For example
re-auditing the 2004-05 Balance Sheet and adopting a fully substantive
audit approach in response to the issues raised in the 2004-05
Resource accounts which required additional NAO resource.
23. Note 13 shows that the Home Office's non-departmental
public bodies spent £800 million (42%) less in 2005-06 than
in 2004-05? How is such a large variance explained?
The variance of £800 million relates to an error made
in the disclosure of the National Probation Service grants balance
within the non-departmental public bodies spend in the 2004-05
accounts. The National Probation Service costs and expenditure
should be eliminated on consolidation of the Departments account
and should therefore not be disclosed within spend on Non-departmental
bodies within note 13. The value of the National Probation Service
grant for 2005-06 was £778 million.
The Home Office 2004-05 accounts were disclaimed by the NAO,
and the Home Office took the decision as part of the 2005-06 accounting
process to restate the comparative Balance Sheet balances, but
not the Operating Cost Statement and associated notes. The reason
for this decision "was that to fully validate the 2004-05
income, expenditure and cash flow figures would have involved
both undue cost and delay on the part of both the Home Office
and the NAO, and would potentially jeopardise achieving the best
audit opinion on the 2005-06 figures" (extract from NAO's
draft Management letter).
The issue over providing comparatives numbers has been disclosed
in note 1.23 of the 2005-06 Home Office Resource accounts. The
NAO qualified the 2004-05 comparatives for the Operating Cost
Statement and associated notes in the 2005-06 accounts.
24. The fees and charges raised by Leave to Remain activities
have generated a surplus of over £31 million. What plans
are there for this surplus? How much of it will be spent increasing
enforcement efforts?
Fees and charges raised from Leave to Remain applications
need to be seen in the context of the overall income from Managed
Migration charging streams. Fluctuations in volumes of activity
and costs (including overheads, allocated to income streams on
an estimated basis) mean that there will inevitably be surpluses
and deficits on each activity.
Leave to Remain fees changed following a review in April
2005. In setting the revised fees, an element was included to
recover deficits totalling £12 million in previous financial
years, as allowed for in Treasury's Fees and Charges Guide. The
fee for 2006-07 was left unchanged at 2005-06 levels and this,
along with a reassessment of the costs attributable to Leave to
Remain applications, means that a deficit is forecast for 2006-07
which will offset the 2005-06 surplus. The surplus is not therefore
re-directed.
The budget allocated to enforcement activities has increased
from £142 million in 2005-06 to £177 million in 2006-07.
25. The Home Office's London headquarters at Marsham Street
is provided under a 30 year PFI contract. What impact is the reduction
in staff numbers at the Home Office having on the costs of servicing
this contract? Is there any scope to make savings on the contract
if the building is not fully occupied?
The 2MS contract allows for an automatic reduction in facilities
management costs should our requirements fall below 3,278 workstations.
Should we vacate space completely we have the ability to offset
its costs by way of sub-letting to other Government Departments
or public bodies or to non-Government occupiers. At present we
do not envisage having vacant space in 2MS, instead we will dispose
of other buildings in central London and continue to implement
our strategy of a single London HQ building.
C. WINTER SUPPLEMENTARY
ESTIMATES
26. Additional funding of £1,000,000 has been received
from the Department for International Development for the resettlement
of failed asylum seekers in their own country. On what basis has
DfID become involved in the resettlement of failed asylum seekers?
DFID has not become involved in the resettlement of failed
asylum seekers; this remains a Home Office responsibility. The
£1,000,000 transfer from DFID does not support specific projects
or DFID objectives; it is a one-off transfer of budgetary provision
allowing the Home Office to deliver its migration objectives.
27. The Estimate contains an internal transfer of £29,815,000
for 2006-07 to fund additional prison capacity. How many more
places will this fund, where and by when? What will be the total
cost of providing 8,000 additional prison places? How have budgets
been adjusted to cover the revenue cost of maintaining extra prison
places in future years?
The £29,815,000 provided; 225 extra prison places in
the financial year 2006-07, baseline funding for places in 2005-06
and ongoing construction costs. The 225 places are located as
follows:
| Preston
| 70 places April 2006 |
| Durham | 60 places November 2006
|
| Dartmoor |
15 places January 2007 |
| Parkhurst |
3 places August 2006 |
| Wormwood Scrubs
| 17 places November 2006 |
| Wandsworth |
20 places December 2006 |
| Nottingham |
40 places November 2006 |
| |
|
The 8,000 place programme, which is currently undergoing
the business case approval process, has forecast costs of around
£1.5 billion capital and £350 million ,annual running
costs when completed (at 2012-13 estimated price base).
The NOMS indicative budget for 2007-08 includes £50,000,000
resource for the in-year cost of the 8,000 programme; future years'
indicative budgets are not yet finalised.
28. The Estimate Memorandum explains that Departmental
Unallocated Provision (DUP) has been used for CRCSG (£40,000,000)
and the Identity and Passport Service (£14,450,000) to ensure
that "delegated budgetary authority is backed by the appropriate
level of Voted provision". Please can you explain this further
for the Committee?
Timing differences between the preparation of the Main Estimate
and the conclusion of the Department's internal budget delegation
processes, which are carried out within the overall parameters
of budgets agreed for the Home Office by HM Treasury, mean that
some adjustment is required at the Winter Supplementary Estimate
to bring the two into line.
In this particular instance the budgets delegated to CRCSG
and the Identity and Passport Service were increased by £40,000,000
and £14,450,000 respectively. These increases in budget were
funded from the DUP, which for Home Office Estimates purposes
is a non-Voted item. The transfers in the Winter Supplementary
Estimate therefore represent movement from non-Voted to Voted
in order to ensure that Budgets are matched by Voted provision.
29. To what extent is the use of DUP for administrative
purposes (£4,000,000) related to the costs of implementing
the Home Office's reform plan and addressing the deficiencies
in financial management across the department? What is the expected
total cost of the reforms?
None of the money drawn down from the DUP was for the Home
Office Reform Action Plan published on 19 July 2006. The total
costs of implementing that reform plan are difficult to quantify
given the wide range of activities in the Home Office leading
to change in the way in which resources are deployed and the value
for money that is achieved.
£3 million of the £4 million drawn down from the
DUP relates to the corporate services modernisation programme,
which includes projects such as redeveloping web space and the
department's intranet, implementing an estates shared service
and an electronic data records management system. An additional
£400,000 was drawn down to bolster the financial accounts
team in preparing the Resource Accounts and improving the department's
financial capability."
30. The ambit of the vote has been amended to include
the provision of loans to refugees. How many loans does the department
expect to grant, and at what value? For what purpose will the
loans be made available and what will be the terms of repayment?
The Integration Loan Scheme backdated income related benefit
payments. Individuals granted refugee or humanitarian protection,
and their respective dependants, will be entitled to apply for
a loan. It is intended that the loans are made available for items
and activities that facilitate integration such as:
vocational training where provision is not available
through Job Centre Plus;
a deposit for accommodation;
buying essential equipment for the home; or
the purchase of tools of a trade.
It is believed that a system of integration loans is a fairer
and more cost effective one, in the sense that a loan will be
based on an individuals' integration needs, whereas back payments
are based only on the time taken to determine an asylum claim.
The amount of each loan will be dependant on individual circumstances,
in particular the purpose for which it is requested, the individual's
financial position and ability to repay it. The minimum and maximum
loan will be £100 and £1,000 respectively. In the vast
majority of cases repayment will start six weeks after award of
the loan. Applicants on income related benefit will have repayments
taken at source at the prevailing third party deduction rate for
arrears (for 2006-07 this is £2.90 per week). Repayment for
individuals not on benefit will be negotiated on a case by case
basis taking into account the amount awarded and ability to pay.
Numbers of likely applicants will depend on the numbers granted
status as above in any given year. Estimates have been based at
around 4,000 for 2007-08.
D. CAPABILITY REVIEW
FOLLOW-UP
31. Can you please list the changes to senior management
mentioned by the Home Secretary (Q1) and explain how these changes
have strengthened the management of the department?
Our Reform Action Plan, published in July, suggested that
we needed a significant improvement in the capacity and capability
of our senior leadership.
Since then we have:
Appointed more experienced and capable individuals
to existing roles;
Created new roles where there was a need for greater
focus and leadership;
Abolished or merged roles where this was necessary.
All of these posts and vacancies have been filled with high
calibre people who have the skills to make a real difference,
whether from inside or outside the Home Office.
Since July three new Board members are now in post:
Chief Executive of the Identity and Passport Service (James
Hall);
Director General of Performance and Reform (Peter Makeham); and
Non-executive director and Chair of the Audit Committee (John
Heywood)
We have also appointed two new non-executives to the Board
of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.
At Director level, we have new individuals in the following
posts:
Chief Information Officer, Identity and Passport Service (IPS)
Human Resources Services Director
Enforcement and Removals Director, IND
Director of Leadership and Learning
Resources Director, Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group
Shared Services Director
Crime and Drugs Strategy Director
Director, Commissioning and Partnerships, National Offender Management
Service
Director, Performance and Improvement, National Offender Management
Service
Policing Policy Director
Commercial Director
Resources Director, IND
Human Resources Director, IND
In addition, the following posts have been abolished or merged
into other posts:
Director Specialist Crime
Director Corporate Development and Services
Director of Change, National Offender Management Service
Other appointments which have been made, or will be made
in early 2007.
Director General HR, Home Office
Director of High Security Prisons
Director of Communications
HR Director, HMPS
Commercial Director, IPS
32. Have all the Home Office Directors now been subjected
to the skills assessment promised in your Capability Review Action
Plan? In what areas is the department deficient?
The vast majority (95%) of Directors who were in post in
July have now completed their assessments.
The assessments showed that the department's Director cadre
demonstrated high levels of commitment and loyalty. Areas for
development were people development, marketing skills and programme
and project management.
The skills assessment is now well under way for the rest
of the senior civil servants in the Home Office.
33. How has the governance below the Home Office Board
level been strengthened? Have "contracts" between Ministers
and officials been drawn up and what are the implications for
public accountability of civil servants?
We have reviewed the management structures of each of the
main Home Office businesses and major changes have, in particular,
been made to the senior management boards of the Immigration and
Nationality Directorate, the Identity and Passport Service and
the National Offender Management Service.
We are also strengthening the structures supporting the overall
Home Office Board, including the creation of a smaller Home Office
strategic centre.
A "compact" between Ministers and the Home Office
Board has been agreed and is attached. This clarifies the relationship
between Ministers and the Home Office Board and makes it clear
that the heads of our operational services will be increasingly
expected to answer externally for operational matters for which
they are responsible, whilst Ministers remain accountable to Parliament
for Home Office policy and performance.
34. The capability review criticised the Home Office's
ability to take a corporate approach to planning and resourcing.
How have you reconfigured your Board and other structures to better
link strategy, planning and resourcing?
Since the publication of the Capability Review and the Home
Office Reform Plan, we have taken a number of steps to strengthen
our corporate approach to planning and resourcing.
The Home Office Board now considers financial reports on
a monthly basis. Since July we have carried out a mid-year review
to bring our budgets back into balance and we have also developed
a systematic plan for considering our options for the next spending
review period. This includes a half day workshop for the Home
Office Board in February.
We have already made some difficult decisions in order to
match our resources to our priorities. This includes stopping
or re-phasing a number of projects that we cannot afford.
35. You have committed to making large savings in central
headquarters costs. What have you done during this financial year
to reduce your headquarters and move these resources to the frontline?
By the end of December 2006, we had reduced head office by
1,475 posts against our published baseline. The total includes
around 700 reductions made so far in the financial year 2006-07.
We have also strengthened the front line. Since March 2004
we have increased the numbers of customer-facing and operational
staff by 3,952. These numbers include 298 frontline immigration
staff (from Assistant Immigration Officer to Inspector) and 301
extra operational staff in our prisons.
36. What progress has been made on refocusing your strategic
policy function ensuring that it is focussed on corporate and
Ministerial strategic priorities and giving it the teeth it will
need to be "more influential" and able to set strategic
direction and allocate resources?
We have made progress in developing the new strategic policy
function for the Home Office and have met our commitment to have
an outline of that function agreed by December 2006. In parallel
with this, we have established a Strategic Policy Network of Policy
Directors from across the Home Office to support the Home Office
Board.
We are also looking to ensure that strategic policy-making
is closely tied in to the financial allocation and business planning
processes of the Home Office and is aligned with other corporate
strategies such as information technology, human resources and
procurement.
37. You have undertaken to "free up Ministers to
focus on strategic and policy issues within the Department".
What practical steps are you taking to ensure that Ministers are
engaged at the right levels in setting strategic priorities?
As already highlighted in response to question 33 a "compact"
between Ministers and the Home Office Board has now been agreed.
This supports and underpins other changes to structures, processes
and behaviours by clarifying how business is to be conducted between
Ministers and officials. The compact makes it clear that Ministers
are responsible for setting the overall strategy and policies
of the Department. In support of this, we are developing new corporate
processes to support planning and decision-making at a strategic
level.
E. HOME SECRETARY'S
EVIDENCE
38. Could you confirm that the Home Office remains on
course to achieve its target of having 16,000 Community Support
Officers in place by the end of 2007 (Q81)
The very latest data for recruitment up to 6 December 2006
(provided by forces to the Association of Chief Police Officers)
shows that PCSO numbers have now risen to 10,389.
At national level an advertising campaign, supported by PR
activity and an advertiser funded programme on ITV1 about the
work of PCSOs in neighbourhood teams, has already generated 41,000
requests for application packs from the general public with 5,400
applications having been received. Work is underway to follow
up the requests for packs which have not yet resulted in an application.
Forces are working successfully to recruit the target number
of PCSOs within a demanding timescale (to recruit 16,000 PCSOs
by the end of April 2007). We are confident that forces are working
very hard to achieve the target in support of our commitment to
neighbourhood policing in every area by April 2008.
39. Could you provide more information on the Government's
plans for getting ex-offenders into work (Qq44-45)?
The cross Government National Reducing Re-offending Delivery
Plan, published in 2005, sets out progress made against the action
points in the National Reducing Re-offending Action Plan, and
Government objectives across the seven pathways, including Education,
Training and Employment. It includes the aim of developing "strategies
nationally, regionally and locally for engaging employers in providing
jobs for ex-offenders".
The Reducing Re-offending Corporate Alliance, which was
launched last year, is the umbrella under which the employment
of offenders is promoted to employers in the public, private and
voluntary sectors, particularly those experiencing recruitment
difficulties and skills shortages. A menu of options, which will
propose different levels of engagement for employers, from offering
advice and mentoring for offenders looking for work, through to
running work trials, providing permanent jobs and making the business
case to other employers, is being developed. The Alliances are
being developed and delivered through integration into the regional
reducing re-offending strategies and local plans.
The cross-government Reducing Re-offending Through Skills
and Employment Next Steps document, launched in December 2006,
sets cross government proposals to drive forward with three priorities:
A strong drive to engage employers through the
Corporate Alliance, linked to the Skills Strategy and the outcome
of the Leitch review of skills, working with employers to design
and implement new models of training and preparation for jobs;
Building on the new offender learning and skills
service, including the campus model, which has among its key features
a focus on employers' needs, an employability contract as part
of the sentence plan to motivate offenders and focus resources
where they will have most impact, and more flexible access to
skills and employment support, with effective use of ICT.
Using the new commissioning role of the regional
offender managers to build a new emphasis on skills and jobs in
prisons and probation, using Unpaid Work in the community and
work opportunities in prisons, with a particular focus on developing
the workforce to deliver this.
We are mapping the current level of activity in order to
ensure that we capitalise on existing links between employers
and prisons and probation areascurrently prisoners from
the open and resettlement are engaged in paid or unpaid work with
over 400 employers.
The Department for Work and Pensions, through the National
Employment Panel, is appointing Job Developers to improve job
outcomes for offenders. Six pilots will be run, providing employers
with a new, individualised service to break down real and perceived
barriers to employing offenders. The pilots will also offer offenders
access to training programmes designed to meet the needs of employers.
The Job Developers will advise Jobcentre Plus and Reducing Re-offending
Corporate Alliance partners and providers on employer engagement.
February 2007
23
Data for March 2006 is provisional. Back
24
Data included can be found in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin
"Criminal Statistics 2005" at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimstats05.html Back
25
Although one of the areas-West Midlands-failed to meet this element
of the SR02 target due to a significant decline in the volume
of recorded crime over the period, we have since discovered that
this is not in fact the reason for the failure of the second area-Gwent.
In the case of Gwent, there were a number of performance issues
contributing to the decline in the volume of offences brought
to justice over the SR02 period, one of which was their inability
to sustain an exceptionally high sanction detection rate in the
baseline year throughout the period to 2005-06. Back
|