Memorandum submitted by the Home Office |
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS ON THE HOME OFFICE
DEPARTMENTAL ANNUAL REPORT 2007
Q1. How many terrorists have been
deported as a result of the Memoranda of Understanding for deporting
terrorist suspects (page 17) with the relevant countries? What
percentage is this of the number of applications that have been
made under these MoU arrangements?
Under the 3 MoUs we have agreed with Jordan,
Libya and Lebanon, we have sought assurances in respect of three
Jordanians and 12 Libyans. These cases are at various stages in
the appeal process. To date, no-one has been deported on the basis
of assurances obtained under the MoUs; deportation cannot take
place until any appeal against the decision has been resolved.
In relation to Algeria, the assurances agreed
are contained within an exchange of letters between the President
of Algeria and the previous UK Prime Minister. We have sought
assurances on this basis in 17 cases. Eight individuals have been
deported (having withdrawn their appeals); another one has withdrawn
his appeal and arrangements for his deportation are in hand; the
remaining eight cases are at various stages in the appeals process.
Q2. Can you please provide the Committee
with the latest draft of the terrorism prevention strategy which
is being developed with Communities and Local Government and the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (page 17)? How have local authorities
been involved in its development? What specific issues did the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office want to see addressed in the strategy?
Over the summer of 2007, a series of workshops
has been hosted by the Home Office involving a wide range of representatives
across Whitehall departments, including CLG and FCO, as well as
the Police, NOMS, BIA, CPS, and security and intelligence agencies
to refresh the contest-prevent strategy. This work is still in
progress and ministers have not yet finalised a revised strategy.
A key part of CLG's contribution is working
with Muslim communities at every level to build their resilience
and enable them to challenge robustly the ideas of those extremists
who seek to undermine our shared values. Making this agenda a
core part of Local Authority business, to deliver local solutions
for local challenges, is key to achieving this. Communities and
Local Government have, therefore, engaged with partners in local
government to ensure their involvement in the development of the
The FCO's input reflects the fact that the threat
we face is seamless internationally and domestically. The ideology
we need to counter has international aspects.
Q3. The overall assessment for SR2004 PSA1
has declined from "on course" in the 2006 Departmental
Annual Report to "slippage" in the 2007 Report. What
are the main reasons for this recent decline in performance and
what actions is the Department planning in 2007-08 to ensure the
target of a 15% reduction in crime is achieved by March 2008?
The PSA1 target is in two parts: Reduce crime
by 15%, and further in high crime areas, by 2007-08.
The most recent British Crime Survey (BCS) results
(to March 2007) show a 9% (statistically significant) reduction
in crime against the 2002-03 baseline.
To improve performance we have focussed our
efforts on 44 areas of the country, where, working with the Crime
and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), we believed there
was a need for greatest improvement. The priority 44 project started
in January 2007 and has already had a significant impact on overall
police recorded crime. We hope this will in due course be reflected
in the British Crime Survey and give us the best chance of getting
closer to the 15% target.
Q4. The 2007 Departmental Annual Report (page
24) reports an 11% increase in the level of vandalism in England
and Wales and (page 25) a 6% rise in recorded robbery in the year
to December 2006. What are the main reasons for these increases
and what actions are planned in 2007-08 to address them?
Figures from the annual 2006-07 bulletin on
crime show that British Crime Survey vandalism in 2006-07 was
up 10% up on the previous year.
These figures relate to vandalism against private
households and three-quarters of the 2006-07 increase is due to
vandalism against vehicles (which is up 12%)
The estimated total number of incidents was
2.9 million in both 2006-07 and 1997, and is 11% below the peak
of 3.4 million in 1995.
Around two thirds of incidents are vehicle vandalism,
which tend to be scratches or other damage to bodywork or wing
Interviews with offenders suggest there is a
link between criminal damage and alcohol misuse. However, a large
amount of damage is far from mindless or random, with revenge
and personal factors also mentioned by offenders
Actions planned for 2007-08:
Neighbourhood Policing is crucial
to ensuring people feel reassured by the action being taken to
tackle ASB in local areas; and this is also a way of encouraging
people to pass on intelligence and ensuring relevant agencies
respond effectively to those problems most of concern to local
people. In many areas, this will be criminal damage.
There is much work already underway
that will help to tackle criminal damagea national drive
to encourage wider and more effective take up of tools and powers
to tackle anti-social behaviour; the longer-term work set in train
by the cross-government Respect programme; and the Alcohol Strategy
that establishes a priority action for local partnerships to develop
strategies to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder, including
criminal damage and vandalism.
Over 250 entries were received for
our Anti Vandalism Competition to design a publicity campaign
on criminal damage. The entries were of a high quality and we
will develop them into teaching and publicity materials available
for use by CDRPs.
We are actively promoting the sharing
of good practice in reducing criminal damage. A website provides
up to date information and good practice guides on a range of
aspects of criminal damage. We are developing further good practice
guides on "investigating criminal damage', "engaging
the community" and "restorative justice and criminal
damage'. Good practice is also shared through conferences and
on-line sessions, where experts provide practical advice to those
seeking to reduce criminal damage.
The police recorded crime figures for robbery
in 2006-07 were up 3% on the previous year. The annual rate of
increase has slowed, being 8% in 2005-06.
Young peoples" desire for the latest mobile
consumer electronic products (eg mobile phones, MP3 players) is
likely to be a factor in the increase.
Actions planned for 2007-08:
We are supporting 31 CDRPs that account
for over half of all robbery to help them get to grips with robbery
in their areas by developing action plans based on an understanding
of their local problem. Addressing robberies involving the use
of firearms is a key element of these plans.
Robbery in the MPS (which accounts
for almost half of all robbery) has reduced significantly. The
last MPS published figures to the end of August show all Robbery
down by 14% (18,536 to 15,948) compared to the same period last
year, and Personal Robbery down 15.5% (17,331 to 14,651) compared
to last year.
MPS Safer Streets:
In parallel with our action plan,
the Metropolitan Police "Safer Streets" operation, which
started in May 2006, aimed at tightening up the police response
to robbery in London. This includes improving investigative processes,
improved targeting of hot spots and dealing more robustly with
false allegations. The intention is now to mainstream the programme
beyond March 2008.
A £500,000 media campaign to
get across the message "stolen mobile phones don't work anymore"
was launched in June It targets online media, magazines and posters
on bins and phone boxes in our hot spot areas and is aimed at
16 to 24 year olds. The message is simply "don't buy a handset
that may be stolen, because it may soon cease to work".
We are funding the National Mobile
Phone Crime Unit (£1 million in 2007-08) to continue to be
innovative and fight mobile phone crime on a local, national and
international level and to help encourage the mobile phone industry
to make continual improvements to mobile phone security.
In March 2007, the mobile phone industry
met its target of blocking stolen handsets. It actually achieved
90% of stolen mobile phones across all networks within 48 hours.
Cash In Transit Robberies:
We published the Cash and Valuables
in Transit (CViT) delivery plan in June 2007 which brings together
a concerted plan of action for all key stakeholders involved in
tackling cash and valuables in transit crime. Progress has been
made on a number of areas in the plan with a reduction in the
number of attacks on CViT companies showing a small reduction
on last year. Progress on the delivery plan will be reviewed at
the ministerial led round table meeting on the 17 October.
Working with the Local Government
Association and APACS we issued guidance in January 2007 encouraging
CDRPs to help tackle Cash Machine (ATM) crime by introducing 1
metre "defensible spaces" around ATMs.
Q5. What percentage of crime is committed
by the small hard core of offenders (page 23) and what percentage
of offenders make up the hard core? What percentage of the hard
core is accounted for by the 10,000 on the Prolific and other
Priority Offenders programme?
Home Office research and modellingdescribed
in more detail in "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead",
published in February 2001suggests that there are about
one million active offenders in the population at any one time.
Ten% of thesearound 100,000 offenders -accumulate more
than three convictions during their criminal career, and this
group may be responsible for 50% of all crime.
The Prolific and other Priority Offender (PPO)
programme was introduced in 2004. At that time it was estimated
that, within this pool of 100,000 most active offenders, the most
prolific 5,000 offenders (0.5% of the total active offender population)
could be responsible for as much as 9% of all crime. It was intended
that the PPO programme would tackle this "super prolific"
The programme comprises local schemes covering
every Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership area in England
and every Community Safety Partnership area in Wales. Each scheme
targets the most prolific offenders in their area or those whose
offending causes the most damage to the local community. PPO performance
management data shows that there approximately 10,000 PPOs managed
by the programme across England and Wales at any one time. The
performance management data also shows that, in the 20 months
between October 2005 and June 2007, 3,210 PPOs were taken off
of the programme because they had significantly reduced their
offending behaviour. Their places on local schemes will have been
filled by other prolific offenders.
Key elements of the programme include "catch
and convict" to ensure that PPOs are brought to justice for
the crimes they have committed; and "rehabilitate and resettle"
which provides them with interventions focused on reducing the
likelihood of further offending.
The Home Office evaluation of the programme
tracked the first offenders taken on to the programme in September
and October 2004 and found a 62% reduction in their convictions
over their first 17 months on the programme, with a sharp reduction
in their offending following entry onto the scheme. While these
positive findings cannot necessarily be attributed solely to the
PPO programme, as we do not know what would have happened had
the scheme not been introduced, they are nonetheless very encouraging.
Q6. What international comparators has the
Department developed on the fear of crime (page 24), and how does
the United Kingdom compare within the European Union?
The 2005 European International Crime Victimisation
published in February 2007 showed that the United Kingdom had
over a third of respondent households with a burglar alarm compared
with a 10% average for EU countries taking part in the survey.
One third of respondents in this country had an expectation of
being the victim of a burglary in the next year, just above the
EU average. The highest expectations of being the victim of a
burglary were in Greece, Italy and France, with the lowest in
Scandinavian countries and The Netherlands.
The survey also showed that the percentage of
the population feeling unsafe on the street after dark in the
United Kingdom was just under one third and similar to the EU
average. The highest rates were in Greece, Luxembourg and Italy
and the lowest rates again in Scandinavia and the Netherlands.
Q7. The Department's Strategy on reducing
criminal damage includes collating knowledge of the causes of
different types of criminal damage (page 24). Can the Department
provide any results from that work?
We have provided a range of information on our
web site (see links below) on the causes of different types of
damage, including updated results from the national Offending,
Crime and Justice Survey (see link 2), which asks a range of young
people about their offending. Boredom and alcohol are common responses,
but clearly not all damage is mindless or random as personal motivations
and revenge are also cited.
We have also provided a link to an investigation
of young people's motivations to commit acts of criminal damage
in the North West of England, commissioned by Lancashire's Strategic
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (see link 1 below). Having
interviewed over 100 young people, the report concluded that the
majority of young people can differentiate between different types
of criminal damage and they create a range of justifications around
At the most prevalent end of the spectrum of
property damaged, many young people engage in damage to public
property because they do not perceive it as being owned by an
individual and therefore the action is known to be legally wrong
but thought to be morally acceptable. Fewer young people took
part in criminal damage to private or personal property as this
was understood to be clearly wrong in legal and moral terms.
1. Investigation into young people's motivations
to commit acts of criminal damage in NW England: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/criminaldamage/Lancashire%20Study.doc
(77 Page Document).
2. Offending, Crime and Justice Survey: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1706.pdf
3. Home page of criminal damage mini-site: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/criminaldamage/criminaldamage001.htm
(interactive web pages).
4. Criminal Damage Facts and Figures: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/criminaldamage/cd%20facts%20and%20figures.htm
(interactive web pages).
Q8. The Departmental Annual Report (page
23) states that you are "introducing statutory minimum performance
standards for CDRP and CSP partnerships". What are the minimum
The Police and Justice Act 2006 included provisions
which allowed for the introduction of regulations setting out
the core functions of CDRPs to provide the framework for all partnerships
to deliver to a common standard. The regulations came into force
in England on 1 August. The 2006 Act also repealed the duties
for partnerships to produce three yearly audits and strategies
and to report annually to the Secretary of State on progress.
The new statutory requirements for partnership
Senior representation from all responsible
authorities on a "strategy group".
All responsible authorities will
produce, sign, and comply with, an information sharing protocol.
Each responsible authority should
designate someone to be a "liaison officer" whose role
is to facilitate information sharing within the CDRP.
Production of an annual strategic
assessment based on information from responsible authorities and
the priorities and concerns of the community to identify priorities
for delivery in the coming year.
Production of a partnership plan,
based on the strategic assessment, outlining how priorities will
Publication of a summary of the key
priorities for delivery for the coming year and report on the
previous year, made available to the local community in a form
considered appropriate by the responsible authorities.
Community engagement should take
account of the current obligations of responsible authorities,
to be targeted to diverse groups and to take into account those
who will be most affected by priorities.
"Face the People" sessions
that will allow local people to discuss community safety issues
with the partnership.
Requirement for the responsible authorities
to consider the skills and knowledge available to them for delivery.
Additionally, in county areas, with two tier
A "county level strategy group",
consisting of the chairs of each district CDRP, representation
from the county council (community safety portfolio holder where
applicable) and other representation from responsible authorities.
The county level strategy group will
incorporate the district strategic assessments to identify county
wide crime reduction priorities and opportunities for cross-border
or county-wide working.
The 2006 Act also introduced a new duty on certain
agencies to disclose certain sets of depersonalised information
at least quarterly in electronic form to the other section 115
This duty only applies when the authority holds
the information so it does not require the collection of any additional
information. In each case, the duty applies to information relating
to the partnership area as defined by the district or unitary
authority area. Analysis can then take place across a number of
different datasets on at least a quarterly basis.
To support the process of implementing the minimum
standards and information sharing regulations, the Home Office
published good practice guidance "Delivering Safer Communities:
A guide to effective partnership working. Guidance for Crime and
Disorder Reduction Partnerships and Community Safety Partnerships".
Q9. How much of the £115m made available
through the Youth Opportunity Fund and Youth Capital Fund (page
23) was spent during 2006-07, and how much is planned to be spent
during 2007-08? Can the Department provide a breakdown of how
the funding has been allocated to the various programmes and what
outcomes have been achieved?
The Youth Opportunity Fund (YOF) and Youth Capital
Fund (YCF) were included in the Home Office Annual Report due
to their relationship with the work of the RESPECT Task Force,
which was a Home Office based resource during the period in question.
However, the funding is owned by the DCSF (then the DfES) and
this response has been provided by that department.
The £115 million can be broken down as
follows: £31m for the YOF and £26.5 for the Youth Capital
Fund YCF in both 2006-07 and 2007-08.
Continuation funding for YOF/YCF and an additional
£25 million for YOF was secured by DCSF in CSR07 for the
3 year period 2008-09 to 2010-11. The main purpose of the funds
continues to be empowering young people and removing the barriers
faced by a significant minority of young people to participating
in positive activities. The Funds will contribute towards tackling
antisocial behaviour and building community cohesion especially
as the extra funding will be allocated only amongst the most deprived
The full £57.5 million combined YOF/YCF
was paid to local authorities in the first year (2006-07). It
is not yet known how much of that local authorities have actually
spent, as this is dependant on the receipt of end-year signed
off by the Chief Finance Officer a number of which remain outstanding.
Similarly, we anticipate that the £57.5 million for these
Funds in 2007-08 will be spent in full.
Q10. What good practice lessons have emerged
from the ten regions in England and Wales that took part in the
trial of innovative ideas to tackle criminal damage (page 24)?
Each of the areas which received funding for
their schemes undertook some form of evaluation, and we will be
making the results available to practitioners though our web site,
as well as through Government Offices and other channels. Some
of the benefits are expected to be longer term and thus not possible
to detect yet.
Some of the emerging findings include the need
to undertake careful analysis and problem profiling; to engage
with young people on the nature and reasons for their offending;
and to tackle criminal damage as part of a bigger picture of offending
and ASB rather than as a stand-alone. A number of areas undertook
awareness campaigns, aimed at deterring potential offenders and
explaining the consequences of damage; diversionary activities
for young people; and problem solving at particular hotspots.
Q.11 How many Parental Compensation Orders
(page 26) were issued during 2006-07 and for what total value?
Of this amount how much was collected during the year?
No Parental Compensation Orders (PCOs) were
reported as being issued during 2006-07.
The PCO powers are being piloted. They were
commenced in July 2006 in 10 local authority areas. Eight of these
authorities decided to proceed to pilot the PCO and set up procedures
for referring and dealing with children using the voluntary reparative
approach described in guidance or, where that fails, using a PCO.
So far, pilots are reporting that children under
10 are being referred to existing services such as youth inclusion
and support panels (YISPs) but have not been recommended for PCOs.
The pilots will be assessed early next year
and advice will be provided to Ministers about the way forward.
Q12. How many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (page 27) were issued during
2006-07 and of these how many individuals re-offended during the
The latest available data is that 7,500 acceptable
behaviour contracts/agreements were made in 2005-06 (source: CDRP
survey); and 4,060 anti-social behaviour orders were issued in
2005 (source: MoJ). Data on the offending history of those with
ABCs and/or ASBOs is not held centrally. However, a study by the
National Audit Office
published in 2006 showed that 37% of their sample of anti-social
behaviour perpetrators had an average of 24 convictions each.
The report's main conclusion was that the majority of people in
their case review sample who received an ASB intervention did
not re-engage in ASB:
65% of people desisted after one
Q13. Performance on SR2002 PSA 6 [reduce
the harm caused by drugs] continues to show "slippage"
on 2 of the 5 measures underpinning the PSAclass A drug
use among young people and class A drug use by vulnerable young
people. What are the main reasons for these "slippages"
and what actions are planned in 2007-08 to address them?
Since 2004 the Home Office has shared responsibility
with the Department for Children, Schools and Families (previously
the DfES) for the delivery of the young people and drugs target:
Reduce the use of Class A drugs and
the frequent use of any illicit drug among all young people under
the age of 25, especially by the most vulnerable young people.
There are four parts to this target. We are
on course to reduce the frequent use of any illicit drugs by all
young people and by the most vulnerable young people, but Class
A use amongst all young people and the most vulnerable is flat.
A thorough review of our available data and
evidence over the summer of 2006 highlighted the main reasons
for the slippage as being geographical variations in access to
specialist treatment for under 18s, significantly higher levels
of use and frequent use of Class A and other drugs amongst key
vulnerable groups and cocaine use amongst those aged 19-24.
We agreed a cross government action plan to
accelerate delivery of the young people and drugs target. Key
better targeting of vulnerable young
people with prevention and early intervention through children's
services and the Youth Justice System.
improved access to specialist treatment
for under 18s, to prevent escalation of problems.
focus of the FRANK campaign for 2007/8,
including specific targeted activity on cocaine.
Q14. The latest figures for the Drug Harm
Index are for 2004 (page 29 and page 84). Why is the data so old?
If more up to date data is now available can you please let the
Committee have this?
Due to the large number and diverse nature of
the data streams which make up the Drug Harm Index, timing of
publication of updates for the whole index is driven by the availability
of the last data source. This is currently the Drug Deaths data
provided by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) which is
only available 14 months after the end of the period that it is
measuring. For example, data on drug deaths in 2005 was not published
until 21 February 2007.
The update to the Drug Harm Index using 2005
data is expected to be published in November 2007.
Q15. Can you please provide the Committee
when available with a copy of the new alcohol strategy (page 28)?
Can you also please provide details of how key stakeholders have
been involved in its development?
In putting together the National Alcohol Strategy,
officials from the Home Office, Department of Health and Department
for Children, Schools and Families held a series of discussions
with around 80 representatives from:
the medical profession;
NGOs (eg Alcohol Concern);
NOMS Prisons & Probation; and
There was a broad consensus on the progress
that had been made following the earlier Alcohol Strategy (Alcohol
Harm Reduction Strategy for England, 2004).
There was also broad consensus on the issues
targeted for future action, namely:
18-24 year old binge drinkers;
young people under 18, in particular
13-15 year olds, who drink alcohol.
Stakeholders particularly welcomed a commitment
by Government to work towards achieving long-term-reduction in
The strategy is available at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/Alcohol-strategy.pdf
Q16. How much has been spent on the programme
to reduce alcohol harm?
The following is a breakdown by each Department
taking forward actions arising from the National Strategy:
SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON ALCOHOL
|Department for Health|| £2,541,773 (* plus £15m on NHS spendingsee below)
|Joint Home Office/Department of Health "Know Your Limits" campaign
|Department for Transport||£3,600,000
|Ministry of Justice (NOMS)||£383,600
|Department for Children, Schools and Families
NHS Spend on Alcohol Interventions
A total of £15 million in additional funding has been
included within PCTs' general allocations from 2007-08 onwards
to help PCTs to improve their local arrangements for commissioning
and delivering alcohol interventions.
How much PCTs choose to spend on particular services is for
them to decide in line with their local priorities.
The Alcohol Needs Assessment Research Project (ANARP), published
in 2005, estimated that £217m was spent by PCTs in England
in the financial year 2003-04. It represents the best estimate
we have of how much is spent in England from all sources on the
delivery of alcohol treatment.
Q17. What is the latest estimate of the number of victims
of human trafficking who are working in prostitution in the United
Kingdom? What key improvements are envisaged in 2007-08 as a result
of the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action
against Trafficking in Human Beings? What, if any, are the potential
disadvantages of having implemented the Convention?
By the nature of the secrecy and deception involved in the
crime of trafficking it is extremely difficult to gauge accurately
the full extent and scale of the crime as it affects the United
Kingdom. Home Office research on organised crime markets suggest
that at any one time in 2003 there were up to 4,000 victims of
trafficking for prostitution in the UK. We have recently entered
into the enforcement stage of Operation Pentameter 2 which focuses
on trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This should,
in part, give us a clearer picture of the extent of the problems
During 2007-08 we shall be developing more formal identification
procedures and looking into developing a national referral mechanism
to identify possible victims. This will follow on from a "national
referral model" which is presently being tested in Operation
Pentameter 2. This model was discussed with a range of stakeholders,
including Non Governmental Organisations, and further consultation
will take place before any final model is adopted.
The Convention was signed against a background of increasing
awareness of the scale and seriousness of the crime of trafficking.
There were concerns that some of the provisions (such as the automatic
granting of reflection periods and the issue of residence permits
in certain cases for trafficking victims) may open up another
route to legal challenge against removal or be used fraudulently.
However, we believe these risks will be mitigated in the context
of an increased drive against irregular migrants and organised
immigration crime and the need to ensure a victim centred approach
to the trafficking issue.
Q18. The percentage of police time spent on front-line
policing in 2005-06 (63.2%) is below the baseline of 63.6% for
2003-04 as set in the 2005 Departmental Annual Report. What specific
action is being taken to increase this figure?
The frontline policing measure was recalculated in 2006,
at the request of the service, to change the way that probationer
time and officer sickness absence were treated. This had the effect
of revising the baseline to 62.1%. When taking into account these
changes the 2005-06 score in fact represents a small increase
on the previous year's figure.
The 2006-07 figures have now been published in PPAF and show
a further increase to 64.2%.
Q19. For 2007-08 the Department has made a commitment
to ensure that there is a Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT) in
every community. How many NPTs are there at present and what proportion
of communities currently have NPTs?
As at the end of August there were 3,501 Neighbourhood Policing
teams across England and Wales and 31 of the 43 forces had already
fully rolled out Neighbourhood Policing. These forces cover nearly
three quarters of the population of England and Wales. Those forces
not yet fully rolled out remain on target to meet the end of March
Q20. The pilots for using police staff to carry out some
tasks normally performed by police officers resulted in "significant
efficiency savings" (page 35). What were these savings, and
what is the Department's estimate for the total potential savings
if the scheme were rolled out across the country?
Accenture's review of workforce modernisation (WFM) published
in 2006 brought together the evaluations of the ten Home Office
pilots. The pilots were varied in scope
and cost data was not always clearly defined by some of the forces,
making it difficult to draw conclusions around potential savings
if the projects were implemented across the country.
Despite this, the report identified some significant points
around the cost benefits and efficiency savings of workforce modernisation.
Some examples include Staffordshire, who made an estimated saving
of £177k through outsourcing of their custody capability
during the first year of the pilot. The successful roll out of
the pilot across the force was expected to generate savings of
£127k per year until 2009. Dyfed Powys made an annual saving
of almost £266k pa by introducing mixed officer/staff teams
in their custody function. Reconfiguration of investigation teams
achieved significant cost savings, for example in Surrey where
efficiency savings of £600k pa were estimated, including
a £91k (8%) saving on salary costs. In Lincolnshire, the
introduction of twelve police staff resulted in efficiency savings
of £218k pa compared to CID being staffed by 12 officers.
The national workforce modernisation programme launched in
July this year builds on the lessons learned from the initial
10 pilots and incorporates the key recommendations made in the
Accenture report. The 11 demonstration sites are wider in scope
and involve much larger numbers of officers and staff than the
initial pilots. It will be subject to a robust and independent
evaluation managed and funded by the Home Office. Central to the
evaluation will be an evaluation of cost and performance benefits,
with baseline measures agreed with forces from the outset of the
projects. Evidence of increased productivity and greater efficiency,
with an emphasis on improvement to operational policing, will
be rolled out to other forces.
Q21. In the 2007 Departmental Annual Report you have provided
figures as at 30 September 2006 for the number of members of the
police service broken down into police officers, police staff
and PCSOs (p35). Can you please provide comparator figures as
at 30 September 2003, 30 September 2004 and 30 September 2005?
AT 30 SEPTEMBER:
Excluding officers on maternity/paternity leave and career
breaks, and NCS/NCIS (now SOCA) officers.
Q22. Public confidence in the CJS is shown as being "on
course" although confidence has decreased by 2 percentage
points since last year. Does the survey data, or other research,
indicate any likely causes for this decline in performance? What
actions are planned for 2007-08 to address this?
The British Crime Survey shows that 41.4% of respondents
were confident that the CJS is effective in bringing offenders
to justice in the twelve months to March 2007. Although this fell
from 44.4% in the previous year, it remains above the target (40%).
Perceptions of the CJS are driven by a range of influences.
Research suggests that levels of confidence are influenced by
personal experience, word of mouth, and messages portrayed by
the media. Levels of knowledge and understanding of the CJS, and
the degree to which people feel that the system is responsive
to local concerns are also key drivers of confidence. It is not
possible to attribute changes in confidence, as measured by the
BCS, to any single factor.
In addition to the work underway to improve services to victims
and witnesses, and to improve perceptions of fair treatment among
people from black and minority ethnic communities, a cross-cutting
programme is in place to build public confidence by:
Improving our understanding of the drivers of
Supporting arrangements for joining up delivery
by local CJS agencies and wider partnerships.
Promoting a cross-agency approach to community
Engaging with staff to improve their understanding
and commitment with the end-to-end CJS.
Co-ordinating communication of information and
messages to the public on crime and justice.
Q23. Can the Department provide the Committee with a copy
of the Code of Practice for victims of crime (page 39)?
A copy of the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime is available
A summary version giving an overview of the standards of
service contained in the Code is also available at:
Q24. Of the 1.4m offences which were brought to justice
in the year to December 2006 (page 38), how many were issued with
fines and penalty notices? Please provide payment rate data for
fines imposed in 2006-07 (page 43) and how does this compare with
the figure for 2005-06?
The table below gives the number of offences which were brought
to justice and issued with fines and penalty notices. Penalty
Notice for Disorder payment rates for 2005-06 and 2006-07 are
also shown. It should be noted that the 2006 data are not yet
||Fines (thousands)||PNDs (thousands)
||PND Payment Rate,
|2006||Data will be published before the end of the Year
The payment rate for fines has increased substantially in
recent years up from 55% in 2002-03:
The payment rate for 2006-07 was 92%.
The payment rate for 2005-06 was 83%.
This has been the result of a number of actions lead by Her
Majesty's Court Service through the Enforcement Programme. The
programme has worked closely with magistrates courts and has undertaken
a range of initiatives designed to improve the collection rate.
The initiatives undertaken include:
Improving the enforcement processes, following
the introduction of the Courts Act 2003;
The provision of targeted support to areas that
have difficulty in reaching their performance targets;
The provision of effective practice guidance to
court staff; and
Implementation of wider information sharing to
improve tracing capabilities eg access to the Police National
Computer, Department for Work and Pensions Customer Information
System and a credit reference agency.
The Courts Act 2003, national roll out of which was completed
in March 2005 introduced a new fines collection scheme, enabling
magistrates' courts to improve fine collection rates throughout
the application of new sanctions and processes. The new sanctions
Attachment of earnings.
Deductions from benefit.
Clamping of a defaulter's vehicle.
Registration of the fine on the Register of County
Court Judgements and Fines.
The Courts Act also created the role of the Fines Officer
whose role was to see defendants and defaulters encoring payment
on the day of sentence, discourage defaulting and gather and verify
means information referring prolific defaulters back to court.
However, it is important to note that the fine payment rate
is not an exact measure of performance. This will only be possible
with the introduction of the Libra system which is now being rolled
out across the magistrates courts. In particular, the figures
quoted are not exactly comparable year on year because of changes
in their definition. However, there is no doubt that fine payment
has increased substantially. The cash collected in respect of
fines alone (financial impositions, minus costs and compensation)
are at their highest for 13 years. The most recent years figures
are as follows (rounded to the nearest million pounds):
Q25. The CJS IT Programme is forecasting benefits of around
£2.5bn over 10 years (page 44). Can you please provide a
breakdown of how these benefits are expected to arise?
The forecast of benefits of around £2.5bn is sourced
from the 2006-07 Quarter 4 "Benefits Evidence and Revised
Forecast" (BE&RF) Report. This was approved by the CJS
Benefits Working Group and the OCJR Operational Board. The table
below shows the breakdown of the total forecast with respect to
the projects that deliver the benefits.
|CJS IT Projects||10 Year Total 2003-04 onwards £'m
|Applications NSPIS Custody and Case Prep
|Compass CMS (50%)||68.51
|NWNJ IT tool (WMS)||22.77
|Libra application (incl Exchange 3a)||102.40
|OASys (inc CJSE DIP)||246.49
|OASys/C-NOMIS enabled (Offender Management)
|CJSE Release 1a (NSPIS-CMS)||17.72
|CJSE Release 1b (NSPIS-Libra)||9.45
|XHIBIT/CJSE Release 2a and b (Portal)||28.98
|Secure Email/Emailing Securely||4.17
|New YJB ICT programe||56.52
|Intrastructure and Enabled CJSE Release 3a (Libra/DVLA)
|CJSE Release 3b (NSPIS/DVLA)||5.79
|COMPASS infrastructure (50%)||225.74
|Libra enabled (Enforcement Initiatives)
|C-NOMIS infrastructure (30%)||70.68
|OMNI infrastructure (and cost effectiveness)
|LINK enabled (ETMP xCJS model and Crest)
|Equip enabled (Phoenix)||311.00
|Prog Combined Effectiveness Impact
|Social Value Benefits||221.81
|Potential Opportunity Value of joining up via Exchange (POV)
|Total Benefits including POV||2,565.89
The following table shows the breakdown of benefits by recipient
organisation. All (except for Social Value and Potential Opportunity
Value benefits) have been signed off by Benefits Realisation Leads
and Departmental Efficiency Planners.
|10 Year Benefits Value by Recipient Department (£'m)
|Benefit Category||Home Office
|CJS IT Applications Efficiency Cashable
CJS IT Infrastructure
|CJS IT enabled benefits Indirect/Enabled
|CJS IT subtotal||1,645.09
|Contribution to reducing the economic and social cost of crime
|Total (exclude POV)||1,634.46
|Potential Opportunity Value of joining up via Exchange
Q26. Performance on the NOMS standard (page 86) for the
reconviction rate for young offenders and the SR2002 PSA 5 [re-offending
by young offenders] both have a performance status of "slippage"
in the 2007 Departmental Annual Report. Although responsibility
for NOMS has now transferred to the Ministry of Justice can the
Department provide reasons for the reported slippage?
The Youth Justice Board and the Ministry of Justice have
increased the emphasis on reducing re-offending (the latest figures
for the 2005 cohort show continued slippage against the target)
and have a range of measures in place to drive up performance
but these inevitably take time to impact on offender behaviour.
We have developed a reducing re-offending delivery plan to
drive progress, set up an Inter-Ministerial Group to work across
government to improve access to mainstream services, and invested
in IT making it easier to address offending behaviour by improved
sentence planning and risk assessment of young people while in
The Youth Justice Board continues to work to improve performance
by working with Youth Offending Teams and the Secure Estate to
improve practice by improving the completion and quality of the
assessment tool Asset, revising Key Elements of Effective Practice
and the national Standards for Youth Justice Services and maintaining
the development of the youth justice workforce. The inclusion
of several youth justice indicators in the new Performance Framework
for Local Authorities and their partners will help to drive local
delivery across a range of agencies.
This is an ambitious target in dealing with this most troublesome
group of offendersmany of whom come from extremely troubled
backgrounds. The factors that drive young people towards offending
such as family problems, homelessness, mental health problems,
school exclusion mean that there are no easy solutions but we
are committed to improving our performance.
Q27. What level of funding has been transferred to the
Ministry of Justice in respect of the recent Machinery of Government
The level of funding transferred to the Ministry of Justice
in respect of the recent Machinery of Government is £4,992m
Resource and £560m Capital in 2007-08 (to the nearest £m).
These figures will be formally confirmed and published in the
Winter Supplementary Estimates shortly.
Q28. What is the annual cost of (i) the Airline Liaison
Officers based overseas, and (ii) the strengthened juxtaposed
controls broken down into its constituent parts (page 57)?
(i) The role of the Airline Liaison Officer (ALO) Network
is to reduce the number of inadequately documented passengers
reaching the UK as part of our work on exporting the border. ALOs
are based overseas at source and transit locations which have
been identified as significant points of embarkation for inadequately
documented arrivals (IDAs) in the UK. The activity of ALOs has
played a significant part in reducing IDAs reaching the UK from
just over 11,200 in 2004 to just over 6,900 in 2006. Over the
last five years, the ALO Network has assisted in preventing nearly
180,000 IDAs from boarding aircraft. A comprehensive review of
the ALO network was completed this year and work is now ongoing
to prioritise the recommendations and ensure benefits realisation.
The total cost of the ALON, including pay and non-pay, for
the financial year 2006-07 was just over £8.9m. The UK cost
was just under £2.6m. The total annual overseas costs by
region were as follows, rounded to the nearest £0.1m:
|Middle East, India & Pakistan||£0.9 m
(ii) During 2001-2002 significant numbers of clandestine
illegal entrants and inadequately documented and inadmissible
passengers came through the French ferry ports and Channel Tunnel
system, with the overwhelming majority claiming asylum after arrival
in the United Kingdom. This led to the phased implementation of
UK immigration controls, known as juxtaposed controls, operate
in Northern France at Calais, Boulogne and Dunkerque ferry ports
as well as the Eurotunnel terminal at Coquelles and the Eurostar
stations of Brussels, Paris, Lille and Calais Frethun. Juxtaposed
controls have been highly successful and have played a key part
in reducing the dangerous and illegal crossing of the channel.
In 2006 our juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium stopped
almost 16,900 people crossing the channel illegally. In addition,
for the same period 6,800 people were refused entry to the UK
at juxtaposed controls.
Annual pay and non-pay total costs for operational staff
at juxtaposed control locations is just under £40m The annual
pay total is just over £30m and the non-pay total cost is
just over £9m. A high majority of our staff work in frontline
controls ensuring the borders are strengthened to prevent thousands
of potential illegal immigrants reaching the UK.
Q29. How many asylum applications have been made in each
of the last 3 years? What is the number of cases making up the
backlog of unresolved asylum cases and what are the main reasons
for the reduction in the number of unfounded cases between April
2002 and March 2006?
Number of asylum applications made in each of the last three
The below table shows the number of asylum applications that
have been made in the last three years, both excluding and including
|Principle Asylum Applicants||33,960
|Applicants including Dependants||40,625
The below table gives the proportion of principle asylum
claims which have been successful and splits this down into (a)
those granted asylum and (b) those granted another form of leave
to remain. The figures include claimants granted on initial decision
or at appeal. Please note that the below figures are estimates
because a proportion of claims made in these years is still awaiting
an initial decision or the outcome of an appeal.
|Proportion of Principle Asylum Claimants:
|Granted Asylum (Refugee Status)||13%
|Not recognised as a refugee but granted Humanitarian Protection/ Discretionary Leave
Number of cases making up the backlog of unresolved asylum cases
The former Home Secretary announced the legacy programme
(now also known as the case resolution programme) to Parliament
in July last year. He advised that there were up to 450,000 unresolved
electronic and paper records on asylum cases within the Immigration
and Nationality Directorate (now the Border and Immigration Agency).
This figure is an estimate of the number of unresolved asylum
case records which includes duplicates and data errors, and does
not equate to numbers of asylum applicants. It remains our intention
to clear these legacy cases within five years or less, ie by July
We will provide updates on the progress we are making in
Main reasons for the reduction in the number of unfounded cases
between April 2002 and March 2006:
An unfounded asylum claim is one where the applicant and
dependants of the applicant have not been granted full refugee
status (indefinite leave to remain) under the 1951 UN Convention,
ie failed asylum seekers (applicants refused refugee status at
the initial decision stage for which no appeal is received and
applicants whose appeal rights are exhausted).
The reduction between April 2002 and March 2006 is due to:
A decline in the number of initial applications
being made in the first place (as evidenced in the statistics
above). This was partly due to factors such as the introduction
of Non-Suspensive Appeals countries, the introduction of fast-track
processes (for example at Harmondsworth detention centre) and
the strengthening of our borders, for example through the Airline
Liaison Officer Network and juxtaposed controls.
In the first half of the period in question (April
2002 to March 2006) there was a large number of "backlog"
Fewer appeals were made (which links to fewer
initial decisions, which in turn stem, to some extent, from fewer
Q30. The estimated total resource costs of providing passports
and ID Cards to British and Irish citizens resident in the UK
over the next 10 years is £5.55bn (Identity Card SchemeCost
Report May 2007). What impact will the increased costs have on
the application fee and how much is expected to be paid to IT
and Management Consultants involved with the project?
It is intended that future operational costs, including any
costs incurred by the Identity and Passport Service on consultancy
services, will predominantly be recovered through fees charged
for passports and identity cards as well as any fees charged to
organisations for identity verification services. However, no
decisions have yet been made on the actual fee structure, nor
how much of future estimated expenditure will be for external
contracted services. The use of consultants will be where that
is demonstrably the most cost-effective option for particular
aspects of the work. The Identity & Passport Service has made
significant progress in ensuring that the bulk of its on-going
needs are met by Civil Servants, including a recent exercise which
recruited 70 I.T. specialists. But a project as large as the National
Identity Scheme will continue to need a level of technical and
specialist support, which cannot be provided solely in-house.
Further information on the estimated costs of the identity
cards scheme over the next 10 years will be provided in the next
6 monthly report to Parliament due in November.
Q31. The Department had previously agreed that the Home
Affairs Committee should be involved in the way that PSA outcomes
are defined, measured and delivered. Can you please provide the
Committee with copies of the draft Public Service Agreement targets
and Departmental Strategic Objectives for the Home Office being
contemplated under the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007? Can
you also please provide details of what stakeholders have been
involved in their development?
In response to the agreement made previously, the Home Office
sent to the Committee on 18 July 2007 a paper "consulting
the Home Affairs Committee on the SR07 PSAs". This included
the Departmental Strategic Objectives and the direction of travel
the Home Office was considering for the PSAs at that time.
The final Departmental Strategic Objectives and the PSAs
have since been published and can be found at:
Q32. Budget 2006 announced the CSR2007 settlement for
the Home Office with resources "maintained at the Home Office's
2007-08 Departmental Expenditure Limit in real terms'. What changes
in the Department's activities and priorities will be needed to
accommodate such a settlement and to ensure service delivery is
maintained over the CSR 2007 period? What revisions to the settlement
are likely as a result of the Machinery of Government changes
in May 2007 that affected the Department's remit?
The Comprehensive Spending Review Announcement by the Government
on 9 October provided over £200 million additional resources
per year by 2010-11 (£695 million extra over the three years)
for counter terrorism and securitytaking real growth in
the Department's total budget to over 1% per year over the CSR07
We are still considering how to allocate the resources in
detail. But along with efficiency and effectiveness improvements,
this growth provides resources for the Department's priorities
the Home Office to lead more effectively the cross-Government
effort to reduce the risk of international terrorism in the UK;
delivering the new crime strategy with a stronger
focus on serious violence and more freedom and flexibility for
local partners and the frontline;
investment of over £11m per year by 2010-11
to establish a new National Fraud Strategic Authority, Lead Police
Force and National Fraud Reporting Centre to strengthen our efforts
in tackling fraud;
delivering the new alcohol strategy focusing on
the groups which cause the most harm and a new drugs strategy
to be published in April 2008 to improve prevention and treatment;
investment in neighbourhood policing to ensure
it is embedded across the country, enabling forces to better respond
to local concerns, increase intelligence and build up trust; and
controlling migration, harnessing its benefits
whilst further securing our borders with increased investment
in a new e-Borders system to count people in and out of the country
and implementation of a new points-based migration system that
will ensure Britain gets the skilled migrants it needs for economic
With this funding and our ambitious value for money programme
we will be able to invest in improving performance, rolling-out
neighbourhood policing and delivering our major projects, including
e-borders and identity cards.
The figures published with the Spending Review
show the Home Office and Ministry of Justice baselines following
the Machinery of Government Changes. These represent the transfer
of the National Offender Management Service, Office for Criminal
Justice Reform and a proportion of the corporate centre and unallocated
provision. These figures also include the various changes that
have gone through the estimates process since the original settlement.
Including the departure of Communities responsibilities to Communities
and Local Government and Cabinet Office, and the transfer of Respect
to the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
HOME OFFICE1 BASELINE AND ADDITIONS
|of which near-cash||8,351
|of which administration||440
1 Includes Assets Recovery Agency.
2 Full resource budgeting basis, net of depreciation.
MINISTERY OF JUSTICE BASELINE AND ADDITIONS
|of which near-cash||8,539
|of which administration||459
1 Full resource budgeting basis, net of depreciation.
Q33. Could the Department please provide the Committee
with copies of any action plans which have been developed in order
to take forward the recommendations of the external Capability
Review of the Home Office? In particular, how is the Department
addressing the issues identified as "serious concern"
and "urgent development areas"?
The action plan is available at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/reform-action-plan.pdf/
and the latest progress update at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/organisation/home-office-reform/reform-detail/ho-review-milestone-3-progress/?view=Standard
Q34. The Committee would be grateful for a breakdown of
the reported £2,352 million savings into the OGC classifications
and details about the audit or verification of the efficiency
The Outturn reported to the Treasury at the end of Q4 2006-07
described significant confidence in the Department's numbers,
with £1,535m gains categorised as "finalised" (the
final, settled classification) and a further £817m gains
categorised as "delivered" (that we expect to be classified
"finalised" when final outturn for the period is reported).
This was reflected in the Committee of Public Accounts" recent
report on the cross-Government Efficiency Programme. The table
at Appendix A shows how this breaks down between business areas
and the scrutiny process employed by the Department and the Treasury
(formerly by the Office of Government Commerce).
Q35. The National Audit Office report "Progress in
improving government efficiency" [HC802-1 February 2006]
stated that "the biggest risk is that efficiency gains are
accompanied by unintended falls in the quality of service delivery"
[para 16]. How does the Department monitor quality of front-line
services where efficiency savings have been delivered?
The Home Office Technical Note describes the methodology
for assessing quality of service against the delivery of savings.
=1. The table at Appendix A describes the performance and quality
measures against which efficiency savings are monitored to give
reassurance that reductions in quality do not take place.
Gains reported in the Border & Immigration Agency build
on those achieved by the former Immigration & Nationality
Directorate (IND), to which the historical documents at Appendix
Q36. A number of other departmental select committees
have been provided with their departments" quarterly efficiency
reports to the OGC. The Committee would be grateful for a copy
of the efficiency reports the Home Office has submitted to the
OGC for the quarters to March 2006 and December 2006
The Department submitted documents to the OGC describing:
Performance against target; and
Case-studies of good practice.
The consolidated reports are attached at Appendix B.
Q37. The NAO report "The Efficiency Programme: A
Second Review of Progress" [HC 156-I, 8 February 2007] raised
concerns that there was no direct assessment of whether the cashable
efficiency gains made by the Police Force were made at the expense
of service quality. What measures of service quality have been
introduced and can the Committee please see the results?
In preparing their efficiency plans, police forces are asked
to link planned gains to a particular function. These are the
functions which were inspected by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary
in their Baseline Inspections in 2006 and the baseline inspection
process provided a quality cross-check on the efficiency gains
claimed. We believe that baseline assessment at the functional
level provided a reasonable balance between the level of assurance
required that performance had been maintained or improved and
the additional bureaucracy that would be required to trace in
detail the precise impact of each action intended to improve efficiency.
In cases in which Baseline Assessment showed a deterioration
in a function compared to 2004-05, forces were only allowed to
claim efficiency gains linked to that function if they could satisfy
HMIC that the gain claimed had been made and had not caused or
contributed to the decline in performance. Some of the gains claimed
by three forces were disallowed on that basis. There will be no
baseline inspection for 2006-07 or 2007-08 and work is in hand
to develop a replacement check that can be used for the remainder
of the SR04 years and for the years covered by CSR 07.
Q38. How were the revised set of objectives (page 10)
developed and how do the existing PSAs map to the new set of objectives?
The new objective on cutting crime now specifically mentions alcohol
related crime: would this change still have been made if there
had not been the Machinery of Government changes in May 2007?
Have the applicable PSAs and targets also been adapted as a result
of this change in objectives?
The revised set of Departmental Strategic Objectives were
set through strategy workshops with senior staff and Ministers
followed by a staff consultation.
The specific addition of alcohol in the objectives is to
signal the priority being given to reducing alcohol-related harms.
The SR04 PSAs were not changed as a result of the change
in objectives, although ownership of elements such as the re-offending
standard transferred from the Home Office to the new Ministry
The SR07 PSAs, which take effect in April 08, reflect the
Government's priorities for the next three years and include,
for example, alcohol-related harms.
Q39. Please can you explain the variance between the planned
staff numbers for Civil Service full time equivalents for 2007
(19,836) in the 2006 Departmental Annual Report and the actuals
(21,224) in the 2007 Departmental Annual Report (page 113, table
5.6)? What impact has this higher than previously planned number
had on your headcount reduction target?
The difference between predicted and actual 2007 staffing
numbers reflects growth in operational strength, particularly
including operational staffing in the Border and Immigration Agency
(BIA). The Department's target to reduce headcount was cast carefully
to bear down on the size of the civil service headquarters function
whilst sparing those activities that provide operational services
directly for the public (this mirrors the distinction between
Administration and Other Current Expenditure, that are Voted separately
by Parliament for the same reason). That means, whilst there has
been growth in operational functions, that has not impinged upon
the focus or delivery of the target to reduce the size of the
BIA Front line staffing increased by 1,155 between end March
2006 and end March 2007 and is outside the scope of the target
to reduce the size of the headquarters by 2,700 FTE posts by 31
March 2008 (that also includes reducing the size of the headquarters
in the BIA by more than 300 posts in the same period).
Increasing staff resources has allowed the BIA to maintain
its focus on border security in the context of challenges posed
by increasing international travel, the introduction of new border
technologies and the opening of new ports, such as Terminal 5
at Heathrow. Similarly, Managed Migration staffing increased in
response to increasing volumes of applications and to strengthen
the intelligence and compliance functions.
There was also a small amount of growth in functions supporting
the Department's response to the key points raised in the Capability
Review, and also in planning the increased prisons building programme.
Changes in these areas are reflected in the net outturn figures
for overall staffing and reduction in the size of the HQ.
Transfer of the National Offender Management Service to the
new Ministry of Justice meant the target to reduce the size of
the headquarters in the residual Home Office was reduced to 2,327
fewer FTE posts by 31 March 2008.
As at the end of 2007 Quarter 2 (1 September 2007), the headquarters
had shrunk by 2,253 FTE posts, leaving reduction by 74 FTE posts
still required during 2007-08.
Q40. Could you please explain the following variances
identified in the tables in Chapter 5?
The outturn of £54m for 2006-07 on drugs
in table 5.1, compared with the planned expenditure of £210m
in the 2006 Departmental Annual Report.
The outturn of £233m for 2006-07 on Central
Services in table 5.2 compared with the planned expenditure of
£198m in the 2006 Departmental Annual Report.
The outturn of £400m for 2006-07 on administration
income in table 5.5 compared to the planned income of £489m
in the 2006 Departmental Annual Report.
The 2006-07 outturn figures in the Departmental Annual Report
are estimated figures determined in January 2007. The actual audited
outturn is recorded in the 2006-07 resource accounts and explanations
for variances between plans and budgets on an Estimates basis
as shown in note 2 to the accounts are set out in pages 15 to
19 of the accounts.
The actual expenditure on drugs programmes was £221.99m.
The estimate in the DAR excluded expenditure of £173m resource
and £3m capital on the Drugs Intervention Programme which,
following major organisational change within the Crime Reduction
and Community Safety Directorate earlier in the year, was wrongly
mapped against the objective "people feel more secure in
their homes and daily lives".
The plan figure for Central Services in the 2006 Report reflects
the SR04 baseline position. This has subsequently increased due
to the transfer into Central Services of a number of additional
programmes and activities, in particular the Respect Taskforce
£21.6m; the International Directorate £2.5m; Race and
Diversity Action Team £1.6m; and Parliamentary and legal
fees previously met by the Cabinet Office £1.7m.
Administration income in the audited resource accounts is
£468m, broadly in line with the plan figure of £489m.
The estimated income in the 2007 Report increased following the
identification of income that had been mis-classified as programme
and also higher than expected receipts by the Criminal Records
Bureau and the Identity and Passports Service.
Additional questions (which would have been asked by Members
at the 25 July evidence session with the Home Secretary, had time
The Home Office state that "the PSAs, performance indicators
and targets are under development and have not yet been finalised"
but "will be published at the CSR".
Q41. You have supplied us with a paper on the "direction
of travel" for the latest round of PSA targets. However,
this deals with generalities rather than details. Will this Committee
be provided with a draft of the PSA targets themselves once they
have been developed, so that we can comment on them before they
The 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review PSA targets have now
been published and can be found at:
In its 2005 report on Home Office Target-Setting, the Committee
when the Home Office next reviews its PSA targets, as part
of the 2006 Spending Review, a higher proportion of targets should
contain "realistic but stretching" quantitative elements.
The Government's response stated that "we will consider
the appropriate use of quantitative and directional targets in
our PSA set during the 2006 Spending Review process".
Q42. How will the new Public Service Agreements improve
the use of quantitative rather then directional targets as recommended
by this Committee?
The new PSAs set out the key priority outcomes the Government
would like to achieve in the next spending period (2008-09 to
2010-11). A small number of performance indicators will be used
to measure progress towards each PSA.
Some of these indicators have specific national targets or
minimum standards attached. National targets have been limited
to a small subset of PSA indicators that require firm central
direction thus providing far greater space for service providers
to set their own targets in response to the priorities of local
communities. All other PSA indicators are expected to improve
over the course of the spending period.
This is the policy that the Government has adopted for all
30 of the SR07 PSAs. A summary list of the PSAs and their performance
indicators that identifies which indicators have targets or minimum
standards can be found at:
The Budget in March 2006 announced the CSR 2007 settlement
for the Home Office with resources "maintained at the Home
Office's 2007-08 Departmental Expenditure Limit in real terms".
Q43. Looking forward, the 2006 Budget confirmed a flat
settlement for the Home Office for financial years 2008-09 to
2010-11. Which areas of the Department will be expected to deliver
further efficiencies after March 2008?
The Home Office has established a robust process for developing
further opportunities for achieving Value for Money over the CSR
period. The programme covers the breadth of Home Office and police
activity. Key areas where we expect to make gains include:
The FrontRunner programme that will deliver
substantial VfM improvements through local operational process
improvement. We have established projects in the police, BIA and
the OCJR that will begin to show tangible local performance and
cost improvements by the start of the CSR period;
By reducing volume and price on procurement;
Workforce reform, deployment of resources and
operational efficiency. Defining the scope for delivering VfM
by using the workforce more effectively, including, for example,
by aligning workforce mix and deployment profiling with strategic
objectives through better use of improved management and performance
Collaboration and Shared Services. This involves
taking forward our work on transactional shared services for finance,
HR, IT, estates, and procurement, but also looking for opportunities
to deliver directly operational support more cost-effectively
on a shared service basis.
Greater use of IT and Technology. Continued theme
from SR04. This means maximising VfM benefit from IT projects,
with a particular emphasis on business re-engineering to maximise
ICT benefit and draw upon lessons from the Sir David Varney's
review "Service Transformation: a better service for citizens
and businesses, a better deal for taxpayers".
The Department will publish VfM Delivery Agreements describing
the methodology for measuring gains around the end of the year.
The Home Office paper (para 13) refers to the Departmental
Strategic Objective of protecting the public from terrorist attack.
It states that:
We are looking to see whether it would be possible to develop
a PSA in this area to reflect the strategic importance of counter
terrorism across government. This is ambitious as we have never
had a counter terrorism PSA before. If we do develop a PSA in
this area, the details will not be public.
Q44. What are the options for developing a PSA target
for protecting the public against terrorist attack? You say that
with any such target, "the details will not be public".
What is the point of a secret target? Will you undertake to make
details of the target available to this Committee, so that we
can discuss it with Ministers, even if that has to be in closed
Each PSA is underpinned by a Delivery Agreement shared across
all contributing departments and set out the plans for delivery
and the role of key delivery partners. They also describe the
performance indicators and targets. The Delivery Agreement for
the PSA to "reduce the risk to the UK and its interests overseas
from international terrorism" can be found at:
As indicated, this document only includes a summary as, by
its nature, a full Delivery Agreement would contain information
about the UK counter-terrorism effort that could potentially be
useful to those who threaten the UK and its interests. In so far
as is possible and consistent with national security, scrutiny
arrangements for this PSA, including parliamentary scrutiny, will
mirror those in place for other PSAs with progress reports made
public during the CSR period.
24 October 2007
The Burden of Crime in the EU. Research Report: A Comparative
Analysis of the European Crime and Safety Survey 2005. Back
Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour, NAO, 7 December 2007: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/06-07/060799.pdf Back
Spanning the operational areas of custody and prisoner handling;
investigation; response; and community policing. Back
The report identifies these difficulties primarily as a lack of
clarity over the time period in which cost savings were made and
the cost base they refer to. Back
Staff figures exclude PCSOs, Designated Officers and Traffic Wardens. Back
Numbers at 31 March 2003-data is not available for September 2007. Back
Numbers at 31 March 2003-data is not available for September 2007. Back
PND Payment Rates refer to calendar year ie 2005 = 2005-06 and
2006 = 2006-07. Back
Excludes cases that are registered at the courts for non payment,
contested at court or cancelled. Back
Annex D7 to the 2007 Pre-Budget Report and Comprehensive Spending
Not printed. Back
Home Affairs Committee, Third Report of Session 2004-05, Home
Office Target-Setting 2004 (HC 320), para 52. Back
CM 6592 (June 2005), p 4. Back