Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Permanent Secretary, Home Office
1. A BREAKDOWN OF
THE COSTS
OF THE
TRAINING COURSES
UNDERTAKEN BY
SENIOR MANAGEMENT
Thank you for the acknowledgement of receipt of this
information.
2. A LIST OF
WHICH CONSULTANTS
THE HOME
OFFICE HAS
USED, HOW
MUCH HAS
BEEN SPENT
WITH EACH
CONSULTANCY FIRM
AND AN
INDICATION OF
HOW THIS
LIST HAS
CHANGED
In line with my statement to the committee the total
spend on consultants in 2009-10 was £160 million. A significant
proportion of consultancy spend in 2009-10 was consumed on major
programmes which by their very nature attracted specialised external
support, for example the e-borders programme. Alongside that,
value for money focussed productivity support was used to secure
substantial programme and cost saving benefits in front line operational
activity.
In 2010-11 we are scaling back spend where programmes
have been stopped and focusing on those programmes that require
external support to ensure that we are receiving value for money.
We are planning to cut our consultancy and contingent
labour expenditure by almost 50% this year and to make further
savings over the Spending Review period.
I have included a list of the consultancy firms the
Home Office has employed in 2009-10 and this year. To provide
a breakdown of the amount paid to each firm will take time. I
am mindful of the deadline which you have set for a response to
your questions and so I shall write separately with details of
spend.
Top 10 consultancy firms employed this year (to
end October 2010):
- Ernst & Young (Immigration casework, communications
capabilities, National identity Scheme)
- Deloitte (e-borders)
- KPMG (Olympics and Value for Money)
- Detica Ltd (National Identity Scheme, Cyclamen)
- Drivers Jonas (Majority Office for Security and
Counter-Terrorism, Cyclamen)
- PA consulting (Majority Office for Security and
Counter-Terrorism)
- Audit Commission (General Audits)
- Amtec Consulting (Immigration case work, Immigration
and Asylum Fingerprinting Services)
- Roke Manor (Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism,
Communications capabilities)
- Atkins Ltd (specialist estates advice)
Top 10 consultancy firms employed in 2009-10
- Ernst & Young (Immigration casework, communications
capabilities, National identity Scheme)
- Deloitte (e-borders)
- KPMG (Olympics and Value for Money)
- Drivers Jonas (Majority Office for Security and
Counter-Terrorism / Cyclamen)
- PA consulting (National Identity scheme)
- Walker-Cox (Value for Money)
- Accenture (Points based system)
- Serco (Project Advance File cleansing within
UKBA Immigration Group)
- Detica Ltd (Majority Office for Security and
Counter-Terrorism)
- Berkshire Consultancy Ltd (Value for Money work)
3. THE RESEARCH
USED TO
DETERMINE THE
LINK BETWEEN
A RISE
IN CRIME,
POLICE NUMBERS
AND THE
IMPACT OF
THE RECESSION
ON CRIME
LEVELS
Relationship between policing numbers and crime
There are a range of research studies and analyses
which look at the relationship between police officers and crime
levels. None of the studies are without weaknesses which affect
how certain one can be that they are valid to real-life circumstances
and it is evident that there is no simple link between officer
numbers and crime levels.
Historically, empirical measurement of the effect
of policing on crime has proved challenging, with studies earlier
than the late 1990's often falling short of delivering a robust
assessment of the extent to which police numbers affect crime.
The main challenges are: trying to isolate the effect of changes
in police numbers from other factors which influence crime rates;
and the fact that police resources/numbers may themselves be influenced
by local crime rates.
More recent analyses have attempted to address these
weaknesses. These have suggested that all things being equal,
increases in police numbers can lead to lower crime (usually in
the range of a 1% increase meaning a 0.3-0.8% decrease in crime).
However all things are never equal, and the combined effect of
other factors (e.g. improved product security, increased drug
treatment provision) can outweigh any impact on changes in crime
resulting from changes in police numbers at any time. As a result,
there are some examples in other countries and cities (such as
New York) and other time periods in England and Wales, when falls
in crime have been accompanied by reductions in officer numbers.
Furthermore, for any given level of resource, I would
expect the effectiveness of police deployment to make a substantial
difference to crime levels (as I outlined at the evidence session).
Few of the analyses of police numbers and crime have been able
to control for variations in police deployment, tactics and productivity.
Whilst some studies relate to the impact of specific types of
officer deployment (e.g. Draca et al. considered the effect of
short-run, visible police deployments in London following the
terrorist bombings in July 2005), other studies estimate average
effects which can disguise significant variations in effectiveness
across forces, deployment types and so on. This is a general limitation
to the evidence as it is known that the types of activities the
police undertake can influence crime levels. For example, evidence
from the U.S. suggests that targeting officers on hot-spots rather
than on random preventative patrol, will have a marked impact
on crime levels (Sherman, 2002). This suggests that the deployment
of police officers needs to be effective to have an impact on
crime levels.
Relationship between the economy and crime
There are few published studies on the relationship
between the economy and crime. Studies in the 1990s suggested
that as the economy grows there is less property crime. This is
on the basis that as people feel better off, as indicated by their
spending patterns, they are less attracted to criminal methods
of obtaining goods (the so-called motivation effect). There is
also the potential for a reverse effect whereby increased spending
might create more opportunities for property crime to occur.
However, there is now considerable uncertainty about
the relationship between crime and economic activity. This is
because in the most recent recession, the upwards pressure on
crime that was predicted did not materialise. This may have been
because the nature of the recession was different (e.g. no inflationary
pressures, more resilient labour markets, and fewer workless households),
or because the decline in crime trend since 1995 continued its
momentum and outweighed any upwards pressure (for example from
reductions in vehicle related crime).
Below is a list of papers relevant to these two topics.
Relevant papers on the relationship between police
numbers and crime
*Note that whilst forthcoming
papers have not yet been formally published, a version has at
some point been publicly available (e.g. the findings have been
presented at conferences)
Draca, M, Machin, S, & Witt, R (forthcoming)
Panic on the Streets of London: Police, Crime, and the July 2005
Terror Attacks, American Economic Review.
Hamed, J & Vollaard, B (forthcoming) Using the
funding formula to estimate police effectiveness: evidence for
England and Wales.
Klick, J & Tabarrok, A (2005). Using Terror Alert
Levels to Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime, Journal of
Law & Economics, 48(1), pp 267-79.
Levitt, S D(1997) Using Electoral Cycles in Policing
Hiring to Estimate the Effects of Police on Crime, American
Economic Review, 87(3), 270-90.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUsingElectoralCycles1997.pdf
Levitt, S D (2002) Using Electoral Cycles in Policing
Hiring to Estimate the Effects of Police on Crime: Reply, American
Economic Review, 92(4), pp. 1244-50.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUsingElectoralCycles2002.
pdf
Makinen, T & Takala, H (1980) The 1976 Police
Strike in Finland. Scandinavian Studies in Criminology 7:
87-106.
Marvell, T B & Moody, C E (1996). Specification
Problems, Police Levels and Crime Rates. Criminology 34:
609-646.
Sherman, L W (2002). Policing for Crime Prevention.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/works/chapter8.htm
Tabarrok, A (2006) Police, Prisons, and Punishment:
The Empirical Evidence on Crime Deterrence.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/files/rational_deterrence.ppt#16
Vollaard, B (2005) Evaluating the push for tougher,
more targeted policing in the Netherlands Evidence from a citizen
survey. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
Vollaard, B & Hamed, J (forthcoming) Why the
Police Have an Effect on Violent Crime After All: Evidence from
the British Crime Survey.
Relevant papers on the relationship between the
economy and crime
Trends in Crime Revisited (1999) Home Office Research
Study 195
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors195.pdf
Modelling and predicting property crime trends in
England and Wales (1999)
Home Office Research Study 198
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors198.pdf
4. DETAILS ON
CAPITAL SPENDING.
You asked for details about out Capital settlement
and what we propose to spend it on. The Capital settlement for
the Home Office is set out below.
| Baseline | 2101-12
| 2012-13 | 2013-14
| 2014-15 |
| Home Office Capital Allocation | 829
| 501 | 500 | 365
| 465 |
This translates into a 49% real (44% cash) reduction (on the baseline
of £829m) by the end of the period with a sharper drop in
2013-14.
The settlement requires us to fund the following programmes:
- Olympic security (including elements of LOCOG venue security)
- Communications Capabilities;
- e-Borders; and
- Immigration Casework Programme.
The settlement does not specify the level of funding for these
programmes, and allows for funding of further projects and programmes
as well.
As part of the Spending Review, we conducted a zero-based review
of all our Capital projects and programmes. We explored the economic
value of different investments and considered how important different
programmes were for delivering our key priorities, such as immigration
control. This exercise put us in a good position for making difficult
choices about our Capital budget.
A number of our investment projects will be completed during the
Spending Review period and we have borne down on the costs of
remaining programmes and projects to enable us to cut our Capital
budget. We will continue to invest in those areas which are necessary
for public protection, such as capability to support Olympics
security, and where Capital expenditure will help us to reduce
our running costs, including the Immigration Casework Programme.
The police Capital grant for 2010/11 is £220m. This is a
significant proportion of our current Capital baseline. We are
currently working internally to establish levels of funding for
the Police and for our other programmes. Details of police Capital
will be laid before Parliament as part of the police and local
government finance settlement on 13 December.
5. A TIMETABLE FOR
THE E -BORDERS
PROGRAMME.
The e-Borders programme remains a priority and we are now taking
steps to extract and secure the current service from Raytheon
and progress this project in a timely and cost-effective way.
Current e-Borders services continue to be delivered. The Semaphore
watchlisting system provided by IBM is now under UKBA contractual
control, and the transfer of the Carrier Gateway and the National
Border Targeting Centre is expected in the New Year.
The Home Office business plan, published on 8 November, sets out
our current targets in relation to e-Borders:
- Transition existing services from Raytheon Systems Limited
and agree a contract with new suppliers by April 2011.
- Implement an agreed contract with suppliers, to deliver value
for money and meet agreed milestones by March 2015.
- Make any necessary operational changes to reintroduce exit
checks by March 2015
In the meantime we are working to find a new supplier and working
to achieve all milestones. Requirements have been worked through
with potential new suppliers, delivery timescales are being verified
and costs are being negotiated and will be finalised in the New
Year.
As part of this we are developing the business case for the programme
which will be subject to external approval, including from HMT.
The committee also asked four detailed questions. The questions
and answers to these are set out below.
Your Department's budget for programmes is to fall by £2
billion or 23% in real terms between 2010/11 and 2014/15. How
much of this decrease will fall to the police and how much to
the UKBA?
The Spending Review settlement reduces the core Home Office resource
budget by 23% in real terms by 2014/15. Over the Spending Review
period, overall Home Office spending will reduce by £1.47bn.
Savings will be made across all parts of the department including
the UKBA which, once income is taken into account, will save 17%
on its resource budget.
The settlement for the police has been considered separately from
the rest of Home Office funding. Core government funding to the
police will be reduced by 20% in real terms over four years. However,
police forces also generate funds from precept. If Police Authorities
(and following elections in May 2012 and subject to future legislation,
Police and Crime Commissioners) were to choose to increase precept
at the level assumed by the Office of Budget Responsibility, the
Spending Review settlement means that on average police budgets
would see real terms reductions of 14% over the next four years.
Currently, the Department for Communities and Local Government
and the Welsh Assembly Government between them provide 29% of
police funding. Do you expect them to provide a similar percentage
in future? Have you discussed with them what reductions they may
be making in their contributions?
In the Spending Review funding to the police was considered as
a whole. Core government funding to the police will be reduced
by 20% in real terms over four years, and this means grants to
the police paid by the HO, CLG and WAG. Each of these funding
pots will be reduced by the same proportion. The Home Office is
working closely with CLG and WAG in allocating funding between
forces. More detail will be outlined in the local government finance
settlement which will be laid before Parliament next week.
Given that the Home Office has overall responsibility for policing,
what contingency plans does the Home Office have in the event
that neither the other government departments nor the police authorities
provide as much funding as the Home Secretary would wish?
In the Spending Review funding to the police was considered as
a whole. Core government funding to the police will be reduced
by 20% in real terms over four years, and this means grants to
the police paid by the HO, CLG and WAG. Each of these funding
streams will be reduced by the same proportion meaning that the
Home Secretary knows how much funding CLG and WAG will provide
for policing. Funding from other sources such as the police precept
could help to cushion the impact of the reductions in government
funding, but this is a matter for police authorities, and following
elections in May 2012 and subject to future legislation, Police
and Crime Commissioners.
It seems likely that there will be an increase in work for
the Home Office in the next few years, as that the terrorist threat
remains severe, the Olympics are imminent, and given several pieces
of forthcoming legislation, the major reviews into counter-terrorism
and extradition, and government initiatives to publish more information
about crime and policing. How has this been taken into account
in your forward planning for the Department when you will have
fewer staff and less money?
The Home Office has an important set of responsibilities which
need to be delivered within the Spending Review settlement. In
the recently published business plan the department set out its
vision to defend the country against terrorism, secure our borders
and control immigration, and enable the police and local communities
to step up the fight against crime and anti-social behaviour.
Through the Spending Review negotiations we have sought a balance
between reducing the budget deficit and ensuring the department
retains its capabilities to protect the public. I am confident
that we can deliver the Home Secretary's business plan priorities
and our ongoing commitments within the funding envelope we have.
Spending Review negotiations focused on ensuring funding was available
for the priorities set out in the business plan, for example:
- The profile of budget reductions allows us to protect spending
on Olympics security in 2011-12 and 2012-13.
- Counter-terrorism policing is being protected with a cut of
only 10% in real terms (1% in cash terms) over four years.
- Capital allocation reflects investment in priority areas,
e.g. communications capability and securing the border (e-Borders).
However, the way in which the department works will also change.
The coalition's new approach to delivery devolves decisions, funding
and accountability in some areas. Top down targets have been scrapped
and the public will play a major role in holding the government
and the police to account.
The Home Office will be smaller in line with the Coalition commitment
to cut administration (Whitehall) functions to help reduce the
deficit and protect frontline services as far as possible. We
have committed to reducing our administration spend by 33% in
real terms over four years (on top of substantial reductions this
year) and are also committed to ensuring value for money for the
taxpayer.
We have already begun work on increasing efficiency both within
the administrative functions of the department and in the police
service. For example, in the police service, we are scrapping
the stop form—saving up to 450,000 hours of police officers'
time. Additionally we are limiting stop and search reporting—saving
up to 350,000 hours of police officers' time.
December 2010
| 
