Richard Heaton Ministry of Permanent Secretary 102 Petty France · JUSTICE London SW1 H 9AJ T 020 3334 3725 F 020 3334 371 0 E [email protected] www.gov.uk/MoJ

Nick Walker Clerk of the Committee Justice Select Committee House of Commons London, SW1 H 9NB v November 2015

Supplementary responses to the Justice Select Committee

Thank you for your letter of 20 October asking for further information following the evidence session on the Ministry of Justice's Annual Report and Accounts 2014/15.

Dealing with each of the issues raised in your letter:

1. Why administration expenditure rose by £21 m in 2014/15 compared to 2013/14.

The year on year increase is primarily due to planned increases in staff costs. Staff costs of £15. 7m and Agency Staff costs of £4.8m that were previously reported as programme expenditure were required to be reclassified to administration expenditure in line with HM Treasury's Consolidated Budgetary Guidance.

The reclassified costs included functions covered by the Transforming Rehabilitation Programme. These costs have transferred to NOMS Headquarters where they are now recorded as administrative functions. The Transforming Rehabilitation Programme also created the need for additional contract management to monitor the new Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) contracts and this has also increased the administration expenditure from the previous year.

Alongside these changes, a number of finance staff were transferred from prisons to NOMS Headquarters, which also required programme expenditure to be reclassified as administration expenditure.

Ann Beasley, in her evidence to the committee, noted that administration costs also rose following the movement of Cafcass from the Department for Education to the Ministry of Justice. I can confirm that this change resulted in an increase of £9.4m of administration expenditure between 2013/14 and 2014/15.

Some of these increases have been offset by reductions in other areas of expenditure. 2. Where virements of budget are recorded, when they were made and for what reason.

All virements are disclosed on page 59 of the MoJ Annual Report and Accounts 2014/15 in the column headed "Net Total compared to Estimate adjusted for virements". The table shows, after relevant virements, NOMS had an underspend against its budget of£15.7m in 2014/15.

When setting the budgets for the year it was agreed that specific funds in relation to the Transforming Rehabilitation programme would be held centrally as the timing and nature of the underlying spend was uncertain until the Community Rehabilitation Company (CRCs) had completed staff exits and other restructuring had occurred.

As part of the 2014/15 consolidation process in June 2015, once all agencies had reported their net outturn, the virement process occurred for all relevant bodies (page 59 of the accounts refers to all affected bodies). The virements were performed in accordance with specific HM Treasury approval.

In this instance, NOMS spend in relation to the staff exits and other restructuring as part of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme occurred after the supplementary estimate process in January 2015, and accordingly funds were only released or "vired" after the supplementary estimate budget for NOMS had been published.

3. How many temporary staff were in place at the end of March 2014, how many temporary staff currently in post have been with the Ministry for two or more years? And, the reason for the increase in consultancy expenditure and temporary staff between 2013/14 and 2014/15.

The average number of Consultants and Contingent Labour (CCL) FTEs in the MoJ for the year ending at March 2014 was 3,207 compared to 4,495 for the year ending in March 2015. The information presented in The Annual Report and Accounts is prepared in accordance with the Government Financial Reporting Manual (FReM) issued by HM Treasury. In accordance with the guidance, staff numbers are presented as the average full time equivalents.

It should be noted that the year end figures provide only a snapshot and do not take into account fluctuations in the number of temporary staff during the year. These data, reported in MOJ Workforce Management Information reports on www.gov.uk show the number of CCL FTEs remained relatively stable between March 2014 and March 2015 at around 3,600.

Centrally sourced supplier data show that, across the MoJ family, there were 337 temporary staff as at 30 September 2015 (classified as agency [clerical/admin/interim managers] /specialist contractors labour, namely contingent labour) that had been in post for two or more years across the business groups. These individuals provide support services to NOMS, HM Courts and , , Official Solicitor and Public Trustee, Office of the Public Guardian and in specialist areas in MoJ headquarters, such as in Technology and Digital directorates.

The increase in consultancy and temporary staff costs from 2013/14 is predominately related to the Transforming Rehabilitation programme. A programme of this complexity required a number of specialist legal, contracting, pension advice, accounting and consultancy services to ensure it was appropriately managed and executed.

4. The period of employment for each of the eight people described as earning more than the highest paid director.

2 In my evidence to the Committee I noted that these posts are technical roles, bespoke to particular projects or programmes. Of the eight individuals, six continue to be contracted to provide services to the Ministry.

Of these six their tenure of service (from longest to shortest) stands at 2 years 10 months, 2 years, 1 year 8 months, 15 months, 12 months and 8 months.

Two of the eight individuals have left the Ministry. One of the individuals working was on a large technology programme and served 3 years and 11 months. The other individual, who has subsequently left the department, served 1 year and 9 months.

All of the roles are responsible for technical delivery and require a track record of delivering and manging technology based programmes. We continue to seek to replace contingent labour of this kind with suitable permanent civil servants able to demonstrate the required skill set.

The department continues to regularly review the cost of such contractors and have taken steps to reduce the cost of individual contracts this year.

5. The services included in the bid for the proposed training needs analysis in prisons in Saudi Arabia

The proposal submitted to the Saudi Ministry of the Interior was to conduct a training needs analysis and develop a training strategy plan. NOMS officials would design the training plan around the existing Saudi prison service structure and career development path for Saudi prison service personnel. Possible improved training skills and new specialist competencies would be highlighted, and analysis of job descriptions and specifications would be undertaken with recommendations made as to prison service staff knowledge, skills and abilities. Just Solutions lnternational's proposal was based on our domestic prison training principles and standards, including Her Majesty's Prison Service's policies, rules and regulations. In a statement made to the House of Commons on 13 October, the Secretary of State for Justice confirmed that the bid would be withdrawn. None of the work specified was undertaken.

6. The research to assess the impact of LASPO on civil legal aid

We have so far undertaken three research projects aimed at assessing the impact of recent reforms on aspects of civil legal aid. These are as follows:

• Varying Paths to Justice, a large-scale qualitative research project, which is exploring how people seek to resolve civil, administrative or family justice problems and the influences that shape their decision-making. The report is currently being finalised and we hope to publish by the end of 2015.

• The Survey of Not-for-Profit Legal Advice Providers in England and Wales, which will provide a baseline of the profile of not-for-profit providers and provide an indication of how advice providers in the sector have been affected by recent legal aid and other reforms. The survey findings are going through final quality assurance and internal sign­ off processes. Subject to the outcome of these checks, we are again planning to publish the findings by the end of the year.

3 • The Legal Problem Resolution Survey, a nationally-representative survey on the prevalence of civil justice problems in England and Wales. The survey has been completed and is now being analysed. We expect initial findings from the survey to be available in early 2016.

7. The annual costs of running court buildings remaining unsold from the previous round of court closures.

In the evidence session, Natalie Ceeney referred to 11 buildings. Market Drayton Magistrates' Court was sold on 3 September 2015. As a result there are ten courts closed under the previous Court Estate Reform Programme which remain unsold.

The cost of each of these 10 buildings not yet disposed of as at 23 October 2015 is provided in the table below.

Court building Annual running cost

Alton Magistrates' Court £44,842 Cirencester Magistrates' Court £17,668 Coleford Magistrates' Court £18,738 Keighley Magistrates' Court (sitting at Bingley) £24, 140 Lyndhurst Magistrates' Court £21,391 Oswestry Magistrates' Court £27,232 Pontefract Magistrates' Court £23,487 Stourbridge County Court £30,500 Totnes Magistrates' Court £9,481 Towcester Magistrates' Court £5,336

Of these remaining buildings three are currently under offer with negotiations underway on three others. There are also active discussions underway with the Home and Communities Agency (HCA). The HCA has a role in disposing of surplus property that meets certain criteria. For any agreed properties responsibility for disposal then passes to the HCA.

The costs provided here are based on financial year data 2014/15 and include rates, fuel and utilities, facilities management, telephony and other property costs with the exception of Totnes and Towcester Magistrates' Courts. For these two courts the cost are based on financial year data 2013/14 and 2014/15 in order to address accounting adjustments made in 2014/15.

You should note that Alton Magistrates' Court closed in September 2014 and the annual running cost is therefore an estimate based on the first five months of 2015/16.

Additionally, Stourbridge County Court, although closed, was being used for the back office function for Dudley County and Family Court until 7 August 2015. It is not possible to disaggregate the costs of the Stourbridge building from those of the operational Dudley County and Family Court. The estimated annual running costs of the Stourbridge County Court are based on the rates for the property and the typical running costs associated with a closed court.

4 I trust that these responses will be helpful to the Committee in its work. Please note that the Secretary of State will write separately to the Chair's letter of 15 September in respect of the review of legal services regulation.

RICHARD HEATON

5