(iii) Resources
51. The Commission argues that the solution to the
problem is bound to involve further resources, in particular resources
to allow the recruitment of more Case Review Managers. This conclusion
is drawn from an analysis of the throughput of cases at the various
stages of review and the number of caseworker days required per
case, after taking into account a number of assumptions about
efficiency increases (such as reducing the amount of time needed
per case as staff gain in experience).[77]
52. By the end of the 1997-98 financial year, the
Commission had 24 Case Review Managers.[78]
In its January 1998 submission to the Government for funding for
the 1998-99 and subsequent financial years, it sought funding
to allow the number to rise to 40 during that year, and to 50
by the end of 1999-2000. This total, it was then forecast, should
allow the rate of arrival of new cases to balance the rate at
which cases were disposed of, thus preventing the backlog from
growing larger.[79] By
the time the Commission gave oral evidence to the Committee in
December 1998, the estimate of the number required to reach the
break-even point had risen to nearer 60.[80]
Sir Frederick Crawford suggested that the number needed if the
backlog were to be successfully addressed, over a two year period,
was about 75.[81] The
Commission explained that the bids submitted to the Government
had not asked for rises to the full predicted required total number
of Case Review Managers in one go because it was only realistic
to be able to recruit and train around 15-20 new caseworkers of
the right calibre in one year.[82]
53. To the costs for recruiting the caseworkers alone
must be added extra funds for premises,[83]
IT support and administrative or clerical support. The overall
bid for 1998-99 was for an additional £1.3m (an increase
of a third over the original provision), though Sir Frederick
thought that a total budget of around £7m—compared
with the actual budget of just over £4m[84]—might
be needed to accommodate any rise to 75 Case Review Managers.[85]
54. The Commission has emphasised that its analysis
reflects the need for efficiency gains, but concludes that such
gains cannot by themselves resolve the problem of delays. The
1998-2002 Corporate Plan put the problem this way:
"In the 1998-99 financial
year, and all succeeding years, the Commission will work diligently
to improve its effectiveness, efficiency and economy. On any reasonable
projections , however, the resource gap in staff (and the accommodation
and IT resources that they will require) is far too large for
the Commission to discharge the responsibilities assigned to it...
to the satisfaction of its stakeholders."[86]
In oral evidence to us in December 1998, Sir Frederick
Crawford said that without additional resources "The queue
will build up endlessly".[87]
55. Although the Government initially rejected the
bid for additional funds for 1998-99, citing the overall public
expenditure constraints and the need for extra efficiency savings,[88]
negotiations continued and in January 1999 the Home Secretary
agreed some additional provision. In essence, the extra funding
covered most of the original request for £1.3m, albeit starting
one year later, but the Home Secretary emphasised that he had
only agreed to the extra funding for 1999-2000 after insisting
on further efficiency savings and performance measures and after
paring down the bid.[89]
A further review would take place at the end of 1999.[90]
56. The Commission has also emphasised that its requests
for additional funding do not reflect a failure to continue providing
a sufficient service at what was previously a sufficient level
of funding. Although the Commission took over a function previously
being conducted by a section of the Home Office, it was always
understood that its method of operation and workload would be
rather different and that the former Home Office costs could only
represent a broad approximation to what would be needed for the
new body. As things turned out, the available figures as to the
Home Office's costs were anyway misleadingly low, since it transpired
that the relevant former Home Office section had in fact processed
far fewer cases each year than had been initially thought.[91]
The Home Secretary, while pointing out that the initial level
of funding was twice that of the previous arrangements, broadly
accepted this.[92]
57. In these circumstances, we conclude that the
extra funding announced for the Commission for 1999-2000 and beyond
is both necessary and welcome. We look to the Commission to ensure
that the extra funding is fully reflected in increased output.
A breakdown of how the additional funds are to be allocated has
been supplied by the Commission.[93]
We note that staff employment costs represent nearly half of the
Commission's running costs[94]
and it is therefore important that salaries stay within the guidelines
applicable in other parts of the public sector. We understand
that the Commission's submission to the Secretary of State at
the Home Office in respect of its 1999 remuneration review was
based on an increase in pay rates of 4.4%;[95]
in addition the remuneration review sought to recognise job growth
where staff had taken additional responsibilities during the previous
year, as well as increases to address issues of comparability.
The effect of these three elements taken together would have been
an increase in the total pay bill of around 5.5%.[96]
The proposed increase was reduced by the Secretary of State to
an overall pay bill increase of 4%. The Government expressed the
hope that "even though the additional staff so far authorised
are fewer than the Commission had sought, they will enable it
to begin to bring its case accumulation under control".[97]
Nevertheless, the new level of funding is still below the level
of funding which the Commission has estimated will be necessary
for break-even point to be achieved, let alone the backlog reduced.
We accept that there will be a need for further additional resources
if the problem of delays is to be resolved. We emphasise however
that resources alone are not the solution.
58. At the same time, we note that the Commission's
estimates of the level of increased funding required have steadily
increased since it began operation. This is understandable in
the circumstances of the establishment of a new service. However,
we consider that the Commission has now been operating long enough
for the difficulties in estimating its funding requirements to
be in the past. We would, therefore, not expect there to be any
further increases in the Commission's estimate of 60 as the number
of caseworkers needed to keep up with the incoming work.
48 
