Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 4
4
Rejected
It is unacceptable that HMPPS still does not know if or how tagging reduces reoffending,...
Recommendation
It is unacceptable that HMPPS still does not know if or how tagging reduces reoffending, and it has been too slow to improve data. Despite our previous recommendations, HMPPS still does not know the impact of tagging. The Ministry recognises that evaluation of the transformation programme was not as strong as it should have been. HMPPS has now strengthened its analytical capacity, and has committed to evaluating its expansion programme, although it will need to rely on higher numbers of tagged offenders to better understand differences in outcomes between tagged offenders and control groups if it is to build a rich evidence base. It recognises the importance of establishing links to reoffending, but accepts it has previously missed opportunities to develop this understanding. There is variable use of tagging between courts. Going forward, better evidence on what works in tagging will help improve magistrates’ and judges’ understanding of the sentencing options available. Linked to this, HMPPS has not improved persistent issues with data availability and quality, such as the lack of data on offenders’ protected characteristics. It does not know whether ethnic minority offenders are over- or under-represented in tagging services but has committed to collect better data in future contracts. Recommendation: Within one year, HMPPS should publish a comprehensive plan outlining what it has achieved so far and remaining work required in: • improving data collection and analysis in tagging services; • monitoring the delivery of benefits in its expansion programme; and • building the evidence base for the impact of tagging on reoffending and offenders’ diversion from prison.
Government Response Summary
The government states it holds robust information on spend for its two air quality programmes and cannot justify the disproportionate level of resource required to disaggregate the amount of spend driving air quality benefits for each of these policies. This is not related to the recommendation about HMPPS.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation The government holds robust information on spend for its two air quality programmes: the Air Quality and Industrial Emissions Programme (Defra) and the Joint Air Quality Unit (Defra/DfT). Whilst the department holds overall strategic responsibility for the development and implementation of air quality policy, the levers which affect air pollution are varied, complex and sit across government. The department works closely with other government departments to manage interdependencies and maximise co-benefits of policies that affect air pollution. Where it is beneficial, the government sees the value in making one-off estimates of the cross-cutting economic impacts of policies that impact air pollution. For example, the department has estimated that air quality co-benefits of policies and measures to meet Carbon Budget 6 and Net Zero to be about £35 billion over 2020-2050. However, a wide and diverse range of complex policies across government affect air quality, including transport decarbonisation, active travel, increased use of renewable energy sources, planning regulations, and sustainable food production practices. The government cannot justify the disproportionate level of resource required to disaggregate the amount of spend driving air quality benefits for each of these policies. Due to the complexities surrounding the associated measures, any estimates produced would likely have large uncertainties, making them misleading and therefore unsupportive of greater accountability and transparency regarding government spending.