§ Sir Ivan Lawrence
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much extra funding was made available, or expenditure incurred, in respect of implementing the recommendations for the Prison Service of(a) the Woodcock report and (b) the Learmont report, so far as separately identifiable for (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97. 
§ Miss Widdecombe
[holding answer 17 February 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter from Richard Tilt to Sir Ivan Lawrence, dated 20 February 1997:The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how much extra funding was made available, or expenditure incurred, in respect of implementing the recommendations for the Prison Service of (a) the Woodcock Report and (b) the Learmont Report, so far as separately identifiable, for (i) 1994–95 (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97.The funding for 1996/97, the first year after the publication of the Learmont Report, includes money for both Woodcock and Learmont recommendations. It is not practical to separate spending on Woodcock and Learmont, as many of the measures funded by the 1996/97 provision implemented recommendations made in both reports. The figures are as follows:
£million 1994–95 Outturn 1995–96 Outturn 1996–97 Provision Current 0 114.5 40.6 Capital 23.3 236.6 239.2 1 Estimated outturn: Our accounting system does not separately identify current expenditure on Woodcock. 2 Does not include fees for design work etc.