Select Committee on Home Affairs Memoranda of Evidence


MEMORANDUM 2

Replies by the Lord Chancellor's Department to Questions submitted by the Committee

RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE

  14.   Can you update the Committee on the position in relation to rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation in the courts? Why have the current arrangements under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 "proved to be far too cumbersome and slow in practice"? (Departmental Report, para 28.)

  The current position is that the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Institute of Legal Executives are authorised bodies under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, and are able to grant their members rights of audience. All barristers have full rights of audience in all the courts, but barristers are prevented from exercising these full rights unless they have completed pupillage and are in private practice. "Employed" barristers, such as those who work for the Crown Prosecution Service, do not currently have rights of audience in the higher courts (the Crown Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and House of Lords). All solicitors have rights of audience in the lower courts, and solicitors in private practice can obtain full rights of audience in the higher courts by gaining the Law Society's higher courts qualifications. However, only 624 solicitors, out of more than 70,000, currently have the qualifications. Employed solicitors, such as Crown Prosecutors, can only obtain very limited rights of audience in the higher courts. The Institute of Legal Executives became an authorised body on 23 April 1998, and is now able to grant suitably qualified Fellows limited rights of audience in certain civil proceedings in the lower courts, including proceedings in Coroners' Courts and various tribunals.

  The Law Society is currently the only body authorised to grant rights to conduct litigation under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

  The Government has now published its proposals for reforming rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation (Rights of Audience and Rights to Conduct Litigation; The Way Ahead) and has invited comments. Briefly, the Government's position is that all qualified barristers and qualified solicitors should be able to exercise rights of audience in all the courts, subject to their meeting any reasonable training requirements which may be imposed by the Bar Council or the Law Society respectively, and to obeying their professional codes of conduct. The Government proposes that in the last resort the Lord Chancellor should have a power to strike down any unduly restrictive professional rules and if necessary to substitute his own, in consultation with the other Heads of Divisions. The Government has also invited comments on the suggestion that the Bar Council and the Institute of Legal Executives should be authorised to grant rights to conduct litigation to their members.

  The arrangements under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 for extending rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation have proved cumbersome and slow partly because of compromises forced on the then Government at the time the 1990 Act was passed, in view of the opposition the Act aroused from the Bar and much of the judiciary. The machinery created by the Act provides a range of checks and balances, and gives ample opportunity to those who wish to do so to delay or frustrate change. For example, the Law Society's application for employed solicitors to be given rights of audience in the higher courts took six years to resolve, and was finally granted only in a very attenuated form, allowing employed solicitors to appear in substantive cases in the higher courts only if led by an advocate in private practice.

  The Government proposes to reform this machinery by simplifying the approval system and removing some of the current stages. It proposes that there should be a power to impose a timetable on considering an application, and that routine and minor applications for the approval of rule changes should simply be approved by the Lord Chancellor in consultation with the "designated judges" (the Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls, President of the Family Division and Vice-Chancellor). The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct will be abolished and replaced by a smaller, more focused body, and the right of veto which each of the designated judges currently has over the approval of any application will be removed.

MAGISTRATES' COURTS

  15.   Can you supply the Committee with the results of the pilot schemes set up to test the simplified procedures in magistrates' courts to be introduced by the Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill? Has any estimate yet been made of the impact of the new procedures on the workload of magistrates' courts nationally?

  The full results of the pilot schemes are set out in the report by the Trials Issues Group entitled "Streamlined Procedure to Finalise Minor Road Traffic Cases—A Report on Pilot Studies in Gloucestershire and Lancashire." Copies of the Report have been forwarded to the Committee.[4]The results of the pilots are usefully summarised in Chapter Six—Summary and Conclusions—at paragraph 6.1. A number of refinements to the piloted procedures were made in the Bill and the additional benefits of these are set out in paragraph 6.2. Paragraph 6.3 records that a majority of the National Steering Group wished to see a provision which would permit court clerks to read out only the material facts. Two amendments to the Bill (made after the Trials Issues Group report) will allow the court clerk to give an oral account (summarise) witness statements when the defendant has pleaded guilty.

  No estimate has been made of the impact of the new procedures on the workload of magistrates' courts nationally but the Department expects that where the new procedure is used in place of the existing procedure (preserved by the Bill) similar savings and reductions in delay to those achieved in the pilots will result.

  16.   Can you provide the Committee with details of the current proposals for amalgamation of Magistrates' Courts Committees?

  Progress against the Minister's statement of October 1997 continues. Following consultation, the Lord Chancellor has signed the orders amalgamating, into single MCCs, the five MCCs in Merseyside and the seven MCCs in the West Midlands. The orders came into effect on 1 June and shadow committees are currently being established in these areas. The amalgamated committees assume responsibility on 1 April 1999.

  A number of MCCs have already responded positively to the Parliamentary Secretary's invitation to formulate their own proposals for the reorganisation of MCCs in their area. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor has recently signed the order amalgamating Devon and Cornwall MCCs and Berkshire and Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire MCCs with effect from 1 April 1999. This followed consultation undertaken by the committees themselves. A number of other MCCs have indicated that they will be seeking voluntary amalgamation with effect from 1 April 2000 or 1 April 2001. The need for any compulsory amalgamations will be dependent on whether proposals to amalgamate on a voluntary basis are forthcoming from those MCCs which are yet to respond.

  There are currently 96 Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs) in England and Wales. It is likely that by 1 April 2001, that figure will have reduced to approximately 40-50 MCCs.

THE COURT SERVICE

  17.   The Departmental Report states that there were 25,404 outstanding cases in the Crown Court at the end of March 1997 compared with 23,757 at the end of March 1996, while the Court Service Plan estimates an increase to 26,000 at the end of March 1998. What steps are being undertaken to reduce the number of outstanding cases?

  The actual number of committals for trial outstanding at the end of March 1998 was 24,531 which was a reduction on the number outstanding at the end of March 1997. The level of outstanding cases was lower than forecast in the Court Service Plan because the Plan was drafted before the effects of the introduction of the "Plea before Venue" rule (which has reduced the number of committals for trial received) became fully apparent. It should also be borne in mind that the level of outstanding cases at the end of March 1996 was historically low and, even allowing for the impact of the "Plea before Venue" rule, receipts were 10.5 per cent higher in 1997-98 than in 1995-96. It is proposed to change the way in which courtroom sittings are measured. In future, all hearing time recorded on CREST will be collated automatically. This will provide more robust information and enable local managers to monitor the effectiveness of listing practices and to identify under-utilisation of courtrooms.

  Key performance indicators (KPI) have been reviewed and a new quality KPI has been introduced for 1998-99. This KPI will measure the percentage of cases that commence within target and replaces the previous KPI which measured the number of defendants whose trial started in target. The target for 1998-99 is that 80 per cent of cases should commence within 16 weeks of committal. The previous KPI target was for 75 per cent of defendants to start their trial within 16 weeks of committal.

  18.   Why are the running costs of the Court Service planned to rise to £392 million in 1998-99 from the estimated outturn of £354 million for 1997-98? How is the figure of £392 million for 1998-99 reconciled with the £307.4 million figure in the Court Service Plan?

  The Court Service running cost figures for 1998-99 quoted in the Departmental Report include the full (rather than the partial) cost of the capital charge introduced for the first time for 1998-99 which increased running costs by £38 million. For the first year of charging, however, the Treasury made settlements net of the capital charge. This reduced the Court Service's running cost baseline by £91 million. The difference of £6 million is then explained by the fact that the figures quoted in the Court Service Plan are gross of VAT whereas those in the Department Report are net of VAT.

  19.   What savings are expected to accrue from reducing staff numbers in the Court Service by about 800 over the Survey period? Is it possible to give a breakdown by grade showing where the reductions are likely to occur?

  Reducing staff numbers by about 800 over the Survey period will save £10 million. This will cover the service charges for the PFI contract to computerise the courts, rent increases and other inflationary pressures which the Court Service will be expected to cover from within its running cost baselines. It is not possible to give a precise breakdown by grade but the vast majority of the reductions will take place in the AO grade.

  20.   What estimates have been made of the work expected to arise for courts and tribunals from the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law?

  As the Home Secretary explained to the House of Commons on 20 May (the first day of Committee on the Human Rights Bill) it is far more difficult to predict the effect of this Bill than almost any other Bill coming before the House. We do not know exactly how its provisions will develop in practice.

  The Government's policy is to promote compliance by public authorities with the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Lord Chancellor's Department is consulting with other Government Departments, judges, the legal professions, practitioners and those who have implemented such legislation abroad on the practical arrangements for implementation. The aim is to manage implementation effectively. This includes ensuring that the judiciary and practitioners can handle human rights issues appropriately where they arise, to keep to a minimum any increase in court workload and costs.

  Incorporation of the ECHR into UK law is expected to increase the number of elections for trial in either way triable offences, fewer guilty pleas and longer trials as Convention points are raised in a significant proportion of cases. As a minimum, the Crown Court will need additional sitting days equivalent to that which would be provided by 20 new circuit judges and 130 new part time judges sitting at the current ceiling of 30 days each. The additional costs for the Crown Court in the first two years after implementation are estimated to be in the range of £12.6 million to £34.1 million. From year three onwards, the range is estimated to be £7.4 million to £27.6 million.

  The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and the Crown Office List in the High Court would need a minimum of seven additional senior judges in the first two years and an additional six thereafter. The costs are estimated to range from £1.8 million to £2.4 million in the first two years and from £1.5 million to £1.9 million a year thereafter.

RESOURCE ACCOUNTING

  21.   Please indicate the financial years in respect of which dummy estimates and dummy accounts based on the new resource accounting system will first be prepared, and when these documents are expected to be completed. (If any have already been prepared, it would be helpful if the Committee could be sent a copy.).

  The first Departmental resource accounts will be prepared for the financial year 1998-99. These accounts will be audited by the National Audit Office but they will not be published. They should be available for inspection by the Committee in the autumn of 1999.

  The first shadow resource based estimates will be prepared for 1999-2000 and be available in the autumn of 1999.

  22.   What difficulties have been encountered in adapting to resource accounting? In particular, have any difficulties been encountered in establishing values for capital assets?

  It was necessary to replace our existing accounting systems in order to prepare resource accounts. The timetable for introducing resource accounting has placed considerable pressure on the Department and its contractor to deliver major and complex changes to systems and procedures in time.

  The Department has encountered no particular difficulties with establishing values for capital assets.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION

  23.   What changes, if any, have been made or are planned in the administrative structure of the Lord Chancellor's Department since May 1997?

  The only major change in the Department's administrative structure since May 1997 has been the creation of a Communications Group, headed at Departmental Board level by the newly created post of Director of Communications, to which Allan Percival was appointed in May 1998.

  24.   How many of the 52 persons at levels within the Senior Civil Service (see Table 15) have had significant working experience outside (a) the Lord Chancellor's Department (and agencies) (b) the civil service?

  Of the 55 permanent Senior Civil Service members within the Department at 1 April 1998:

    (b)  Thirty-seven have had significant working experience outside the civil service.

  25.   What current statistics are available for the time taken to deal with correspondence from Members of Parliament?

  The Department has set a target for responding to correspondence from Members of Parliament, Peers and Members of the European Parliament of 20 working days from the date of receipt of any such correspondence.

  For the calendar year 1997, the Lord Chancellor and Parliamentary Secretary received 2,458 such letters. The 20 working day target was achieved in 75.8 per cent of cases.

  For the first five months of 1998, 1,822 letters were received. The 20 working day target was achieved in 76.5 per cent of cases over this period. Performance in the year to date has been improving. In May 1998, 200 letters were received and the 20 working day target was achieved in 89.11 per cent of cases.

July 1998


4  
Not printed. Back


 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 15 September 1998