REPLIES BY THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT ANNUAL REPORT
1999-2000
A: LCD ADMINISTRATION
1. What vacancies on public bodies has the
Lord Chancellor filled by appointment in the calendar year 2000
to date; and what vacancies are expected to be filled by the Lord
Chancellor before the end of 2001.
The following table shows the appointments the
Lord Chancellor has made to his executive and advisory non-departmental
public bodies in the calendar year 2000 to date.
| Name of body |
No. appointed |
| Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax
| 20 |
| Advisory Committees on JPs | 49
|
| Civil Justice Council | 3 |
| Civil Procedure Rule Committee | 1
|
| Insolvency Rule Committee | 2
|
| Law Commission | 2 |
| Legal Aid Board | 2 |
| Legal Services Commission | 6
|
| Legal Services Consultative Panel | 13
|
| Advisory Committees on JPs (NI) | 25
|
Current estimates are that the following vacancies will be
filled between now and the end of 2001:
| Name of body | No. to be appointed
|
| Advisory Committees on General Commissioners of Income Tax
| 100 |
| Advisory Committees on JPs | 150
|
| Advisory Council on Public Records | 6
|
| Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
| 11 |
| Civil Justice Council | 10 |
| Civil Procedure Rule Committee | 6
|
| Council on Tribunals | 2 |
| Crown Court Rule Committee | 4
|
| Family Proceedings Committee | 5
|
| Insolvency Rule Committee | 2
|
| Judicial Studies Board | 4 |
| Law Commission | 2 |
| Legal Services Commission | 2
|
| Strategic Investment Board* | 5
|
| Advisory Committees on JPs (NI) | 2
|
| Advisory Committees on GCITs (NI) | 8
|
| Advisory Committee on Juvenile Court Lay Panel (NI)
| 4 |
| Legal Aid Advisory Committee (NI) | 1
|
* The Strategic Investment Board will replace the Honorary
Investment Advisory Committee
The Lord Chancellor also appoints General Commissioners of
Income Tax in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland. These
are classified as tribunal NDPBs. Twenty appointments have been
made in the year so far, and a further 72 are expected before
the end of 2001.
He also makes appointments to other departments' tribunals
and to the Home Office's Sentencing Advisory Panel. Appointments
to these bodies are not included.
2. For what reason did the gross estimated departmental
running costs increase by almost 14 per cent (£66 million)
between 1998-99 and 1999-2000; and for what reason are they projected
to increase by a further £15 million in 2000-01?
The primary drivers behind the increases are:
| | million
|
| 1999-2000: | Funding for the Family Law Act:
| £18.85 |
| General increase to Court Service baseline, for areas including asylum, visit visa appeals, rent reviews, civil court security, Financial Services and Markets Tribunal, and Civil Justice Review:
| £15.88 |
| Reclassification of capital expenditure to running costs to fund PFI projects, and comply with changes in accounting definitions of capital:
| £25.631 |
| 2000-01: | Additional Family Law Act funding:
| £11.17 |
| Addition to Court Service baseline for areas including asylum, rent reviews, the Crown Courts and PFI accommodation:
| £5.995 |
| Court Service ECHR funding:
| £9.3 |
| Reductions in levels of reclassifications/accounting changes:
| --£8.249 |
| Transfers to Sister Departments:
| --£3.5 |
For what reason did the estimated running costs of the Court
Service increase by almost 11 per cent (£43 million) between
1998-99 and 1999-2000?
The outturn expenditure figure included in the annual report
is estimated. Actual outturn for the year was £439 million,
an increase of £40 million over the previous year.
Footnote (1) to Table 14 (page 79) notes that "The gross
figures are no longer net of any VAT refunds on contracted out
services". £10.86 million of the 1999-2000 expenditure
relates to VAT.
Additionally £18.20 million of capital provision was
reclassified as running costs in 1999-2000. It was necessary for
the Court Service to reassess all its building schemes to ensure
that such expenditure enhanced its value or significantly added
to the life of its estate. The Court Service was required to conduct
this exercise in accordance with Treasury guidance.
The Court Service was required to upgrade the IT system in
the civil courts prior to, and following, the implementation of
the Civil Justice Reforms in April. The cost of these changes
was £6 million. The cost was met by utilising the proceeds
of asset disposals. This cost was in addition to general contractual
IT cost increases of £2 million.
£3 million was committed in readiness for the influx
of asylum work anticipated in 2000-01.
The table below summarises the items (in value order) which
contributed to the increase in running cost expenditure between
1998-99 and 1999-2000:
| Item | Additional Expenditure (£ million)
|
| Reclassification of Capital | 18.2
|
| Change to VAT accounting | 10.8
|
| Civil Justice Reform IT changes | 6.0
|
| Asylum backlog | 3.0 |
| PFI: IT increase | 2.0 |
| TOTAL | 40.0 |
3. £5 million has been allocated for long-term capital
projects in 2000-01. Could you provide a breakdown of the projects
in which this sum will be invested?
| Project | Details
| Allocation (£) |
| Cars | Purchase | 500,000
|
| MANIFEST | Implementation of estate management and finance system
| 1,017,270 |
| CMF Works | Crown Court Infrastructure
| 500,000 |
| Basildon Combined | Defects to new builds
| 115,000 |
| Kingston Crown | Defects to new builds
| 30,000 |
| Liverpool Combined | Capital element of large maintenance project
| 250,000 |
| Manchester Crown Square | Capital element of large maintenance project
| 400,000 |
| Snaresbrook Crown | Capital element of large maintenance project
| 850,000 |
| Brighton County | Extension to court
| 250,000 |
| RCJ-PABX | New telephone system
| 400,000 |
| Cardiff Crown | Roof replacement
| 350,000 |
| Haverfordwest County | Capital element of relocation project
| 70,000 |
| Office Supplies Capital | Allocated throughout Accommodation and Procurement Division
| 736,500 |
| Unallocated | Unallocated |
31,230 |
| | 5,500,000
|
Note: Under Treasury rounding conditions the
figure was rounded down to £5 million in the Departmental
Report.
4. In what ways is the Department encouraging the public
to take up electronic delivery of its services? What service delivery
is represented by the 6 per cent capability and take-up figure
cited (page 42)? Is the Department on track to achieve the Government-wide
target of 25 per cent service delivery by 2002?
LCD is committed to developing the transformation of its
business through the electronic delivery of high quality good
value customer-focussed services. The bringing forward of the
2008 target for 100 per cent electronic service delivery capability
to 2005 has given the Department a significant challenge. We have
begun work on the creation of our e-business strategy to map out
how we will meet that challenge and the Department has recently
published civil.justice.2000, a strategy paper, which sets
out a vision of how the enormous potential offered by developing
technologies might be harnessed for the benefit of users of the
civil justice system.
The Department provides encouragement in many ways for the
take up of electronic delivery of existing services: websites
provide a range of publications and information; correspondence
by e-mail is widely available; and some fee reductions are offered
to users of electronic services. Planning for developing existing
and creating new services will incorporate marketing strategies
to ensure opportunities are fully exploited.
Over the next 12 months every household in the country will
receive a drop card with basic information about the Community
Legal Service and the Just Ask! website. The website is designed
to be user-friendly with text in plain English and five community
languages. The site was winner of New Media Age Effectiveness
Award 2000 for Charity and Public Sector. A programme of development
is planned to increase its functionality and effectiveness. The
site will provide the hub around which developments in the provision
of legal help on the Internet will stem.
The Public Record Office has had a structured campaign to
sell its education service, "The Learning Curve" to
schools. Every school in England and Wales is being sent a postcard
giving brief details of the site and inviting them to apply for
a detailed information pack. To date, 3,740 packs have been sent
out. In addition, it has been publicised through articles and
reviews in education and IT publications.
Already in excess of 50 per cent of claims nationally are
issued via the Court Service's Claims Production Centre (CPC).
It is hoped to attract a further 100,000-150,000 claims to the
CPC over the next two years. The issue of claims via the CPC attracts
a discounted fee as against the paper based issue process. HM
Land Registry also encourages electronic delivery through fee
reduction. Fees for Official Searches applied for electronically
are discounted by 50 per cent.
A number of websites have been or are being re-designed in
consultation with customers to improve their usefulness and increase
usage. We are also developing an online recruitment system for
judicial and similar appointments.
The 6 per cent figure for electronic service delivery is
based on the Autumn 1999 Central Information Technology Unit (CITU)
return which showed a then current capability of 6 per cent. That
figure was based on a small sample of services and the monitoring
regime has now been changed. The services were:
Court Service: Claims Issue (Not Fixed Date); divorce proceedings;
probate; expenses to jurors.
Legal Aid Board: Applications and issue of certificates.
Public Record Office: Access to Catalogue; PRO Access to Other
Information.
It appears that the Department and the other agencies and
bodies which report to the Lord Chancellor are on target to achieve
the Government-wide target of 25 per cent service delivery by
2002. However, some caution is necessary because the precise ambit
of the target has still to be clarified and no direct comparison
can be made with the previous monitoring system. In particular,
services are now to be capable of online delivery (rather than
merely electronically)—and the definition of "online"
needs to be settled. Also, the extent of the value for money/absence
of demand criterion needs clarification.
— Present indications for LCD is that the 25 per
cent target will be met by 2002.
— HM Land Registry is currently capable of delivering
30 per cent of its services electronically (using the old CITU
methodology) or 20 per cent using the new methodology.
These are all pre-completion land information services. Land
Registry is on target for full electronic capability by 2005.
— Access to records at the Public Record Office
is not yet enabled. In the near future a start will be made on
digitising the paper records, while ones which are themselves
created electronically will be made available over the internet.
This is to be fully achieved by 2005 (25 per cent by 2002).
What assessment has been made of the effectiveness of service
delivery via the Community Legal Service's website, "Just
Ask!"?
The effectiveness of the Just Ask! site is assessed by a
variety of means. The two principal means of assessment are:
Usage:
The most commonly-accepted measurement of a website's popularity
is that of "page impressions". In the first two months
of its operation (April and May 2000), 55,469 page impressions
were recorded. By the end of May, the daily page impression rate
had reached approximately 2,000. The page impression rate almost
doubled following the first wave of the delivery to households
in six local authority areas of information leaflets about the
Community Legal Service. We expect similar increases in usage
to follow subsequent waves of this campaign, starting in July.
The site's current usage rate already places the site in the "top
10 legal websites", as monitored by Legal Technology Online.
Feedback:
The site's online feedback facility allows users to comment
on the site, suggest improvements and to record a rating for the
site (from "Very Poor" to "Very Good"). The
statistics of the ratings, for April and May, are as follows:
Very Good—26 per cent; Good—30 per cent; Reasonable—24
per cent; Poor—11 per cent; Very Poor—9 per cent.
We understand that the recorded levels of satisfaction in the
site (ie 80 per cent of respondents rating the site as "Reasonable"
or better) compare favourably with other sites.
The feedback facility is also used as a developmental tool.
A number of changes have been implemented following comments made
by our users. For example, the ability to choose a geographical
limit within which to search for advisers via the Directory function
was added as a result of feedback received. Proposals for in-depth
qualitative research amongst potential users of the site, to inform
future development, are also currently being considered by the
Department.
Our positive assessment of the effectiveness of Just Ask!
was reinforced by the site's recent winning of the Charity and
Public Sector category of the prestigious New Media Age Effectiveness
Awards 2000. These awards "aim to promote the quality of
new media projects in the UK; emphasise effectiveness in order
that smaller companies have equal footing with larger firms; act
as an incentive to the people in the industry; and provide a benchmark
of excellence." The award, which went jointly to the Lord
Chancellor's Department and to ICL (the designers and builders
of the site), recognised the site's user-friendly interface to
the public. The judges of the award commented "They've done
extremely well with a dry subject, and go beyond achieving their
set goals for this excellent cause. Access to justice for the
most vulnerable in society is a serious public cause commendably
championed by this site."
Just Ask! has been welcomed by a wide range of key stakeholders.
The site's development is overseen by the CLS Website Steering
Group which includes representatives from the Advice Services
Alliance, the Law Society, the Local Government Association, the
Consumers Association and ICL. A large programme of work is in
place to add to the site's functionality and to increase its effectiveness.
What proposals are there for the introduction of electronic
conveyancing? How soon is it likely to be introduced? What assessment
has been made of the likely take-up of this service by practitioners
and the public?
The Lord Chancellor proposes to use powers under section
8 of the Electronic Communications Act to make orders that will
amend primary legislation so as to remove the restrictions on
using electronic communications to create and convey interests
in land. There are many such provisions: examples include the
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 ss 1 and 2;
the Law of Property Act 1925 ss 52 and 53; and the Land Registration
Act 1925 s 27. LCD, HM Land Registry and the Law Commission have
formed a working group to take this work forward.
HM Land Registry has a programme of electronic service delivery
development; electronic conveyancing will be developed and introduced
gradually. Wide consultation with property professionals and their
representative bodies, banks and building societies and consumer
bodies will be necessary. It is hoped that the first of the orders
under section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 will
be made, after public consultation, at or around the end of 2000.
The Joint Working Group of the Law Commission and HM Land
Registry is preparing a draft Land Registration Bill. The report
containing the Bill and explanatory notes is expected to be published
early next year. The principles underpinning the Bill were consulted
upon in the Joint Working Group's second report Land Registration
for the Twenty First Century (1998) Law Com No 254. The Bill
will completely overhaul the existing law of land registration
and enable it fully to regulate the processes under which an electronic
conveyancing system could operate.
The response to Land Registration for the Twenty First Century
showed a wide and strong support for electronic conveyancing.
Use of the HMLR website indicates that citizens seem to be keen
to make use of the "on line" services. Although there
was an initial reluctance by the legal profession to make use
of the Direct Access services, whereby account holders can obtain
information from HMLR and order searches and copies of documentation,
there is now a rapid increase in the use of this service. In the
next month, contracts will be awarded to several private sector
consortia to run NLIS—a "one stop shop for property
information using Internet technology". NLIS consortia have
also carried out customer surveys which show that the majority
of solicitors are now linked to the Internet and that they could
be persuaded to adopt a more modern approach to conveyancing.
In what form is it proposed to make the Statute Law Database
(p 12, para 9) available to end-users? Will members of the public
be able to have ready access to the database? What charges, if
any, will be made for access?
Options for delivery of the Database to all users, including
members of the public, are at present being explored. Besides
the option of access via the Internet, other forms of access could
include CD-Rom, a private Intranet and publication through value
added re-sellers. The pricing policy is also under discussion.
What barriers are there to extending electronic delivery of
Departmental services? How does the Department propose to tackle
"past under-investment" in electronic services (p 69,
para 33)?
The principal barriers to extending electronic service delivery
are the funding of new investment and obtaining and retaining
staff with appropriate skills (especially in IT and project management).
Other difficulties include:
— The time lag between investment in new services
and returns on efficiencies from those new services.
— Where existing services are electronified, it
may be necessary to run new and old systems in parallel for an
uncertain transitional period until new electronic equivalents
begin to gain widespread use.
— Existing contractual arrangements of long-term
deals entered into before the development of the current e-government
agenda may have to be modified.
— The need to provide all staff with the skills
to successfully deliver electronic services.
Although the Department will promote the uptake of electronic
services in various ways, the degree to which the public and businesses
are willing or able to use such services may also be an issue
in some areas.
Historical under-investment has not been universal in the
Department but it is the major difficulty that we have to overcome.
In general terms we propose to attract sufficient investment to
do so:
— By devising a sound e-business strategy.
— By using the strategy to identify new services
and new ways of delivering old services that our customers want
to use.
— By marketing those services successfully and using
resources saved to deliver other services.
— By drawing new investment from public and private
sector sources. Our e-business strategy will be looking at the
possibility for new ways of working with the private sector.
— By using electronic service delivery to make savings
in delivery costs.
Proposed IT related investment includes:
— CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and
Support Service) £13 million.
— Magistrates Courts (Libra) £31 million. The
Libra Project will replace the existing IT systems in the magistrates'
courts with a standard service incorporating a new, single core
system together with full office automation. The output of the
project will be the joining up of the agencies in the criminal
justice system through the use of IT.
— LCD Headquarters £24 million. In particular,
our new Management Information System (MIS) will create a strategic
and operational tool through the provision of an innovative data
warehousing system: information from diverse and separate systems
and sources will be collected together into one data warehouse,
which will provide tools to enable that information to be combined
and analysed as required.
— The Crown Court Programme £32 million.
We will endeavour to secure best value for money in terms
of the supporting infrastructure we procure directly (particularly
in the area of back end systems and electronic data holdings).
Further to that, we are also actively looking to exploit investments
being made by others (so as to minimise overall costs), for example:
— Centrally provided components (such as the UK
Online portal, the Government Gateway, the Small Business Service
website): we will utilise such components (and, hence, exploit
their economies of scale) wherever it is operationally most effective
and efficient to do so;
— Third party providers: we are actively investigating
the potential for electronic delivery of services via licensed
third parties who already have electronic delivery capacity in
place (and, hence, the marginal cost of delivering new services
is significantly reduced).
What proportion of the staff of the Department and the Court
Service presently have individual access to e-mail at (a) LCD
and CS Headquarters; (b) associated offices?
The proportion of staff who have individual access to e-mail
is as follows:
| Internal e-mail |
External e-mail |
| LCD Headquarters | 100% |
94% |
| Associated Offices | 97% |
45% |
| CS Headquarters | 100% |
100% |
5. "In order to meet effectively the challenge of
these objectives the Department itself will have to be transformed"
(p 69). What is the overall strategy for transformation of the
Department and the delivery of its services? What objectives have
been set?
The objectives referred to relate to developing the Department's
role as sponsor, regulator and provider in the market for legal
services; providing responsive, accessible court services which
meet the diverse needs of users, stakeholders and the public;
and creating a society well informed about the rights of the individual
and able to protect them, especially the rights of children and
vulnerable adults.
Such priorities mirror the Lord Chancellor's vision for the
future of his Department: a Department whose defining aim is to
identify and address the needs and aspirations of society and
of individuals seeking access to justice. The achievement of this
aim requires the Department to transform its role in a way which
recognises that the demands of a coherent, customer facing, accessible
and responsive justice system involve not just court processes,
procedures and management but also the needs of court users and
the wider public both before matters reach the litigation stage
and after the disposal of the case. The main strands of our strategy
for achieving this new role are:
— developing a departmental capacity to look forward
and outwards through better partnership working, both in policy
development and service delivery; and improving our business planning
capacity to deliver the long-term vision for what we do against
a background of rapid economic, social and technological change;
— playing a full and proactive part in encouraging
greater integration in the criminal justice system and in implementing
cross-cutting strategies to reduce crime and deliver justice;
— ensuring that the results we deliver are based
on the views of our customers at all stages of policy development
through to the point of delivery and in a way which enables us
to ensure that our policies and services take account of the different
needs of different groups of people;
— encouraging ideas and innovation from our staff
through more inclusive communication, new ways of working across
functional boundaries, leadership programmes and tailored reward
and incentive systems.
The test of our success in transforming the role of the Department
will be not just whether we meet our current aims, strategic objectives
and targets but how we meet them. We need to improve continually
on our performance and on our planning. The transformation must
be directed at making things better for the public we serve.
"[The Department will have to be] much more proactive
than it has traditionally been, and across a wider canvas."
What new areas will the Department be expected to cover? How will
its new "proactiveness" be measured?
This is not a matter of moving into entirely new businesses
but rather of strengthening our role and extending our reach in
areas such as the provision of legal services and the family justice
system to meet the Government's social justice priorities. We
must now ensure that legal services fulfil their potential as
part of the Government's armoury for combating social exclusion
and tackling poverty. The requirement remains to ensure good quality,
affordable legal services in a way which provides value for money
for the tax payer. But, in addition, we must better target legal
services through improved access to the provision of good quality
information for users and their advisers on appropriate routes
towards advice, mediation or litigation and how to resolve disputes
which affect them in a way and at a cost proportionate to the
issues at stake. Similarly, stronger families and the protection
of children's rights contribute to social cohesion and fairness
in society. On the family justice system, therefore, the requirement
is to provide a legal and procedural framework to sustain family
relationships and when they do break down to resolve disputes,
with the least distress to those affected, especially the most
vulnerable. The effective operation of family matters depends
critically on successful inter-disciplinary cooperation and it
is in the Department's interest to promote an over-arching supporting
structure for the family justice system which links local committees
into a national structure.
The new "pro-activeness" implied above will be
measured through the PSA and SDA targets agreed in support of
the Departmental strategic objectives.
B: CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM
6. What is the contribution of the Department towards
the overall IS/IT objectives for the Criminal Justice System?
The Department works very closely with the other agencies
in the criminal justice system on IT/IS issues through the jointly
funded Integrated Business and Information Systems (IBIS) Unit.
There are three main elements of work that we are engaged in.
We helped develop and support the Medium Term Strategic Plan for
Information Systems in the Criminal Justice System. This includes
supporting the "beacon" project to provide electronic
links between all the agencies in Essex. We have also been involved
in the initial work to develop the long-term strategy. Thirdly,
strategic systems (LIBRA for the magistrates' courts and CREDO
for the Crown Court) are being developed in an approach consistent
with the overall strategic direction.
The Lord Chancellor recently announced the work being undertaken
as part of the Crown Court Programme, which is looking at how
IT can help produce a faster and more efficient Criminal Justice
System. For example, we will be piloting electronic presentation
of evidence at the turn of the year. In an earlier study this
saved up to 20 per cent of court time on long and complex trials,
reducing costs to the prosecution, the legal aid fund and allowing
other cases to be brought on more quickly. This programme of work
all fits with the strategic imprint for the CJS as a whole.
7. What are the measures on just processes and outcomes
for which the Department is responsible as a stakeholder in the
Criminal Justice System's business plan for 2000-01 (CJS Business
Plan 2000-01, Objective 4)?
A single project group which has developed the approach to
monitor a range of indicators is handling this. The team is a
joint initiative and includes representatives from the police,
a Resident Judge, a magistrate, a representative from ACPO and
the Crown Court as well as officials from the three CJS Departments.
On just process, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home
Office and the Law Officers' Departments are jointly monitoring
the number of cases that are dismissed because the magistrates
find that there is no case to answer, and non jury acquittals
in the Crown Court.
For just outcomes, the Departments are monitoring:
— the number of successful appeals against sentence;
— the number of successful appeals by the prosecution
on the basis that the original sentence is unduly lenient; and
— the number of criminal cases in which there is
a successful appeal to the Divisional Court by way of case stated
or judicial review.
8. What systems does the Department intend to put in place
to identify and track particularly lengthy youth cases through
those areas of the criminal justice system which are its responsibility?
We believe that the Narey reforms and new local good practice
already introduced into the Youth Court will help to make further
progress. However, there are a number of critical factors which
need further effort to help deliver the pledge on persistent young
offenders. This is particularly evident for the handling of lengthy
cases. These cases can have a major "drag" on current
performance. In one area, for example, almost half of all PYO
cases were being dealt with in under 71 days, but 15 per cent
of cases took more than 200 days, which pushed up the overall
average to over 110 days.
It became clear that local agencies needed to identify and
track these cases. The Youth Justice Board's advisers therefore
developed packages for the various agencies which provide two
tools: a case calendar for the file and a spreadsheet tracking
programme.
In magistrates' courts, the system means that youth courts
are alerted to persistent young offender cases and the age of
cases so that reviews are triggered at set points. When a case
exceeds a certain number of days, further checks are made to ensure
all necessary work is done before a case appears before the court
so that it can be resolved expeditiously. Similarly the Crown
Court uses a system including a spreadsheet to track cases and
monitor performance.
9. In February 2000 the Department's DEL was increased
by a £25 million transfer from the Reserve in respect of
additional legal aid costs following the implementation of the
Narey reforms (HC Deb, 3 February 2000, col. 727w).
Why did the Narey reforms lead to additional legal aid costs
to the Department?
One of the successes of the Narey provisions has been the
reduction in the time taken for cases to reach conclusion in the
magistrates' courts. This has resulted in bills being submitted
to the Legal Aid Board for payment more rapidly than before.
Similarly, cases are being committed to the Crown Court earlier
than before. This has brought forward a significant tranche of
payments into the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) that was
not anticipated when it was agreed with the Treasury.
In particular there was a large bring-forward cost for the
Crown Court. The Department was still paying for old cases when
the new streamlined system allowed the others to go through quickly.
Bring-forward costs in the magistrates' courts were lower.
Actual increased cost in the duty solicitor scheme was not offset
entirely by standard fee savings.
Are similar costs foreseen for this financial year?
The costs have been estimated at around £115 million
over the next three years. Extra funds have been secured from
the Treasury. The breakdown over the three years is as follows:
C: CIVIL JUSTICE
10. The Appropriation in Aid target for the civil courts
was missed in 1998-99 (by £1.1 million) and is expected to
have been missed again in 1999-2000 (by £16.2 million). For
what reason have both these targets been missed?
1998-99 was the first year in which the Court Service Memorandum
Trading Account for the civil courts was prepared on a "accruals
accounting" rather than a cash basis. The introduction of
a new accounting system, ARAMIS, enabled some accruals data to
be collected from December 1998 onwards. This has helped to begin
to identify more accurately the full accruals cost of the operation.
Specifically this move had the effect of increasing the base cost
of the civil courts as capital charges were fed into the accounts.
Why was the target for 1999-2000 increased by £14.6 million?
The actual shortfall in Court Service income for 1999-2000
was £15 million. This was due both to a reduction of some
20 per cent in the number of claims issued in the first six months
after implementation of the civil justice reforms and to an increase
in the accruals cost of the civil courts.
What has been the practical effect of missing these targets?
There was no practical effect of missing the target because
the shortfall was met, with Treasury agreement, by utilising funds
provided for the implementation of part 2 of the Family Law Act,
the implementation of which has been delayed.
What is the target set for 2000-01?
The cost recovery target for 2000-01 is £340.4 million.
11. What evaluation has been made of the first year in
operation of the first phase of civil justice reform, viz the
unified procedural code for the High Court and county courts?
Following a consultation exercise conducted in September
1999, there was consensus that evaluation of the reforms should
not commence until 12-18 months following implementation (the
vast majority opting for 18 months). This is to allow for "bedding
in" factors such as stabilisation of workload. Quantitative
analysis will commence in October 2000.
Has any evaluation been made of the reform of the system of
civil appeals introduced in September 1999?
It is premature to commence evaluation of the changes to
civil appeals, for similar reasons to those provided above. The
reform of civil appeal procedures, although commenced on 27 September
1999, was only completed on 2 May 2000.
Are the results of the review of enforcement of civil court
decisions, due in June 2000, yet available?
The results of the first phase of the Review of Enforcement
(examining the present methods available for enforcement and identifying
changes to enhance their effectiveness) has now been completed
and Ministers are currently considering the recommendations. An
announcement on the findings of the Review will be made in due
course. A White Paper setting out the details of the proposals
for change will be issued this autumn. A detailed timetable for
implementation of the recommendations from the first phase has
been drawn up and the first changes to secondary legislation are
expected to come into force towards the end of 2001.
D: ACCESS TO
JUSTICE ACT
12. "The Lord Chancellor's Department is working
up a package of measures which should abolish the legal aid means
test in youth cases by the late summer." [Letter from Home
Secretary, Lord Chancellor and Attorney-General to all criminal
justice agencies, 10 May 2000]
What measures are expected to be introduced?
The means test will be abolished in all youth cases and in
cases in the magistrates' courts which are initiated by way of
summons rather than by way of charge. The reason for this distinction
in magistrates' courts is twofold. First, the Legal Aid Act 1998—under
which criminal legal aid will still be provided until April 2001—is
based on an assumption of means testing and the collection of
contributions. Whilst it is possible to remove means testing in
individual areas it is not possible to remove the means test wholesale.
Secondly, by focusing on cases which are charged rather than summonsed
we get that group of cases which appear in court quickly and for
which the avoidance of any form of delay is important. Where a
case is brought to court by way of summons the defendant has much
longer (usually several weeks) in which to seek legal help and
apply for legal aid, if appropriate. Cases which are triable on
indictment only, and therefore the most expensive of cases, will
continue to be means tested until recovery of defence costs orders
are introduced in April 2001.
How are they likely to address delays in the youth justice
system?
The removal of the means test in itself will not remove all
causes of delay in youth cases, but it is one factor which can,
in some cases, cause delay—whilst appropriate documentary
evidence of means (of the child or parent) is being sought. The
removal of the means test will mean that waiting for such evidence
does not undermine other measures which are being taken to remove
delays in youth cases.
What is the likely cost of measures to abolish the legal aid
means test in youth cases?
We estimate that abolishing the means test in youth cases
could cost up to £1.4 million in a full year. The additional
costs arise through the loss of contributions that would otherwise
have been paid by the assisted person or, more likely, their parents,
and by the extra cases that will obtain legal aid. The abolition
of the means test will save the time of court staff undertaking
the work and of other agencies, such as the Benefits Agency and
Inland Revenue, that are involved in confirming the status of
legal aid applicants. But more importantly it will remove a significant
source of delay in the proceedings which will in turn produce
savings for other court users such as the police and witnesses.
These savings have not been quantified.
13. For what reasons was it necessary to postpone the
introduction of the Criminal Defence Service from October 2000
to April 2001?
It became clear that the original date for implementation
was no longer realistic. The Mackintosh Duncan judicial review
on civil contracting impacted on the criminal contracting timetable
by requiring senior management and lawyers to work on the judicial
review at a time when the Legal Services Commission (LSC) had
planned to switch focus to implementation of the CDS. The extended
timetable recognises both the overall workloads within the LSC
and the benefits of extra time for preparation and co-operation
with the professions to introduce the new service. The October
2000 date for the possession of a criminal category franchise
will be maintained. The franchise is a requirement to undertake
publicly funded criminal defence work.
What is now the target date for the contracting of all criminal
defence services provided by solicitors?
From April 2001 the majority of services provided by solicitors
will be placed under contract. All advice and assistance and magistrates'
court work will only be provided by contracted providers. This
includes both the police station and court duty solicitor schemes.
The only remaining area will be Crown Court work. This area will
be placed under contract by April 2003.
What proposals are there for the piloting of the use of salaried
defenders?
The Lord Chancellor published a consultation paper on salaried
defenders in June 2000. This paper set out our proposals for piloting
their use. We intend to start with six offices employing salaried
defenders. A research project will be set up along side the offices
to monitor their working practices and cost effectiveness. The
six office heads will be recruited from private practice both
for the legal and leadership skills. The offices will have to
compete for clients and will be given places on duty solicitor
schemes in common with solicitors in their local area. No defendant
will be forced to use a salaried defender, we expect that many
will choose to do so after having had contact with them as the
duty solicitor. A minimum of three offices will open on 1 April
2001. We have accepted that initially the unit costs will be high.
In the early months of the pilot the offices will be building
up their client base and will have had to bear the many start-up
costs of a new business. Eventually we believe that the salaried
defenders have the potential to provide benchmarks of both quality
and cost, but the Government is committed to maintaining a mixed
system of salaried defenders and solicitors in private practice,
since international experience has shown mixed systems provide
the best services.
Is it still intended to introduce Recovery of Defence Costs
Orders in October 2000? If so, what projections have been made
of the likely recovery of costs from non-acquitted defendants
in the financial year to April 2001 and the financial year 2001-02?
Recovery of Defence Costs Orders will not be introduced in
October as originally planned. They will be introduced with the
creation of the Criminal Defence Service in April 2001. The orders
will apply to new cases from April onwards while current cases
will continue to be dealt with under the existing procedure of
legal aid contribution orders. The new orders are most likely
to be appropriate in the longer and more complex cases, which
are unlikely to be completed within a year. During the first year
of operation therefore we expect that costs will be recovered
from defendants in very few cases and the amount recovered is
likely to be less than £50,000.
14. The Lord Chancellor has provisionally decided that
the sum to be paid into the Community Legal Service Fund in 2001-02
shall be £624 million, a reduction of £124 million on
the sum for 2000-01. It is stated that this reduction is due to
the narrower scope of the new CLS Fund (excluding cases of personal
injury and certain low-priority cases).
What proportion of the sums paid into the Legal Aid/CLS Fund
for the years 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 represents funding
for cases started under the Legal Aid Act 1988?
The proportion of the CLS Fund representing funding for cases
started under the Legal Aid Act 1988, for 1999-2000, 2000-01 and
2001-02 is 100 per cent, 60 per cent and 25 per cent respectively.
What provision has been made for reassessment of the sums to
be paid into the CLS Fund from 2001-02 onwards should there prove
to be a shortfall?
As part of SR2000 the Department has reassessed requirements
for the CLS Fund. In doing so we have taken into account the level
of predicted need, as well as Government priorities for targeting
funding at social welfare matters and other deserving cases. Decisions
must of course also take into account other Government priorities
for public expenditure. Should the amounts allocated in future
years prove insufficient, it is open to the Lord Chancellor to
redistribute departmental expenditure to allocate further money
to the CLS Fund, or, in the last resort, approach the Treasury
to seek further funding.
15. When is it expected that the full provisions of the
Access to Justice Act regarding rights of audience (ie rights
of audience for employed advocates, provision of legal services
direct to the public by solicitor advocates, portability of rights
of audience on change of employed status) will be brought into
force?
Some of the Access to Justice Act (AJA) provisions regarding
rights of audience were introduced in September 1999. We had planned
to introduce the remaining provisions (rights of audience for
employed advocates, provision of legal services direct to the
public by solicitor advocates and portability of rights of audience
on change of employed status) in April 2000. But the April timetable
was dependent on the professions delivering their draft rules
in early 2000. When the AJA received Royal Assent in July 1999,
it was clear what would be required of the professional bodies
in terms of changes to their rules (in fact they knew long before
Royal Assent what the Act would contain).
The Bar submitted its first draft rules to the Lord Chancellor
on 17 December 1999 (five months after Royal Assent), but we have
since received amendments to these on 6 March, 24 March and 5
April.
The Law Society submitted its new rules to the Lord Chancellor
for approval on 7 March 2000 (some eight months after Royal Assent).
Because of overlapping issues both the Office of Fair Trading
(OFT) and the Legal Services Consultative Panel (LSCP), whose
advice on the rules was sought under the statutory provisions,
agreed that the two sets of rules needed to be considered together.
While the procedure for approving the rules has been streamlined
by the Act, to allow for proper consultation and consideration
by the OFT, LSCP and the Lord Chancellor, it usually would take
about three months to complete the process. We therefore expect
to introduce these remaining provisions by the end of July 2000.
16. When does the Lord Chancellor intend to introduce
a Legal Services Complaints Commissioner?
When the Lord Chancellor wrote to the President of the Law
Society on 23 July 1999, he set out the kind of performance of
the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) which would
persuade the Government not to use the powers to introduce a Commissioner.
The full text of this letter has been placed in the Libraries
of both Houses of Parliament. On 22 June 1999, during the passage
of the Access to Justice Bill, Mr Vaz, then Parliamentary Secretary
to the Department, indicated that the Lord Chancellor had no plans
to use the power to appoint a Commissioner within 18 months of
Royal Assent. He also said that the Lord Chancellor would, in
particular, want to see the annual report of the OSS calendar
year 2000 in spring 2001.
E: COURTS
17. Which supplier is contracted to deliver the Libra
court services IT project? What arrangements have been made for
compatibility with other IT projects being introduced over the
criminal justice system? When is roll-out of Libra expected to
commence, and when will it be fully operational throughout the
Courts Service?
The Libra contract was awarded to ICL in December 1998. It
will provide a new core application for the courts, full office
automation and links to other organisations.
In addition to e-mail links, Libra will provide automatic
information exchange with the police (and through the police,
the national criminal records database, Phoenix), CPS, Prisons,
Probation service and the Crown Court, as well as links to DVLA
and other prosecutors such as TVLO. Management information will
also be generated for LCD and the Home Office. The links will
be established as and when each of the other organisations have
developed and implemented their own systems.
The magistrates' courts occupy a central position in the
information flows in the criminal justice system. The Libra Project
will provide a new standard system for the courts, and will deliver
electronic links to the other agencies in the criminal justice
system.
Libra is scheduled for implementation in the two years from
July 2001. The final date for implementation depends heavily on
the ability of the suppliers (and LCD) to develop these links
and is dependent on the other organisations being ready with their
new systems. This process is on-going. The position is:
— Police—NSPIS Case Preparation System is
nearing completion (scheduled for acceptance in September 2000).
The roll-out programme is to be accelerated and is targeted for
completion in 2002, although we are aware that some forces will
be seeking later dates. The Libra-Case Prep interface should be
available from the first Libra implementation in July 2001.
— CPS—Connect 42 project will provide PCs
and networks across the CPS offices. Will enable e-mail only.
Procurement for their main application not yet started, and is
unlikely to be available for interfaces until 2003 at the earliest.
— Prisons—Major PFI contract (Quantum) awarded
this year. Does not yet include main core applications. Like the
CPS, unlikely to be available for interfacing until 2003.
— Probation—Decisions to be made on future
application. Again, 2003 seems to be the most likely date for
interfaces.
— Crown Court—Plans for replacement of the
Crown Court system are being developed. It is expected that implementation
will take place during the Libra roll-out period (ie between mid-2001
and mid-2003).
From the magistrates' courts point of view, the most critical
interface, and the one delivering the highest benefits, is that
between the police and the courts.
18. There were delays in signing a number of PFI contracts
for new courthouse schemes in 1999-2000 (Table 21, p 83), and
we are told that the PFI investment profile is therefore running
approximately a year behind. Has the construction of new courthouses
been similarly delayed? What are the present target dates for
delivery of new courthouse buildings under PFI? What, if any,
have been the additional costs to the Department of the delays?
The Court Service is procuring three courthouse schemes under
PFI, and the Department supports a PFI programme of local authority
schemes for new magistrates' courts. The pathfinder schemes in
both programmes have taken longer to deliver than expected. This
has been due to learning the new process and to scheme-specific
problems. Other schemes have now been started. The time taken
to deliver individual schemes is expected to reduce. The programme
for new magistrates' courts is regulated by the Department's quota
of "PFI credits" which provide the required funding
support to the local authorities. None of the Department's quota
has been lost due to the past delays.
The present target dates for delivery of new courthouse buildings
under PFI are:
For the Court Service:
— Sheffield: contract due to be signed by September
2000 (a delay of two years);
— East Anglia (Cambridge and Ipswich): contract
due to be signed by January 2001 (a delay of two years);
— Exeter: contract due to be signed by February
2001.
A separate scheme for a Probate Records Centre was completed
in July 1999, a year after its original target date. Other new
courthouse facilities (Bristol, Chester, Blackpool) are being
procured as "Private Developer schemes" rather than
under PFI.
For magistrates' courts:
— Hereford and Worcester (pathfinder scheme): contract
signed February 2000;
— Humberside: contract signed March 2000.
Construction commenced shortly thereafter at all sites and
the new courthouses will be ready for use from mid 2001 onwards.
Eight further projects are in procurement. They are intended
to deliver up to 16 new courthouses:
— Derbyshire and Manchester schemes: contracts due
to be signed before the end of March 2001, providing new facilities
from 2003;
— Avon: contract due 2001-02;
— Bedfordshire: contract due 2001-02;
— North-west and Greater Manchester (Bolton): contract
due 2002-03;
— Merseyside: contract due 2002-03;
— Gloucester: contract due 2002-03;
— West Midlands (Birmingham): contract due 2003-04.
Additional costs were incurred in the use of specialist advisers
to address the causes of delay and ensure the schemes still achieved
value for money. Without this advice the scale of delays and costs
is likely to have been much greater. It is also worth noting that
the causes of delay were either outside of Court Service control
or have been necessary to ensure best value for money was achieved
(eg delays to ensure bids better meet operational needs and have
more appropriate payment arrangements). The Court Service has
incurred additional costs of around £0.5 million on consultancy
fees as a result of the delays. The additional cost of advisers
employed by local authorities for the magistrates' court pathfinder
scheme (Hereford and Worcester) amounted to £0.8 million
and £0.4 million on the second scheme (Humberside). The individual
Public Sector Comparators for each scheme indicate that clear
value for money savings have been achieved in each instance.
19. Table 10 of the Annual Report gave the forecast performance
of the Court Service against seven Key Performance Indicators
for 1999-2000 (including unit costs of cases in the Crown Court
and in the civil courts). Could you provide the actual performance
levels for 1999-2000 for as many of these KPIs as there are figures
available?
| KPI | Target 1999-2000 |
Forecast 1999-2000 | Actual Performance
| |
| KPI 1—the quality of service provided to court users
| 82% | 86% | 86.8%
| Last year the KPI was revised to include the Supreme Court Group. The target was achieved with performance higher than last year.
|
| KPI 2—the percentage of administrative work in the civil courts dealt with in target time
| 92% | 94% | 94.4%
| The target was met despite the implementation of the Civil Justice Reforms, which meant that all staff had to be re-trained to deal with the new procedures.
|
| KPI 3—the percentage of Crown Court cases that commence within target
| 78% | 78% | 76.9%
| The target was not met. The implementation of the Criminal Justice Act relating to persistent young offenders and extended sentencing for sexual and violent offenders resulted in a reduction in the disposal rate increasing the level of outstanding cases.
|
| KPI 4—average waiting time for Asylum Appeals from receipt at Immigration Appellate Authorities to promulgation of the Adjudicator's decision
| 23 weeks | 23 weeks | 10.9 weeks
| Asylum appeals waiting times was a new KPI introduced in 1999-2000. The target was achieved with a performance of 10.9 weeks.
|
| KPI 5—the unit cost of a case in the Crown Court
| £2,118 | £2,118 |
£2,089 | The target was achieved. In real terms, this performance represents an increase of 3.5% and reflects our high level of fixed costs. The cost does not include expenditure redefined from Capital during the course of the year. This KPI has been discontinued, but will continue to be measured locally.
|
| KPI 6—the unit cost of an item of originating process in the civil courts
| £118 | £136 |
£137 | The target was missed. The number of cases reduced significantly following the implementation of the Civil Justice reforms in April 1999, although the level of work necessary to manage each case increased. This KPI has been discontinued, but will continue to be measured locally.
|
| KPI 7—the percentage of costs of the civil courts recovered through fees
| 94% | 92% | 90.5%
| The target was missed, due to reduced workload following the introduction of the Civil Justice Reforms. The amount of originating process issued increased in later months, but not at a level that made it possible for us to meet the target. The figure of 90.5% is a provisional figure pending production of the Memorandum Trading Account for the civil courts later in the year.
|
F: JUDICIARY AND
MAGISTRACY
20. Could you provide a breakdown of the unit cost involved
in (a) making a judicial appointment (presently £1,317) and
(b) making an appointment to Silk (present cost of application
£335).
Breakdown of the unit cost involved in making a judicial appointment
The unit cost comprises all directly attributable expenditure
identified by operational activities which underpin the appointment
process. This covers the full range of activities including work
connected with developing the terms and conditions of employment
for the differing categories of judicial office holder, through
to the various stages involved in running large scale national
recruitment competitions, up to the conclusion of an exercise,
that is the actual appointments themselves.
The costs are collated from actual expenditure figures and
then divided by the number of appointments made within completed
competitions reported on in the reporting year in question. Whilst
this formula provides a single unit cost of an appointment, the
methodology deriving from the way in which the operational objectives
are structured does not allow for individual elements within that
figure to be separately broken down.
Breakdown of the unit cost involved in making an appointment to
Silk
Estimate of cost of Silk 1999 competition: £185,000
Number of applicants: 553
Cost per applicant=185,000/553=£335
Estimated staff cost per applicant: £125
Estimated overheads cost per applicant: £210
Outturn of cost of Silk 1999: £230,000
Higher than estimate because (1) more feedbacks
(2) underestimate of Indirect Departmental Cost contribution.
The fee will be revised in 2001 to coincide with revision
of Crown Office fees.
21. What progress has been made in taking forward the
recommendations of the Peach Report on procedures for appointments
to judicial office?
Sir Leonard made recommendations to improve the quality of
the information received from those who are asked to assess the
suitability of applicants. These changes have been introduced
for the recently advertised Recorder and Circuit Bench competitions
and they will be extended to other competitions. He also suggested
that candidates should be asked to state more clearly their own
views of how they measure up to the specific criteria for appointment—new
applications forms now in use reflect this recommendation.
The core criteria for appointment have been revised following
recommendations made by the Joint Working Party on Equal Opportunities
in Judicial Appointments and Silk and also covered in Sir Leonard's
report.
The pilot scheme for the appraisal of deputy District Judges,
which he commended, is to be extended and work will begin soon
on the development of self-appraisal as outlined by Sir Leonard.
The table of fees of candidates for Queen's Counsel recommended
in the report was published for the first time when the Silk 2000
appointments were announced on 19 April.
A great deal of preparatory work to clarify the scope, activities
and functions of the Commission as recommended by Sir Leonard
has been undertaken. It is hoped that the First Commissioner will
be appointed some time this year. Tendering procedures for consultants
to undertake the early stages of the recruitment exercise for
the appointment of the First Commissioner have commenced. The
post will be advertised in due course in the national press. The
appointment of deputy Commissioners will begin in 2001.
Sir Leonard recommended that a pilot scheme for a one-day
assessment centre be produced. A tailored programme will be developed
for assessing suitability for a specific part-time judicial office—the
judicial office for which the pilot assessment centre is to be
developed has not yet been identified. It is envisaged that a
pilot assessment centre will be set up to consider candidates
in Spring/Summer 2001.
22. The forecast maximum of High Court Judges in 2000-01
is 103, an increase of two on the forecast for 1999-2000. When
is it planned to take up the full 106 posts permitted under the
Maximum Number of Judges Order 1999?
In November 1999 the statutory ceiling on the number of High
Court Judges was increased by eight, from 98 to 106. Since then,
five additional High Court Judges have been appointed in preparation
for the implementation of the Human Rights Act in October 2000.
This has taken the number of judges from 98 to 103 (excluding
Mr Justice Bratza, who is serving full-time on the European Court
of Human Rights). There remains capacity within the statutory
ceiling to appoint a further three judges.
The Lord Chancellor's assessment is that the current demands
on the High Court are fully met by the number of judges in post.
The Lord Chancellor will continue to monitor the demands on the
High Court and he will recommend the appointment of further judges,
within the statutory ceiling, when he considers it necessary.
23. What progress has been made in the unification of
the stipendiary benches? What is the present strength of the stipendiary
bench? When is it expected that the newly-designated District
Judges (Magistrates' Courts) will be able to sit at any magistrates'
court in England and Wales? What criteria will govern the allocation
of such judges to courts and cases? What consideration will be
given to the assignment of such judges to youth panels?
The unification plans are on target for implementation in
the late summer.
There are currently 47 Metropolitan and 49 Provincial stipendiary
magistrates.
The District Judges (Magistrates' Courts) will be able to
sit in any magistrates court in England and Wales from the date
of unification.
The national jurisdiction of the District Judges (Magistrates'
Courts) will allow for flexibility in deploying District Judges
(Magistrates' Courts) to wherever there is a need in terms of
workload or specific or difficult cases. The Senior District Judge
(Chief Magistrate) will use his or her knowledge of the bench
and of the individuals concerned in deciding the most suitable
District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) to deploy to a particular
area or to hear a specific case.
Under the new legislation a District Judge (Magistrates'
Courts) will be able to sit alone in a youth court or as a member
of a youth court anywhere in the country without the need to be
a member of a panel.
G: HUMAN RIGHTS
ACT
24. The Human Rights Act is expected to have an immediate
and significant impact upon the criminal courts (Criminal Justice
System business plan 2000-01). What preparations has the Department
made for the entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 on
2 October?
The Lord Chancellor's Department has planned and prepared
at every level. The Judicial Studies Board is ensuring that all
members of the judiciary are trained. The Lord Chancellor has
appointed additional judges. Systems will be in place by 2 October
to "fast-track" appropriate criminal cases to the Court
of Appeal so that precedent can be established quickly. All full-time
judges will have quick access to legal information, including
Strasbourg and domestic human rights jurisprudence, via the Internet.
What is the cost of these preparations?
The Government has planned carefully for implementation of
the Act by setting aside £60 million, including £39
million for legal aid, for extra court sitting days if they are
needed. These funds are contained within the Government's planned
overall spending totals.
What assessment has been made of the proportion of judicial
acts likely to be in breach of article 5 of the ECHR (p 30, para
77)? What sums have been set aside in anticipation of compensation?
In 1999 the Lord Chancellor's Department conducted a risk
analysis of areas where judicial acts might breach Article 5.
A risk minimisation project followed, involving training, guidance
and the improvement of information networks across the court system.
Breaches of Article 5 by judicial acts are not anticipated to
be frequent, particularly since the domestic courts will be taking
into account the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
which has set a narrow definition of unlawful detention for the
purposes of Article 5. Section 8 of the Human Rights Act says
that courts must take into account the principles applied by the
European Court of Human Rights in relation to the award of compensation.
The European Court has a long history of awarding modest amounts.
No specific sum has been ring-fenced for compensation and the
cost of any successful claim will be met from existing Departmental
budgets.
Has the Department's review of legislation and procedures identified
any other friction points in respect of the Act? What action has
been taken to address any issues which have arisen?
The Department has identified some areas of practice and
procedure requiring modification to ensure Convention compliance
is put beyond doubt. The Lord Chancellor made two recent announcements
about the safeguards guaranteeing the independence of part-time
judges and tribunal members. Guidance is also to be provided to
the judiciary and bailiffs to ensure that committal procedures
in the civil and family courts comply with the Convention rights
in each case. The practice of distress for rent is currently being
reviewed as part of the terms of reference of the enforcement
review. It is likely that changes will be necessary and we are
seeking legal advice on what they should be.
H: PUBLIC TRUST
OFFICE POINTS
ARISING FROM
THE ORAL
EVIDENCE SESSION
ON 18 APRIL
25. What developments have there been since 18 April in
discussions with the Inland Revenue about collection of accounts?
A business requirement for the accounts collection process
was prepared and forwarded to the Inland Revenue in May. A meeting
took place with the Inland Revenue on 7 June 2000 to discuss some
of the details. Both the Inland Revenue and the PTO are now preparing
estimates of costs to enable a cost benefit analysis of the Inland
Revenue and in-house options to be prepared.
26. What further consideration has been given to the role
and title of the proposed Mental Incapacity Support Unit?
We are aware that the proposed name of the new Unit is not
popular and we are consulting on alternatives. A different name
will be used. The proposed role of the new Unit has not changed
since April.
27. What discussions have now taken place with the Active
Community Unit in the Home Office of the effect of the proposed
PTO changes on the Government's policy for volunteering?
The PTO has written to the Active Community Unit and has
set up a meeting with them to explore their perspective on the
activities planned in the Change Programme.
28. What has been the outcome of consultation about how
and by whom the visiting function should be carried out?
We are still actively consulting with various bodies on the
subject of visits; in particular with receivers and key stakeholder
groups. We are particularly keen to obtain views about what the
scope of the visiting function should be and about the skills
required of the visitor. These views will help inform our decisions
about which body (or bodies) are best placed to carry out the
visits.
29. Have there been any other developments since 18 April
about the future of the Public Trust Office of which the Committee
should be made aware?
Significant progress has been made in the preparation of
detailed project and programme plans. Consultants have been retained
to assess the risks associated with implementing the programme
of change and how to manage the on-going work of the Office during
a period of radical change.
11 July 2000
| 
