APPENDIX 4
Memorandum submitted by the Central Council
of Magistrates' Courts Committees
COURTS BILL
AND MAGISTRATES'
COURTS COMMITTEES'
GRANT ALLOCATION
Central Council was disappointed not to be able
to appear before the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department
(LCD) Courts Bill evidence sessions, but completely understand
why this was not possible. We welcome the opportunity to offer
the Committee briefing material and hope that it has been of use.
However, as Central Council is not to appear
at the evidence sessions, there is one issue which we feel we
must register with the Committee, that being the grant allocation
to Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs) for 2003-04.
Grant this year was allocated to MCCs via a
new grant Allocation Formula. The LCD has been developing an equitable
formula for more than six years. MCCs have themselves devoted
considerable staff resource time to assisting the LCD to do so.
One of the objectives of the formula was to promote transparency
in understanding. This was not achieved. In preparing an explanation
of the formula, at MCCs' request, the LCD discovered errors: all
MCCs had received the wrong allocation, some to a considerable
degree (I attach at Annex A, a table detailing what MCCs were
allocated and the corrected amounts of what they should have received).
The Department has acknowledged this mistake
but is apparently not going to do anything about it. Nine of the
"outlier" MCCs. At either end of the incorrect allocation
spectrum, have been contacted and, Central Council understands
they are to submit new business cases to the Department, presumably
to assess whether they should keep an excessive allocation, or
to decide whether to top-up a grossly under-funded MCC. Central
Council regards this as a very sloppy way of managing public money.
This state of affairs is directly linked to
the Courts Bill. The Government is critical of the fluctuations
in MCCs' performance, and this is cited as a main driver of the
proposals in the Courts Bill fro the Government to take greater
control through an executive agency model. But funding has always
been critical to this issue. How can MCCs perform consistently
when the allocation of their annual grant is so inconsistent?
How also can we all be confident that greater central control
will result in better performance? The development of the Grant
Allocation Formula has been an entirely centralised project, run
by LCD. The Department has spent vast sums using consultant (C
International); so much, in fact, that they will not disclose
the total, despite requests. Yet Central Council understands that
the advice of these consultants was dismissed when they indicated
that they believe the data collected in the business process mapping
exercise was insufficiently robust to support an effective formula.
For years, many MCCs have been alerting all
who would listen, that they would have to begin to cut core services
unless the grant allocation was fairer. For the first time, the
Government had indicated that this had been delivered. However,
far form being given the certainty and resources required to go
about improving performance, MCCs have again been thrown into
limbo. This is despite many of them registering concerns to the
LCD in early January.
This disaster is likely to result in a further
waste of public money. Central Council's concern is, that far
from improving matters, the proposals for greater central control
(through an executive agency) proposed in the Courts Bill will
actually cause yet further waste. As seen by this experience,
local managers (MCCs and Justices' Chief Executives), although
not perfect, have a better appreciation than those based in Whitehall,
of what resources it takes to deliver the improved services we
all want. Central Council fears that the answer of Government
to ensure the success of the new agency will be to throw more
money at it. Would it not be simpler to instead give proper resources
to those who know what they need now and have been crying out
for such for years?
Duncan Webster
Chief Executive
Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees
March 2003
Annex A
CHANGES IN
2003-04 GENERAL GRANT
AFTER CORRECTION
AT STEP
(D)
| MCC | Position 1—
December
| (%) increase
over 02-03
general grant
| Position 2—
corrected
| (%) increase
over 02-03
general grant
|
Avon & Somerset
Bedfordshire
Cambridgeshire
Cheshire
Cleveland
Cumbria
Derbyshire
Devon & Cornwall
Dorset
Durham
Dyfed Powys
Essex
GLMCA
Gloucestershire
Greater Manchester
Gwent
Hampshire & IOW
Hertfordshire
Humberside
Kent
Lancashire
Leicestershire
Lincolnshire
Merseyside
Norfolk
North Wales
North Yorkshire
Northamptonshire
Northumbria
Nottinghamshire
South Wales
South Yorkshire
Staffordshire
Suffolk
Surrey
Sussex
Thames Valley
Warwickshire
West Mercia
West Midlands
West Yorkshire
Wiltshire
| 9,026,834
3,480,344
4,363,958
5,724,515
5,099,969
3,918,918
4,991,926
8,839,728
4,146,522
4,552,874
3,482,111
8,584,068
77,741,066
3,664,152
22,084,694
4,387,024
10,495,925
6,039,199
6,422,084
8,824,187
9,440,344
5,765,776
4,239,830
11,455,116
5,052,690
4,870,441
4,519,084
4,304,134
11,598,820
8,999,655
11,136,421
9,428,841
6,830,704
3,956,771
5,379,372
8,867,038
12,650,031
2,768,616
7,388,639
20,291,585
15,602,405
4,583,587
| 8.9
4.4
15.0
8.5
15.0
4.1
3.5
9.4
3.5
11.8
6.2
5.1
3.5
3.5
8.2
11.5
8.5
7.4
15.0
13.2
10.6
5.7
12.6
5.6
3.5
11.5
15.0
13.7
15.0
3.5
15.0
6.6
11.5
11.5
3.5
6.4
14.5
6.0
3.5
7.3
3.9
10.5
| 9,144,004
3,644,986
4,004,869
5,862,493
5,099,969
3,898,492
5,297,172
9,024,002
4,146,522
4,754,152
3,393,871
8,944,842
77,741,066
3,849,330
22,252,903
4,353,384
10,079,523
5,936,998
6,422,084
8,626,783
9,223,689
5,955,276
3,993,419
11,799,969
5,052,690
4,785,389
4,519,084
4,278,001
11,426,283
8,999,655
10,942,006
10,004,148
6,640,530
3,956,923
5,451,163
8,626,645
11,881,409
2,775,571
7,388,639
20,891,510
15,546,286
4,384,270
| 10.3
9.4
5.5
11.1
15.0
3.5
9.9
11.6
3.5
11.6
3.5
9.6
3.5
8.8
9.0
10.6
4.2
5.6
15.0
10.7
8.0
8.2
6.0
8.8
3.5
9.5
15.0
13.0
13.3
3.5
13.0
13.1
8.4
11.5
4.9
3.5
7.6
6.3
3.5
10.5
3.5
5.7
|
| TOTAL | 385,000,000
| | 385,000,000
| |
| | |
| |
Notes: Please note that the 02-03 general grant
used to measure the percentage increase in grant for 03-04 was
amended at position 2 for Durham and Leicestershire
|
