Written evidence submitted by the Department
for Constitutional Affairs in response to questions from the Committee
PART 1
GENERAL
1. The website at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/performance/lcd.cfm
indicates that the Lord Chancellor's Department's PSA targets
for Spending Review 2002 and performance data are not yet available.
When will they be available?
Our PSA targets were published by the Treasury
in July 2002 and are now available on the Treasury's performance
website. We completed publication of the Department's outstanding
Technical Notes (which set out how they will be measured) for
each PSA target, with the exception of PSA 7, at the end of May.
Our next action will be to populate the website with both historical
and current performance data (where both are available). This
will be achieved by the end of July.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM
User satisfaction
2. The survey referred to on page 32
of the Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03 indicated that the
number of jurors who were "very satisfied" had fallen.
What are the reasons for the fall? Has the Lord Chancellor's Department
made any changes to its services as a consequence of the results
of any survey?
Overall juror satisfaction has remained high
and is meeting the target, with 95.1% of jurors being satisfied
or very satisfied (against a target of 95%). The juror survey
that was conducted during January 2000 revealed that 42% were
"very satisfied". A repeat of the same survey was carried
out in March 2002 and this showed that the figure had fallen to
37.5%. As the survey did not ask for reasons, it is impossible
to say with certainty why there was a fall in the "very satisfied".
However, feedback from jurors, during service at court and through
correspondence after service, suggests that the reasons we are
not seeing an increase in the number of "very satisfied"
respondents are most likely due to, poor facilities, lengthy waiting
times and lack of information. We are committed to improving satisfaction
levels and in order to do that we are currently undertaking several
pieces of work for example; reviewing the "You and Your Jury
Service" booklet which is sent out to jurors with their summonses
and explains what will happen to them when they are at court;
we are reviewing the allowances paid; and we are working with
the judiciary in looking at giving potential jurors advance notice
of long trials.
The 2003 survey is currently under way and the
results are due to be published next month (July). As from 2004
the Juror Satisfaction Survey will be incorporated into the national
customer service (NCS) survey.
3. The Departmental Annual Report for
2001-02 reported that unnecessary attendance of witnesses had
fallen by 3% (at page 19). Why has this improvement not continued
in 2002-03? In addition, what progress has been made against SDA
2, which states that the Lord Chancellor's Department would improve
the service for witnesses by reducing the average waiting time
in the magistrates' courts to one hour or less by March 2002 and
reducing the unnecessary attendance of witnesses in the magistrates'
courts by 10% over the period 2001-04? Are these still targets
for the Lord Chancellor's Department? Are there any other targets
in respect of witnesses?
Magistrates' Courts—We work closely
with our CJS partners for both CJS targets; (i) Reducing the average
waiting time in the magistrates' courts to one hour or less by
March 2002; and (ii) Reducing the unnecessary attendance of witnesses
in the magistrates' courts by 10% over the SR 2000 period. The
performances have been relatively static (between 1 hour 25 minutes
to 1 hour 28 minutes over the last two years [target 1 hour] and
between 50 and 53% over the last two years [target 47.7%] respectively)
and it has proved difficult to achieve substantive improvement
through the old Trials Issues Group arrangement.
The average witness waiting times in magistrates'
courts and their unnecessary attendance are still both SDAs under
SR 2000 (which continue until the end of 2003-04). Witness satisfaction,
supporting the "confidence" PSA (PSA 2), will be measured
under SR 2002 by new questions in the British Crime Survey.
Crown Court—Under the (SR 2000)
PSA 1 target (level of satisfaction of users of justice system),
the Crown Court measures the percentage of witnesses waiting 2
hours or less, from the time which they were asked to attend court
to the time they are called or released. The target is 50% and
the national average, as of the November 2002 survey, revealed
that 53% of crown court witnesses waited less than 2 hours.
Bringing offenders to justice
4. In Spending Review 2002 the first
CJS PSA target, for which the Lord Chancellor's Department shares
responsibility with the Home Office and other departments, is
to improve the delivery of justice by increasing the number of
crimes for which an offender is brought to justice to 1.2 million
by 2005-06; with an improvement in all CJS areas, a greater increase
in the worst-performing areas and a reduction in the proportion
of ineffective trials. Between March 2000 and September 2001 the
number of crimes for which an offender was brought to justice
fell significantly. The Home Office in its Departmental Annual
Report suggest that the complexity of the CJS makes it difficult
to pinpoint where or why this decline happened, or the reasons
for its subsequent reversal. Can the Lord Chancellor's Department
throw any light on why the decline happened? What difficulties
does this lack of knowledge pose in formulating a strategy to
meet the target of bringing 1.2 million offences to court each
year?
We are no surer than the Home Office as to why
there was a decline in the number of offenders brought to justice
between March 2000 and September 2001. Our figures show only a
0.7% decrease in cases dealt by the Courts during the period.
What is clear however is that a number of key initiatives (for
example those on Street Crime and Persistent Young Offenders)
since that period have increased the throughput of cases in the
courts by over 8%, rising from 75,565 to 81,766. At the same time,
the disposal rate increased from 0.79 cases per day to 0.82, and
the Ineffective Trial rate has declined from 23.9% to 23.09%.
New targets have been set to address this issue.
These are joint targets for all criminal justice agencies that
will improve joined up working, ensuring that crime is tackled
with an end-to-end approach and which will result in more offenders
being brought to justice. The Department's (SR 2002) PSA 1 agreement
to support the target of 1.2 million offenders brought to justice
will ensure sufficient capacity and a decrease in the number of
ineffective trials and the Case Preparation Project (CPP) is the
primary national mechanism for the criminal justice system to
deliver this. The Department is working to develop more instructive
information systems, based on the 42 areas, to monitor progress
and provide better-structured evidence for future planning.
Delay
5. Pages 20-21 of the Departmental Annual
Report for 2001-02 set out a number of reforms which the Lord
Chancellor's Department had instituted to make justice swifter.
When that annual report was published the Department had not fully
evaluated the reforms but said early indications were that the
reform had reduced waiting times in the more serious cases. Can
the Department now provide a more detailed report or update?
It is clear, as the Annual Report stated, that
major improvements in Crown Court performance occurred in 2001-02.
During this period there was a 3.6% increase in the "serious
cases" (class 1, 2 and 3 cases) workload for the Crown Court.
Against this background, the number of cases dealt with increased
by 8.2% from 75,565 to 81,766. The figures on waiting times are
mixed. There has been an overall increase in waiting times of
0.21 weeks, with an increase in custody cases of 1.72 weeks offset
by a decrease in bail cases of 0.26 weeks. At the same time, the
Ineffective Trial Rate has decreased from 23.9% to 23.09%.
Criminal Justice Reserve Fund
6. How much of the Criminal Justice
Reserve Fund was spent in 2002-03? Please provide a list of how
this money was spent and provide an indication of how much of
the CJR will be spent in 2003-04 and on what.
Some £208 million was spent from the CJS
Reserve in 2002-03. Exact figures await finalisation of that year's
accounts. End-year flexibility (EYF) will be requested to carry
forward the estimated £17 million balance for use in 2003-04.
The activities funded in 2002-03 are shown in the list attached
at Annex A.
The three CJS Ministers (Lord Chancellor, Home
Secretary and Attorney General) have identified allocations for
2003-04 which will fully utilise the £225 million available.
These are currently with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for
confirmation. Details will be provided to the Committee when confirmation
has been received.
How the estimated £17 million balance from
2002-03 (for which EYF has been sought) can be used most effectively
is currently under consideration.
Complaints against solicitors
7. In evidence to the Home Affairs Select
Committee on 23 July 2002 the Permanent Secretary said that the
Lord Chancellor's Department had asked for a series of improvements
to be made by the Office for Supervision of Solicitors. What improvements
were requested? What targets were set? Has Office for Supervision
of Solicitors made the improvements or met the targets? What assessment
has the Legal Services Ombudsman made of the Office for Supervision
of Solicitors' performance?
The former Lord Chancellor agreed OSS's proposals
for a challenging package of performance standards for 2003 that
is expected to deliver real benefits to complainants. Complete
list at Annex B.
Some of the targets for 2003 have been increased
from the level of the previous targets set in 2001 (targets were
not set in 2002 because the Law Society could not provide reliable
data to make the exercise meaningful). Complaints must be resolved
speedily, but the OSS must also ensure that the standard of quality
is not lowered. The OSS's proposal to ensure that the quality
standards continue to improve means that the more straightforward
cases will be handled quickly and effectively. OSS therefore have
a target of 60% of all service and conduct cases to be completed
in 3 months, a 10% increase on the previous target set. However,
more time will be available for complex cases as they have a target
of 75%, for all service and conduct cases to be completed in 6
months, a 5% reduction on the previous target set.
The targets that have been reduced , are reduced
for 2003 only. In 2004 they revert to their former level and in
2005 they exceed the former level.
The Legal Services Ombudsman satisfaction marking
for the OSS has improved by 10% from 57% in 2001-02 to 67% in
2002-03. The time the OSS takes to turnaround a case has also
improved.
The OSS has; attempted to create a model office
that includes mediation as more frequently used tool; invested
in a new case management system; experimented with outsourcing
"low complexity" cases; launched a Client's Charter;
and recruited 60 new staff.
It now has in place; an Independent Commissioner
who conducts internal audits of the Consumer Redress Scheme and
has made a number of wide-ranging recommendations that have been
accepted by the Law Society in principle; clear definitions for
complaints and enquiries agreed and reliable data; and elements
of the Consumer Redress Scheme that train solicitors in customer
care.
We will continue to monitor the situation closely
to see whether these measures bring about real benefits for consumers.
Public confidence in the justice system
8. In building public confidence in
the criminal justice system what part does sentencing play in
the Lord Chancellor's Department's considerations? What weight
does the Department attach to sentencing in contributing to confidence
in the criminal justice system?
The Home Secretary is responsible within Government
for sentencing policy. It is the role of Parliament to pass laws
that set the sentencing framework within which the courts operate.
The judiciary have discretion to decide the sentence in individual
cases; they do so in accordance with the judicial oath.The Department
recognises the public concern about sentencing. There is a disparity
between public perception that sentences are too lenient and sentencing
trend data that shows that sentences are becoming tougher. There
is a role for the Department in informing the public of the realities
of sentencing and the constraints within which judges operate
and we are working with colleagues in the trilateral Criminal
Justice Performance Directorate to identify the extent of the
link between public perceptions of sentencing and confidence in
the criminal justice system.
We are also working in partnership with the
Home Office and the judiciary on proposals for a Sentencing Guidelines
Council. With colleagues in the Correctional Services, we are
working to inform the Sentencing Guidelines Council and make available
the best information we can about the effectiveness of correctional
services.
Court closures
9. How many courts have closed in the
past five years and how many are due to close in 2003-04 and 2004-05?
Please supply for each year a list of courts and court buildings
which closed, or will close, along with a list indicating the
new location of the court and whether it now shares a building
with another court.
Since the beginning of 1998, a total of 89 magistrates'
courts and 15 county courts have closed. There have been no crown
court closures. Currently there are plans for Ministers to consider
the case for closure of two county courts, Shoreditch and Gravesend,
over the next two years. It is not anticipated that any crown
courts will close during this period.
Operational control of magistrates' courts,
including any plans for closure lie with the 42 Magistrates' Courts
Committees. We are only aware of 7 closures due in the next two
years, though other closures are contained in the longer-term
strategic plans of MCCs.
10. The court room utilisation target
on page 37 appears to cover only Crown courts. Is there a target
for magistrates' courts? If not, why not? What are the Lord Chancellor's
Department's targets for reducing court over-capacity during Spending
Review 2002?
The utilisation target on page 37 does only
cover crown courts. The target set out on page 36 headed "Courtroom
capacity," which aims "To reduce courtroom over-capacity
by 10% by March 2002" (SDA 46), ranges across the joint estate
(covering magistrates', crown and county courts). Up to the year
ending December 2002 this figure has not only been maintained,
but improved by 3.6% in the magistrates' courts. Furthermore,
under SR 2002 PSA 4, there is a supporting target to realise 30
estate rationalisation opportunities by 31 March 2006. This will
largely be the move of county courts into magistrates' courts
with consequent disposal of buildings.
11. In taking a decision (where it is
required to do so) to close or relocate a court what weight does
the Lord Chancellor's Department attach to access to courts? Will
the Lord Chancellor's Department have an SDA target during Spending
Review 2002 for access to courts in urban and rural areas?
When deciding to close or re-locate a county
court, the likely impact on access for court users is an extremely
important consideration. Consideration is given to what public
transport is available and the implications of relocation, including
whether additional travelling for some users can be balanced against
improved accommodation and facilities for all.
The decision to close or relocate magistrates'
courts is currently taken by the local Magistrates' Court Committee.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs only has a role if the
local paying authority appeals against the closure of a court.
In the event of an appeal, accessibility is one of a number of
factors considered by the Minister in determining the appeal.
Other factors include the standard of accommodation (for example
facilities for witnesses), security, courtroom utilisation, value
for money and the effect on other criminal justice agencies.
The Department will not have an SDA target for
access to the courts for the SR 2002 period. Rather than publish
Service Delivery Agreements, HMT are giving departments the option
of publishing a high level summary of how they intend to deliver
PSA targets. We intend to summarise this in the form of a Business
Plan. We favour this approach, as it will send out a strong message
that delivery of the PSA is fundamental to our business and our
key priority for the next three years.
IT and the courts
12. How much of the £1.1 billion
in the Criminal Justice System IT Joint Fund has been spent by
the Lord Chancellor's Departments? Has the first report on progress
on rollout been issued?
The £1.1billion allocated to the fund is
for the SR 2002 period as a whole. As we are in the first quarter
of the first financial year, only a very small percentage of funds
have been spent. In terms of allocation of funds across Criminal
Justice Organisations, current budgetary estimates are that the
LCD will receive funding to deliver; current Libra plans for the
magistrates' courts, including IT infrastructure and a national
case management application; current crown court plans, including
for IT infrastructure and rollout of the XHIBIT (eXchanging Hearing
Information By Internet Technology).
A number of points are relevant to this allocation.
The budget breakdown figures have not been made public since this
may prejudice commercial negotiations with the IT suppliers who
will be contracted to deliver IT services. Budget allocations
are subject to ongoing oversight and potential revision throughout
the SR 2002 period by the five "key holders", specifically
the Attorney General, Home Secretary, Secretary of State for the
Department of Constitutional Affairs, Minister for Criminal Justice
IT and Director General of Criminal Justice IT. The allocation
for fiscal year 2003-04 is subject to a current Value For Money
exercise which will be considered at the next meeting of the Criminal
Justice IT Ministerial committee expected in mid July. This may
affect budget allocations.
The last of these points may impact on detailed
parts of implementation plans for this financial year. For that
reason, we understand that the Criminal Justice IT Unit plan to
publish the first public progress report as quickly as possible
after the examination of the Value For Money exercise to the Ministerial
Committee. It is intended that the first public progress report
will be published by the end of July.
13. Have plans for IT development within
the county courts been finalised? If not, when will they be finalised?
If they have, please supply a summary of the plans. Has the Lord
Chancellor's Department an estimate of the likely costs?
The Department has recently undertaken an audit
of resource usage across all areas. The outcome of that audit
is currently being considered to ensure that resources available
across the SR 2002 period are most effectively targeted to meet
agreed commitments. Part of the outcome of that exercise is to
confirm the level and profile of funding that can be committed
to IT based modernisation in the county courts. Current plans
are for this work to conclude during July. Once the financial
profile is known, the currently provisional plans will be revised
accordingly. Initial costing estimates have been worked up for
various potential options. Both the level of available funding
and wider priorities will determine which parts are taken forward
and so actual costs.
Appointment of magistrates
14. When will the National Recruitment
Strategy (page 40 of Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03) be
published?
We plan to publish the National Recruitment
Strategy in the autumn, once implementation details have been
finalised.
15. Would the Lord Chancellor's Department
please supply a table setting out for each year from 1999-2000
to 2002-03: the total number of magistrates sitting; the Lord
Chancellor's Department estimate of the complement required each
year with the complement required for 2003-04; the total recruited
each year; the total leaving each year; and the average age of
magistrates in each of the years.
| 1/1/99-
31/12/991
| 1/1/00-
31/3/00 | 2000-01
| 2001-02 | 2002-03
|
Total no. of magistrates | 26,0492
| 25,6762 | 24,771 | 24,526
| 24,419 |
| vacancies3 | not recorded |
not recorded | 1,667 | 1,971
| 1,489 |
Total recruited (excludes
re-appointments)
| 1,523 | 180 | 1,366
| 1,474 | 1,410 |
| Total leaving4 | 1,448 | 553
| 2,049 | 1,719 | 1,571
|
| |
| | | |
Notes:
1 Figures were not recorded by financial year until 2000-01.
2 The pre-2000-01 figures have since been found to be inaccurate.
When the new computer database was validated in March 2001 it
was discovered that the earlier manual records were incorrect.
The figures for 2000-01 onwards are accurate.
3 We record the number of vacancies (this includes anticipated
losses as well as additional magistrates needed) rather than the
complement required. We rely on the local Advisory Committees
to tell us how many vacancies they are aiming to fill. We did
not start recording these figures until 2000-01.
4 This figure represents resignations, removals, retirements
and deaths.
We do not have figures for average age. What we can give
is a breakdown by age groups as at 1 April 2003:
| Under 30
| 30-39 | 40-49 |
50-54 | 55-59 | 60-65
| 66+ |
Number | 12 | 907
| 4,035 | 4,234 | 6,764
| 5,997 | 2,470 |
| % | 0.05 | 3.72
| 16.52 | 17.34 | 27.70
| 24.56 | 10.11 |
| |
| | | |
| |
16. Are problems in retaining or recruiting magistrates
greater in some Magistrates' Courts Areas than others? What is
the Lord Chancellor's Department's estimate of the number of additional
magistrates which will be required to implement the provisions
in the Criminal Justice Bill moving cases from crown to magistrates'
courts?
There are regional differences in recruitment and it is harder
to attract certain groups of people in some areas than it is in
others. The recruitment strategy is intended to address this issue.
It has been estimated that up to 3,000 new magistrates will be
required to cope with the increase in work likely to arise from
the Criminal Justice Bill.
17. SDA 36 requires the Lord Chancellor's Department
to project the numbers of potential appointments from women and
people from an ethnic minority background, and to reviewing progress.
What were the results of the last review? Does Lord Chancellor's
Department plan to carry forward SDA26 into Spending Review 2002?
Will it be adjusted in any way?
The projections cover selected judicial appointments, namely
Deputy District Judge, Recorder, District Judge and Circuit Judge,
and appointment as Queen's Counsel. They do not cover lay magistrates
appointments.
In October 2001 (in the Judicial Appointments Annual Report
2000-01) the Department published figures showing the projected
number of female lawyers who may be appointed to some of the main
judicial posts and to Queen's Counsel in 2005 and 2010. Calculations
were made using data supplied by the Bar Council and the Law Society
and from information and statistics held by the Department. The
figures were reviewed for the period 2001-02 and the outcome published
in the Judicial Appointments Annual Report 2001-02 in October
2002.
The figures were reviewed using a similar methodology to
that used to develop the original projections, but additionally
took into account the following: the number of women appointed
in 2001-02, a revised set of figures showing the make-up of the
profession supplied by the Bar Council and the Law Society, and
the net retention rate amongst women moving into the likely eligible
experience range (10-29 years in practice). Appointments to the
full-time bench are dependent on the number of those on the part-time
bench with the necessary experience and the projections reflect
this by using age as an indicator of experience. It should be
recognised however, that the pool will change as, on the one hand,
women are appointed into the ranks of part-timers and, on the
other hand, women are appointed out of the ranks of part-timers
to the full-time bench.
Having reviewed the figures, progress was being made against
the projections for female appointments to Deputy District Judge,
District Judge, Recorder and Circuit Judge (see the table below).
Between1998-2002 the proportion of women applicants awarded
Queen's Counsel has been greater than the proportion of male applicants
awarded Queen's Counsel, but women have constituted only between
8.8% and 11.2% of applicants in that period. Progress against
projections for appointment to Queen's Counsel is therefore not
as positive. Although the number of awards to female applicants
rose in 2002 (from 10 to 12), the percentage of female awards
fell in 2001-02 to 10.6% from around 13% in the preceding three
years.
The following table shows the projections published in the
Judicial Appointments Annual Report in October 2002 for the percentage
of female appointments in 2005 and 2010.
PERCENTAGE OF
FEMALE APPOINTMENTS
| Deputy District Judge
| Recorder | District Judge
| Circuit Judge | Queen's Counsel
|
Performance in 2001-02 | 35%
| 20% | 50%* | 25%
| 10.6% |
| Projections for 2005 | 38% |
20% | 38% | 20% |
17% |
| Projections for 2010 | 42% |
24% | 45% | 25% |
20% |
* Only two appointments were made for the Reserve List, one of whom was female.
| | | |
| |
In October 2002, in addition to reviewing the figures for
female appointments, the Department was able to produce projections
for number of appointments of minority ethnic lawyers to some
judicial posts and to Queen's Counsel. These are the best calculations
that can be made using the information available and any estimates
of the position in 2005 and 2010 must be treated with great caution.
PERCENTAGE OF
MINORITY ETHNIC
APPOINTMENTS
| Deputy District Judge
| Recorder | Queen's Counsel
|
Performance in 2001-02 | 5.4%
| 1% | 6% |
| Projections for 2005 | 6% |
5% | 6.5% |
| Projections for 2010 | 10% |
8% | 7% |
| |
| |
SDA 36 is not specifically carried forward in the plans.
However, the proportion of women and minority ethnic candidates
appointed to judicial office and Queen's Counsel in 2003 will
continue to be monitored as part of the Lord Chancellor's report
to Parliament on Judicial Appointments. The Department will compare
appointments in 2002-03 to the projections and report in the Judicial
Appointments Annual Report to be published in October 2003.
LEGAL SERVICES/LEGAL
AID
18. What are the "priority areas of law"
to which PSA 6a refers? What milestones been set for this target?
"Priority areas of law" are defined for the purpose
of PSA 6a as cases involving the welfare of children; proceedings
where the client is at serious risk of loss of life or liberty;
family and relationship difficulties; help with social welfare
issues such as welfare benefits; housing and the homeless; debt
and money problems; education; community care; diversity issues;
and employment rights. Of these, cases involving the welfare of
children and where the client is at serious risk of loss of life
or liberty involve fundamental rights, whilst the other priorities
have a direct impact on social exclusion.
In respect of milestones the first Periodic Survey of Legal
Need reported this year that 31 people per thousand received "suitable
assistance"[1] in
priority areas of law per annum, which equates to around 1,300,000
people receiving acts of "suitable assistance". To be
certain (within a confidence level of 95%) of achieving PSA 6,
a figure of 34 per thousand needs to be reached. This requires
an increase of approximately 120,000 people receiving acts of
"suitable assistance" by the end of the SR 2002 period.
This target covers England and Wales only.
19. Are lawyers increasingly withdrawing from publicly
funded work? For example, at 31 March 2002 within the Community
Legal Service there were 4,932 contracts with solicitors' firms
(and 380 with not-for-profit agencies) but at January this had
reduced to 4,681 contracts with solicitors' firms (and 414 with
not-for-profit organisations). Is the problem worse in particular
parts of the country, or in rural areas?
As of May 2003, there were 4352 CLS contracts with solicitors'
firms. That represents a reduction of around 330 contracts since
January this year.
The position on the CDS shows a much smaller loss. At 31
March 2002, 2909 solicitors' offices had Criminal Defence Service
contracts with the Legal Services Commission in England and Wales.
At 31 March 2003, there were 2897 solicitors' offices with CDS
contracts, a net fall of 12.
A reduction in the numbers of lawyers does not necessarily
cause access problems. In some areas, notably metropolitan areas,
there is a surplus of lawyers prepared to do legal aid work. But
there is cause for some concern in some limited areas, particularly
family lawyers in non-metropolitan areas in the South of England.
Together with the LSC we are monitoring developments and the LSC
is working to remedy difficulties locally. We are also carrying
out a review of supply, demand and purchasing arrangements with
the aim of establishing what rates are necessary to attract sufficient
lawyers of the right quality to do publicly-funded work. This
was announced by PQ in the House of Lords and by written statement
in the Commons. Full details are in the Departmental press notice
of June 5th announcing the review (No.236-05).
We are currently consulting on proposed measures we intend
to introduce to eliminate duplication and waste in the legal aid
system. Two separate consultation papers were launched on the
same day—a criminal package and an asylum package. The deadline
for receipt of responses to the asylum package is 27 August 2003.
In addition to this the Department has contracted independent
consultants, Frontier Economics, to undertake a review of supply,
demand and purchasing arrangements within the legal aid system,
which is ongoing at this time.
20. According to the Departmental Annual Report for
2001-02, planned expenditure for criminal legal aid in 2002-03
was £900 million. But the Departmental Annual Report for
2002-03 records estimated outturn as £1,142 million. What
measures are being taken to control the Criminal Legal Aid budget?
To what extent is the Department able to control these costs,
and to what extent is it at the mercy of human rights considerations,
decisions taken by the courts, and other factors?
Much of the increase was caused by factors outside the Department's
control. For instance, we have found that a change in policy by
the Probation Service, which now brings back to court more offenders
who breach their probation orders, has increased the number of
people getting representation because of the risk of imprisonment.
Other factors include higher tariffs for sentencing and the greater
speed at which the criminal justice system operates.
Article 6 of the Human Rights Act requires us to provide
legal assistance free if people do not have the means and if assistance
is required in the interests of justice. There is at present no
means test but defence costs can be recovered in the Crown Court
through RDCOs. The courts decide against a long-standing test
which cases should receive legal aid in the interests of justice.
We do not control volumes of cases and the test applied by the
courts has to be consistent with the ECHR, which we believe it
is.
The Lord Chancellor recently published a consultation paper
on ways of getting better control over costs. One of the most
important measures is the rolling out of contracts for all criminal
high-cost cases [see question 23]. The paper also includes proposals
for: restrictions on police station advice (where CDS services
cannot advance a suspect's case); the removal of duplicated services,
such as not allowing representation by a court duty solicitor
where the case would not pass the interests of justice test for
receiving representation; tightening up the interests of justice
test or the way it is applied; and limiting courts' discretion
over the making of Recovery of Defence Costs Orders.
Consultation closes on 1 August and the government hopes
to announce its decisions shortly after that.
21. Why did the costs of the Community Legal Service
reduce from £789.5 million in 2001-02 to £781.6 million
in 2002-03 (estimated outturn)? To what extent is the Criminal
Defence Service squeezing the Community Legal Service budget?
Expenditure on the Community Legal Service has, with the
exception of asylum, been falling since the implementation of
the Access to Justice Act 1999 which took certain categories of
case out of scope. The decline has now bottomed out and expenditure
is likely to increase in future.
CDS expenditure has inevitably increased as a result of Government
policy to tackle crime. Criminal legal aid is in most cases a
requirement under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human
Rights. We have a single budget for criminal and civil legal aid.
There is clearly a risk that we would have to curtail schemes
to pay for crime and it is a possibility to which we are alert.
So far, however, entitlement to civil legal aid has not been reduced
in any way since the changes flowing from the implementation of
the Access to Justice Act.
22. Table 2 on page 20 of the Departmental Annual
Report for 2002-03 shows planned expenditure on both the Criminal
Defence Service and the Community Legal Aid Service for the years
2003-04 to 2005-06 at a level below outturn in 2002-03. Are the
figures for 2003-04 to 2005-06 robust?
The table does not include all funding for immigration matters
for 2003-04 to 2005-06. A separate "single asylum fund"
is to be established for this for both LCD and the Home Office.
Currently legal aid expenditure on immigration is approximately
£170 million per annum. Nevertheless, the SR 2002 settlement
for legal aid overall is a challenging one.
23. Has the use of specific contracts for Very High
Cost Criminal Cases had any impact on the number of expensive
cases or on the proportion of the CLS budget which the most expensive
1% of cases absorbs? Is it still the case that 46% of criminal
legal aid goes on 1% of cases?
We do not expect that the introduction of individual case
contracts for Very High Cost Criminal Cases will have an impact
on the numbers of those cases. Rather contracts are intended to
introduce greater efficiency, certainty, control and savings.
To date relatively few cases have been brought under contract,
but on 5 June 2003 the Lord Chancellor announced that all eligible
cases will be brought under contracts from 1 April 2004. Currently
the most expensive 1% by volume of cases absorb 50% of the legal
aid, criminal higher, budget (25% of the total criminal budget),
but we expect to see that proportion fall over the coming years.
24. How many bills are awaiting taxation? Has the
number increased since 1 April 2002?
At end of March 2003, there were 8,158 bills awaiting taxation.
That is an increase on March 2002 of 201 bills. The National Taxing
Team can process all these bills within its published targets.
25. How does the Lord Chancellor's Department define
"the reduction of cost inflation to 0.5%"? Does this
mean inflation plus 0.5%? What were baselines for each of the
categories in the bullet points on page 17 of Departmental Annual
Report for 2002-03 and what were the figures for each item in
the bullet points at December 2001?
Cost inflation is defined as the increase in costs after
allowing for the effect of general inflation. SR 2000 PSA 9 relates
to a comparison of the average costs in 2002-03 and 2003-04 only,
so the baseline for the average cost of cases for each of the
categories will be the position at 31 March 2003.
The figures for each of the bullet points for 2001-02 (ie
the period including December 2001) were £585 for all CDS
representation (excluding very high cost cases), £193 for
all non-immigration legal help work, which is carried out by both
solicitors and NFP agencies. The average claim figure for immigration
was £683. This is not the same as the average case cost,
because claims can be made at the conclusion of a number defined
stages in the life of an immigration case. The average figure
for Very High Cost Criminal Case was £229,000.
The average figure reported for a very high civil case on
page 17 of the Annual Report was the most recent annual figure
available, ie that for 2001-02. We report the high cost case figure
annually because it measures a relatively small number of cases
and so a year's worth of data is required to provide a reliable
indicator. Therefore, the mean average very high cost civil case
figure for the period 2002-03 (ie the period including December
2002) was £41,700 and the mean figure was £28,800.
Private legal services
26. Did the Department make any assessment of whether
any additional costs to public funds might result from the introduction
of "no win, no fee" agreements, because of a greater
number of successful cases against public authorities? Has the
Department assessed whether such additional costs have in fact
occurred?
The Government's objective in the Access to Justice Act 1999
was to make justice affordable to all, to discourage weak claims
and encourage early settlement. Allied to this was the desire
to ease the administrative burden on those providing and purchasing
legal services. The provisions in the Act gave effect to Parliament's
intention to increase access to justice by making it easier and
more affordable to use Conditional Fee Agreements (CFA), insurance
policies and equivalent forms of funding. The Act amongst other
things made recoverable from the paying party the success fee,
specific insurance premiums and the self-insurance costs of membership
organisations. The previous inability to recover these costs had
been seen as a major barrier to accessing the courts.
The Government assessed that businesses and public authorities
would benefit from the wider availability of conditional fee agreements
through being able to pursue or defend legal claims and from the
increased deterrents to the bringing or defending of weak claims.
Under legal aid claimants are protected from liability for their
opponent's costs and the fact that their lawyers get paid win
or lose. Under a CFA the losing lawyer does not get paid and the
winning defendant can recover their costs. The Government also
assessed that business and public authorities would benefit in
general from the stronger incentives for parties to settle cases
early and cheaply because of their increased potential liability
in costs.
It is too early to say whether legal costs have increased
directly as a result of the introduction of recoverable success
fees and After The Event (ATE) insurance premiums. Recent research
on the cost of road traffic accident cases up to £15,000
in value shows that data on costs and damages from around April
2002 is highly unstable due to fluctuations in the volume and
duration of settled claims and cannot be relied upon. The research
also showed that there is little difference between CFA and non-CFA
claims with respect to agreed base costs and disbursements, and
that success fees and ATE premiums remain a relatively small part
of overall costs recovered from insurers—and that would
apply equally to public authorities.
The OFT in its recent fact finding study of the liability
insurance market concluded that it seemed unlikely that the cost
of individual claims has risen substantially as a result of the
reforms and it was unclear whether they have had a significant
impact on the frequency of claims. The OFT said that it had frequently
been suggested that the number of claims (especially for trivial
injuries) has risen because the reforms have made the claiming
process easier and the associated publicity has drawn more attention
to the availability of compensation for accident victims, but
the evidence for this seems largely anecdotal.
The Department has not assessed the additional cost to public
authorities as a result of the introduction of no win no fee arrangements
increasing the number of successful claims. Any such assessment
would be very difficult and of doubtful value. First, the data
is not available, with cases settling without resort to formal
court proceeding or even a formal claim in some cases. Secondly,
the number of claims may depend on a range of factors including
the varying level and quality of the services provided by public
authorities; increasing or decreasing public awareness of the
right to compensation; the severity of harm caused to members
of the public over any given period; and changes in the complaints
arrangements to satisfy members of the public short of their seeking
compensation. With so many variables, even if increases and decreases
in successful claims and the amounts recovered could be measured,
it would not be possible to say to what extent that was attributable
to the introduction of no win no fee agreements.
27. What effect will the collapse of The Accident
Group have on the legal services market?
The move into administration of The Accident Group (TAG)
represents a significant business failure but its collapse will
not prevent people obtaining access to justice who can do so either
by approaching solicitors firms direct or via other accident intermediaries.
We believe the personal injury market is able to absorb the loss
of TAG as it did Claims Direct and to pick up the bulk of the
business. Leading industry commentators have confirmed that people
with genuine claims will have no problem in securing assistance
in bringing those claims. Many solicitors are forming large marketing
networks to pool expertise and raise awareness amongst consumers
as part a drive to compete with claims managers more effectively
and provide a better service to clients.
We do not believe the commercial practices and health of
one company is a reflection of the state of the personal injury
claims industry generally, or of the so called "no win no
fee" regime or how companies and individuals operating within
it are regulated. Claims management companies can help provide
an efficient and affordable means of handling claims for compensation,
provide excellent service and help provide access to justice to
people who might not otherwise be able to afford it.
The Department is keeping under review the general operation
of the claims management market. The Department is working with
a range of organisations including the Law Society, the Association
of Personal Injury Lawyers, the General Insurance Council, consumer
groups and other organisations including claims management companies
to encourage improved standards in accident compensation including
a voluntary code of practice. There is already considerable activity
by the personal injury industry to set standards and draw up codes
for intermediaries. There are a number of initiatives at various
stages of development, demonstrating the clear desire on the part
of most intermediaries to bring about a step change in behaviours.
28. What were the characteristics and effects of
the "relatively unsettled period" referred to on page
57 of the Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03?
The Access to Justice reforms brought in significant changes
to the funding of personal injury litigation. The Government expected
there would be a period of "adjustment" and that some
challenges to the new regime were inevitable as new legislation
is invariably scrutinised and its parameters tested. However,
the liability insurance industry launched an extensive campaign
of satellite litigation first concerning the primary legislation
and then taking a series of technical challenges against solicitors'
individual Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs).
The legal challenges had the effect of delaying the costs
settlement on hundreds of thousands of cases, causing cash flow
problems for many legal firms, increased costs for some winning
clients who had taken out loans to finance after the event insurance
(interest on the loan continues to accrue whilst the costs remain
unsettled and that interest is not recoverable). It also took
up a good degree of court time in cases where the only point at
issue was costs and led to a breakdown in relations between claimant
and defendant parties.
CFAs have increased and will continue to increase access
to justice as the market develops and consumer awareness grows.
Hundreds of thousands of personal injury cases have been and are
being run on a CFA basis, many with after the event insurance
cover. The satellite litigation around costs has been unhelpful
but through a series of Government and industry measures—fixed
recoverable costs in low value road traffic accident claims, tackling
the indemnity principle and simplifying the CFA regime, facilitating
mediation between the industry on success fees, combined with
recent Court of Appeal judgments—the current system is being
made to work for the benefit of all.
29. Does the Department have any plans to introduce
similar arrangements in Northern Ireland?
There are no immediate plans to introduce Conditional Fee
Agreements in Northern Ireland but we will be working with the
new Legal Services Commission when it is established in November
2003 to look at the options for the way forward in Northern Ireland.
CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES
30. What is the Department's assessment of the extent
of non-compliance with court orders requiring contact between
a child and a non-resident parent? What measures are available
to deal with such non-compliance?
On our behalf, the Office of National Statistics has carried
out a study to measure the extent and frequency of contact, as
well as trying to understand why non-compliance with court contact
orders occurs. The results will be known in the summer. Earlier
research has suggested that contact works best, and is more likely
to be sustained, if the arrangements are agreed between parents.
The evidence from this small study suggests that court proceedings
often make matters worse. Where contact orders are not complied
with, the courts can impose a fine or a term of imprisonment or
alter the residence of the child. Understandably, the courts are
often reluctant to impose such penalties, as they may not be in
the best interests of the child.
The Children Act Sub-Committee (CASC) of the Lord Chancellor's
Advisory Board on Family Law published a report last year called
"Making Contact Work." The report made a number
of recommendations in relation to enforcement of contact orders.
As part of the Government's work on responding to the report's
proposals, a stakeholder group on facilitation and enforcement
of contact was established in June 2002. The group has been considering
ways in which parents can be supported to reach workable agreements,
how contact might positively be achieved, as well as how enforcement
mechanisms can be made more effective. It is anticipated that
a full response to the CASC report's recommendations will be published
later this summer, informed by the work of that group.
31. Is the in-depth analysis on the quality of contact
between children and non-resident parents and the report on the
FAINs interim pilots available? What findings and conclusions
were reached?
We are currently studying the findings of the survey that
we commissioned from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) on
contact between children and non-resident parents. The ONS is
expected to publish the findings in the summer. A key issue that
emerged is that where parents are able to make their own arrangements—either
themselves or facilitated by mediation or alternative dispute
resolution processes—they are more likely to be satisfied
than those who have contact arrangements imposed by the court.
We are, therefore, encouraging the use of family mediation by
providing public funding through the Community Legal Service for
eligible people using family mediation services following divorce
or separation. The number of mediations has increased from 400
in 1997-98 to over 12,000 in 2001-02
The report on the interim pilots of the Family Advice and
Information Service (FAInS), formerly called Family Advice and
Information Networks, is being completed and the Legal Services
Commission will arrange for its publication later this year.
32. What is the interface between SDA 19 and PSA
8? Is SDA 19 wider and therefore more important than PSA 8?
Service Delivery Agreements (SDAs) contain detailed objectives
which support the delivery of Public Services Agreement (PSA)
targets. SDA 19 supports SR 2000 PSA 8. SDAs provide the detailed
underpinning to the targets that the Department set in its PSA.
Each SDA and PSA helps contribute to the achievement of Departments'
Strategic Objectives (SOs). SOs themselves define a Department's
long-term goals and the general scope of its work.
33. What is the timetable for the implementation
of section 122 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002? What conditions
have to be fulfilled before it is implemented?
The Government is committed to ensuring that children and
young people have the opportunity to make their views known in
decision-making concerning their future. We wish to carry out
a consultation on section 122 in advance of full implementation
of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 which, subject to available
resources, will be implemented as soon as practicable. Later this
year, we plan to consult key stakeholders, children's organisations
and children directly. One of the purposes of the consultation
will be to ensure that the legislative framework will work in
practice and that it will be flexible enough to meet the varying
needs of children. This work forms part of broader cross-government
work on how the voice of the child is heard in the development
of policy and services for children.
PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP
OFFICE
34. On the Public Guardianship Office's recovery
plan, can the Lord Chancellor's Department update the figures
provided on page 66 of the Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03?
The good news is that the PGO's position is now stable. As
at 31 March 2003, there were 3,067 outstanding items of work (ie
those carried forward into the following month) with 217 being
over 15 days old. Most recent figures to 8 June 2003, show that
2,934 items of work were outstanding, of which 43 were over 15
days old. To put this in context, the PGO's Client Services Division
receives between 7,000 and 8,000 items of correspondence a week.
35. How many accounts are reviewed by the Public
Guardianship Office within four weeks? Will Public Guardianship
Office develop a quality measure on reviews? Has the shortcoming
in the quality of reviews identified at page 66 of the Departmental
Annual Report for 2002-03 resulted in vulnerable people being
put at risk or loss of money or interest?
During 2002-03 the target was to review 100% of accounts,
or request further information, within five weeks of receipt.
This was achieved. (In fact of 15,258 accounts received, 14,524
(95%) were reviewed within four weeks of receipt).
For 2003-04, the target is to review 100% of accounts received
or have requested further information within four weeks of receipt.
There were concerns about setting a target of four weeks overall
as the small percentage of accounts which in 2002-03 took longer
to review were resource intensive, and such cases could impact
on the scope of the initiative to extend the review field and
deliver enhanced quality checks. The situation is being closely
monitored: figures for April 2003 show a 100% performance with
1,139 accounts received, of which 1,088 were reviewed within four
weeks and 51 required further information.
The PGO is not developing a quality measure on reviews as
such. The thinking behind the statement in the annual report was
that it was not necessarily in the best interest of clients to
accelerate the target for review of accounts to four weeks. In
fact the PGO has built new checks into its accounts review procedure
to enhance the quality of the reviews. The new checks include;
ensuring Panel Receivers visit their clients at least once a year;
and checking medical evidence to see if there is any likelihood
of recovery from mental incapacity.
In addition, the PGO has decided that it can complete reviews
of all accounts within four weeks. So reviews this year should
be quicker and of higher quality.
There is no evidence to suggest that reviews carried out
before the introduction of the new processes in 2003-04 put the
client at risk or resulted in loss of money or interest. The PGO
has reviewed all accounts to ensure that the finances of clients
were in order and has conducted case reviews to monitor the welfare
of the client.
36. What progress has been made on the implementation
of the Public Guardianship Office's MERIS case management system?
When will it become fully operational? How much will it cost?
MERIS is an integrated electronic case management, document
management, workflow and accounting system being developed for
the PGO. It will replace PGO's current legacy systems and will
reduce the dependency on paper files.
The PGO had hoped to implement a large part of the system
by the end of the 2002-03 financial year, but this has not proved
possible. This is largely because the system is proving more complex
to specify and develop than originally envisaged and the PGO had
to reorganise its Client Services last year to deal with the work
arrears. This delayed progress on MERIS, as it is necessary to
engage people from the business areas in order to get the system
right.
The current position is that the PGO intends to implement
those parts of the system already built and close to being ready,
but will consider the options available for implementing the remaining
part of the system.
Piloting of Phase 1 (which deals with Enduring Powers of
Attorney) started at the beginning of June 2003 and subject to
a successful evaluation, full implementation is planned for Autumn
2003. This is later than the originally planned date of November
2002 because in the first instance, the PGO needed to concentrate
its efforts on the recovery of Client Services. Secondly, the
PGO decided to pilot Phase 1 before implementation. The pilot
began on 9 June and will last for six weeks, before a thorough
evaluation of lessons learned is undertaken.
Phase 3 of the system, to replace the PGO accounting system,
has kept broadly to the original timescales. The system is expected
to be ready for implementation by Autumn 2003.
The main part of the Case Management system, Phase 2, which
impacts on most of the PGO's operational staff, is, however, still
some way from being ready.
The most important consideration is that the PGO should be
capable of giving effective service to its customers, while the
system is flexible enough to meet developing needs of the business.
A decision on the way forward for Phase 2 will be made shortly.
The current plan envisages that this stage will be implemented
in Spring 2004.
The costs originally forecast were £6.3 million to March
2004, including payments to LogicaCMG, Liberata and staff costs.
Annual running costs were estimated to be £825,000. Revised
costs are now estimated at £8.3 million to March 2004, but
with slightly lower running costs, at £751,000 thereafter.
The increase in costs has been largely due to additional LogicaCMG
costs proposed for developing Phase 2 (these costs are still subject
to negotiation), increased charges by Liberata, who provide the
IT platform for the Department and the PGO, compared with early
budget estimates, and increased project running costs for the
PGO.
PUBLICATION OF
1911 CENSUS RECORDS
37. Can the Department confirm that there are no
plans to make 1911 census records available in advance of the
scheduled 2011 publication date? Is the Committee's understanding
that there was no guarantee of 100-year confidentiality at the
time this census was taken correct? If so, can the Department
explain why these records are to remain confidential? Are there
any legislative constraints on publication? What part do reasons
of storage space and public expenditure on making such material
available play in the decision not to publish these records before
2011?
Responsibility for the administration of the decennial census
lies with the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Decisions
about public access to historical census records are a matter
for agreement between ONS and the Secretary of State for Constitutional
Affairs/Lord Chancellor. The National Archives also plays a role
as the custodian of these records.
It is government policy that census returns are closed to
public inspection for 100 years. This was restated in the White
Paper The 2001 Census of Population (Cm 4253) para 121,
March 1999:
"Public confidence in the security and confidentiality
of the census is paramount. Consequently, it is not intended that
the Government's plans to revise legislation relating to greater
access to public records, set out in White Paper proposals for
a Freedom of Information Act, should affect the current period
of closure for census records."
There are, therefore, no plans to make the 1911 census records
generally available before the first working day in January 2012.
The Householders Schedule, which formed part of the 1911
census returns, clearly stated that:
"The contents of this Schedule will be treated as confidential.
Strict care will be taken that no information is disclosed with
regard to individual persons. The returns are not to be used .
. . for any other purpose than the preparation of Statistical
Tables."
The clear implication of this undertaking was that the census
returns would be closed in perpetuity. In 1966 the Lord Chancellor
relaxed this absolute restriction by signing Instrument 12 under
section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958, which closes all
decennial census returns for 100 years. In this way a careful
balance has been struck between the rights of the individual not
to have personal details divulged prematurely and the use of census
returns for the purposes of genealogical and sociological research.
The costs of storing the 1911 census returns and providing
public access to them have not influenced the decision to make
them generally available on the first working day of 2012. The
paramount consideration is to maintain the public's confidence
in the protection of census information, which can be done by
maintaining the existing closure period of 100 years. If assurances
about the confidentiality of past censuses are not honoured, then
this may discourage some people from completing future census
returns and undermine the public's trust in other government guarantees
of confidentiality. As the 1999 White Paper observed, "there
is a well established tradition of maintaining census confidentiality
which the Government intends to uphold." (para 117)
Department for Constitutional Affairs
July 2003
Annex A
ALLOCATIONS FROM
THE CJS RESERVE
IN 2002-03
— £89 million towards the Street Crime initiative
— £33 million for the costs to the three CJS
departments of the attrition target and increased court sittings
— £23 million on Criminal Justice Information
Technology
— £22 million for Victim and Witness initiatives
including direct communication with victims, introducing victim
personal statements, help for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses
and Witness Support
— £15 million for CPS costs
— £12.5 million to improve case progression/timeliness
in the magistrates' courts
— £5 million for persistent offender initiatives
— £3 million for CPS cross-border crime and
Casework Directorate
— £2.5 million for extended sittings in the
magistrates' courts
— £2 million for improving joint working across
the CJS nationally and locally
— £1 million to CPS for the unified fee scheme
Annex B
OFFICE OF
THE SUPERVISION
OF SOLICITORS
(OSS): REPORTING PERIOD
1 JANUARY 2003 TO
31 DECEMBER 2003
1. QUALITY OF
CASES
(a) The Legal Services Ombudsman to be satisfied in
an average of 75% of cases over the 12 month period.
2. SERVICE AND
CONDUCT COMPLAINT
TURNAROUND
(a) 60% cases closed within 3 months.
(b) 75% cases closed within 6 months.
(c) 85% cases closed within 12 months.
(d) 97% cases closed within 18 months.
(e) 100% cases closed within 21 months. Additionally,
an exception report will be provided for cases older than this
target.
3. REMUNERATION CERTIFICATE
APPLICATIONS TURNAROUND
(a) 85% cases closed within 3 months.
(b) 95% cases closed within 6 months.
(c) 100% cases closed within 12 months.
4. COMPENSATION FUND
APPLICATIONS TURNAROUND
(a) 70% cases closed within 6 months.
(b) 80% cases closed within 12 months.
(c) 95% cases closed within 18 months.
(d) 98% cases closed within 24 months.
100% cases closed within 48 months. Additionally, an exception
report will be provided for cases older than this target.
1
"Suitable assistance" means support from a professional
advice provider or Quality Marked organisation, proportionate
to the importance of the problem. These include lawyers, solicitors,
law centres, trade unions or professional bodies, Citizens Advice
Bureaux or other similar organisations, local councils and other
public bodies Back
| 
