Select Committee on Constitution Written Evidence

Written evidence submitted by the Department for Constitutional Affairs

CORPORATE BOARD

1.   Would the Department provide a note explaining the difference in composition, function, areas of responsibility and operation of the Corporate Board and the Executive Committee? How does the Department ensure that there is no conflict of responsibilities between the two bodies?

  The Corporate Board and the Executive Committee (ExCom) are two separate entities, with distinct membership, roles and responsibilities and programmes of work.

Corporate Board

  The Corporate Board comprises seven executive directors and four non-executive directors.

  Executive Directors:

—    Sir Hayden Phillips GCB—Permanent Secretary and Chairman of the Board.

—    Ian Magee CB—Chief Executive Operations and Second Permanent Secretary, has lead responsibility for service delivery in the Courts and Tribunals, the Legal Services Commission, and the Public Guardianship Office. He works closely with other agencies across the Criminal Justice System; and is responsible for the Department's HR, IT and Change Programmes.

—    Simon Ball—Director General Finance, appointed from the private sector, has responsibility for the provision of top level strategic financial management, spending controls, procurement and leading on Spending Reviews and liaison with the Treasury.

—    Jonathan Spencer CB—Director General Clients and Policy from the DTI, is especially charged with delivering strategic policy and understanding the needs of our customers.

—    John Lyon CB—Director General Legal and Judicial, from the Home Office, is responsible for managing the interface with the judiciary and the legal professions. He and Jonathan Spencer share responsibility for our constitutional reform agenda.

—    *Clare Dodgson—Chief Executive, Legal Services Commission, formerly Chief Operating Officer at the Department for Work and Pensions.

—    *Sir Ron De Witt —Chief Executive Unified Courts Agency/Shadow HM Courts Service formerly Chief Executive of the North West London Strategic Health Authority.

  Non-Executive Directors:

—    Trevor Hall CBE, diversity adviser to the Board and formerly Race Equality Adviser at the Home Office.

—    *Hon Barbara Thomas, Chairman of Private Equity Investor plc.

—    *Sir Peter Bonfield CBE, FREng former Chief Executive of BT.

—    *Rt Hon Lord Justice Igor Judge, the Deputy Chief Justice of England and Wales.

*denotes appointment to the Board in March 2004.

  The Corporate Board meets every two months and provides strategic oversight, scrutiny of, and challenge to the work of the Department in support of the Permanent Secretary. Since Christmas the Board have discussed the key issues and challenges faced in delivering services to the public in the criminal justice system; the progress of the Unified Administration programme and the Department's Diversity agenda. The Audit Committee, chaired by Professor Georges M. Selim reports regularly to the Corporate Board. The non-executive directors with their considerable and varied experience and expertise add real value to the discussions, looking at the issues from a different perspective and helping to ensure that assumptions are appropriately challenged.

Executive Committee (ExCom)

  The executive directors meet weekly as the Executive Committee, Excom. ExCom manages the on-going, day-to-day business of the Department, monitoring and reviewing performance in key areas, considering the Department's in-year financial position on a monthly basis, and looking quarterly, for instance, at risk and stakeholder management. ExCom will, for example, discuss accommodation and relocation issues and focus on the delivery of services as well as issues such as development of the Department's Electronic Records Management capacity and Health and Safety policy.

  The emphasis is on the effective and efficient operation of the Department to ensure the delivery of the services it provides to the public and also on ensuring that the Department has the skills and focus to do this. ExCom has a Forward Programme managed by the Secretariat and reviewed as a standing agenda item to ensure that it remains focussed on key issues. As it meets weekly, it is also able however to respond to significant issues as they arise.

  In addition, ExCom meet as a group with the Secretary of State and his Ministerial team on a weekly basis. These meetings focus on strategic issues across the Department's business, such as the Fundamental Review of Legal Aid, Freedom of Information and Criminal Justice IT.

DEPARTMENTAL OBJECTIVES AND SUPPORTING PSA TARGETS

2.   In 2002-03 the department had six strategic objectives underpinned by nine PSA targets. In the departmental annual report for 2003-04 these have become six objectives and seven targets. Please provide a note showing the relationship—in the form of a family tree—between the previous and current objectives and targets as well as setting out the reasons and purposes for which the changes have been made.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

SR2000 Strategic objectives		SR2002 Strategic objectives
SO 1—To provide a fair, swift and effective system of justice which promotes confidence in the rule of law; helps reduce crime, the fear of crime, and the economic consequences of crime; and gives value for money.	Carried forward to SR2002 in principle but wording changed to reflect our role as a delivery Department. SO 1—Ensure the effective delivery of justice.
SO 2—To improve people's knowledge and understanding of their rights and responsibilities including how to resolve disputes which affect them, in a way and at a cost proportionate to what is at stake.	This new strategic objective, brought together SR2000 SO 2 and SO 4 to improve the Department's focus on evolving and developing different aspects of civil and administrative law.	SO 2—Ensure a fair and effective system of civil and administrative law.
SO 3—To improve the availability of good quality legal services so that the law underpins economic success, at home and abroad, and that the use of public funds secures greater social justice and reduces social exclusion.	This new strategic objective was developed to pull together all the work being undertaken throughout the department on social exclusion, the vulnerable and children. Previously included within SO 3, SO 4 and SO 5. In SR2000 a PSA target was set for increasing contact between children and the non-resident parent. It was decided for SR2002 that it was inappropriate to keep a specific target in this area as our work only contributed to other cross-government initiatives. However to show its importance it was retained at strategic objective level.	SO 3—Reduce social exclusion and protect the vulnerable [and children, including maintaining contact between children and the non-resident parent after a family breakdown, where appropriate.] The text within square brackets was dropped following the machinery of Government changes in June 2003 when CAFCASS and other children work became the responsibility of DfES.
SO 4—To make civil and family law clearer and more easily enforceable, giving priority to key government objectives in tackling social and economic issues.	This new strategic objective was developed to cover the new areas of constitutional work, which was passed to us through Machinery of Government changes from the Home Office.	SO 4—Modernise the constitution and ensure proper access to information by citizens.
SO 5—To improve the lives of children and help build and sustain strong families through providing a legal and procedural framework to sustain family relationships, and when they do breakdown to resolve disputes with the least distress to those affected' especially the most vulnerable.	This strategic objective covers the work previously included on the element of SR2000 PSA 6 which has been dropped as a target; the work which the Department is doing to promote an innovative, competitive and efficient market in legal services; and, ensuring effective regulation.	SO 5—Increase consumer choice in legal services by improving information and by promoting competition.
SO 6—To uphold the independence of the judiciary, especially through the appointment of sufficient judges, magistrates and other judicial post holders of the right calibre to match needs, and through promoting a partnership with the judiciary for delivering justice effectively.	This strategic objective has been carried forward but with revised wording to reflect the Department's focus on delivery.	SO 6—Deliver justice in partnership with the independent judiciary.

PSA TARGETS

SR2000 Targets		SR2002 Targets
PSA 4—Increase the number and proportion of recorded crimes for which an offender is brought to justice.	It was agreed as part of the SR2002 PSA negotiations to remove the "proportion" element of the target. It was found to be difficult to quantify in real terms as any increases in the proportion would be affected by changes in the levels of recorded crime, particularly downward trends. It was therefore agreed that a hard measure, ie the number of offences brought to justice, would provide a more transparent measure to reassure the public. The additional elements were included in response to new cross-government priorities on crime.	PSA 1—Improve the delivery of justice by increasing the number of crimes for which an offender is brought to justice to 1.2 million by March 2006, with an improvement in all CJS areas, a greater increase in the worst performing areas, and a reduction in the proportion of ineffective trials. Contributing to CJS PSA target
PSA 1—Secure a minimum five percentage point improvement in the satisfaction of users of the justice system by 2004, including that of victims and witnesses with their treatment in the criminal justice system. PSA 3—Improve the level of confidence in the criminal justice system by 2004, including improving that of ethnic minority communities.	It was agreed to merge the work under the second element of the SR2000 PSA 1 into the cross-CJS confidence work, as it would then be co-ordinated across the CJS through a central unit. In order to continue the work being undertaken in the courts to improve satisfaction levels, the department decided to develop a new PSA target (see SR2002 PSA 4 below).	PSA 2—Improve the level of public confidence in the CJS, including that of ethnic minority communities, increasing year on year the satisfaction of victims and witnesses, whilst respecting the rights of defendants. Contributing to CJS PSA target
PSA 2—Reduce by 2004 the time from arrest to sentence or other disposal for all defendants by: —  reducing the time from charge to disposal for all defendants; with a target to be specified by March 2001; —  dealing with 80% of youth court cases within their time targets; —  halving from 142 days to 71 days by March 2002 the time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders, and maintaining that level thereafter.	It was agreed as part of SR2002 negotiations to drop this PSA target due to a re-prioritisation of effort towards increasing the number of crimes for which offenders are brought to justice (SR2002 PSA 1 target). The persistent young offender target was achieved on time and continues to be met. Although timeliness is not included at PSA level it is still seen as very important, but is now being measured at local criminal justice area level.
PSA 5—Reduce the proportion of disputes which are resolved by resort to the courts.	This rolled forward unchanged to SR2002.	PSA 3—Reduce the proportion of disputes which are resolved by resort to the courts.
	New Target—incorporating the civil element of SR2000 PSA 1. The Department decided that, due to the importance of customer satisfaction in its key delivery agency (courts) that it should continue with the civil and family element of the target.	PSA 4—Increase year on year the level of satisfaction of users by taking speedy, high quality decisions and reducing unnecessary delay and cost, and by ensuring that outcomes are enforced effectively.
PSA 7—Increase the enforceability of civil judgments by achieving a 10% increase in the amount recovered per pound under executed warrants issued in the county courts on 2001-04, with this target to be reviewed and new targets set for 2002-04 by December 2001.	This target was dropped as a PSA target for SR2002 as it was not seen as a sufficiently strategic target due to a re-prioritisation of Departmental objectives. The target had been achieved and has continued to be met. This target continues to be monitored by the Court Service, as a lower level indicator.
	New target for SR2002. Our contribution (highlighted in bold) to the joint PSA target with the Home Office evolved from a lower level Service Delivery Agreement (SDA) in SR2000 and reflected the higher priority this work attracted as an important element in the asylum system.	PSA 5—Focus the asylum system on those fleeing persecution by taking speedy, high quality decisions and reducing significantly unfounded asylum claims, including by: —  fast turnaround of manifestly unsound cases; —  ensuring by 2004 that 75% of substantive asylum applications are decided within two months; and that a proportion (to be determined) including final appeal, within six months; —  enforcing the immigration laws more effectively by removing a greater proportion of failed asylum seekers. Joint target with Home Office
PSA 6—Increase the number of people who: —  receive suitable assistance in priority areas of law, involving fundamental rights or social exclusion, by 5% by 2004; —  secure year on year increases of at least 5% in the number of international legal disputes resolved in the UK.	It was agreed as part of SR2002 negotiations with HMT to modify the target for the first element from an absolute increase to a year on year improvement. It was decided to drop the second element as it was not seen as a sufficiently strategic target due to a re-prioritisation of Departmental objectives.	PSA 6—Increase year on year the number of people who receive suitable assistance in priority areas of law, involving fundamental rights or social exclusion.
PSA 8—Increase continued contact between children and the non-resident parent after a family breakdown, with this in the best interests of the child.	It was decided to drop this area of work as a PSA target, but retain it as contributing to the overall strategic objective on protecting the vulnerable and children. The rationale for this was that the Department's family work contributed to a number of cross-government initiatives and that a specific target for the DCA would therefore be inappropriate.
PSA 9—Secure year on year improvements in value for money in the delivery of the Community Legal Service and Criminal Defence Service.	It was agreed as part of SR2002 negotiations with HMT that the value for money target should be refocused to include all parts of the Department, as well as the delivery of legal aid.	PSA 7—Increase value for money from the Criminal Justice System by 3% per year, increasing efficiency by 2% per year, including the delivery of legal aid.
3.   Has the goal in previous PSA4 target (on page 150 of the Departmental annual report for 2003-04) to increase not only the number but also the proportion of recorded crimes for which an offender is brought to justice been dropped? If it has, could the department explain its reasons?

  This component of the CJS target was dropped, as this element of the measure was hard to quantify in real terms so as to ensure consistency across the SR period. The proportion of crimes brought to justice would always be affected by changes in the level of recorded crime. This is, of course susceptible to various influences, such as any decline in rate.

  Instead, as part of the SR2002 PSA negotiations with HM Treasury, the CJS, and the Department, agreed that a hard measure—that is to say the number of offences brought to justice—would provide a more transparent measure to reassure the public.

4.   What is the department's policy on publishing, and reporting performance against, second tier targets such as SDA targets?

  The Department's policy is based on Treasury guidance. Performance against PSA targets, including those remaining "live" from previous years, is included in the Spring Departmental Report and the Autumn Performance Report. Performance against second tier targets, such as SR2000 SDA targets that are still in force, is included in the Spring Departmental Report. Performance against Agency targets will be included in the Agency's own annual report.

5.   Why were only 39% of public law Children Act cases dealt with within 40 weeks when the target is 70% (PSA target 4)? What are the consequences of this failure to meet the target for children and their parents?

  The fall in reported performance is disappointing. But there are three important points that need to be made here:

—    12% of the fall in reported performance against this target was because (in agreement with the Treasury) we changed the performance report in 2003-04 to include time cases spent in Family Proceedings' Courts before they were sent up to Care Centres. This is a more accurate measure and reflects the true time for the end-to-end process;

—    2003-04 reported performance also reflected the priority to complete the oldest—and often most difficult—cases. And this had to be achieved against a background of increased volumes (overall public law cases almost tripled between 1992 and 2002 (source: Family Justice Statistical Bulletin/Judicial Statistics), and orders made in Care Centres—which are measured by this target—were up to 4,200 from 3,600 in 2002-03);

—    Although DCA is a key player in reducing delay these cases have a complex delivery chain, involving a number of other agencies (eg Local Authority social services, CAFCASS, DfES, Magistrates' Family Proceedings Courts). Delivery of this target is not therefore solely within the gift of DCA but a joint effort with other agencies.

  We also now recognise the public law target of 70% was too ambitious and are in the process of agreeing with Treasury a more realistic—but still challenging—target for the SR04 period.

  A key part of our strategy to reduce delay is the Protocol for Judicial Case Management in Public Law Children Act Cases. This came into affect on 1 November 2003, and sets a target of 40 weeks for case completion. The full impact will not be evident on performance until later in July 2004, and a full analysis of the data will be available in September/October 2004. A full review of the Protocol will be carried out by December 2004. The Protocol has the support of the President of the Family Division and all key stakeholders and agencies in the delivery chain.

  Children are not at greater risk because we are not meeting this target. All care cases begin in magistrates' family proceedings courts where around 50% of cases are completed. Once an application has been made to the court an Emergency Protection Order would be granted by the magistrates if there were any safety issues. This does not necessarily mean that they will be removed from their parents but decisions about their wellbeing are subject to greater scrutiny due to the intervention of social services. This particular target only captures the more complex cases which are sent to county court care centres. Magistrates' courts do not come under the direct ambit of DCA until 1 April 2005 and were, therefore, not captured when this target was set.

  It is also important to recognise that the time taken to reach a final order, especially in care cases, can also reflect time granted by the judge to allow further family assessments and the opportunity for parents to overcome difficulties. Some "delay" can therefore be purposeful in order to get the right care plan/arrangements for children. The overarching aim is reduction in unnecessary delay rather than simply a reduction in delay at any cost. This underpins policy on both reducing delay in final decisions of children in care and an increase in the proportion of children adopted from care thus providing the opportunity for a better start in life.

For the SR2004 period

  The Department for Education and Skills are projecting a steady increase in the number of children starting to be looked after under care orders over the SR2004 period, with an increasing number dealt with under interim care orders, and a steadily reducing number dealt with under full care orders. In addition, cases are becoming increasingly complex. For example, a rise in drug and alcohol misuse by adults which puts children at risk and emphasis by the courts on the type of care plans proposed by Social Services and their likely implementation, which means more court time.

EFFICIENCY AND OTHER SAVINGS

6.   The Department states that "costs were scrutinised for how well they were directed to the delivery of key services and further areas for efficiencies over 2004-05 to 2005-06 were identified" (page 9 of the departmental annual report for 2003-04). Please provide a note quantifying the costs saved—for example against those items listed at paragraph 5.82 of the departmental annual report—and showing to where the resources were re-directed.

  In 2002, the Department anticipated a likely overspend of £850 million over the SR02 period, of which £580 million related to legal aid. £136 million of this overspend was projected to occur in 2003-04, (£108 million on legal aid and £28 million on administration costs).

  In Spring 2003 the Corporate Board undertook a rigorous examination of its cost and income base and the extent to which our spending supported our key services, and agreed an action plan with an overall aim of making savings to balance the departmental books over the SR02 period. We are now forecasting that DCA will cover the entire funding gap on the administration budget over the SR2002 period and continue to work in conjunction with HM Treasury and others to address the legal aid position in 2004-05 and 2005-06.

  Action in hand to meet the overall deficit (ie up to the end of 2005-06) includes:

—    Civil fee additional income: £148 million.

—    Project purge (rigorous examination of all outstanding programmes and projects): £60 million.

—    Rationalisation of court estate: £13 million.

—    Innovative facilities management: £12 million.

7.   How much has the new regime for very high cost criminal cases saved the taxpayer since it was introduced (paragraph 5.87 of the departmental annual report)? Since September 2003 what proportion of cost has been absorbed by very high cost criminal cases?

  The regime should have produced annual savings of £27 million in 2003-04 and we are currently carrying out a benchmarking exercise to verify that. All new VHCCs have been subject to contract since September 2003. However, there remain a substantial number of high cost cases under the old regime. In the final six months of 2003-04, 8% of expenditure on crown court cases was on VHCCs under contract. For the first two months of the current year that figure has risen to 11%. This is expressed in cash terms. The total value of work now under contract (in resource terms) is currently being computed by the Legal Services Commission.

SPENDING PLANS FOR 2004-05 AND 2005-06

8.   First, can the Department confirm whether the planned figures for 2004-05 for expenditure, income and staff as set out at chapter 7 are robust and whether these are the figures against which the Department's performance and outturn in 2004-05 should be measured?

  The figures in the Departmental Report show the current funding position but will be subject to a number of adjustments which will be brought into Departmental budgets via Supplementary Estimates during the year. The Departments performance and outturn will be measured against the year-end position, ie after those adjustments have been made. For example, the 2004-05 figures do not yet include anticipated funding to come from the Criminal Justice System reserve and the Single Asylum Fund since these have yet to be finalised with other Government Departments

  The tables in the Annual Report do not currently reflect the planned expenditure on paybill, as the figures within the report are those from the SR02 settlement. DCA have recently undergone an allocation exercise for 2004-05, and the paybill figures arising from this exercise will be recorded later this year.

9.   More specifically, are the figures for the Court Service in table 2 which drop from an outturn of £597 million in 2003-04 to planned expenditure of £527 million in 2004-05 which then show an increase to £563 million in 2005-06 firm? Are the figures for the community legal service in table 2 and administration costs in table 5 which both show a similar pattern firm? And are the figures provided for the criminal defence service in table 2 which show a year on year reduction from £1,150 million in 2003-04 to £1,108 million in 2005-06 reliable given that expenditure on the service has increased each year since 2001-02 when it was £967 million? Please provide a note explaining the process by which these planned expenditure figures have been reached and what assessment the department has made of the risk of overspending?

COURT SERVICE

  The figures contained within the report are firm but are subject to a number of adjustments which show the true pattern of expenditure. These adjustments are shown in the table below:

	2003-04 Estimated £'000	2004-05 Plans £'000	2005-06 Plans £'000
Court Service	596,619	526,998	563,304
HMT database adjustment	-60,000
Criminal Justice System Reserve	-15,000
Single Asylum Fund	-42,000
Superannuation liability (ASLCs)			-10,000
Additional Capital Charge			-12,000
Readjusted Total	479,619	526,998	541,304
Trend		47,379	14,306
		9.0%	2.6%

  The 2003-04 outturn includes an outstanding Treasury movement of £60 million which is therefore currently incorrectly classified. This overstates 2003-04 for Court Service but is offset in Headquarters.

  The 2003-04 estimated outturn includes a number of adjustments including anticipated funding from the Criminal Justice System (CJS) reserve and the Single Asylum Fund (which are not included in later years).

  Included within 2005-06 is an additional £22 million funding in respect of Accruing Superannuation Liability Charge (ASLCs) (£10 million) to reflect the increase in contribution rates and a capital charge addition (£12 million).

  The readjusted total above reflects a more comparable analysis of resources over the period

ADMINISTRATION COSTS

  There are a number of funding items that affect the pattern across the three years, the table below shows the relevant adjustments:

	2003-04 Estimated £'000	2004-05 Plans £'000	2005-06 Plans £'000
	876,415	801,663	880,905
Criminal Justice IT (CJIT) Reclassification:-
—capital	24,000
—programme	6,000
CJIT Transfer (return to Home Office)	7,000
Libra Reserve Claim	-87,000
CJS Reserve	-15,000
Single Asylum Fund	-42,000
ASLCs			-10,000
Capital Charge Addition			-12,000
Departmental Unallocated Provision *		28,402	25,676
Single Asylum Fund (unallocated) *		-70,000	-70,000
Readjusted Total	769,415	760,065	814,581
Trend		-9,350	54,516
		-1.2%	6.7%
*  These items are held in administration costs until reallocated to business areas.

NOTES

2003-04

—    A reclassification of Criminal Justice IT (CJIT) from administration to capital in 2003-04 thereby reducing administration costs in that year.

—    Funding for LIBRA is included in 2003-04 only as part of a special reserve claim during the year.

—    Funding for CJS and Single Asylum Fund is included within 2003-04 but not for later years, as these figures are not finalised.

2004-05

—    The Departmental Unallocated Provision (£28 million) and Single Asylum Fund (£70 million) are held in administration costs and controlled by the centre until reallocated to business areas at the start of the year.

2005-06

—    Includes additional funding for ASLCs and Capital Charges (see Court Service above).

COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICE (CLS) AND CRIMINAL DEFENCE SERVICE (CDS)

  There are a number of adjustments that must be taken in to account before reviewing the year on year changes in CLS and CDS. The table below highlights these adjustments.

	2003-04 Estimated £'000	2004-05 Plans £'000	2005-06 Plans £'000
Community Legal Service	705,249	641,240	719,290
Outstanding Treasury adjustment		-36,000
Single Asylum Fund	-131,000
Readjusted Total	574,249	605,240	719,290
	2003-04 Estimated £'000	2004-05 Plans £'000	2005-06 Plans £'000
Criminal Defence Service	1,149,843	1,133,848	1,107,628
Outstanding Treasury adjustment		36,000
CJS Reserve	-20,000
Readjusted Total	1,129,843	1,169,848	1,107,628
Combined CDS and CLS Trend		70,996	51,830
		4.0%	2.8%

NOTES:

Community Legal Service

  The increase in resources is due to the Single Asylum Fund included in 2003-04 but not later years.

Criminal Defence Service

  The increase in resources is due to the CJS reserve included in 2003-04 but not later years.

  The reduction in CDS is counter-balanced by an increase in CLS from 2004-05 to 2005-06 reflecting changes in Legal Services Commission's forecast on Price/Volume Growth. The readjusted total when combined shows a more moderate increase of 4% and 2.8% over the 2003-04 estimated outturn respectively.

Process

  These expenditure figures were originally recorded from the SR02 settlement, and have been adjusted only where significant changes have occurred. DCA have recently undergone a detailed allocation exercise for 2004-05, and the expenditure plans arising from this exercise will be recorded later this year. As part of our ongoing improvements in financial management, these allocations were based on actual expenditure outcomes in 2003-04. We also accounted for structural changes and specific pressures or savings to provide demanding but realistic allocations.

10.   Several of the planned figures for 2005-06 in the tables in chapter 7 show significant increases on the planned expenditure for 2004-05—for example in table 1 core DCA consumption of resources increases from £3,089 million in 2004-05 to £3,349 million in 2005-06 and in table 2 magistrates' courts grants increase from £291 million in 2004-05 to £469 million in 2005-06. Please provide a note explaining the reasons for these increases. It appears that some of the additional costs in 2005-06 may result from the implementation of the Courts Act 2003 and so it would assist if the note showed which additional costs are attributable to implementation of the Act and which to other items and indicated whether implementation of the Courts Act is fully funded. If it is not, what items still need to be financed?

  Table 1 Core DCA consumption of resource increase consists of a number of elements which are explained below.

Magistrates Courts

  The increase is mainly due to the Courts Act 2003 and is attributable to a number of funding sources that will transfer over to DCA. This includes transfers:

—    From Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) representing local authority funding to Magistrates Courts (£87 million);

—    Funding for Magistrates Courts Private Finance Initiative schemes (£20 million); and

—    Funding for Magistrates Courts Additional Superannuation Liability Charge (ASLCs) (£16 million).

  Additionally, the 2005-06 figure does not include the full effect of the enforcement netting off scheme. This effectively separates expenditure on enforcement and introduces income to cover the costs of the scheme. The 2005-06 figure currently includes the cost of the scheme but not the corresponding income (£45 million).

	2004-05 Plans £'000	2005-06 Plans £'000
Magistrates Courts Grants	290,768	469,469
Income from Netting Off scheme	45,000
Funding transfer from ODPM		-87,000
PFI creditation		-20,000
ASLCs	-	16,000
Readjusted Total	335,768	346,469
Trend		10,701
		3.1%
Courts Act funding not included in Departmental Report*
VAT accounting adjustment		15,000
Capital charges		105,000

  *  Implementation of the Court Service Act is not fully funded in the Departmental Report tables and items above have been included in the SR04 baseline. Note that the VAT accounting adjustment is due to the difference in VAT regulations between local authorities and central government.

Court Service

  Court Service has additional funding in 2005/06 in respect of ASLCs (£10m) and additional capital charge commitment (£12 million). The remainder (£14 million) is in respect of general inflationary pressures (2.6% increase over 2004-05).

	2004-05 Plans £'000	2005-06 Plans £'000
Court Service	526,998	563,304
ASLCs		-10,000
Capital Charge Addition		-12,000
Readjusted Total	526,998	541,304
Trend		14,306
		2.6%

Administration and staffing

11.   Table 6 in chapter 7 shows an increase in staff in the Court Service from 12,850 (full time equivalents) in 2004-05 to 24,502 in 2005-06 but the paybill in table 5 does not show a consequential change. Would the department please explain what proportion of the projected increase in staff numbers results from the establishment of the United Courts Agency and what is the treatment of the adjustments for the purposes of tables 5 and 6 and for the departmental expenditure limit? Do the costs of the extra staff appear in table 5? If not, why not?

  There are approximately 12,000 staff from the Magistrates Courts who will be transferred into the new agency, Her Majesty's Courts Service (HMCS). The unified agency will be created from 2005-06. Until this time Magistrates Courts staff continue to be employed by local authorities and therefore included in Magistrates Courts Grant costs reflected in programme expenditure.

  The Departmental Report tables do not currently reflect the planned expenditure on paybill as the figures within the report are those from the SR02 settlement. The correct classification of the new Agency paybill costs will be recorded once the SR04 final settlement has been received.

12.   Why is there an increase in expenditure on headquarters and associated offices from £190 million (estimated outturn) in 2003-04 to planned expenditure of £355 million in 2004-05 (table 2 on page 139)?

  The increase in expenditure between 2003-4 and 2004-5 is £165 million. This is due to several factors, principally:

—    The 2004-05 figure includes funding for Asylum (£70 million) which is held centrally pending redistribution;

—    Also included in 2004-05 is non-recurrent funding for the Euro Elections (£50 million); and

—    There was a reclassification to capital and a transfer to the Home Office (£37 million in total) in relation to CJIT funding included in 2003-04.

13.   On 21 May 2004 the Times reported that "the Department for Constitutional Affairs are the worst offenders, replying to only 49% of their mail within 20 days last year. Lord Falconer's department is one of the few whose performance has worsened in the past year. In 2002 his department replied to 54% of the 2,577 letters received by ministers within 20 days." Please provide a note setting out the statistics on which the report is based, including the most recent figures, explaining why its performance has deteriorated and what measures the Department has instituted to improve its performance.

  The Department of Constitutional Affairs regrets the fact that its performance in ministerial correspondence has deteriorated by approximately 5% between 2002 and 2003 to 49% of cases receiving an answer within 20 days. This deterioration is a result of a combination of factors, including the increased workload and profile of the Department, which has led to a larger volume of correspondence.

  Ministers and the Board recognise that current levels of performance are unacceptable, and have made it clear that significant improvement is required. In response, the Department has set up a project team to put in place a long- term solution to speed up the handling of correspondence without diminishing the quality of the response. This is likely to be based on a fully electronic, automated system for record-keeping, progress-chasing and the transfer of documents. In the meantime the Department has also implemented a number of immediate improvements to the current system in order to ensure that ministerial correspondence receives the high priority it deserves. This includes greater use of technology (such as scanners) and a small number of additional staff.

14.   How much did it cost to promote and run the human rights helpdesk in 2004-05? How many staff (full time equivalents) does it require to run the helpdesk? What assessment has the department made of the effectiveness of the helpdesk?

  The staff cost for the financial year 2004-05 is expected to be in the region of £38,000, excluding the costs of guidance material sent free of charge to members of the public and organisations. The staffing, expressed as full-time equivalents, is 1.6. The help desk has between 6,000 and 8,000 customer contacts per year. The help desk is a general enquiry point and does not become involved in particular cases. Work is being undertaken to arrive at some measure of effectiveness and then to monitor that measure, but public satisfaction levels depend on the nature of the problems involved and their expectations of the Human Rights Act. We do not monitor the next steps, if any, taken by those who make contact with the helpdesk. The DCA website has a Human Rights section which receives an average of 1500 hits per week.

15.   At paragraph 6.119 there is a reference to a wider review of the department's corporate IT needs. Would the department please supply a note explaining the scope of the review, the effect it has had on the development and delivery of IT systems (for example it appears to have resulted in MERIS being put on hold), the conclusions which the review has reached and the consequences for the department's IT budget?

  In line with best practice, the DCA regularly undertakes reviews of all its IT related projects, both through the external OGC Gateway review process and through supporting internal assurance structures. One such review process was undertaken specifically in relation to MERIS which concluded in October 2003.

  In addition, the DCA regularly reviews its whole portfolio of projects to ensure that, as a whole, they continue to be aligned with the DCA's priorities and that they continue to be affordable. These reviews clearly have the capacity to lead to changes in the Department's planned IT portfolio. Such a DCA wide review process was undertaken in parallel with the MERIS specific review but, in this case, the corporate review process did not result directly in substantive changes to planned IT work in the PGO or elsewhere in the Department.

  Rather, it was a specific review of MERIS that led to a decision being made in October 2003 to reduce the scope of MERIS to exclude those elements relating to case management for external receiverships. MERIS, however, has proceeded to implementation. The first phase which supports the administration of Enduring Powers of Attorney went live in April 2004. The next phase which provides office accounting is due to go live in July 2004. The decision to reduce the scope of MERIS, took into account the corporate landscape in terms of project funding and IS strategy, but was primarily based on the costs and timescales for the MERIS project itself, relationships with the application supplier, and the PGO's changing business environment ahead of mental capacity legislation.

Special Measures

16.   Is the department still on "special measures" with the Treasury? Why was the department put on special measures? When did they start? What do they involve? When were they last reviewed by the Treasury? When does the department expect them to end?

  Following the claim on the reserve made by DCA in 2002-03, the Department and the Treasury agreed to step up the level of senior management and ministerial engagement in the regular review and discussion of financial forecasts and relevant policy and operational issues.

  DCA submits monthly financial reports to the Treasury setting out the department's latest financial position. These reports are prepared for, and reviewed by, DCA's Executive Committee (ExCom) each month.

  DCA also provides quarterly reports on implementation of the recommendations of recent joint work on legal aid; the court estate; recovery of civil court fees; and forecasts of expenditure against plan for the rest of the SR period. Quarterly meetings between the Chief Secretary and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs have been held since July 2003. The Department constructively engages with the Treasury on a regular basis which covers the full range of policy and financial issues.

  The Treasury has acknowledged that the department has made major improvements in its financial management. The department made no Reserve claim for 2003/04 (other than a claim for the LIBRA project, which had been agreed in advance of the year with the Treasury). There is no set end date for the regular reports, and the Department considers that the type of information now reviewed monthly by ExCom and the Treasury should be the norm, and will continue to provide it.

OUTTURN IN 2003-04

17.   Please provide a note explaining the reasons for the disparity between the expenditure plans in the departmental annual report for 2002-03 and the estimated outturn in the departmental annual report for 2003-04. In particular

(a)  the departmental annual report for 2002-03 gave planned capital expenditure for 2003-04 as £93 million but estimated outturn in 2003-04 was £167 million (table 1 in both departmental annual reports);

(b)  the departmental annual report for 2002-03 gave the budget for judicial pensions as £47 million but estimated outturn in this year's departmental annual report is £59 million (table 1 in both departmental annual reports); and

(c)  the departmental annual report for 2002-03 has the budget for HQ and association offices as £141 million but estimated outturn in 2003-04 was £189 million (table 2 in both departmental annual reports).

Why did outturn exceed the planned expenditure in each of these cases and why was the department not able to predict more accurately in the departmental annual report for 2002-03 the expenditure due to be incurred in 2003-04?

Capital expenditure

  The following items contributed to an increase in capital in 2003-04:

Item	£m	%
Reclassification of CJIT expenditure from administration costs	24	32%
Additional capital funding in 2003-04 for CJIT from the Home Office	22	30%
End year flexibility for a capital modernisation fund project	12.5	17%
Criminal Justice System Reserve	11.6	16%
Single Asylum Fund	4	5%
Total	74.1	100%

Judicial Pensions

  The increase of some £11.455 million between the 2003-04 Resource Budget Plans set out in the 2002-03 Departmental Report and the 2003-04 Resource Budget Estimated outturn set out in 2003-04 was the result of:

—    an in year upwards revision of approx £1million in the current service costs of the Judicial Pension Scheme (current service costs represent the increase in the Schemes liability arising from employee service in the current year); and

—    the level of contributions taken in by the Scheme turned out to be approx £10 million lower than initially forecast.

  In preparing the Resource Budget Plans for 2002-03, salary details of judicial post holders in the Judicial Pension Scheme were used to calculate the in year movement in the Scheme's liability. It was from this information (and the level of employer and employee contributions taken in by the Scheme) that the Resource Budget was constructed. On that basis the 2003-04 Plans were set at £47.4 million.

  The contribution levels were based on forecast salary costs of the judiciary in 2003-04 provided in SR2002. During 2003-04 it became clear that salary costs and the level of contributions the JPS would receive was significantly lower than had been forecast.

  On revisiting the salary figures it became clear that the initial salary details were incomplete and under estimated the salary costs. As a result the revised current service costs in 2003-04 increased by £1 million (as compared to an expected reduction of £10 million). This and the reduced level of receipts lead to call for an increase of approximately £11 million in the Resource Budget.

  For 2004-05 Resource Budget, the levels of employer and employee contributions were based on actuals in 2003-4. This should mean a more accurate forecast of contribution levels. The movement in the Scheme's liability in 2004-05 is based on full salary data.

Headquarters and associated offices

  There have been several in year adjustments that have resulted in this increased figure. The main items include:

—    transfer of expenditure arising from Corporate re-organisation consistent with the Departmental Change Programme (£107 million). This represents a transfer of responsibility from the Agencies to the Headquarters as recommended in the DCP to reflect support services such as IT, Human Resources and Estates;

—    additional funding for Libra (£87 million);

—    reductions for Single Asylum Fund reclassification (£70 million); and

—    HM Treasury adjustment (£60 million).

  The table below provides more detail in highlighting the areas in which headquarters have additional funding sources included in 2003-04 that it did not have in 2002-03. It also shows the areas in which funding sources in 2003-04 have reduced compared to the previous year. The net effect shows the £48 million increase referred to within the question.

Additional Funding in 2003-04:
	Departmental Change Programme		107
	LIBRA (Mags IT infrastructure)		87
	Department Unallocated Provision		22
	Criminal Justice System Reserve		7.2
			223.2
Reduction in funding in 2003-04:
	Single Asylum Funding	70
	HMT adjustment	60
	Criminal Justice IT reclassification	30
	Northern Ireland Court Service	12
	Appropriation in Aid (OIC)	3
		175	(175)
	Overall Increase in 2003-04		48.2

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

18.   The department aims to improve criminal justice enforcement through "targeted intervention aimed at delivering the national fine enforcement payment rate target of 75% for 2003-04 through working with selected Magistrates' Courts Committees and dissemination of identified best practice. The payment rate had reached 74% at the end of January 2004" (page 31 of the departmental annual report). According to a recent press notice (216/04, 7 May 2004) "magistrates courts exceeded the 75% fines collection target with a 76% collection rate over the final quarter of last year" and the national fines collection target has been increased to 78%. Please provide a note outlining how this was achieved. What is the national average payment rate for 2003-04? What lessons were learned from working with selected Magistrates' Courts Committees? When will these lessons be disseminated? Please also supply a table showing the most recent figures for each criminal justice area and indicate those falling under the control of the selected Magistrates' Courts Committees?

  The national payment rate target was achieved in the last quarter of 2003-04 by supporting MCCs in driving performance improvement. This support included:

—    Creation of ownership and responsibility within each MCC for performance improvement by creating the "Fines Champion" role ie a named and accountable individual within an MCC, responsible for fines collection and enforcement performance.

—    Data validation and "cleansing", culminating in training days to MCC staff in order to improve the quality and accuracy of MCC returns.

—    Focus of resources and effort on trying to raise the performance of the six "highest impact" MCCs (on the national payment rate). These areas are GLMCA, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Thames Valley, West Midlands, West Yorkshire. At the time of our initial decision to focus on these areas (December 2003) they had a collective payment rate of 58.5%. By the end of the March 2004, this had risen to 61.3%.

—    Support to "Operation Payback"—a nationally co-ordinated series of local blitz campaigns against fine defaulters. Planning documentation was produced, as well as securing of funding for, and overseeing delivery of, centrally funded publicity, and advertising (both print and radio).

—    Developing and disseminating four Effective Practice Guides (see below for additional detail).

  The national average payment rate for the entire financial year 2003-04 was 74%, although as the question notes, performance for Q4 was 76% (exceeding the national Payment Rate target). Full year performance was affected by unusually high imposition levels (some £4m more in March than in previous months), and the fact that targeted intervention activity only began in summer 2003. Early results against the new and challenging 2004-05 payment rate target of 78% are encouraging. The very latest monthly data available for May shows an increase in performance by MCCs to 82%.

  Lessons learned from working with the selected MCCs, have been incorporated in four Effective Practice Guides, which were issued to Magistrates' Courts Committees between January and March 2004. They are:

—    Civilian Enforcement Officers (written by Hampshire & Isle of Wight, with input from the majority of MCCs).

—    The Use of Certificated Bailiffs (written by Hampshire & Isle of Wight, with input from the majority of MCCs).

—    Fines Clinics (developed from the 20 MCC responses obtained from a survey).

—    Bench Engagement (Developed by Cleveland, South Wales and Northumbria).

  The table below shows the most recent payment rate figures for each Magistrates' Courts Committee. These figures are for Quarter 4 2003-04:

Magistrates' Courts Committee	Quarter 4 Payment Rate	Magistrates' Courts Committee	Quarter 4 Payment Rate
Avon and Somerset	77%	Leicestershire	73%
Bedfordshire	84%	Lincolnshire	75%
Cambridgeshire	109%	Merseyside	56%
Cheshire	78%	Norfolk	85%
Cleveland	114%	North Wales	75%
Cumbria	91%	North Yorkshire	138%
Derbyshire	89%	Northamptonshire	81%
Devon and Cornwall	47%	Northumbria	81%
Dorset	69%	Nottinghamshire	68%
Durham	93%	South Wales	75%
Dyfed Powys	102%	South Yorkshire	101%
Essex	109%	Staffordshire	67%
GLMCA	83%	Suffolk	71%
Gloucestershire	61%	Surrey	77%
Greater Manchester	72%	Sussex	95%
Gwent	84%	Thames Valley	65%
Hampshire and Isle of Wight	77%	Warwickshire	80%
Hertfordshire	63%	West Mercia	74%
Humberside	90%	West Midlands	55%
Kent	78%	West Yorkshire	69%
Lancashire	90%	Wiltshire	92%
England and Wales Total		76%
19.   The departmental annual report states (at page 31) that the Courts Service is undergoing "business redesign aimed at reforming, and possibly market testing, the enforcement process in readiness for the introduction of a Unified Courts Agency". What areas have been identified for market testing? What criteria will be applied to determine whether market testing should take place and to evaluate any testing which takes place?

  Work continues on business re-design for the enforcement activity with the aim of developing a single national and consistent framework for the new agency, Her Majesty's Courts Service (HMCS), to maximise efficiency and effectiveness. This includes all aspects of the process, people, systems and organisation involved and identifying scope for maximising efficiency from the process. As part of developing the scope the involvement of the private sector in delivering value for money will be considered. Value for money and the maximising of efficiency will be the key criteria. The private sector is already involved in the enforcement process, with 15 Magistrates' Courts Committees already employing approved enforcement agencies to execute some (or all) of their warrants.

20.   Please provide a note setting out the progress made towards the launch of the Unified Courts Agency.

  The Courts Act 2003 enables the creation of a single, executive agency of DCA that will replace the Court Service and Magistrates' Courts Committees. The Unified Courts Administration Programme that will deliver the new agency to timetable, is underway.

  The new management team, the Chief Executive, seven Regional Directors and 44 Area Directors (one for each of the 42 areas, except in London where there are three Area Directors for crime, civil and family), have been appointed and many are already in post. The new managers are already starting to operate as a new management team, and managing their transition from current roles to new roles of the agency. A launch event for the management team took place on 24-25 June.

  The national performance director has been identified and the estates and resources directors will be appointed by July. Lead positions in other areas, (Finance, Performance etc) will begin to take up post from July.

  The formal transition from the current arrangements to the new agency began on 1 April this year. The agency will run in shadow form until 1 April 2005, enabling a smooth transition into the new agency structure.

  The name of the new agency, HM Courts Services, was announced on 4 June. This will be used to start to build the new corporate identify.

  The new managers are taking up their new roles, and starting to shape their new teams, in a more standardised way, to ensure there is future flexibility for managing the business. Managers are also starting to take their positions on Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs), and providing a stronger voice for the courts on their LCJB.

  We continue to work closely with the trade unions on people issues across the Programme. We are managing carefully the exits of those Justices Chief Executives (JCEs), who are not staying with the new agency. We are developing detailed plans for staff transition into new roles and management arrangements, in a way which is seen to be fair and transparent, without disrupting the business. And we are developing our strategy for how pay and grading of Magistrates Court Service staff will be tackled when they join the DCA, through a DCA wide pay and grading review in 2005.

  There is a major exercise underway to disengage Magistrates Courts Committees (MCCs) from Local Authorities, which currently provide funding and many corporate services, such as payroll, to MCCs. The work to transfer the magistrates' courts estate to DCA is also underway and essential due diligence checks are being made. A consultation exercise on the proposed approach to be taken in relation to the transfer to the DCA of real property, rights and liabilities to which MCC's are currently entitled is about to begin.

  Courts Boards, will ensure a local focus in the new unified courts agency. They will comprise judges, magistrates and members of the public, who will have a greater say than they presently have on how courts should be run in their area. They are currently being set up before the agency goes live, to ensure the new agency's business plans reflect the needs of the local communities. The recruitment process is underway, but will take a lot of effort to select, appoint, train and fully establish the new Boards to operate effectively from December 2004.

  The Programme is working closely with the Deputy Chief Justice's Unified Administration Judicial Committee (UAJC) on issues of concern to the judiciary. The issue of how the lay and professional judiciary will work together is being considered. There are proposals for liaison structures at local level that are being taken forward.

  While the programme is not putting in place comprehensive new systems for the new agency where these are not required—as that would be too high risk and too high cost—it is having to plan and manage business critical systems changes including:

—    The migration of all 10,000 MCS staff onto a single DCA payroll system.

—    The implementation of a new email address for the agency, so all staff can communicate and organise meetings with each other.

—    The implementation of the new accounting system, so the agency operates with one set of numbers, accounts, and processes from day one.

21.  At paragraph 2.78 of the departmental annual report the department has identified a number of performance improvements in the civil courts, upon which it is focussing: reducing unnecessary delay; reducing unnecessary cost and ensuring outcomes are enforced effectively. Please provide a note setting out how these improvements are to be measured, what targets have been set and what performance was achieved in 2003-04?

  The department's plans to improve performance in the civil courts are incorporated within the SR2002 Public Service Agreement (PSA) 4. The scope of the PSA covers the 218 county courts, including those with family law jurisdiction, and the civil and family courts within the Royal Courts of Justice complex. The PSA has four key aims: in addition to the three referred to in the question (reducing unnecessary delay, and cost, and effective enforcement) the PSA also seeks to target improvements in customer satisfaction with front-line customer services. Our progress in delivering the PSA is being measured through four Headline (HT) and fourteen supporting (ST) targets. In 2003-04 we exceeded three of the four Headline targets and met seven of the twelve supporting targets that were measurable during the year.

  Details of performance against this PSA was only available for the period April-December 2003 at the time the annual report was produced. Full details of the target measures and full 2003-04 year performance outturn data are set out in the table below.

2003-04 SR 2002 PSA 4 PERFORMANCE

Customer satisfaction	2003-04 Target	2003-04 Outturn	2004-05 Target
HT1—Satisfaction with knowledge of counter staff	80%	87%	82%
HT2—Satisfaction with knowledge of telephone staff	76%	85%	78%
HT3—Satisfaction with speed of resolution of complaints	40%	31%	50%
HT4—Satisfaction with helpfulness of written communication	72%	79%	75%
ST1—Success of Charter Mark applications	95%	95%	n/a—target met early
ST2—Speed of resolution of complaints (a)  Ministers cases (b)  CSHQ (c)  Group Manager's Office (d)  Court	(a)  85% in 17 days (b)  85% in 15 days (c)  85% in 10 days (d)  85% in 5 days	(a)  95% (b)  94% (c)  55% (d)  76%	(a)  85% in 17 days (b)  85% in 15 days (c)  85% in 10 days (d)  85% in 5 days
Reducing unnecessary delay	2003-04 Target	2003-04 Outturn	2004-05 Target
ST3—% of admin transactions completed within 5 days	94%	95%	94%
ST4—Small Claims Track cases	76% in 15 weeks	82%	76% in 15 weeks
ST5—Fast Track cases	76% in 30 weeks	80%	76% in 30 weeks
ST6—Multi-Track cases	76% in 50 weeks	74%	76% in 50 weeks
ST7—Children's Act cases (a)  Private law (b)  Public law	(a)  70% in 40 weeks (b)  70% in 40 weeks	(a)  72% (b)  35%	(a)  70% in 40 weeks (b)  70% in 40 weeks
ST8—Adoptions	70% in 20 weeks	55%	70% in 20 weeks
Reducing unnecessary cost	2003-04 Target	2003-04 Outturn	2004-05 Target
ST9—Estate integration opportunities	30 opportunities by March 2006	10 opportunities realised in 2003-04	seven opportunities by March 2005
ST10—Cost Indicator	Establish Cost Indicator (new target 2004-05)	n/a	tba
Success of enforcing outcomes	2003-04 Target	2003-04 Outturn	2004-05 Target
ST11—Recovery through (correctly directed) warrants	80%	90%	80%
ST12—Charging Orders (a)  Application—interim (b)  Interim—final order	(a)  70% in 2 weeks (b)  70% in 10 weeks	(a)  83% (b)  69%	(a)  70% in 2 weeks (b)  70% in 10 weeks
ST13—Third Party Debt Orders (a)  Application—interim (b)  Interim—final order	(a)  70% in two weeks (b)  70% in 10 weeks	(a)  87% (b)  83%	(a)  70% in two weeks (b)  70% in 10 weeks
ST14—Attachment of Earnings	New target (2004-05)	n/a	70% within 10 weeks

Improving customer satisfaction

  Performance is measured through four Headline targets that require year-on-year improvement through positive responses to four specific questions within the Court Service Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey. The questions were chosen as the areas where customers of the civil and family courts told us they were least satisfied with service received in the baseline surveys conducted in 2001-02. In 2003-04 we exceeded three of the four Headline targets. The one Headline target against which we showed no improvement—satisfaction with the speed of resolution of complaints—is particularly challenging. The sample size is not statistically robust (of some 8,000 respondents to the survey only 344 had made a complaint about the service they had received and answered the question). This not only makes it hard to draw meaningful conclusions but also means the performance data is easily skewed. There is also a clear perception issue: negative responses included customers who were dissatisfied about issues the administration has little influence over (eg "complaints" about judicial decisions). Two supporting targets also measure direct customer services. Supporting target 1 set an extremely challenging target of successfully accrediting 95% of the civil and family courts as holders of the Charter Mark by the end of the SR02 period. We in fact achieved this by April 2004 and the department is now the most successful Government department in terms of the number of Charter Mark awards held (253). Supporting target 2 measures actual (as opposed to customer satisfaction with) speed of resolution of complaints. This target is made up of four different elements, two of which were met and two not met.

Reducing unnecessary delay

  Six supporting targets have been set to reduce unnecessary delay. Supporting target 3 measures the percentage of administrative process that is dealt with within 5 days. This was met. Supporting targets 4-6 focus on reducing delay in disputed civil disputes that proceed to final hearing (the vast majority of civil disputes are resolved before a final hearing is required). The targets in respect of Small Claims and Fast Track cases were met. The target for Multi Track cases was narrowly missed. Supporting targets 7 and 8 target delay in family cases. The target for Children's Act cases is made up of two components: private law cases (where the state is not involved) and public law (where the child is typically in Local Authority care). The private law target was met. The public law target proved extremely challenging and performance was significantly below target.

  The Adoption target was also not met. It is important to recognise the process for resolving family cases has a complex delivery chain, involving many other agencies (eg DoH, DfES, Local Authority Social Services, CAFCASS, and Magistrate's Family Proceedings Courts). DCA is leading on ensuring these agencies work in a joined-up way to tackle delay. For example, leading the development and implementation of a new Protocol for Judicial Case Management in Public Law Children Act Cases, which all the relevant agencies have signed up to. The Department chairs a Programme Board, on which the other agencies sit, focussing on tackling delay in family cases, and regular meetings at ministerial level are now also taking place. It will take time to see the full impact of the Protocol and the collective efforts of the agencies involved, particularly against a backdrop of year-on-year increases in the volume of cases (public law cases dealt with by Care Centres increased from 3,600 in 2002-03 to 4,200 in 2003-04).

  Our decision to prioritise and bring to resolution the oldest—and often most complex—cases in the system, and the measures we have taken to ensure the accuracy of the way this target is measured, have also impacted on reported performance: we identified that the original performance report incorrectly excluded the time cases spent in the Family Proceedings' Courts before being referred up to a Care Centre. There is therefore now in place an accurate performance measure of the start-to-end process from the child's perspective, against which we can more meaningfully measure our success in reducing delay.

Reducing unnecessary cost

  The aim of supporting target 9 is to make better use of the joint (Court Service and Magistrate's Courts) estate through realising thirty opportunities to co-locate county and Magistrate's courts into the same buildings by March 2006. This strategy allows us to deliver enhanced facilities for users of the courts in a way that represents best value for money for tax and court fee payers. And in some cases this can also mean both court services being able to justify continuing to provide a service in a particular location where historically the cost justification of operating two separate buildings may have been a contributory factor in decisions to close courts. Supporting target 10 (development of a cost indicator) is new for 2004-05.

Effective enforcement

  This suite of targets measure how effective we are in recovering money due to creditors under a judgement given in the civil court where the debtor has not complied with the terms of the order to pay it. Supporting target 11 measures the recovery of money under (correctly directed) warrants executed by court bailiffs. This was met. Supporting targets 12 and 13 measure the speed within which orders to recover debt through Charging Order and Third Party Debt Order enforcement processes. Three of the four components of these two targets were met and one was very narrowly missed. Supporting target 14 is new for 2004-05. It will measure the percentage of Attachment of Earnings orders made within a target time and complete the suite of targets relating to civil enforcement processes.

22.   Please provide a note setting out the composition, staff and budget of the Sentencing Guidelines Council and provide details of its work plans for 2004-05 and 2005-06?

  The Sentencing Guidelines Council was created by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and met for the first time at the beginning of March 2004.

  Chaired by the Lord Chief Justice, the Council has seven other judicial members and four non-judicial members. Overall, it draws from every tier of court regularly dealing with sentencing in criminal cases and each of the core interests in a case from detection of crime through to completion of sentence.

  Judicial members. From the Court of Appeal, the members are Lord Justice Rose (Vice-President) and Lord Justice John Kay; from the High Court, the Chair of the Sentencing Committee of the JSB, Sir Peter Crane; two Circuit Judges, Judge Peter Beaumont and Judge Michael Mettyear; the Senior District Judge, Tim Workman; and Mrs Malathy Sitaram JP.

  Non-judicial members. Chief Constable Peter Neyroud, Ken Macdonald (DPP), Anthony Edwards (Defence Solicitor) and Ms Teresa Reynolds (experience of the interests of victims of crime)

  In addition, the Commissioner for Correctional Services, Martin Narey, is an observer with a right to attend and speak at meetings and the Council has issued a standing invitation to attend its meetings to the Chairman of the Sentencing Advisory Panel, Professor Martin Wasik.

  The secretariat of the Sentencing Guidelines Council also supports the Sentencing Advisory Panel. There is a Head of the Secretariat (appointed after external recruitment) and 13 other officials drawn from the Home Office, DCA and the Court Service.

  The budget for the whole secretariat is just under £1 million per annum. This is provided by the Home Office. The DCA funds the fees, travel and subsistence of the members of the Sentencing Advisory Panel and the judicial members of the Sentencing Guidelines Council; the Home Office funds the fees, travel and subsistence of the non-judicial members of the Council.

  The Council aims to start from general principles in order to create a coherent approach to the sentencing framework, to produce guidelines in anticipation of new offences and sentences wherever possible and to produce general and specific guidelines on key topics. In due course, it will produce comprehensive guidelines readily accessible to the judiciary, practitioners and the wider public.

  For 2004-05, the Council is considering the general purposes of sentencing and the assessment of seriousness of offences. It will also be considering issuing guidelines for:

—    Offences contained within the Sexual Offences Act 2003;

—    New sentencing provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that are expected to come into force in 2004-05;

—    Reduction in sentence following a guilty plea;

—    Robbery;

—    Manslaughter following provocation; and

—    Domestic violence.

  In addition, the Council is establishing its role to establish and disseminate information on the effectiveness of sentences and sentencing. The Council will be considering its work plan for 2005-06 in the autumn of 2004.

23.   Paragraph 6.16 of the departmental annual report explains that: "the [NI] Court Service is developing proposals to reform the remuneration for publicly-funded criminal cases. New remuneration arrangements will be introduced during 2004-05. The initial focus of the work has been on fees payable to counsel in Crown Court cases. The next phase of the programme will be to develop proposals for the remuneration of solicitors in Crown Court". Please provide a note explaining the operation of the new arrangements in detail and setting out the costs and savings which are expected to arise? What assessment has the department made of the first phase? When will the next phase be developed and introduced?

  Discussions are ongoing with the legal profession to bring forward new criminal remuneration proposals. Discussions are at an advanced stage with the Bar Council for fees payable to counsel in Crown Court cases. It is anticipated that these new arrangements will be in place from October 2004. The corresponding discussions with the Law Society are at a much earlier stage, again focusing in the first instance on Crown Court cases.

  The new criminal remuneration arrangements for counsel in Crown Court cases are tailored to Northern Ireland. The new arrangements will deliver control, predictability and value for money. They have been designed to ensure that the strengths of the Graduated Fee Scheme in England and Wales are retained while making them consistent with Crown Court practice in Northern Ireland.

  The new arrangements are as follows:

—    Guilty Plea 1—a fee for guilty pleas on arraignment. The fee is all inclusive and is tailored to ensure that distinct fees are payable for the nine categories of offences used in the Graduated Fee Scheme, by senior Counsel, leading Junior Counsel, led Junior Counsel and sole Junior Counsel.

—    Guilty Plea 2—a fee for guilty pleas after arraignment but before the trial commences. This is a higher fee than the Guilty Plea 1. This approach specifically seeks to address costly fees for late changes of plea.

—    Trial Fees—standard fees are proposed for all offence categories, spread over three time periods. Similar arrangements apply for refresher fees.

—    Application Fees—standard fees covering various types of applications.

  It is anticipated that the current proposal would yield savings in the region of £4 million. The new Regulations will be effective from October 2004.

Next Phase

  Work is currently ongoing in developing a similar system for solicitors in the Crown Court. It is envisaged that new arrangements for solicitors in the Crown Court will be introduced in spring 2005.

24.  Please supply a table setting out for each year from 2000-01 to 2003-04: the total number of magistrates sitting; the department's 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?

	2000-01	2002-02	2002-03	2003-04
Magistrates Recruited	1,366	1,474	1,623	1,807
Magistrates Lost	2,386	1,991	1,871	1,446
Total number sitting	28,735	28,490	28,344	28,705
Vacancies	1,667	1,971	1,489

  We do not collect complement figures but we can provide numbers of sitting magistrates and vacancies. Vacancy statistics for 2003-04 are not yet available.

  Average age information is not readily available in the format requested, but can however provide numbers of magistrates within age bands for England and Wales (including the Duchy of Lancaster):

As at 1 April 2004:
Age	No of Magistrates
Under 30:	23
30-39:	1,024
40-49:	4,649
50-54:	4,689
55-59:	7,858
60-65:	7,551
66+:	2,870
2002-03
Age	No of Magistrates
Under 40	1,045
40-49:	4,662
50-59:	12,764
60-69:	9,873
2001-02
Age	No of Magistrates
Under 40	1,091
40-49:	4,966
50-59:	13,140
60-69:	9,282
2000-01 (figs do not include the Duchy of Lancaster)
Age	No of Magistrates
Under 40	995
40-49:	4,530
50-59:	11,460
60-69:	7,786

CIVIL COURT FEES

25.   Government policy is that fees should normally be set to recover the full cost of court services. Please provide a note explaining what items are included as "court services" and exactly which costs are expected to be met by court fees. It would be helpful to include a table setting out for each year from 2000-01 to 2003-04: a breakdown of court service costs; costs recovered and achievement against recovery targets (both in cash terms and as percentages).

Fee Setting

  It is a key principle when setting fees for civil proceedings that access to justice must be protected. The Lord Chancellor announced to Parliament on 19 November 1998 the following principles:

—    fees should not prevent access to justice;

—    protection must be provided for litigants of modest means;

—    fees should match the cost of the service for which they are charged;

—    the pay-as-you-go system should be extended without deterring access to justice;

—    flat rate fees reflecting the cost of the stage or application should be paid at other charging points;

—    issue and enforcement fees should reflect the value of the claim;

—    flat rate fees should be set on the basis of average not actual costs;

—    fees should be paid by the claimant, or where a specific application is made, by the party who made that application; and

—    fees should be paid in advance.

Fees Exemption and Remission

  Access to justice is protected by automatic exemption for litigants on specified means tested benefits and discretionary remission (in part or in full) for those who do not benefit from exemption but would, owing to the exceptional circumstances of the particular case, suffer undue financial hardship. A leaflet Court fees and do you have to pay them? telling the public more about exemption and remission and how to apply for them is available in any court office.

Subsidy for types of family proceedings

  In contrast to non-family claims, Ministers have concluded that for certain types of Family proceedings it would be wrong to set fees purely on the basis of the cost of the service provided by the courts. The Lord Chancellor considers that the issues at stake in Children Act applications, adoptions, and domestic violence applications, warrant an element of public subsidy. This is to ensure that would-be litigants are not deterred from seeking, for example, freedom from physical violence, because they cannot readily pay the full cost of the proceedings.

Income and Expenditure

  Tables 1 to 3 provide an overview of the income against expenditure for financial years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 broken-down against the five separate fees orders.

  Expenditure includes all costs incurred by the courts namely staff and judicial costs, capital lands and buildings, depreciation lands & buildings, IT expenses, accommodation, percentage of HQ overheads.

  The fee increases recognise that following the introduction of the Civil Proceedings Rules civil business is a single entity. Litigants beginning a claim in any part of the system must necessarily have access to county and high courts and the Court of Appeal. Those cases resolved in the county courts benefit from decisions taken on appeal in other cases that by their nature are disproportionately costly. It would be unreasonable and would restrict access to justice if those claimants whose cases are resolved in the high court were required to meet the full costs individually, despite the fact that all other litigants benefit from those decisions.

  Also, with the introduction (in 2004-05) of Section 92 of the Courts Act 2003 income and expenditure from county and high courts will be treated as one Combined Civil Court.

  The Shortfall and Cost Recovery columns found in all three tables, indicates where income has either over or under recovered against expenditure and by what percentage.

  Over the last couple of years the aim has been to ensure that 100% full cost recovery is achieved wherever possible concerning non-family claims. That is why some probate fees had to be reduced (see tables 1 and 2) as the fees had tended to over recover against expenditure and in 2004-05 the total anticipated income against anticipated expenditure goes towards achieving that goal. In 2004-05 Combined Civil Court fees will show a near cost recovery against anticipated expenditure of 99.96%.

Table 1

MAGNITUDE OF INCOME AGAINST EXPENDITURE 2001-02

TAKEN FROM THE 2001-02 MANAGEMENT OF TRADING ACCOUNTS

2001-02	Total Fees Income (incl. Fees Exemption & Remission & family subsidy)	Expenditure/Cost	Shortfall	Cost Recovery
	£m	£m	£m	%
County Courts	242,468,991	208,956,574	(33,512,417)	116.04
High Court	14,293,262	69,596,911	55,303,649	20.54
Family Courts	54,464,206	102,718,159	48,253,953	53.02
Insolvency	7,121,449	7,926,307	804,858	89.85
Probate	19,515,923	12,891,467	(6,624,455)	151.39
Total	337,863,831	402,089,419	64,225,587	84.03

Table 2

MAGNITUDE OF INCOME AGAINST EXPENDITURE 2002-03

TAKEN FROM THE 2002-03 MANAGEMENT OF TRADING ACCOUNTS

2002-03	Total Fees Income (incl. Fees Exemption & Remission & family subsidy)	Expenditure/Cost	Shortfall	Cost Recovery
	£m	£m	£m	%
County Courts	246,918,000	214,070,301	(32,847,699)	115.34
High Court	13,373,353	67,104,715	53,731,362	19.93
Family Courts	55,467,931	113,929,651	58,461,720	48.69
Insolvency	7,931,576	9,259,615	1,328,039	85.66
Probate	20,187,142	13,073,883	(7,113,259)	154.41
Total	343,879,002	417,438,165	73,560,163	82.38
—  £ 499,535 of High Court Fees Income relates to Civil Appeals.
—  £2,591,450 of High Court expenditure relates to Civil Appeals

Table 3

ESTIMATION OF MAGNITUDE OF INCOME AGAINST EXPENDITURE 2003-04

MTA NOT YET AVAILABLE

2003-04	Total Fees Income (incl. Fees Exemption & Remission)	Expenditure/Cost	Shortfall	Cost Recovery
	£m	£m	£m	%
County Courts	256,963,685	245,272,431	(11,691,254)	104.77
High Court	17,843,148	65,772,705	47,929,557	27.13
Family Courts	52,346,036	116,962,392	64,616,356	44.75
Insolvency	9,133,674	9,587,011	453,337	95.27
Probate	19,568,586	14,720,836	(4,847,750)	132.93
Total	355,855,129	452,315,375	96,460,246	78.67

DELIVERY

26.   How many courts have closed in the past year and how many are due to close in 2004-05 and 2005-06? 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. (This list would update the list provided in response to a similar question on the departmental annual report for 2003-04)

Magistrates' Courts

  The tables below show the closures of Magistrates' Courts in England and Wales in 2003-04, and 2004 to present.

Court	Parliamentary Constituency	Date of closure	Where the work was transferred
Rugeley	Cannock Chase	31 May 2003	Satellite court/Stafford
Lampeter	Ceredigion	09 June 2003	Aberystwyth/Cardigan
Tenby	Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire	30 June 2003	Haverfordwest
Camberley	Surrey Heath	30 June 2003	Woking
Trowbridge	Westbury	30 September 2003	Chippenham
Whitchurch	North Shropshire	03 October 2003	Market Drayton
Long Sutton	South Holland & The Deepings	31 October 2003	Grantham
Caistor	Gainsborough	31 December 2003	Lincoln
Horncastle	Louth and Horncastle County	31 December 2003	Skegness

Appeals

—  Decisions to close magistrates' courthouses are made by Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs) in consultation with the local paying authority and may only be appealed against by that paying authority, under section 56(3) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.

Appeals decided in 2004

—  Barking and Dagenham—Allowed. These courthouses remained open.

Appeals decided in 2003

—  In 2003 a total of 15 appeals were decided.

—  Kingston, Grays, Aberystwyth and Cardigan, Sutton Coldfield—Allowed. These courthouses remained open.

—  Thame, Trowbridge, Devizes, Lampeter, Caistor and Longcastle, Pickering, Richmond and Whitby, Whitchurch—Dismissed. These courthouses were closed.

  There are currently two appeals outstanding:

  The following appeals are continuing.

—  Stourbridge (West Midlands MCC).

—  Newcastle Under Lyme (Staffs MCC).

County Courts

—  There were no county court closures in 2003-04

—  The last court closures occurred in April 2002 (Chepstow & Monmouth county courts).

—  There is no current plan for any closure programme of county courts.

—  The estate integration work (outlined below) will allow for release of a number of county court "buildings" during 2004-05 and 2005-06, but will continue to provide face to face counter and hearing services across the present county court network, in most instances in much improved accommodation.

Crown Courts

  There have been no closures for 2002-03. There are no proposals to close any crown courts in 2004-05.

Estate Integration

  10 integration opportunities were delivered last financial year, these are listed below.

Delivered to date

2002-03

  Goole County Court —a caller office and hearings were established in the Magistrates' Court in August 2002.

  Berwick County Court a caller office was established in the Magistrates' Court in November 2002.

  Altrincham County Court became operational in Trafford Magistrates' Court in November 2002.

2003-04

  Tameside County Court became operational in Tameside Magistrates' Court in early May 2003.

  Skipton County Court became operational in Skipton Magistrates' Court in late May 2003.

  Caernarfon County Court—all magistrates' family cases have been listed in the County Court since April 2003.

  Rugby County Court became operational in Rugby Magistrates' Court in January 2004.

  Priory Courts, Birmingham—the magistrates' family section (hearings and staff) moved in during January 2004.

  Gloucester County Court—magistrates' family staff and hearings were fully accommodated at the end of February 2004.

  Grantham, Skegness, Melton Mowbray and Thanet County Courts moved into their counterpart magistrates' courts during March 2004.

2004-05

  Aberdare County Court became operational in Aberdare Magistrates Court on the 5th April 2004.

Future plans

  Plans for 2004-05 and 2005-06 have not yet been finalised, but the following schemes will be progressed during the period:

  Brecon—the extension of Brecknock County Court to accommodate the magistrates' court in March 2005.

  Banbury Magistrates' Court is undertaking an extensive refurbishment programme, which includes works to accommodate the County Court. The refurbishment is not expected to be completed until December 2004 and the plans are being reviewed to see whether it is possible to accommodate a small increase in the Court service staff complement.

  Further opportunities are subject to the completion of feasibility studies and further discussions with the new Area Directors and the local judiciary.

27.   Are lawyers continuing to withdraw from publicly funded work? How many Community Legal Service and Criminal Defence contracts were there at May 2004? In the view of the department are there any parts of the country where the shortage is preventing access to justice?

Civil contracts

  We do not yet have the figures available to be able to give the position as at the end of May 2004. However, the total number of offices with General Civil Contracts (solicitors and NfP agencies) at the end of March 2004 was 4,715, compared with 5,061 at the end of March 2003. This represents a reduction of 6.8%. Most of this reduction was in the number of solicitors' offices with contracts which fell from 4,641 as at 31 March 2003 to 4,301 as at 31 March 2004. Of these, 4,012 held contracts with allocations of Controlled Work and the other 289 solicitors' offices held contracts for Licensed Work only. There was far less movement in the NfP sector, where 414 NfP agencies held contracts at the end of March 2004, compared with 420 the previous year.

  The reduction in the number of solicitors' offices with Controlled Work contracts in 2003-04 formed part of a continuing trend, and so was not unexpected. Since the civil contracting scheme was introduced in 2000, the supplier base has continued to decrease in overall numbers. This is mainly due to offices merging and very small suppliers withdrawing from publicly funded work. As a result, Controlled Work is now concentrated among larger offices. Other reasons for this smaller base include suppliers opting to withdraw from the scheme owing to issues around remuneration and profitability, or as a result of adverse findings from the contract audit process.

  There is some concern that a reduced number of contracted offices might compromise legal aid coverage across England and Wales. To ensure adequate coverage the LSC continually monitor contracting movements. Where it is found that isolated areas might face a supply issue in one or more categories of law, the LSC try to find alternative supply with other local solicitors' offices or NfP agencies before the issue creates problems for potential clients.

  Although the number of civil matters undertaken by NfPs has remained stable and even increased in some categories, the numbers of matters undertaken by solicitors has fallen over 2003-04. This is due to the corresponding reduction of solicitor contracts, but also the LSC's deliberate policy of cutting down on "tolerance" (non-category specific) awards and immigration contracts.

  The reduction in "tolerance" awards reflects the LSC's desire to authorise work in specific categories of law, as this helps to ensure quality and to match supply to need more effectively. [Contract "tolerances" allow an organisation to undertake work in related matters in which they do not have a category specific contract award]. However, it is recognised that there are situations where a tolerance allocation is most appropriate, for example in rural areas. There is no evidence to suggest that the reduction in tolerance categories has adversely impacted on access or the actual number of matters started.

  The number of immigration contracts has also fallen, but this was due almost entirely to a deliberate policy by the LSC of reducing the number of suppliers in London in line with declining numbers of asylum seekers. The number of asylum seekers has halved, and so the reduced need for services gave the LSC the opportunity of removing significant numbers of poor quality solicitors' firms from the contracting scheme.

  We accept that there are pockets of unmet need for legal services in a small number of areas, in particular categories of law, but this has always been the case However, the measures we took in the Access to Justice Act 1999 in establishing the Community Legal Service has given us a clearer picture than ever before of the legal advice that people need and how best we can meet that need.

  The simple lack of a local solicitor offering legal services in any category of law does not necessarily constitute unmet need or prevent access to justice as there may be other, more suitable ways of dealing with the problem such as outreach, telephone or website advice. We are increasingly working in a more holistic way, rather than simply focusing on legally aided advice, by working with others in Government and elsewhere to help tackle initial issues before they trigger more serious problems.

  Meanwhile, the LSC Regional offices are continuously researching, monitoring and responding to local needs and can respond to emerging trends by adjusting contracts to make more money available where it is needed.

Criminal contracts

  As criminal lawyers tend to be concentrated around courts and police stations (where their services are most often required) we do not tend to come up against issues of supply. Following the award of new contracts in May, 2,302 contracts were awarded and the LSC have not identified any significant coverage issues.

  There was a net drop in the number of suppliers with criminal contracts of around 230 (8%) during 2003-04. However, there were a number of reasons for this including: mergers between firms; multiple office firms concentrating work in fewer offices; and commercial decisions not to continue with criminal legal aid.

  The LSC believes that this reduction in contracts will have little or no affect on access to justice, as there are plenty of other suppliers able to pick-up demand for criminal legal aid.

  As with civil contracts, if a shortfall were to occur in a particular area, the LSC would identify the reasons, then arrangements would be made to cover such a shortfall by bringing in suppliers from other areas, or by alternative ways of delivering services, such as outreach or telephone advice.

  In the case of the CDS, the Commission also has the flexibility to open new Public Defender Service offices if cover in a particular area were to collapse, though this is very much a last resort.

28.   Please provide a note explaining how the department and its sister organisations publicise and provide advice on the operation and application of the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000? What research does the department and its sister organisations undertake into understanding by public authorities, companies and other organisations of these acts and their abilities to interpret and apply the 2000 Act competently and expeditiously?

  DCA has an extensive programme of work in hand to publicise and provide advice on the operation and application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Our work has a particular focus on preparing central government.

  The Department has produced a Model Action Plan (MAP) setting out the steps to be taken by public authorities to ensure that they are ready for implementation. This was published in December 2003 and has been promoted as the template which public authorities should follow.

  DCA is engaged in setting up and fostering networks of Freedom of Information practitioners. They include the Whitehall Freedom of Information Practitioner's Group which meets monthly and acts as an interactive discussion forum for key practitioners across central government. Aside from providing a means of encouraging best practice, the forum is one means of developing a community of FOI practitioners.

  To facilitate a shift towards greater openness the then Lord Chancellor and the Information Commissioner decided in 2001 to form an Advisory Group on Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. The group is jointly chaired by Lord Filkin, Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Department, and Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner and comprises key individuals from inside and outside Government with an interest in freedom of information. It allows Government, the Commissioner and other public authorities to assess progress in implementation in discussion with stakeholders.

  DCA also recognises the importance of communications between the centre and local government and has embarked on a series of presentations at regional and county discussion groups of Freedom of Information practitioners. After a successful launch of an e-discussion forum amongst Whitehall practitioners, access will be extended to practitioners across the health, education and police sectors at the end of July 2004.

  The Department has produced a generic user specification for IT systems to manage Freedom of Information and enquiries. The specification has been designed to assist central government departments and agencies in their preparations for implementing the Act but it may also be useful for other public authorities.

  In late 2003 and early 2004, Lord Filkin held bilateral meetings with ministers with FOI responsibility in other departments. The aim of these meetings was to gauge levels of preparedness for full implementation of the Act in January 2005.

  DCA conducts an annual survey of departments' progress towards implementation of the Act and their levels of preparedness for full implementation. These surveys feed into the Implementation Report on Freedom of Information Act 2000 which is published annually (http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/imprep/annrep03.pdf) A further statistical survey is conducted on public authorities compliance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/codprac02/index.htm)

  In June 2004, a new Freedom of Information website was launched that outlines progress towards implementation and offers the public a comprehensive guide to their rights under the Act.

  The provision of advice and guidance on the operation and interpretation of the Data Protection Act 1998 is the responsibility of the office of the Information Commissioner, the independent statutory regulator of the UK's data protection law. DCA itself provides ad hoc advice within central government on general data protection issues. Additionally, a standards and best practice handbook on the 1998 Act for government departments is provided by the Cabinet Office.

  The Information Commissioner's Office regularly conducts research amongst public and private sector data controllers and public authorities into their awareness of and attitudes towards the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts. A tracking study is conducted annually which covers matters such as awareness of rights and responsibilities, the priority placed on compliance with the Acts, perceptions as to the value of such compliance, and awareness of any recent communications activity undertaken by the Commissioner's Office. The top level findings from the study are included in the Commissioner's Annual Report to Parliament. The Commissioner supplements this regular tracking study with more detailed research amongst data controllers and public authorities on an ad hoc basis.

  DCA has produced legal guidance on data sharing in the public sector and developed a range of other tools, such as model protocols, to help public authorities make best use of personal data when joining up services. In addition, DCA has an ongoing programme of speaking at conferences and seminars for all parts of the public sector to ensure that organisations understand the legal and practical issues raised and how to successfully address them.

29.   What targets has the department set for dealing with freedom of information enquiries? How will the Department ensure that it will be able to respond to FOI enquiries within the statutory time frame?

  The Freedom of Information Act requires that requests for information are dealt with promptly and responded to within 20 working days.

  The task of preparing the Department for dealing with freedom of information requests from January 2005 falls to the Department's Access Rights Unit, who currently oversee departmental compliance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The majority of requests for information will be dealt with locally as part of the normal business of dealing with correspondence, without explicit reference to the Freedom of Information Act. This is because the information will be readily accessible, either through the Department's publication scheme, or from the Department's website. In situations where the Department might refuse information, intends to charge for information or where FOI is otherwise relevant then the Access Rights Unit will have a central role.

  The Department's project plan follows the Model Action Plan for central government. We are also following the model action plan in preparing records management practices to ensure we are compliant with the Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice on Records Management. We are carrying out timely reviews of paper records and have begun rolling out electronic records management. The first phase of the implementation of electronic records management project (for DCA Headquarters) will be completed by December 2004.

  Additionally:

—  We have embarked on our training strategy. We have begun awareness raising for all, including a seminar for the senior management. In October and November we will be delivering training to correspondence officers on in-house guidance.

—  We have developed in-house guidance for staff on how to deal with FOI requests. Staff are currently reviewing it and over the summer we shall testing the guidance using Code cases and dummy requests.

—  Finally we shall be providing information to our customers about how to access information under the Freedom of Information Act. In order to avoid unnecessary requests to the courts we shall make it clear that access to court records will not be through FOI but continue to be through court rules and under the jurisdiction of the courts.

30.   Please provide a note explaining how the "Law Commission is playing a more proactive role on the better Regulation agenda" (page 68 of the departmental annual report for 2004-05)?

  The Law Commission is contributing to the regulatory reform agenda in three ways. First it seeks to assess, to the best of its ability, the impact that its recommendations for reform will have. Completion of regulatory impact assessments must remain a matter for Government that has the range of skills necessary to complete RIAs fully. However the Commission will want to show that it has asked questions during consultation aimed at assessing the impact of options for reform, that it has considered the impact of its proposals in its report and that it has tried to collect as much of the information that it can that will assist a Government department to complete the RIA. The Commission will also be discussing its emerging conclusions with the relevant government department, among others, and both can ensure that the regulatory impact issues are being considered.

  Secondly the Commission has agreed, where its recommendations for reform could be implemented by means of an Order under the Regulatory Reform Act 2002, that it will produce in its report a draft Order rather than a draft Bill. It has made plain however that it will not compromise its recommendations simply to bring them within the scope of the 2002 Act.

  Finally it is taking steps to ensure that it has ongoing relationships between it, the Cabinet Office and the Better Regulation Task Force, and meetings have been held with both during the last year.

SPRING SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE

31.   Please provide a break-down of the figures in table 2 (published on page 20 of the Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03), including statistics for 2003-04, as follows:

—  Civil Legal Aid/ Community Legal Service into Very High Cost Cases, asylum and immigration cases and other cases (both budget and outturn).

—  Criminal Legal Aid/ Criminal Defence Service into Crown Court and Very High Cost Cases and other cases (both budget and outturn).

—  Total figures into Magistrates' and other courts (both budget and outturn).

  The figures given in table 2 are stated in resource terms. Until fairly recently, the Legal Services Commission, kept all financial information on a cash basis and does not, as yet, allocate budgets by categories of legal aid, in resource terms. Rather, it forecasts expenditure by category and compares this to the totality of resources made available. The table below shows estimated out-turn and forecast expenditure in resource terms.

	Revised Budget	Out-turn* 2003-04	Forecast 2004-05	Forecast 2005-06
	(£m)	(£m)	(£m)	(£m)
Civil Representation**		403	492	549
Legal Help (exc immigration)		185	192	193
Immigration & Asylum		178	161	154
Criminal very high cost		59	154	168
Criminal Crown Court		566	475	464
Criminal Magistrates***		529	502	508
Administration		77	82	84
Cost of Capital		(89)	(85)	(81)
Totals	1,937	1,908	1,973	2,039
These projections include provision for substantial savings to be made in order to live within the resources allocated by Treasury.
*Provisional—subject to year end adjustments
**Data on civil high cost cases not readily available
*** Includes duty solicitor schemes, free standing advice etc.

---

Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Department for Constitutional Affairs

1.   Why will it take until July 2004 to establish the baseline data for measuring victim and witness satisfaction levels in support of Objective 1 (page 17 of the departmental annual report for 2003-04)?

  There is currently no baseline data already available to measure the levels of victim and witness satisfaction in the criminal justice system, as previous surveys have concentrated on victim satisfaction with the police, rather than the wider CJS agencies. After detailed discussions among the trilateral Departments that share the PSA target (DCA, Home Office, Crown Prosecution Service), it was decided that the most cost effective means of collecting the missing data was to include additional questions on victim and witness satisfaction in the British Crime Survey (BCS). The BCS is a widely recognised, nationally-conducted initiative that is being used to measure the targets to improve public confidence and to improve the confidence of ethnic minority communities. The decision to include new questions was taken in July 2003. The questions then had to be developed and tested before being introduced into the next available quarterly questioning period in October 2003. Results from the period from October 2003 to March 2004 will be available in July.

2.   One of the measures for target 5 in support of Objective 2 is "enforcing the immigration laws more effectively by removing a greater proportion of failed asylum seekers" (page 21 of the departmental annual report for 2003-04). The 2003-04 outturn for this is "17,040 failed asylum seekers (including dependants) were removed in 2003". Why does the outturn not include a proportion or percentage? What mechanisms have the department in place to measure progress against the target? Please provide a table showing the proportion of failed asylum seekers removed in the past four years?

  As explained in the PSA Technical Note, the measure for target 5 will be met if the proportion of failed asylum seekers (including dependants) removed in the target year (2005-06) is greater than those removed in the baseline year (2002-03). Subject to data quality, data on the baseline for 2002-03 and the comparable figure for 2003-04 may be published later this year.

  Daily data on the number of failed asylum seekers removed is collated by the Immigration Service from returns made by Local Enforcement Offices and Ports and is reconciled monthly with data from the Asylum Case Information Database.

  The National Audit Office Report "Asylum and migration: a review of Home Office statistics" (May 2004) noted that:

The asylum data and statistics are in most respects reliable.

  The Home Office has appropriate practices in place to ensure the integrity of its asylum statistics, in line with established protocols.

  Over recent years, the Home Office has substantially increased the amount of asylum statistics it publishes to meet better the needs of users of its statistics. In 2001, when it introduced Quarterly Bulletins to replace the monthly statistical updates, it extended their scope to include information on asylum applicants in receipt of support, numbers held in detention, numbers removed and cases received and decided at Oakington. Since then it has added further information, such as on the timeliness of decisions and appeals.

  The Home Office is unable to provide a table showing the proportion of failed asylum seekers removed for the past four years because the appropriate data systems had not been established.

3.   What progress is there on the joint DCA, Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office pilot community justice centre? If the intention is that "community justice centres" are community based, what are the estimated capital costs and who will meet these costs?

  Since the announcement of the location (Liverpool) in September 2003, a large amount of work has been done to develop and deliver the pilot, including deciding upon the requirement of the accommodation, finding a building, working out the jurisdiction and scope of the work of the Centre, continuous stakeholder consultation, community engagement and planning evaluation. Applications for the position of Judge at the Centre have been invited, and we hope to have appointed someone by October. The Centre will be operational from December 2004 but there are a number of activities starting before that date, including a community needs assessment to establish what the Community's priorities for the Centre are.

  The objective of the Community Justice Centre (CJC) is to act as a hub for the whole of the Justice System in the area of North Liverpool that it serves. It will house all the criminal justice management agencies eg police, probation service as well as court staff, and therefore improve agency co-ordination. This will provide the offender and the wider community with the help that they need to tackle their offending or improve their quality of life.

  The kind of services that may be offered are drug counselling, anger management, debt and housing advice and basic education skills. The Centre will also support a number of off-the-street activities such as youth and sports clubs, and a place for the community to hold public meetings.

  The Centre will provide structured activities as an alternative to sentence and potentially as an alternative to charge. The offender can be offered a chance to attend services or activities provided by the Centre, or provide immediate reparation to the community such as cleaning an area of graffiti that the Community have identified. These will be decided when the offender appears in the centre so that the offender does not have to wait for another day or go to another place to find out what the next step will be.

  The Centre's services are available to the wider community as they can walk-in with concerns they may have eg groups of youths hanging about their street. Community Justice Centre staff can identify what needs to be done to address the problem such as better street lighting, or responding to a need for community policing.

  The Community Justice Centre will be directly responsible to the community. The Community will be able to advise the centre on their priorities for reparation and community punishment (such as areas of graffiti to clean), and focus the concerns of the court and the criminal justice agencies. This will be achieved through engagement with the community council and other neighbourhood groups.

  The court will handle quality of life and anti-social behaviour (ASB) related crimes that are currently dealt with by the Magistrates' and Youth Courts, alongside ASB related housing possession cases. The Judge will have the power to deal with criminal cases at both the magistrates court level, and the sentencing powers of the Crown Court (as either a Circuit Judge or a Recorder). They will also be appointed as a civil District Judge to enable them to deal with anti-social behavior related possession cases from the area as part of a holistic approach towards ASB. The CJC Judge will be unique in having this range of jurisdiction and thus able to deal with the whole range of offending behaviour presented by many ASB offenders.

  The Centre will place an emphasis on diversion, intervention, reparation and rehabilitation, but will not be a soft option for offenders. Each offender will be supervised by the Centre as they carry out their programme of activities. If the offender fails to comply, or alternatively if they are successful and show willingness to tackle their problems, this will be acknowledged and acted upon by the court.

  The capital costs cover the costs of acquiring, renovating and fit-out of the building, and from April 2004 to March 2007 are estimated at £7.246 million. £3,000,000 has been secured from the recovered assets fund. A further £5 million has been bid for from the Criminal Justice Reserve and is anticipated to be confirmed in the next couple of weeks.

4.   What incentive packages have been developed for Magistrates Courts Committees and their staff? How much have they cost and what is the average payment per member of staff?

  DCA has developed once incentive package for Magistrates Courts Committees (MCCs) and their staff.

  A pilot incentive scheme started on 1 April 2004, for 12 months, to provide incentives for those involved in enforcement. Team based, a cash amount (£500) can be awarded to each team member on the condition that the MCC achieve 2 agreed objectives (with the first being the fines collection payment rate target, and the second an objective agreed by local management to target specific elements of enforcement activity like compensation collection). 606 enforcement staff, from 11 MCCs, are included in the scheme and the total expected cost is £332,027.

  The scheme is funded through the Department's netting off (re-investment of fine receipts) mechanism which in itself provides incentives. Netting off investment can be made in MCCs taking forward a range of initiatives to improve fine collection rates. For 2004-05 the level of investment of netting off funding is £10 million, giving a total of £29 million additional funding over the three years of the scheme.

5.   Has any research been carried out or planned to evaluate the Judges in Schools and Magistrates in Schools initiatives?

  We know that schools find the booklets useful. Copies are being reordered on a regular basis. Since January 2002, when the initiative began, to 28 June 2004, 5,446 copies of the Judges in Schools booklet have been dispatched. And between the start of the last academic year in September 2003 and 28 June 2004, 1,621 of the Magistrates in Schools booklet have been sent out to schools. They are also regularly used by magistrates visiting schools as part of the Magistrates' Association's Magistrates in the Community initiative. The booklets are planned to be relaunched in September 2004 and we will consider with those we are consulting on the relaunch how the effectiveness of the new versions can be monitored.

6.   What is the budget for the planned campaign to raise public awareness about the legal position of cohabitants?

  The Budget for this public information campaign for the current financial year is £229,000.

7.   Please provide a note on the study which is considering the impact of increasing the range of court hearings that can be dealt with by telephone (page 42)?

  The telephone hearings pilot scheme has been running at Newcastle Combined Court Centre since 1 September 2003 under a practice direction supplementing Part 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It was extended to run to February 2005 with the addition of Bedford and Luton County Courts in February 2004.

  The scheme does not apply where all the parties are unrepresented, more than four parties wish to make representations at the hearing, or the hearing could result in the final determination of the whole or part of the proceedings.

  The purpose of the scheme is to extend the scope of hearings which may be conducted by telephone. The pilot is seeking to identify the uptake of telephone hearings and the ability of courts to accommodate these within the current infrastructure with the aim of improving and widening access to justice while cutting costs.

  Under the scheme allocation hearings; listing hearings; and case management conferences, pre-trial reviews and interim applications with a time estimate of no more than an hour, are normally held by telephone. Other applications with the consent of the parties and the agreement of the court are also included.

  Evaluation of the scheme is being conducted with the help of court user questionnaires. An initial evaluation during the first two months revealed an overall impression that was positive, with the majority of hearings being successfully dealt with and the number of re-listed hearings kept to a minimum.

If the pilot proves to be successful, there will be a period of public consultation before a decision is made on rolling out the scheme throughout England and Wales.

8.   What progress has been made on implementing the 42 recommendations arising from the review of the Law Commission and the law reform process?

  In May 2003, the then Lord Chancellor asked the Ministerial Committee on the Law Commission to oversee the implementation of the Halliday review. The Committee met to discuss its recommendations in September 2003. It accepted all 42 recommendations in principle, subject to some minor modifications of detail and timing, and noted that action on three recommendations would be for the longer term (nos. 12, 24 & 30). Since then, the Law Commission, the DCA and other Government departments have been working closely together to implement the recommendations.

  To date, 27 of the recommendations have been implemented. In particular, the Government and the Law Commission have agreed and published a joint "Vision" statement (recommendation 1) setting out how they will work together to deliver benefits for the public through law reform while maintaining the Commission's independence to report as it finds. This statement is accompanied by procedural guidance to the Commission and departmental officials that is relevant to some 15 other recommendations and incorporates several changes to previous practice in the light of the review.

  Work is currently in progress on eight further recommendations. These include:

—  recommendations 36 and 37 on appointments to the Commission on which the DCA published a consultation paper in June;

—  recommendation 3 on clarifying plans for codifying the criminal law; and

—  recommendations 10, 11, 19 and 38 which relate to the Commission's internal programme management and other systems.

  We plan to begin work later this year on recommendation 22 (system for monitoring the overall law reform programme). Work has not yet started on three other recommendations (23, 25 & 41) as these first require progress on some of those above.

9.   How will the six actions which the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Advice has identified (paragraph 3.28 of the departmental annual report) be implemented? What targets will be set and how will progress in implementation be measured?

  The table overleaf sets out the progress achieved to date. Work on a number of the actions is interlinked and the response reflects this.

Specific Action	Implementation	Milestones/Targets	Progress
1.  To improve linkages between the Department of Health (DoH) and Departments that administer disability or long-term illness related benefits;	DoH have agreed to investigate closer ways of working between two of its initiatives—PALS (Patient Advice and Liaison Service) and ICAS (Independent Complaints Advocacy Service) and other Government Departments (OGDs)	Members of the IDWG will be invited to attend a workshop in July/August 2004 at which they will discuss and agree an action plan to better join up ICAS/PALS (and other DoH provision) with the advice services of OGDs.	DCA/DoH officials met on 23 June 2004. Organising a workshop bringing practitioners together to discuss how referral and other systems can be improved was agreed. Date to be set.
2 &3.  To raise client awareness of the independent advice that is available in respect of welfare benefits and tax credits problems. To establish processes that facilitate access to advice for those with employment-related problems.	The DCA/LSC has been working in partnership with the Eastern Region of Jobcentre Plus to establish CLS Information Points in all Jobcentre Plus offices in the area.	The partnership agreement was launched at the Jobcentre Plus office in Ipswich on 11 March 2004. The roll out of this initiative will progress alongside the roll out of Jobcentre Plus itself.	Following evaluation, the LSC will take a decision in late July 2004 as to whether to extend the initiative across England and Wales
	The LSC is working with the Connexions Service to raise awareness of the CLS amongst Connexions Service Personal Advisers.	The Eastern Region of the LSC and the Connexions Service are currently piloting an initiative to award the CLS Quality Mark to local Connexions Service offices in that area.	Connexions Service Regional Directors have been informed about the launch of CLS Direct in July. A meeting is scheduled to discuss further joint working between the two organisations.
	The LSC is working with the Pension Service to CLS Quality Mark all Pension Centres and Joint Teams (joint local authority/Pension Service visiting teams that aim to reduce duplication of effort and increase levels of benefit take-up)	A phased roll out of the CLS Quality Mark to the 26 Pension Centres nationally (at the Information Point level) and all Joint Teams (at the General Help level) will take place over two years from September 2004.	A pilot that has been running in the South West will see all Pension Centres and Joint Teams in that region quality marked (at the appropriate level) by September 2004.
4.  To reduce the number of social housing rent arrears cases that are resolved in court	Debt & Housing branch (Civil Law & Justice Division) is in the process of setting up a working group that will consider measures to reduce the number of housing disputes that are resolved through the courts.	This housing project supports the DCA's commitment to Proportionate Dispute Resolution and links into the debt strand of the Consumer Strategy. It supports strategic objective 2 (PSAs 3 & 4) and strategic objective 3 (PSA 6).	DCA officials are currently drafting the terms of reference of the project. These will set out three strands of work: (i)  a consideration of a pre-action protocol for possession claims. (ii)  a consideration of the introduction of more customer friendly hearings in possession action cases (eg holding these hearings in community centres). (iii)  a Law Commission study into housing dispute resolution (this will involve an analysis of underlying problems, the identification of non-court options for resolution, and potential recommendations for legal reform in this area of law).
5 & 6.  To increase funding for the independent advice sector. To research linkages between early advice and guidance and the cost savings to society as a whole.	Funding of £9 million over three years has been secured (DCA—£6 million, DTI—£3 million) to support an evaluation of the cost benefits of appropriate and timely advice. There will be three strands to this work: (i)  a further analysis of the data collected under the Legal Services Research Centre's Periodic Needs Survey. (ii)  a nine month study following the job seeking progress of "new signers" at a broad sample of jobcentres. Individuals will be assessed on the basis of the level of advice they receive. (iii)  an in-depth evaluation of 12 super areas saturated by advice services. The findings of this research will be used to lever in additional funding for the sector in future spending rounds.	The scoping exercise will start in September 2004 and report by the end of December 2004. The completion date for the nine month jobcentre study is expected to be January 2006	A project board has been set up to oversee the evaluation. DCA officials have met with the Legal Services Research Centre (who will undertake the work) to discuss the outline research proposals. The research proposals were signed off by the project board at the end of June 2004.

---

---

---

Prepared 15 April 2008