1 Strengthening accountability
1. Financial management in the Ministry of Justice
(the Ministry) has been poor from the outset.[2]
The Ministry told us that, at the time of the machinery of Government
changes in 2007, no thought had been given to financial management
systems but that, since then, senior management in the Ministry
had tried to strengthen the organisation's very weak financial
culture.[3]
2. In recent months, the Ministry has launched initiatives
designed to address the shortcomings in its financial management.
While much of this activity is work in progress, the general direction
of travel is right and the Ministry is to be congratulated on
its improvements so far. [4]
There is more to do but the Ministry expects to deliver further
improvement. The Ministry made a commitment to give this Committee
and the National Audit Office a report in a year's time on its
progress on strengthening the whole structure of financial control.[5]
In light of the acceleration in the improvements that has already
taken place, we expect the Ministry to be able to demonstrate
a transformation in its financial management.[6]
3. The accountability of its 53 arm's length bodies
(some 350 organisations including sub-bodies) was a matter of
concern for the Ministry. Two
of these bodies (the National Offender Management Service and
HM Courts Service) were executive agencies and most of the rest
were Non-Departmental Public Bodies. The Ministry's sponsorship
and policy units engaged with arm's length bodies and the Ministry
told us it was satisfied with its ability to oversee the activities
of its executive agencies. It gave the example of HM Courts Service,
where there had been a lack of clarity over the accountability
of the Chief Executive and the role of the Board; in advance of
the merger of HM Courts Service with the Tribunal Service in April
2011, the Ministry has put in place a new framework document clarifying
the accountability of the Chief Executive to the Ministry's Accounting
Officer on financial matters, and to the Lord Chief Justice as
a partner.[7]
4. On its management of NonDepartmental
Public Bodies, the Ministry told us it considered that there was
a mismatch between the Ministry's accountability for these bodies
and the extent to which it felt it was able to exercise effective
oversight. There were important lessons to be learned.[8]
Until recently, the Ministry had not had the systems in place
to require bodies to notify it of emerging problems.[9]
It had not, for example, received copies of management letters
and senior management had not always received feedback from audit
committees.[10] The Ministry
played no part in selecting arm's length bodies' chief executives
and management teams.[11]
It felt it did not have appropriate levers to enable it to intervene
if things went wrong and yet it had not always used its framework
agreements to best effect to specify its information requirements.
The Ministry told us it had recently changed the accountability
relationship with the Legal Services Commission by mutual consent
to mimic the arrangements it had with its executive agencies.[12]
2 Q 1 Back
3
Q 3 Back
4
Q 67 Back
5
Qq 14 and 43 Back
6
Q 17 Back
7
Q 72 Back
8
Q 73 Back
9
Q 84 Back
10
Q 74 Back
11
Q 79 Back
12
Qq 82, 83 and 85 Back
|
