PART 2

CRACKED AND INEFFECTIVE TRIALS

  1.   Have the initiatives described on page 33 of the Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03 identified the reasons for trials cracking or being ineffective? To what extent are the causes of ineffective trials and delays the responsibility of the criminal justice system—for example, the failure to produce Pre-Sentence Reports on time?

  The monitoring scheme introduced in April 2002 has enabled the Department to identify the reasons for Cracked, Ineffective and Adjourned trials. The scheme allows court, prosecution and defence practitioners to agree reasons why cases listed for trial are vacated or do not proceed as planned on the day.

  This data is analysed locally, under the direction of the Local Criminal Justice Boards, so that local criminal justice agencies take responsibility for reducing the instances of trials not proceeding. Local Criminal Justice Boards have agreed local targets with the National Criminal Justice Board on reducing ineffective trials under the Narrowing the Justice Gap initiative. The target for the magistrates' courts is to reduce ineffective trials from the current level of 31% to 23% by March 2006. In the Crown Court the target is 17% from a current rate of 24%.

  For the trials recorded under this monitoring scheme, for the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003, 14% of the ineffective trials were attributable to failures in parts of the criminal justice system, for example, the prosecution not being ready, the absence of prosecution witnesses, lack of court time, of the defendant not being produced from custody.

DEFENDANTS

  2.   Is the paragraph headed "Performance" on page 34 of the Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03 correct? It refers to data not being available until the first quarter of 2002-03 which was a year ago? Is this data available now and has the target on duty solicitors been met?

  The information under the paragraph headed "Performance" is incorrect, for which we apologise. It appears that the relevant paragraph from the previous Departmental Report has inadvertently been copied into this year's Report. The last sample audit of duty solicitor performance that the Legal Services Commission undertook was in September 2002, when the return showed that 88% of people requesting the service of a duty solicitor received the service within 45 minutes. The LSC will continue to measure solicitors' performance against this target, either through repeat sample exercises, or through the routine collection of this information on the new audit system that the LSC is developing.

  3.   The paragraph on page 34 of the Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03 appears to repeat a similar paragraph on page 20 of Departmental Annual Report for 2001-02 which indicated that Lord Chancellor's Department was then looking for suitable new measures to add to the basket. Were these measures produced in 2002-03? If not, why not?

  No new measures have yet been added to the basket of measures that monitors the way the criminal justice system respects the rights of defendants since the 2001-02 Departmental Annual Report. The Rights of Defendants Working Group is limited to using available data that can be reliably measured and targeted. So far, very little suitable material has been identified, which is a result of the paucity of defendant-specific data in the criminal justice system.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARDS

  4.   With regard to PSA 2 (Spending Review 2000) the Department indicates on page 12 of the Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03 that local Criminal Justice Boards are to produce various targets. When will these targets be available? How much does performance currently vary between Criminal Justice Boards?

  The local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs) have the lead responsibility for delivery of their local targets, both for offenders brought to justice (OBTJ) and ineffective trial reduction.

  For OBTJ the target over the three-year period is to increase the percentage of offences brought to justice by 17% from 1.02 million offences in 2001-02 to 1.2 million by 2005-06. For 2003-04 the government has set an improvement target of 5%. This target is owned and managed through the LCJB system. Similarly, each LCJB has an ineffective trial rate target, which will bring each area within target by March 2006 (17% for the Crown Court and 23% for the Magistrates' courts). Performance figures for 2002-03 vary dramatically between the new LCJB areas. However, due to different mechanisms for capturing raw data it is not possible to compare directly Crown and Magistrates' courts figures. In terms of actual performance for the Crown Court, Dyfed Powys achieved a 7% ineffective trial rate (ITR), whereas in Cleveland the ITR was 29.4%. Similarly, in the Magistrates' courts the ITR performance varied between 13.2% in Warwickshire and 39.6% in Sussex. The LCJBs have therefore set individual reduction targets taking account of what can realistically be achieved.

GRANT ALLOCATIONS TO MAGISTRATES' COURTS COMMITTEES

  5.   How has the new Grant Allocation Formula for distributing funds to Magistrates' Courts Committees achieved better performance (page 37 of the Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03)? How much did the new system cost to design (including consultants' charges) and to implement?

  The new Grant Allocation Formula helps Magistrate's Courts improve performance in two ways. First, the formula provides data to support a move to more equitable funding between MCCs. In support of this increases in the 2003-04 budgets for MCC ranged between 3.5% and 15%, as the least well off MCCs "caught-up". Second, work to create the formula enables MCCs (for example in Greater London and Greater Manchester) to identify the relative cost of their processes and to benchmark them so that they can drive inefficiency out of their administration costs. It is too early to report on any improved performance given that the first quarter of the performance year has only just ended and data is not yet available.

  Consultants working with the Department and staff from the Magistrates' Courts Service implemented the design of the new formula. It involved mapping and agreeing the business processes of the 42 MCCs at a relatively high level. These processes were then costed using activity based costing methodology, to establish their current cost base. These activities were completed over a two-year period. The consultants' costs were:

	—  Financial year 2001-02	£555,000
	—  Financial year 2002-03	£328,000
	A total (for consultants) of	£883,000
	Software	£120,000
	One off grant to MCCs to collect initial data	£252,000
	A grand total of	£1,255,000

  The above cost does not include the cost of LCD or MCC staff who completed the tasks as part of their normal and ongoing duties.

  To put these figures into context it is worth noting that the Magistrates' Courts Service comprises some 10,000 staff and accounts for over £412 million of spending per annum.

  Implementation will be completed as part of good business and financial management processes at both the centre and in MCCs, and no additional funding is being made available.

  6.   Were mistakes made in calculating grant entitlement using the new Grant Allocation Formula for 2003-04? If so, why did this happen and what has Lord Chancellor's Department done to correct any mistakes?

  There was an error in the application of the formula to allocate grant to MCCs. Some of the items allocated outside the formula (eg for Libra computer system and Private Finance Initiative costs) were duplicated when converting 2001-02 baseline figures to 2002-03 equivalents. This adjustment error was explained in a letter to JCEs of 28 February (Annex A), which explained how the allocations were calculated.

  Ministers decided that, except for a handful of MCCs whose allocations were proportionately furthest from their "correct" position, grant amounts announced in December 2002 would stand. They decided this in recognition that MCCs would have advanced their plans in settling budgets with their committees and paying authorities. So to change all allocations at such a late stage would not be of benefit.

  Also, whilst the new formula moves towards putting MCCs in their correct relative positions for funding purposes, it is still work in progress. Work is continuing this year to develop and refine the formula in concert with the Magistrates' Courts Service.

ASYLUM APPEALS

  7.   The section on time limits for asylum appeals on pages 38-39 of Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03 appears to repeat similar paragraphs on page 24 of Departmental Annual Report for 2001-02. Can the Lord Chancellor's Department supply updated information for 2002-03? Have any results emerged from the Hatton Cross pilot? What percentage of asylum appeals went through both tiers of the Immigration Appellate Authority within 17 weeks in 2002-03?

  Updated information relating to the section for Asylum Appeals on pages 38 to 39 of the Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03 will be published by way of an erratum slip.

  The Hatton Cross pilot has been rolled out across the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) during the last year in line with the expansion project. It is a system of Adjudicators sitting in court one day and writing up determinations the next. The objective was for determinations to be produced more speedily and sent out to the appellant earlier. The pilot showed early potential benefits to Judicial working practices as well as administrative processes—for example improvements in time to first draft, typing turnaround, and time to final issue. A full benefits realisation will be completed within the next 6 months

  As the 17 week target referred to relies upon the time elapsed following receipt of appeal cases, performances for the whole of 2002-03 cannot be reported until September 2003. However, for cases received by the IAA between April to December 2002, 43% of asylum appeals were determined through both tiers of the IAA within 17 weeks. This included the 5,000 extra cases the IAA received from the Home Office in September 2002 in addition to the 4,500 expected. Excluding these 5,000 additional cases, 47% of asylum appeals received in the period April to December 2002 were determined within 17 weeks.

TRIBUNALS8.  

  When will the White Paper on the reform and modernisation of tribunals issue?

  We expect to issue the White Paper by the end of the year.

LAW COMMISSION

  9.   How many recommendations of the Law Commission are outstanding? What is the Department doing to make progress on their implementation?

  On 25 June 2003 there were 28 Law Commission Reports outstanding. Of these 12 were awaiting a decision, on all or part of the report, by its commissioning Department. 18 were awaiting implementation, of these one is being taken forward by way of a Regulatory Reform Order and 5 are included in the Criminal Justice Bill. The outstanding reports are spread over the period 1993 to 2002, with the majority of them being published in the last 5 years. The reports are owned by the DCA, ODPM, DTI and the Home Office.

  The Ministerial Committee on the Law Commission, established by the Lord Chancellor in 1999, is taking positive steps to encourage Departments to deal with the outstanding Law Commission Reports they own. The main focus of the Committee, then and now, is to determine whether a proposed project is in line with the Government's agenda, that the Commission was the right body to do the work, and that the commissioning department is committed to introduce legislation to implement the Commission's final recommendations. The Committee is proving effective—greater consideration is now given to proposals, timetables are becoming shorter and the work more focused. Projects also have an identifiable place in the commissioning department's legislative programme.

  10.   When does the Department expect to reply to the Halliday report on the Law Commission?

  The Department replied to the report on 12 May 2003 by way of written answers to both Houses. The Department said that the Lord Chancellor was pleased that the report praised the high quality of the Commission's work while making a number of recommendation aimed at further improving the effectiveness both of the Commission itself and of the overall law reform process. The Lord Chancellor also welcomed the thrust of the recommendations and said that he had asked the Ministerial Committee on the Law Commission, which is now chaired by Mr David Lammy, to oversee the action taken on the report. The Ministerial Committee is meeting in September to consider the way forward in more detail. A further announcement, if appropriate, will be made then.

ENFORCEMENT OF CIVIL JUDGEMENTS

  11.   What was the baseline figure for PSA 7 (the enforceability of civil judgements)? What targets were set for 2001-02 to 2003-04? What are the targets for 2003-04 onwards? Why was the target for 2002-03 lowered to 76p when 78.1p had been achieved in 2001-02 and, in the event, outturn for the year to December 2002 was 86.1p? What was the figure for the whole of 2002-03?

  The baseline figure for PSA 7 (the enforceability of civil judgements) was 70.6 pence in the pound.

  For the 2001-02 to 2003-04 the pence in the pound targets are:

Target	Performance
2001-02	72p	78.1p
2002-03	76p	86.4p
2003-04	80p	-
2004-05	85p	-
2005-06	85p	-

  In 2002 the target was set at 76p after a figure of 78.1p had been achieved in the previous year because it was a new target and that at the time it was set there were some concerns over data quality. It was possible that the data being collected was being distorted by the incorrect use of certain bailiff returns which could have artificially showed a better performance than was actually being achieved. Because of this, the Minister responsible agreed to the setting of the lower figure. These concerns were subsequently resolved by the introduction of additional controls and checks in the courts, giving us confidence that subsequent figures produced would be accurate.

  Regardless of the target, there is no complacency, and a policy of continuous improvement year on year has been pursued, resulting in achieving a figure of 86.4 pence in the pound for the 2002-03 financial year.

  A target of 85 pence in the pound has been set for 2004-05 and 2005-06. This will help to ensure that the current high level of performance is maintained.

  12.   In the Departmental Annual Report for 2001-02 enforcement of warrants by county court bailiffs was "76p in every £1 of correctly directed warrants" whereas in the Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03 it was "78 pence in the pound for enforceable warrants". What is the significant of the change in type of warrant used in the measure?

  Changing "correctly directed" to "enforceable" warrants is not an indication that the work being measured has changed, just that the title is more meaningful and easier to understand. Both titles refer to Warrants of Execution issued to addresses where the judgment debtor has goods or where he/she resides. Warrants issued against debtors where they have left the address are not correctly directed and are not enforceable.

  13.   Is the Lord Chancellor's Department in a position to give a firmer view on the effect of the civil justice reforms on costs (page 45 of the Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03)?

  There is evidence to show that the civil justice reforms, in particular the pre-action protocols which require the exchange of better information earlier in the process, have increased the costs in those cases which settle without the issue of court proceedings. However, this must be balanced against the decline in the number of cases where court proceedings are issued—a reduction of about 20% in claims in contract and tort. We will gather more information on the costs in litigated cases from the research into case management which is currently under-way and which is due to report in Spring 2004.

PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE

  14.   What progress are the pilots of the Public Defender Service making? Is the Lord Chancellor's Department able to report any interim findings?

  Early indicators, as shown in the first annual report on the PDS, are that the offices are working well. Clients are choosing to instruct the PDS, the offices are receiving new clients who have been recommended by existing clients, and existing clients are returning with new matters. However, it is really too early to talk in terms of "progress" as the seventh and eighth PDS offices were opened only in February 2003. With the number of offices now in operation the independent researchers will have enough solid data to enable them to monitor and evaluate the service and to compare the work of salaried public defenders and publicly funded criminal defence practitioners. They will report after the pilot finishes in May 2005. In the meantime, they are providing interim reports to the Legal Services Commission, the DCA and to Ministers.

HQ EXPENDITURE

  15.   Has Lord Chancellor's Department any efficiency targets for HQ expenditure? If not, why not?

  As part of the SR 2002 settlement, the PSA 7 target states that the Department, as a whole, will increase efficiency by at least 2% a year. PSA 7 also sets out the key levers towards delivering improved productivity and the achievement of 2% efficiencies in value terms. HQ expenditure has not been included within these key levers because, in relative terms, the efficiency gains are not significant.

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

  16.   How many cases were resolved using the Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure in 2001-02 and 2002-03? In how many of the 49 instances in which government departments or agencies used the Alternative Dispute Resolution (page 55 of Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03), were there successful outcomes arising exclusively through the use of the Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure? In how many instances since July 2002 have government departments and agencies used the Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure?

  The Lord Chancellor's Department issued a report in July 2002 on the effectiveness of the Government's pledge to use Alternative Dispute Resolution in all suitable cases. The report, for the financial year April 2001 to March 2002, noted that Alternative Dispute Resolution methods had been used or attempted in 49 cases. While we do not have any information on success rates in those 49 cases, the Treasury Solicitor's Department estimated an overall saving of legal costs of £2.5 million, through its use of ADR during that period.

  During the period April 2002 to March 2003, government departments reported that an offer of alternative dispute resolution was made in 617 cases (a 1,200% increase on the previous 12 months) and that of those offers 27% were accepted. Where an alternative dispute resolution method was used, it was successful in 85% of cases. Departments estimated £6 million savings attributable to the use of ADR.

  Progress on this scale clearly demonstrates that the pledge marks a major step on the road away from a culture of litigation, towards a culture of settlement.

FINE COLLECTION

  17.   What percentage of fines was unpaid in 2002-03? Pending parliamentary consideration of the Courts Bill, what measures has the Lord Chancellor's Department taken to meet the concerns set out by the Public Accounts Committee in their 68th report, 2001-02, Collection of Fines and Other Financial Penalties In the Criminal Justice System?

  The percentage of unpaid fines was 45% as measured against the total amount imposed in 2002-03 and the total amount collected.

  In addition to the provisions currently being debated in the Courts Bill to introduce a new fine enforcement framework, the Department has been active since the PAC reported in engaging with the Magistrates' Court Service to tackle performance improvement. You may be aware of the ministerial statement made on 25 June by Christopher Leslie MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, outlining a new approach to the collection of fines.[2]

  18.   More specifically on the Public Accounts Committee's report on fines can the Department please answer the following questions:

(a)   What have Magistrates' Courts Committees done to improve the adequacy of supporting management information systems?

  The introduction of the Libra IT system will provide the necessary management information systems on a national basis. The rollout of Libra is scheduled for completion by May 2006, with the bulk of magistrates' courts realising the benefits of the new system some six months earlier. Magistrates' courts representatives are involved and have made significant input to the development of the new system via a senior users group. As an interim measure many MCCs have made local changes to improve record keeping and enhanced their IT by purchasing warrant-tracking software.

(b)   Has the Department investigated the reasons for poor collection performance by individual magistrates' court committees and reviewed committees' plans to remedy any shortcomings? If so, which ones and what were the results?

  It has. Officials have been involved in a series of visits to the MCCs most at risk of failing to reach national target performance levels. Discussions have been held with the MCC' management teams about the reasons for their weak performance and action plans for improvement have been developed. Areas causing particular concern have been and continue to be GLMCA and Merseyside. Those MCCs between them account for around 30% of outstanding debt. Their Justices Chief Executives and MCC Chairmen were called to explain their performance position to the Minister. The Department has agreed action plans for these improvements with these MCCs. Encouragingly, their figures show signs of improvement in the last quarter.

(c)   Has the Department disseminated good practice?

  It has. The recently published Home Office research, Clearing the Debts: The Enforcement of Financial Penalties in Magistrates' Courts was made available to all MCCs in March 2003. Justices' Chief Executives were all told to revisit their bids for additional resources in light of the research recommendations, and poorly performing MCCs were instructed to include the key findings in their improvement plans. The HM Magistrates' Court Service Inspectorate advise that as a result there are clear signs that the research is being actively considered and accepted by MCCs. In addition, following the success of practitioners' conferences in Spring 2002 and publication of the NAO report, two groups were established tasked with ensuring good practice initiatives are made known to as wide an audience as possible. These were the Criminal Enforcement Policy Advisory Group (CEPAG) and the Association of Justices Chief Executives Enforcement Forum. CEPAG is for stakeholders to discuss and consider practice which impacts on a variety of CJS organisations. The Enforcement Forum is for Court level practitioners.

(d)   Has the Department reviewed the range of performance measures for Magistrates' Courts Committees' collection activities? Do they now include data on the speed with which fines are paid?

  A review of data has taken place, so that debt analysis data can now be produced which exclude the skewing effects of confiscation orders and amounts cancelled by judicial decision. Until we can track every imposition using IT (this will be available with the introduction of Libra), the speed of payment is not possible to collect.

 (e)   Are criminal penalties and civil impositions accounted for separately now?

  Currently only some MCC's IT systems can separate figures for civil from criminal. We are working with the Magistrates' Courts Service in order to resolve this difficulty which will in any event be resolved fully with the introduction of Libra.

 (f)   Do Magistrates' Courts Committees provide regular feedback to magistrates on the impact of their sentencing and enforcement decisions? If so, in what format and how often?

  MCCs are independent organisations and practice varies around the country taking account of their differing circumstances and pressures. Sharing good practice continues to be encouraged in all local MCC areas. The Association of Justices Chief Executives, Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees and the Magistrates Association are taking work forward work on this within their organisations. Following the CEPAG meeting on 3 July, the Department, in conjunction with AJCE, CCMCC and the Magistrates Association, will be preparing a draft good practice template for all involved in enforcement. Examples of good practice that we are aware of include JCEs holding regular meetings with their Bench Chairmen to discuss enforcement statistics, practice and performance locally; whilst other areas keep magistrates informed via newsletters.

 (g)   How does the Department assist judges and magistrates to keep up-to-date on the latest best practice in imposing and enforcing financial penalties?

  Training events are arranged by the Judicial Studies Board to keep Judges abreast of developments and magistrates' training is a local issue for JCEs. Recently for example, judicial training on the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) was delivered to all criminal judges covering legislation, court rules and practice directions. A training programme for magistrates' courts legal advisers (who guide the lay magistracy) on POCA has also been instituted, to assist with enforcement of confiscation orders. The Magistrates' Association has been involved in the development of the whole enforcement process, from setting the correct imposition, through preparation of the new means form to enforcement hearings, providing input on behalf of their members. They have provided explanations and clarification for flow charts stemming from the sentencing guidelines on financial penalty imposition. The Magistrates Association, the MCC and ACJE (the latter two are together accountable for the management of Magistrates' Courts) are members of CEPAG—the group tasked with identifying and disseminating good practice.

 (h)   Has the Department and Magistrates' Court Committees reviewed the arrangements for obtaining information on an offender's means, to improve the quality and reliability of information available to the courts before sentence is passed? If so, what are the new arrangements?

  A provision is included in the Courts Bill which puts the onus on the defendant to declare what his income and expenditure are, so that courts can match the fine to the offender's ability to pay. If he fails to provide this information, the court will be able to make assumptions about the offenders' ability to pay and fine accordingly. It will also be an offence knowingly or recklessly to make a false statement of means to a fines officer, or knowingly to fail to disclose any material fact. The penalty is a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale (currently £2,500). Amendments to be introduced at Commons Committee Stage will create a new offence which will supplement these measures and will penalise offenders who, without good reason fail to provide information about their income and expenditure. The penalty for not providing means information will be a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale (currently £500). This will also apply if the offender fails to provide sufficient details of employment or benefits for the purpose of making an attachment of earnings or deduction from benefits order. The new fine will be consolidated with the fine for the original offence. The new draft standard means form being developed by HM Magistrates' Court Service Inspectorate is in the process of further revision following comments from practitioners. Once agreed and introduced later this year the Inspectorate will expect to see it in use in all MCCs.

 (i)   Has the Department disseminated the results of the Home Office study into the effectiveness of different enforcement techniques to all magistrates and magistrates' court staff?

  Yes, on 14 March 2003, when the full report was published, although all MCCs had seen a summary of the findings the previous April.

 (j)   Has the Department reviewed the outcome of its recently commissioned (in 2002) study of defaulters, and the implications for financial penalties as an effective punishment? What conclusions did the Department reach?

  The Can't Pay or Won't Pay? A review of creditor and debtor approaches to the non-payment of bills research report was published in March 2003 and focused largely on civil debt. However, some of its points are being taken on board via the provision of debt advice. The new measures in the Courts Bill are designed to ensure there are strong incentives for the offender to stay in contact with the court during the "lifetime" of the fine, making it easier for the court to trace an offender in the event of default. In parallel with the legislative programme we are developing a network of support and advice, to be piloted alongside the measures in the Courts Bill for those who need help in organising their payments or who are genuinely struggling with multiple debts.

 (k)   With which other government agencies has the Lord Chancellor's Department reached agreements to allow courts to request information such as defaulters' addresses? What arrangements are currently in operation?

  The key area the Department has focused on in information sharing has been the link with the Department for Work and Pensions. We wanted to be sure that the system, drawing as it does on the central database considered most useful to the work of enforcement teams, had sufficiently flexible and effective arrangements in place to meet the MCCs requirements. This information sharing scheme has proved very useful. In the first two years of operation MCCs made over 425,000 requests for additional information to DWP; 55% resulted in new or different information for enforcement teams to follow up. Our next priority is to pilot access to the Police National Computer in Staffordshire MCC. The MCC is ready to go forward; the pilot will commence as soon as the police's concerns over security and access have been ironed out. The next government agency on our list for priority consideration is DVLA. We are aware that the courts have concerns about the reliability of some of the data held by DVLA. We will therefore be working with DVLA over the summer to look at the practicalities and identify the scope for establishing an effective data-sharing project with them. The possibility of exchanging enforcement related information with the Inland Revenue has been considered but is not a priority at this stage. Out of a total employee population of 30 million people, only four million (those included in the Self assessment regime) have regular contact with the Inland Revenue. The remaining 26 million do not receive an annual tax return, nor do they receive an annual notification of any code number change. In essence, this means that there is no guarantee that the address held on the system is correct and the limited number of private addresses held by the Inland Revenue means that this is of reduced priority.

(l)   How has the Lord Chancellor's Department encouraged Magistrates' Courts Committees to use all appropriate sources of potential information on the whereabouts of defaulters, including knowledge from within local communities?

  We have continued to encourage this good practice via the AJCE Enforcement Forum, as we know that early and accurate details are key to effective enforcement.

(m)   Have Magistrates' Courts Committees increased delegation of enforcement responsibilities to administrative staff?

  MCCs are locally managed and it is for JCEs to decide what levels of delegation are appropriate within their particular approach to fine enforcement. Some JCEs actively encourage administrative staff to take up appropriate levels of delegated responsibility pending the measures for Fines Officers covered in the Courts Bill. The fines collection scheme in the Bill is based on the principle that the enforcement of court orders is primarily an administrative process and there is no need for magistrates to deal with every stage in a case. The Fines Officers will have discretion to vary payment terms, but only on application by the offender (who will be expected to provide supporting evidence of any change in their circumstances), and will be able to impose increasingly severe sanctions on defaulters who refuse to co-operate, without the need for further court hearings.

(n)   Have measures been taken to limit a defaulters' ability to obtain credit by registering unpaid fines with the registry of judgment?

  The Courts Bill allows the Court and fines officers the power to register a fine in the new combined register of judgements and fines (thereby potentially affecting the defaulter's credit rating), in the event of continued default.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

  19.   Page 58 of the Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03 states that "while the European Union has established a system to facilitate the provision of legal services across the 15 member states, we remain alert to need to guard against any threat to that system". What threats have there been and what threats is the Lord Chancellor's Department preparing to meet?

  Despite earlier judgments of the European Court of Justice on 26 September 2002 and 10 December 2002 respectively, France and Ireland continue to be in breach of their obligations to implement the provisions of the Lawyers' Establishment Directive 98/5/EC. France now faces further action, as announced by the European Commission on 7 April 2003, and we anticipate similar steps against Ireland should they continue to be in breach. We will be keeping a close watch on developments in both.

  The Department has also been considering the implications, if any, of a European Commission proposal to simplify the current system of mutual recognition of professional qualifications. The proposal seeks to consolidate various sectoral mutual recognition directives into one horizontal text.

  The proposal does not impact on the cross-border provision of services by lawyers on either a temporary or established basis which, as explicitly recognised in the current draft, continue to be governed by the Services and Establishment Directives, 77/249/EEC and 98/5/EC respectively.

  The proposal does suggest that if an applicant wishes to requalify as a legal professional in another Member State, he or she should be able to choose between sitting an aptitude test or undergoing an adaptation period of up to three years. The length of the adaptation period is to be determined by individual Member States.

  Given that the Establishment Directive provides for requalification following 3 years of effective and continuous practice in the host country, we suggest that it would be inconsistent to provide for a shorter period in the implementation of the proposal if, indeed, it is adopted.

  We are not currently aware of any other threats to the system established by Services and Establishment Directives but will be working to ensure that these are fully extended to the accession countries as they join the European Union.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

  20.   Is there an SDA target on domestic violence? If not, why not?

  Currently there is no DCA target on domestic violence. Measuring domestic violence is complex. There is no actual crime of domestic violence: rather perpetrators are charged with assault, grievous bodily harm etc. This and huge under reporting, has made collating accurate statistics on domestic violence difficult. Domestic violence is, therefore, one of those crimes where we want to see the recorded crime figures rising. But increased reporting would not provide any reliable data about the prevalence of domestic violence or in trends. What we need to measure is the effectiveness of our domestic violence strategy in terms of delivering improved outcomes for those experiencing violence. We are looking to develop a set of performance indicators in this area, cutting across departmental boundaries, to help us assess the effectiveness of our strategy as a whole.

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

  21.   What progress has been made in developing a more diverse judiciary?

  There have been a number of improvements in the judicial appointments systems during the past few years, with a view to ensuring equality of opportunity and encouraging a more diverse judiciary, including; the creation of the Commission for Judicial Appointments to audit the procedures and deal with complaints; a pilot assessment centre to assess candidates in a range of ways rather than interview alone; abolishing the system of appointments to the High Court bench by invitation only; removing lower and upper age limits for most appointments; introducing salaried part-time appointment; involving judicial and lay members in more aspects of the selection process; confirming that advocacy experience is not a prerequisite for judicial appointment; appraisal and mentoring schemes for fee paid part-time judges; setting up a work shadowing scheme for prospective applicants; raising awareness of the appointments process and encouraging applications at events, on the DCA website and on video; publishing the Judicial Appointments Annual Report since 1999; researching factors that affect (especially) women and ethnic minority lawyers in deciding whether to apply to be judges; opening opportunities to become Recorders to blind people and; introducing part-time sitting in concentrated "blocks" to help those who have had career breaks for family or other reasons.

  Between 1998-99 and 2001-02 the proportion of women and ethnic minority judicial appointments made (including lay tribunal appointments) increased from 23.5% to 34.4% and 5.4% to 7.8% respectively.

  593 lawyers were appointed as judges and tribunal members in 2001-02. The average length of their legal experience was 22 years. 31.7% of those appointed were women. 6.4% of those appointed were of minority ethnic origin. A comparison can be made between these figures and what we know about the make up of the legal profession. Of barristers and solicitors between 10-29 years experience—23% and 25% respectively are women; for ethnic minority practitioners the figures are 7% and 3.6% respectively.

  The attached table shows the increases in the proportion of women and minority ethnic judges since April 2001.

INCREASES IN PROPORTION OF WOMEN AND MINORITY ETHNIC JUDGES SINCE APRIL 2001

	April 2001				June 2003
	Total	Female (%)	Ethnic minority (%)	Total	Female (%)	Ethnic minority (%)
Lords of Appeal in Ordinary	12	0	0	12	0	0
Heads of Divisions (excl LC)	4	1  (25)	0	4	1  (25)	0
Lord Justices of Appeal	35	2  (5.7)	0	36	3  (8.3)	0
High Court Judges	105	8  (7.6)	0	107	6  (5.6)	0
Circuit Judges (Incl T and C court)	569	44  (7.7)	6  (1.1)	611	59  (9.6)	7  (1.1)
Recorder	1,361	164  (12.1)	37  (2.7)	1,377	175  (12.7)	46  (3.3)
DJ Civil (incl PRFD*)	419	67  (16)	8  (1.9)	421	79  (18.7)	12  (2.8)
DDJ civil(incl PRFD)	761	150  (19.7)	12  (1.6)	785	160  (20.3)	14  (1.7)
DJ Mags	98	16  (16.3)	2  (2)	105	22  (20.9)	3  (2.8)
DDJ Mags	166	33  (19.9)	10  (6)	177	39  (22.0)	11  (6)
TOTAL %	3,530	485  (13.7)	75  (2.12)	3,636	544  (14.9)	93  (2.44)
* Principal Registry of the Family Division

  22.   Is the evaluation from the pilot assessment centres available (page 73 of Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03)?

  An internal evaluation report was sent to the Lord Chancellor on 4 April 2003. The results were positive and the Lord Chancellor has agreed, subject to available funding, that all future Deputy District Judge competitions should be run as assessment centres.

  Assessment centres are expensive. Any decisions to roll assessment centres out to other competitions will be dependent on the outcome of the Corporate Audit and funds being available.

  23.   Page 73 of the Departmental Annual Report for 2002-03 states that "we are meeting the demand for judiciary to sit in most courts and tribunals". Where and to what extent is there a shortfall?

  For vacancies arising during 2002-03 the figures are as follows:

—  Courts: 93.7% of vacancies were filled on completed competitions. The shortfall arose in the Deputy District Judge competition where 42 out of 48 vacancies were filled.

—  Tribunals: There was an 82.8% success rate against target on completed competitions. This was mainly due to a lack of applications.

—  Lay Magistrates: 94.7%. (1,489 vacancies, of which 1,410 were filled). Most Advisory Committees were able to fill all of their vacancies. In a few areas there were not enough suitable candidates.

  The table below shows those Area Advisory Committees where there was a shortfall in filling vacancies. There is also a list where, for that year, more appointments of suitable candidates were made than required.

Advisory Committee	Vacancies	Number appointed	Shortfall
Berkshire	34	33	1
Calderdale	10	7	3
Cambridgeshire	56	54	2
Devon-Plymouth city	33	25	8
Gateshead	17	12	5
Gwynedd	32	27	5
Hampshire	11	9	2
Hereford and Worcester	28	23	5
Hertfordshire	20	18	2
Keighley	28	26	2
Leeds	12	8	4
Leicestershire	14	12	2
Middlesex	80	58	22
Staffordshire	15	11	4
Sunderland	15	9	6
Surrey	12	8	4
Walsall	20	16	4
Warley	10	5	5
West Sussex	25	18	7
Advisory Committee	Vacancies	Number appointed	Surplus
Bradford	19	23	4
Clwyd	34	35	1
Norfolk	11	12	1
Somerset	8	14	6
West Bromwich	12	14	2

  24.   What is the size of the problem which the Lord Chancellor's Department faces in filling vacancies for medical members of the Mental Health Review Tribunals? What is the consequence of this shortfall? How confident is the Department that it will be able successfully to address the problem, and on what timescale does it expect to do so?

  There is currently a shortfall of consultant psychiatrists in post in the NHS running nationally at between 12% to 15%. Our survey of those in the profession eligible for tribunal work in 2002 showed that the time commitment for Tribunal work was then the main inhibiting factor in applying for Tribunal membership, followed by the level of fee available for Tribunal work compared with other court work, notably as an expert witness.

  Following evidence from this survey we:

—  Have moved away from general advertisements to targeted individual letters to all those eligible for membership. Between 2001 and 2003 this produced a four fold increase in applicants over previous years. In the 2000-01 recruitment round, applicants numbered 21, in 2001-02 this rose to 93 and in the current round (not yet concluded), there are 60 applicants to date.

—  Have initiated a survey of current medical members to ascertain whether, and under what circumstances, they are able to provide additional sittings.

—  Are discussing with the Department of Health more refined techniques for predicting vacancy levels.

—  Have started to reconsider the terms and conditions of medical members' appointment, notably current eligibility criteria and the present minimum sitting level of 15 days, to see if any amendment to these would provide additional scope for attracting new applicants.

  We anticipate that these initiatives, taken together, will continue to make substantial inroads into ensuring that this tribunal is able to meet its demand for suitably qualified panel members. While the shortfall of medical members will continue to limit the MHRTs ability to set up all the panels to hear appeals by patients within its preferred time scale, the recent increases in membership do now allow the Tribunal to meet all the statutory time limits set for its key hearings, in line with the current workload. We continue to discuss with the MHRT what more if anything can be done to secure this position and to address residual problems.

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

  25.   What progress has been made in amending the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights "to make it more suitable for legal status"? Has the Department been successful in ensuring that it is in such a form that the Government is content for it to be incorporated into the Community treaties?

  Substantial amendments have been made to Title VII of the Charter (now entitled "General Provisions Governing the Interpretation and Application of the Charter"). These amendments:

(a)

further clarify that the Charter does not affect the Union's powers and tasks,

(b)

require rights resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States to be interpreted in harmony with those traditions,

(c)

clarify that the Charter contains principles as well as rights and that such principles become significant for the Courts only when acts implementing the principles are interpreted or reviewed, and

(d)

require full account to be taken of national laws and practices.

  Very significant changes have also been made to the contents and to the status of the technical Explanations, which address the legal bases for the Charter's provisions. The Explanations are now referred to in the draft Constitution as requiring the attention of the Courts (they were formerly presented as having no legal value); and they are being updated and enriched in the light of the amendments made to Title VII.

  The Government will reach a final decision about incorporation of the Charter in the context of the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference

ELECTORAL POLICY

  26.   Have the electoral modernisation pilots been evaluated? What findings and conclusions have been reached?

  The ODPM has policy responsibility for the local election pilots. Responsibility for the evaluation of the pilots sits with the independent Electoral Commission. The Commission are not due to publish their strategic evaluation report into the 2003 pilots until 31 July. However, initial indications are that the pilots went well. They appear to have benefited a large number of voters for whom new methods of voting are much more convenient, and to have moved the Government closer to its goal of holding a multi-channelled, e-enabled General Election some time after 2006.

  Evaluation of the 2002 pilot programme concluded that:

"the May 2002 pilots successfully widened the choice of voting method available to those interested in participating in the election and secured significant increases in turnout in some pilot areas; the process was generally well managed by the local authorities and there were no significant technical problems. Although there were concerns in some areas about possible increased risk of fraud, the Commission has identified no evidence that these fears were realised in practice". (Page 4 of Electoral Commission review Modernising Elections: a strategic evaluation of the 2002 electoral pilot schemes, August 2002.)

Department for Constitutional Affairs

July 2003

GRANT ALLOCATIONS

  In my letter of 19 December 2002 (212 of 2002), I said we would provide an explanation of the allocation process for 2003-04 and how your individual allocations had been calculated. In the course of working through that, I am sorry to say that we have discovered a mistake in one of the steps used in calculating the allocations. This affects the majority of allocations. Annex 1 (not printed) to this letter sets out the correct figures and indicates the percentage change. However the Minister has decided that, except for the handful of MCC whose allocations are proportionately furthest away from their correct position, the allocations announced in December should stand. Even with these outliers, she proposes only a very limited correction. She has decided this recognising that you are already far advanced in settling your plans and budgets with your committees and paying authorities. For the sake of stability and certainty, she does not want you to have to unpick all that. I am in touch with the areas whose allocations will be affected. A revised spreadsheet will be issued in due course.

  I can only offer my apologies for this mistake; I recognise it will be a disappointment for those whose correct allocation would be greater than they had been notified. Although I should say that so far, only two MCCs have asked for more money beyond the notified allocation, we will be prepared to give sympathetic consideration to evidence of serious additional pressures on the budgets of those MCCs who should have received more.

  The mistake itself was in counting fixed cost items such as Libra twice over in converting baseline figures for 2001-02 to their 2002-03 equivalents. This is explained further in the step by step explanation of the calculation process which is set out at Annex 2 (not printed) to this letter. The general explanation is followed (as appendices B, B(i), B(ii) and C), by Appendix A, a work book in which you will find the corresponding calculations for every MCC.

  I should draw your attention to a number of specific points on the allocation as follows.

ENFORCEMENT

  The baseline cost of enforcement is included within the general grant allocation, ring-fenced at the same baseline cost as for 2002-03. The Project Team investigated the possibility of linking enforcement related triggers (breach, means enquiry, collect payment, enforce penalty) with the 2003-04 netting off business cases, but variations in the way MCCs have interpreted the netting off definition of enforcement costs made this impractical. During the next phase of the project we will work on using the enforcement triggers to allocate enforcement related funding in the following year. Both the baseline and additional allocations are ring-fenced for exclusive use on enforcement.

  The additional costs of enforcement, funded from netted off fine income, have been allocated outside the mechanism. These are shown in the spreadsheet attached to my letter of 19 December in two columns, one the additional sum from 2002-03 business cases less start-up costs, the other the 2003-04 additional requirement. Since my letter of 19 December, various MCCs have either surrendered or requested additional netted-off funding for 2002-03. This in turn has increased or decreased the 2002-03 additional sum allocated in 2003-04. Annex 3 shows the amended figures. The 2003-04 additional allocation has also been amended to exclude capital for 2001-02 to their 2002-03 equivalents. This is explained further in the step by step explanation separate column.

  A further column has been included to show variations from the 2002-03 baseline for which MCCs require funding in 2003-04. For this two year netting-off pilot scheme we are unable to adjust the baseline enforcement cost—this must stay as at 2002-03. Baseline variations have therefore been treated as additional requirements for which we require justification. We are currently in the process of re-visiting enforcement netting off business cases as part of our work on Performance Contracts and will be contacting MCCs where justification for increased baseline costs has not been provided. The 2003-04 additional enforcement allocation and baseline variations must therefore be treated as provisional at the present time. Frank O'Connor will be writing to MCCs at the beginning of March to confirm allocations.

LIBRA

  Libra funding has been based on figures which Fujitsu are billing MCCs in 2003-04, not the current year as my letter stated on the 19 of December.

CJS RESERVE

  Annex 3 (not printed) now shows all the ring-fenced elements from the CJS reserve at 100%, for ease of monitoring. This does not change your general grant figure, simply the ring-fenced amount.

FUTURE WORK

  I take this opportunity to ask for your views on matters which you think should be covered by the next phase of the project so that we can consider whether to include them. The main areas of work that we currently expect to be considering in the new phase of the project are:

—  establishing the data items required, including the necessary IT support where feasible;

—  analysis of support and building costs;

—  exploring with the service how the work on benchmarking and establishing best practice will be carried forward;

—  further analysis of individual items that have been identified as needing closer attention in the review e.g. enforcement (see above) and PFI costs.

Michael Kron

Resources and Planning Division

The Court Service

February 2003