I was very disappointed to read last week's article, 'Vulnerable children at risk' (see [2008] Gazette, 24 January, 6), which contained inaccuracies and gave a misleading impression about the open and fair consultation my department is undertaking.


First, the 'done deal' point, as Graham Cole describes it. To suggest that the consultation process is anything other than fully transparent is just plain wrong. Nor is it true that any proposals will be implemented on 1 April. The consultation closes on 11 March and all responses will be considered carefully before any decision is made about the next steps.



Second, I would like to discuss the cross-government spending settlement. Last year's comprehensive spending review (CSR) paid explicit regard to the current proposals, which were specifically identified as a pressure falling on local authorities. The Treasury, in setting overall spending plans, took this into account, and the Local Government Finance Settlement now provides for a global increase in funding of £8.9 billion over the next three years. For authorities generally, this is an annual average increase in the government grant of 1.5% in real terms.



The average for those authorities with social care responsibilities will be higher, since we agree with the Local Government Association that this is where the pressures are greatest. Authorities have received significant investment through specific grants, such as the extra £520 million to introduce personal care budgets, improve services, and transform the way in which support is provided.



This settlement provides a fair deal for authorities, particularly when coupled with the scope for further efficiency gains where authorities, like the rest of the public sector, are expected to generate gains of 3% a year, which should provide a further £4.9 billion by 2011.



Mr Cole suggested that finance managers have not been able to find any extra provision for increased court fees in their allocations. The government has added this funding into local authorities' general grant. But we do not want to dictate all their spending priorities, so the settlement now provides greater flexibility. We have been able to move £5.6 billion of resources into grants that are not ring-fenced over the CSR07 period. This means, of course, that we cannot hypothecate funding to services or particular pressures. And there will now be a greater responsibility on individual finance managers. But I am certain that most would welcome the opportunities afforded by increased flexibility.



My colleagues and I at the Ministry of Justice are working with local authorities to ensure it is understood clearly that the additional pressure has been reflected in spending settlements; and built into allocated public spending totals with effect from April 2008. The introduction of the proposals need not and should not have any impact on local authorities fulfilling their statutory duty to protect children at risk.



Finally, it is important to put right the inaccuracies on fee levels. There is no proposal to introduce a single £4,000 fee for issuing care proceedings. As things stand, the total average cost of the court system for each of these cases is more than £4,000. The consultation paper sets out options for how court fees could be structured appropriately to the stages of a care proceedings process.



Currently, the initial fee for issuing care proceedings, which is not £175 but £150, is just the first stage. Other fees, which vary, can be charged during or after proceedings (for example, to renew an interim care order or vary a final order).



Bridget Prentice MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice