Conclusion 15

We asked the witnesses what they were going to do to address a range of inefficiencies in family court processes identified by the NAO. For example, poor quality information input by applicants was causing rework and delays, although there was no collective understanding of how often this occurs. The NAO also identified that administrative processes resulted in multiple errors, duplication or unnecessary effort, and difficulty in making simple fixes. A lack of confirmed quality requirements were also leading to variation in the quality of information.25 HMCTS acknowledged that it could be more efficient and more productive across the system. It told us that the administration of public law cases has become more efficient through digitisation in recent years, reducing time spent by court staff preparing a case for a hearing from 25 hours to five hours. It also told 22 Qq 59-61 23 Qq 14-16, 22-28 24 Qq 63-64; C&AG’s Report, para 11 25 Q 40; C&AG’s Report, para 3.6 12 us that 98% of local authorities now upload documents digitally, reporting that this gives them a 50% efficiency saving. HMCTS told us that it is piloting similar systems for private law, which is a much bigger number of cases. It is finding digitising the system hard but as it rolls out the new system over the next year it expects a big productivity gain.26