Structural reform of enforcement Background Performance

Structural reform of enforcement

Background • Performance reviews Ministry of Justice NAOE • Reform of the administration of justice 2013 -2025 • Framework decisions on central government finances – Total savings target of over EUR 40 million for the Ministry of Justice's administrative branch

Content of structural reform • Economic viability and productivity will be increased without eroding due process. Enforcement organisation, procedures, legislation, structure of public posts, job descriptions and the payment system will be reassessed. All employees will be involved in the execution of enforcement cases. Electronic customer services and processing will be increased.

Proposals with possible effects on enforcement • Centralising summary civil cases by transferring them to the enforcement authority or to a maximum of three district courts (medium term, major savings) • Simplifying debt restructuring (short term, minor savings) • Investigating the possibility of government provision of financial and debt advice in conjunction with enforcement or legal aid (medium term, major cost increase)

Structural reform management group • Appointed on 16 May 2013 • Duties include: Investigating areas of and development alternatives for structural reform Proposing working groups Steering working groups Proposing development alternatives for piloting Complying with the Government Programme, framework decisions and Ministry guidance – Obtaining the required information, for example by consulting specialists – – – • Participants: NAOE, Ministry of Justice, Finnish Tax Administration, university, Local Enforcement Offices, NGOs

Other working groups • • • Organisation working group Enforcement procedure working group IT working group Bill-drafting working group Administration working group Collective agreement matters

Enforcement procedure • General procedural developments – – – – Improved access to information More electronic procedures Requirement for standardised procedure Less need to meet face-to-face with debtors Less field work Procedures becoming more judicial Procedures involving increasingly fragmented investigations: limited enforcement, normal enforcement, challenging debt collection, special debt collection

Questions about enforcement procedure • Development of information systems and electronic procedures • Centralisation – decentralisation/factory or workshop/national operations * Recording, accounting, payments, customer service, debt collection (limited debt collection by offices), specialisations * Geography or network? • Specialisations – broad range of professional skills • Local knowledge – distance

Enforcement organisation • Number of enforcement districts • Number of offices • Position of NAOE * in relation to the Ministry * in relation to Local Enforcement Offices

NAOE opinion for the Ministry of Justice • Reform objectives: – – Quality of due process Efficient enforcement procedures Economic viability and productivity Good service ability of the enforcement authority • Creating attractive specialist and leadership positions with a high level of professional expertise and job satisfaction • Significant savings can only come from employee costs

NAOE opinion issued to the Ministry of Justice. . . • Enforcement tasks to be defined without delay • Legislation to be simplified and clarified • Due process and legal certainty to be guaranteed by developing standardisation and employees' professional skills, including within appeal authorities

NAOE opinion issued to the Ministry of Justice. . . • More electronic customer services – Online services for the involved parties and the general public – Automated enforcement measures – Asset investigations • Defining production lines and the use of employees – Limited enforcement, "normal" enforcement, challenging enforcement, special enforcement or centralised enforcement – local enforcement – Administrative employees in enforcement operations, specialisations

NAOE opinion issued to the Ministry of Justice. . . • Centralising casework and functions – Centralising generates savings, improves the level of professional expertise and increases standardisation – Centralisation does not have to mean a single geographic location – Tasks should be assigned to the local offices when requirements include face-to-face meetings with debtors, certain measures or local investigation – Definition of and need for limited enforcement should be considered

NAOE opinion for the Ministry of Justice. . . • Services – Focusing on electronic customer services and the telephone service – Customer service centres with a call exchange, helpline, electronic customer services and document ordering services – Opportunities for face-to-face meetings and hearings should be safeguarded

NAOE opinion for the Ministry of Justice. . . • Organisational development – A single authority model should be considered • Increasing standardisation, easier to balance workload • Clarifying the processing order, reporting relationships within operations, and relationships between regional operations and centralised tasks • Taking account of the judicial nature of operations • Position of the National Administrative Office for Enforcement should be reviewed

Premise for reviewing and planning • Key function, objective, methods, effectiveness and values of enforcement • Review assignment: deciding which changes should or should not be executed • Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats • Realised anticipated changes in the operating environment • Experiences of other administrative branches • "How would we do this in my business? “ • Alternatives to reforms