Business Bulletin 1999-2011

Minutes of Proceedings 1999-2011

Journal of Parliamentary Proceedings Sessions 1 & 2

Committees Sessions 1, 2 & 3

Annual reports

The Committees report to the Finance Committee as follows—

1. The Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee have considered Stage 2 of the 2005-06 budget process. In doing so, the Committees had regard to (a) the spending plans for the Justice Department and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) for the three financial years to 2007-08 as outlined in the Building a Better Scotland document, (b) a SPICe briefing note dated 25 October 2004 on those plans and (c) the draft Justice and COPFS budgets for 2005-06. The Committees took oral evidence from the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice at their joint meeting on 2 November 2004¹. The Lord Advocate wrote to the Conveners prior to this meeting providing information relating to the draft COPFS budget for 2005-06. The Minister for Justice had previously issued a formal response to the Committees’ Stage 1 report.

Scottish Executive’s Response to the Committees’ Stage 1 Report

2. The Committees do not wish to propose any increase or decrease in the draft 2005-06 budget for either the Justice Department or the COPFS and are generally content with the Executive’s response to their Stage 1 report. In particular, the Committees welcome—

• the increase in the provision for offender services over the next three years;

• the fact that police grant-aided expenditure (GAE) levels make provision for accelerated recruitment of police officers over the next three years to help offset the “bulge” in retirements of officers from the service from 2009-10;

• the increase in the COPFS budget from £89.15 million in 2004-05 to £101.50 million in 2007-08 to help ensure that the service’s reform agenda can continue to be delivered;

• the introduction of a target of reducing the number of persistent offenders by 10 per cent by March 2008. The Committees look forward to receiving more information on how progress towards achieving this target will actually be measured;

• the assurance given by the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice, when giving oral evidence, that anticipated efficiency savings made by their departments will be retained by them and used to improve further the criminal justice system.

3. However, the Committees regret that the Scottish Executive has not accepted their recommendation that “tackling crime” should become a formal cross-cutting priority. The Committees hope that this recommendation will be kept in mind for the future; but, in the meantime, the Committees have found it useful to receive information from the Minister for Justice detailing expenditure for the period 2003-04 to 2005-06 across a range of Executive budgets – including Education and Communities – which she believes contribute towards tackling crime. The Committees welcome the Minister’s commitment to rolling this composite budget forward to 2007-08 so that an assessment of spending trends and plans can be made.

Revised statement of portfolio priorities, objectives and targets

4. The Committees share Professor Irvine Lapsley’s concern about the large number of Justice priorities, although they recognise that they are spread across a number of different parts of the criminal justice system. The Committees’ main concern under this heading relates to Justice Target 6 which sets as a goal a 10 per cent reduction in High Court trial adjournments by March 2008. In view of the legislation to implement the reforms recommended by Lord Bonomy, the Committees expected to see a more ambitious target. However, having pursued the matter in correspondence with the Minister for Justice, the Committees note that the target is to reduce the number of adjournments by 10 percentage points from approximately 35 per cent currently to around 25 per cent. This could represent a reduction of almost one third. The Committees look forward to receiving more information from the Executive about the baseline for this target and reports on progress towards achieving it.
   
   

5. The Committees note that the Annual Evaluation Report targets relating to (a) the reduction of serious crime and (b) the seizure of Class A drugs have been replaced in the Draft Budget by Justice targets 1 and 2 respectively. While recognising that the new targets are to be the subject of further discussion with the police service and other law enforcement agencies, the Committees would wish to see the targets made much more specific as quickly as possible so that the Parliament can track whether or not they are being achieved.

Justice portfolio’s contribution to wider cross-cutting priorities of growing the economy, closing the opportunity gap and sustainable development

6. The Committees are disappointed to note that the “closing the opportunity gap and promoting equality” section of the draft 2005-06 Justice budget makes no mention of ensuring that buildings for which the department has responsibility – particular courts and prisons – are compliant with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In their Stage 1 report, the Committees highlighted their desire that all courts should be fit for purpose, including wheelchair access. The Committees consequently welcome the Scottish Court Service strategic review of the current court estate and look forward to receiving information about the outcome of the review as soon as possible. They also believe that it is important that implications of disability discrimination legislation for the prisons estate should be considered and fully costed.

Other budgetary matters the Committees wish to draw to the attention of the Finance Committee

7. The Committees wish to draw attention to the following matters—

   7.1 Redistribution of police GAE – the Committees note the revised formula for the distribution of the bulk of the police GAE announced by the Minister for Justice on 12 October 2004. In her announcement, the Minister stated that the new model is intended to ensure that the distribution of this funding is linked much more directly to the cost of policing each force, taking into account a range of factors including the population in each area, deprivation and the demands on forces. The Committees would like to understand more clearly than they do at present the impact on individual forces of the new formula and may wish to conduct a separate inquiry on this matter. In the meantime, the Committees support the phased introduction of the new arrangements with the provision of additional GAE allocations for specific forces rather than by redistributing existing funding between forces. As the phasing-in period will extend beyond 2007-08, the Committees recognise that the Executive cannot at this stage give an assurance that additional resources will be earmarked in the next Spending Review to ensure that the phasing-in is completed, but the Committees wish to make it clear that they would see this as a priority.

   7.2 Recovery of assets financed by proceeds of crime – during his oral evidence, and subsequently confirmed in a letter to the Conveners, the Lord Advocate informed the Committees that new arrangements have been agreed for the use of recovered assets. At present they are shared equally by HM Treasury and the Executive with the latter’s share being used to fund initiatives in communities affected by drugs misuse. The Lord Advocate indicated that, with effect from 2005-06, 100 per cent of recovered assets up to a maximum of £17 million would be available to the Executive for such initiatives. The Committees were not previously aware of these new arrangements but welcome them and assume that the £17 million limit will apply to the period up to the end of 2007-08 and that a new limit will apply to each subsequent Spending Review period.

   7.3 Contingent Liabilities Disclosed in Scottish Prison Service Annual Accounts – the Committees were concerned to note the extent of the contingent liabilities disclosed in the Scottish Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts for 2003-04 of (a) £26 million arising from the Court judgement in the case of Mr Robert Napier and the possibility of other similar cases and (b) £136 million for other cases that may arise under the European convention on human rights. Whilst recognising fully that Scottish Ministers have appealed the judgement in Mr Napier’s case, that the appeal has yet to be heard and that sums on these scales may never actually be incurred by the Executive, the Committees feel that it is important that the Parliament as a whole is aware of these potential liabilities.

   7.4 Anti-Social Behaviour – the Committees welcome the transfer of responsibility for measures to tackle anti-social behaviour from the Communities to the Justice portfolio and look forward to receiving details of the impact on the Justice budget.

APPENDIX – EXTRACT FROM MINUTES

Justice 1 Committee

34th Meeting, 2004 (Session 2)

Justice 2 Committee

31st Meeting, 2004 (Session 2)

Wednesday 10 November 2004

Present:

Apologies were received from Mr Stewart Maxwell, Maureen Macmillan and Mike Pringle of the Justice 2 Committee.

Also present: Ken McKay, adviser to the Committees on the Budget process 2005-06.

The meeting opened at 10.02 am.

1. Budget process 2005-06 (in private): The Committees considered a draft report. Various changes were agreed.

The meeting closed at 10.36 am.

Alison Walker
Clerk to the Justice 1 Committee

Gillian Baxendine/Tracey Hawe
Clerks to the Justice 2 Committee

Footnotes:

¹Justice 1 Committee, 34th Meeting 2004; Justice 2 Committee, 31st Meeting 2004.