Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee (Joint Meeting), 04 Apr 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 4, 2001

Official Report 86KB pdf

---

Budget Process 2002-03

Item 2 on the agenda is the budget process. I will not rehearse in detail the background of how we got here, as I am sure that members are familiar with that. The Parliamentary Bureau agreed that the Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee may meet jointly, which is why members of both committees are here today.

Members have before them a paper that is numbered differently, depending on whether they are a member of the Justice 1 Committee or of the Justice 2 Committee, but the content is identical. The paper sets out the various stages and timetable of the budget process, and gives members an idea of what the committees' commitments will be.

The paper suggests two ways of approaching the budget process. The first is to focus on two or three areas into which it may be appropriate to dig a little deeper, while the second is to take an overall view of the budget. Members may also wish to consider whether the timetable is appropriate.

Do members have comments or questions?

The Justice and Home Affairs Committee dealt with the budget process last year, and I am trying to recall whether we had any options. I think that we considered the budget overall and then picked certain areas that we felt required further scrutiny. I do not think that we took an either/or approach, and I would like further guidance on that point. Perhaps Scott Barrie can remind me what we did last year.

I think that we took an overall view of the budget and then focused on certain issues, given the evidence that we heard and the reservations that some committee members had about the presentation of the figures.

If we are to go through the process properly, we should take an overall view of the budget, but we are likely to focus on specific issues that members have raised during the year and that they will probably wish to continue to raise. I do not think that we should exclude either approach at this stage.

Do any members have different views?

No.

Christine Grahame was right to point out that last year the Justice and Home Affairs Committee examined the whole budget and then scrutinised areas of interest to members.

Our approach evolved as we were considering the budget.

Members are content with the approach of taking an overall view of the budget, which is agreed.

I advise members that the annual expenditure report was published on 30 March. The clerk has a copy, so members can see what it looks like.

It will be our Easter reading.

We had some difficulty last year, as we did not receive the document in time. However, we have received it in time this year, which gives members a chance to have a quick—or more detailed—read through it before we meet again.

There can be no excuses this year.

We had an excuse last year, but not this year.

Are there further comments about the timetable, which is outlined in the paper on the budget process?

I suspect that we will be told to meet the time scale—that is that. Other committees are also considering the budget and the Executive has a deadline.

The paper proposes that the committees should take evidence

"from the Executive Officials and Non-executive witnesses"

at one meeting, which might be quite a lot of evidence to narrow down to one meeting.

When we have considered the budget, we might decide to take more evidence from non-Executive witnesses. I do not think that we took much evidence from such witnesses last year. I would be concerned if we were to have only one meeting in which to take that evidence.

I think that having only one meeting in which to take evidence from the Minister for Justice is enough. The way in which I presented that thought sounded a little rude—and I do not want to appear rude—but my view is that one such meeting would probably be sufficient.

The proposed evidence-taking sessions are in the right order—[Interruption.] Someone's mobile phone is ringing. They cannot have been present for your warning, convener.

Is that your phone, Phil?

I do not think so, as my phone was set on charge—[Interruption.] I am sorry, convener—it was my phone. I could not think of anything else to do to disrupt the meeting.

As I was saying, the sessions are in the right order to enable us to put points to the Minister for Justice. However, I would like to slot in another evidence-taking session, in case we need to take further evidence from non-Executive witnesses. That would give us more time, rather than tying us to the proposed timetable.

We want to be serious about considering the budget overall and then going into one or two issues in depth, but that timetable will not allow us to do that.

Further to Christine Grahame's comments, would we be able to timetable another slot to take more evidence from non-Executive witnesses? I am reaching for my diary to see how that could be done.

Is it the view of members that we should consider the possibility of having an extra evidence-taking session?

Members indicated agreement.

Early on—particularly if we appoint an adviser—we will try to get an idea of the issues that we want to consider in more detail. That approach would give us advance warning, should a further meeting be required. We will consider the options behind that approach.

I have considered the categories in the budget document, and already I wish to highlight various areas for further examination. It would be desirable for us to pull in comments from other people on, for example, the Scottish Prison Service or the Scottish Court Service. It is inevitable that we will want to talk about the police, although that service is also covered, to a degree, by the Local Government Committee, which will consider local government allowances. I certainly want to speak to people about the SPS or the SCS, but given the time scale that has been laid down, I suspect that we will have no opportunity to do so.

Owing to the time scale, we will have to focus on exactly what it is we want to do. We do not have time to browse before picking up three or four areas that interest us. In the short time scale that we have, we are going to have to be specific about what we want to do and what witnesses we want to invite. People will be invited as specific and not general witnesses.

We also have to give notice to witnesses, so that we can ensure their availability.

All that we can do now is to pre-empt the areas that the committee wants to consider, perhaps including some that were mentioned by Phil Gallie. I agree with Maureen Macmillan that we have enough expertise on the Justice 1 Committee and on the Justice 2 Committee for us now to be able to be quite focused on the budget process. Members should try to do a wee bit of work on the budget process beforehand, so that they can focus on the areas that they want to pursue. That will allow us to see if there is common agreement on which witnesses we should call, particularly in the case of non-Executive witnesses. Alasdair Morgan, the clerks and I will talk about giving witnesses some early warning that they may be invited to appear before the committee.