Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2005 of the Finance Committee. I ask that all mobile phones and pagers are switched off. We have had apologies from the convener, Des McNulty, who has hurt his foot in a skiing incident; from John Swinburne; and from Elaine Murray, who has been delayed due to motoring difficulties.
We are grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee and answer any points that the committee may have on the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill. The bill has a number of different policy elements, which are aimed at improving the way in which we manage offenders.
When you say that a degree of discussion has gone on with the bodies concerned, how does that differ from formal consultation? Would the results have been any different had you been out to formal consultation?
The difference is that we concentrated our discussions with the specific stakeholders. In a more formal consultation, we would have gone wider, perhaps to other organisations that had an interest but which would not be considered to be among the key stakeholders. Inevitably, the discussions that we had were fairly intense, but because of the curtailed timetable, to some extent we were unable to develop some of the costs—for example at the SPS—in the financial memorandum as much as we would normally hope to do. The evidence that the SPS provided took that a bit further and showed in more detail where the costs might arise.
Are you happy with the costs as contained in the financial memorandum? You say that you were unable to take those discussions as far as you might have done. Does that mean that the costs are incomplete or underestimated?
We are pretty happy with what is in the financial memorandum. Because of the timetable, we were unable to refine the figures as much as we would normally hope to do. That is why the SPS evidence is helpful, in that it has refined the costs a bit more and identified where the costs would arise. We were aware that costs would arise, but we had not really detailed out the costs as much as we would hope to do in a financial memorandum.
One of the key submissions is from COSLA, which, as well as expressing concern about the in-principle decision, questions whether criminal justice authorities are the appropriate measure, given the scarce resources in the local government settlement. A critical question that COSLA asks is by what criteria you are demonstrating that the CJAs will be good value for money.
I can speak specifically on the community justice authorities. I do not know whether Mr McAveety is referring specifically to those provisions or—
If you could speak on that first, that would be helpful.
There is quite a history to the process of establishing the community justice authorities, and I do not want to spend too much time going there. The community justice services that we currently have in place are voluntary groupings, which are designed to try to bring about some savings through working together across local authorities. We would expect efficiency savings in scale and in greater consistency in service delivery. Inspection reports on community justice social work services and the reducing reoffending consultation demonstrated that the groupings were not as successful as they might be in delivering those efficiency savings. As a consequence of the consultation and the inspection reports, ministers decided that it would be sensible to invest an amount of money in placing a statutory duty on local authorities to come together in a formal community justice authority to plan and monitor the delivery of community justice social work services in order to deliver a more efficient and consistent service.
How is the £200,000 broken down? How did you arrive at that figure? What are the contingencies if that is an underestimate?
I can give you the breakdown of the £200,000 per community justice authority per annum. The salary of the chief officer, including national insurance contributions and so on, is estimated at £70,000 per annum. Accommodation costs are estimated at £10,000; administrative support—we expect perhaps two administrative officers to support the community justice authority chief officer—is estimated at £50,000; general running costs, including stationery, information technology and telephones are estimated at about £40,000; and additional costs to support the authority, such as travel and subsistence, planning and consultation costs, are estimated at £30,000.
What outcomes are you setting for the CJAs? Will those new posts be based on performance-related pay?
The working conditions for the staff of the community justice authorities will be determined by the community justice authorities.
Are you talking about new posts in each CJA area?
Yes. By statute, each community justice authority will employ a chief officer, which will be a new post.
The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland indicated concern in its written evidence about future costs. Do you have any estimates on future revenue costs? How will costs be settled?
Clearly, I cannot say what ministers will decide or what future budgets will be. We considered ACPOS's evidence and got in touch with the association to try to work out its concerns a little more precisely. Its main concern related to some provisions in the bill on serious and sexual offenders, about which I invite Sharon Grant to speak.
We welcome ACPOS's support for provisions in the bill and acknowledge that all the key agencies that will be involved in implementing the provisions in sections 9 and 10, on serious and sexual offenders, are committed to working together to ensure that the arrangements for assessing and managing sex offenders work well.
I can see that there will be additional costs in some areas, but you have given us no indication of the possible scale of recurring costs.
Andrew Brown mentioned the lack of time for thorough consultation. We were unable to sit down with ACPOS, the Scottish Prison Service and local authorities to gauge the extent of the costs, but we are about to do so through the tripartite group.
I have a couple of questions about the powers to release prisoners on licence or under home curfew arrangements. In its submission, Strathclyde joint police board states:
They are included in the financial memorandum—or at least the memorandum acknowledges that they exist. Like Strathclyde joint police board, we cannot quantify what the costs might be, but to set things in context, we are talking about perhaps 300 offenders a year throughout Scotland. In general, Strathclyde will execute more than 2,000 apprehension warrants in a month, not to mention the much larger number of fine warrants. In that context, we are talking about a very small number.
Yes, but Strathclyde joint police board states that if the figure of 300—the estimate that you have mentioned and which is mentioned in the financial memorandum—
It is highly unlikely that the figure is an underestimate. The figure is based on several years' experience of the system that operates in England and Wales. If every offender who was released under the scheme failed to comply, the very upper bound would be a figure of 2,000 a year throughout Scotland. However, if the figure got anywhere close to that, we would have to consider seriously the operation of the system. Based on our information from the operation of a similar scheme south of the border, 300 is a pretty good estimate.
Frank McAveety asked about the value for money of CJAs. In its evidence, COSLA states that the sum of money—I presume that we are talking about just under £3 million if there are 14 CJAs; I have seen that figure bandied about—
I have a couple of comments to make about what COSLA says. First, there are likely to be fewer than 14 CJAs. I think that that number has been arrived at from the current number of groupings in unitary authorities, but it is expected that there will be significantly fewer CJAs. Indeed, the consultation document on CJAs, which was released last week, proposed two models. One model had four CJAs covering Scotland and one had six CJAs covering Scotland; that represents a fair reduction in the number of CJAs.
I do not want to stray into policy matters, as it is not in the Finance Committee's remit to do so. However, it strikes me that if the authorities are to be called community justice authorities and there are only four of them for Scotland, they will cease to be community justice authorities and will become almost national justice authorities.
As I said, we are talking about proposals in a consultation document, and I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation. However, there is certainly a need to balance the manageability of a CJA, its relative size and the number of local authorities. All those issues are discussed in the consultation document. I do not want to comment further on the consultation.
I accept that you do not want to prejudge things, but is it true that there will not be 14 CJAs?
It was generally accepted, even by COSLA, that there would have to be a reduction in the current numbers. That is not a controversial point.
Did Andrew Arbuckle have something to say about the database?
Not just now, convener.
What provision has been made in the Executive's budget for unforeseen or higher costs following implementation? How will such costs be coped with?
Some £6 million has been identified in the budget for community justice authority provisions this coming year and £12 million for the year after. That money has to be directed towards the reducing reoffending agenda, but also towards the various measures on court reform. Ministers are currently deciding how best the money should be split. I cannot answer on the other provisions in the bill. Were you addressing those wider provisions too?
Indeed I was.
In that case, I will hand over to the respective policy leads.
Resources have been identified in the budget for the costs that we foresee for the home detention curfew. There is an indication in the memorandum of the margins of error in those estimates. We are adequately covered for the ranges that we are likely to get.
Having originally put up £375,000 for the implementation of the violent offender and sex offender register—the police intelligence database—the Executive has increased that amount to £475,000. Additionally, we have agreed with ACPOS that the secondment from the local authority criminal justice social work department—currently £15,000 for two days a week—will increase to five days a week while we scope and look at measures to implement VISOR in the Scottish Prison Service and local authorities.
How will the Executive review the costs post-implementation and will that include an assessment of direct and indirect cost savings?
The community justice authorities will be under an obligation to report annually on services delivered and we would expect a financial annex to be attached to those reports to explain costs.
I alluded in my questions to savings. You said earlier that the key benefit would be a more efficient and consistent system. When the parliamentary group went to the States for tartan week, it visited the New York police department where there is crisp evidence of savings being made through the clocking up of a lot of community service hours, of a markedly reduced rate in reoffending and of a lot more people being in work and therefore paying taxes rather than receiving benefits. Is any attempt being made to capture the benefits that could accrue in those areas?
I wonder whether you are talking about the Red Hook community court in New York.
I think that I am.
We are aware of that model and the minister has been out to visit it. Much of the community work that flows from that court is done very quickly, so an association is made by the offender between crime and punishment. There is a lot to be said for that. I do not want to stray into that policy area, because it is being considered by the Executive under the auspices of the on-going court reform work, but we are conscious of that initiative.
Nevertheless, without straying into that area, can you say what efforts will be made to capture the cost benefits that could accrue from implementing the bill?
I will speak about my area; others might want to come in afterwards. Each CJA will handle set money that is given to it under section 27 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which provides that the money must be used on criminal justice services. We expect that the savings that will accrue from the greater integration of local authorities will simply feed back into delivering more and better services.
Over the past three years, the infamous tripartite group has been working on what is known as a throughcare initiative—that is where the SPS and local authorities have got together to look at how enhanced throughcare provision or assistance can be given to prisoners prior to release, on release and following release. That support falls into two categories. For long-term prisoners, local authorities have now been funded—and we have amended the law—to allow them to appoint a supervising social worker from the community at point of sentence. That social worker has responsibility throughout the prisoner's term to visit at least once a year and to engage with the social work unit in the prison, the prison staff and the prisoner to see what progress has been made throughout the sentence. The social worker also makes contact with the offender's family where appropriate, and where it is agreed with the offender and the family, to try to address any issues that the family has about the prisoner's imprisonment or preparation for release.
You mentioned removing duplication. Have the savings accruing from all that effort been quantified?
The task has been a big one for the local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service to undertake. At the moment, prisoners are being allocated supervising social workers. We are working with the Scottish Prison Service to consider how we can build into the existing prison sentence management procedures processes that will assist prisoners to move into the community. So far, we have not been able to quantify the savings.
The costs and savings in respect of the home detention curfew provisions are the clearest. The financial memorandum shows that electronic monitoring has obvious costs but will produce savings by joining up with other uses.
I will return to revenue costs. I welcome the help for the standardised database, but it is strange that no estimate has been made of revenue costs or the cost of the inputting that will have to be undertaken. That is very unbusinesslike.
Are we talking about the database?
Yes. No estimate has been made of the training or inputting costs to police budgets.
Does that relate to VISOR?
I am asking how police budgets will be affected.
The figure of £475,000 will fund initial training and roll-out costs. To support that, we have provided an additional £150,000 for training in risk assessment tools. For local authorities, training in risk assessment tools will continue as part of the 100 per cent funding that is provided to local authority criminal justice social work departments.
That would be helpful. Members have no further questions, so I thank the witnesses for their helpful evidence.