Justice 1 Committee, 24 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 24, 2003

Official Report 100KB pdf

---

Budget Process 2004-05

Item 2 on the agenda concerns the budget process. Committee members have a note from the clerk setting out the proposed approach to scrutiny of the Executive's budget for 2004-05. I ask members to consider whether to meet jointly with the Justice 2 Committee to consider the budget. Members may also want to consider both whether to appoint an adviser when the time for consideration of the budget comes and the terms of reference that they would want an adviser to have. I also put it to the committee that we should invite the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate to give oral evidence.

We will deal first with the approach that we want to take. Members will know from past practice that the previous Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee decided to meet jointly, but that does not preclude us from taking a different decision.

Although previous practice does not preclude us from taking a different decision, it is eminently sensible for the committees to meet together. It would seem rather bizarre for us to examine the budget separately when the two committees' remits are the same. We should support the idea to meet together.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Last year was the first time that we appointed a budget adviser. From my recollection, most members found that useful—we found that it made our scrutiny more effective.

My experience as a member of the previous Justice 1 Committee was that the appointment of a budget adviser turned a daunting process into one that was more meaningful to members, especially when figures were turned into today's money, which highlighted a number of concerns about the budget. I found that having an adviser—I say nothing about the individual, only the process—was extremely helpful. I strongly encourage the committee to consider appointing an adviser again.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

At this stage, we are not talking about names. However, members will get an opportunity to say whether they know of anyone suitable or have a preference. Do members have any views on the terms of reference for an adviser? Members could take the wider view that anything with which the adviser could assist us would be helpful.

In annex A to the note by the clerk, we have a proposed specification of the adviser's duties. That outline is acceptable to me, and I hope that it is acceptable to the rest of the committee. I suggest that we go with it as an outline.

Stewart Maxwell is referring to the list that is attached to annex A of the budget paper. Is everyone happy with his suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

So that we can give notice, I ask the committee to agree to invite the minister and the Lord Advocate to give oral evidence on the budget and to provide the committee with a paper setting out the budget priorities for the previous four years and for the next four years. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Before we leave the budget, I assure members that they will get a chance to spend more time identifying the areas on which they wish to question the minister and the Lord Advocate. If any member wants a particular focus on an area, they will get a chance to say so at a later stage.