Justice Committee, 11 Dec 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Official Report 111KB pdf

---

Budget Process 2008-09

Agenda item 3 is on scrutiny of the draft budget.

I remind members that members of this committee were invited to attend the Health and Sport Committee meeting at which evidence was to be taken from three cabinet secretaries, including the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, on the budget for tackling alcohol and drugs misuse. Margaret Smith and I were mandated to attend the meeting on this committee's behalf and we duly did so on 28 November. The meeting was addressed not only by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, but by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney.

The meeting was useful to a point, but it was inevitable that a meeting to discuss the finance aspects of drug treatment and rehabilitation spread on to a rather wider vein. I know from experience that it is always difficult to restrict discussions at this time of year to finance considerations. Margaret Smith will no doubt agree that it was inevitable that the discussion spread into the wider issues of drug treatment and rehabilitation, which was interesting, but it might have been easier if we had concentrated on what gives us literally the best bang for our buck. Some sound issues were raised. I refer members to the Official Report of the meeting—I will arrange for the clerks to furnish members with copies, if they wish one.

Our involvement in the matter is fairly minimal, in that the preponderance of the drugs budget comes from the health and local government budgets. Nevertheless, on behalf of the committee, I stressed the need to have appropriate information on what works and what does not work. Only on that basis can we determine whether we are getting best value and whether the budgetary provision is sufficient and then move on from there. The Deputy First Minister largely accepted that point.

As I say, some interesting points were raised—you learn something new every day, and I found much of what was brought before what one might call the conjoined committee to be useful. However, the meeting might have been better had it focused on the real issue, which was consideration of the budget.

I ask Margaret Smith whether she has anything to add.

I have one comment, which reiterates that point. I found the meeting fairly useful, but I am not sure that it should have been held as part of the budget process. In future, I would like meetings to be held in which members from various committees come together to discuss cross-cutting issues. The meeting was useful and, for the most part, members came at the matter from the perspective of their portfolio or committee interest, although there was a cross-cutting element in members' questions. The meeting was a temptation for some of us to go outwith the narrow remit of the budget—I succumbed, unfortunately.

That is certainly not like you.

We all know that there is great difficulty in finding information in the budget, because only a certain number of lines deal explicitly with any subject. The explicit mention of drugs work in any of the budgets that the committees are considering is limited. On that basis, it was particularly difficult to keep going for a prolonged period, with 13 or 14 members trying to ask questions of three cabinet secretaries. The concept is a positive development but, given the nature of the budget and even the issue that we discussed, the meeting was not necessarily the best way in which to pilot the concept. However, our committee should bear in mind the idea for the future; I hope that other conveners and committees consider it, too.

I agree with that entirely. That type of meeting has value, but it was perhaps not held at the best time or on the best issue.

John Wilson also attended the meeting. Do you have anything to add, John?

I have a comment on the time that was given over to the discussion. Other committee meetings had to take place at 11 o'clock that morning, which meant that the speed of the discussion did not give us a good opportunity to examine many of the issues. The convener and Margaret Smith mentioned that the discussion went off the budget and on to general drugs policy. If there had not been so much pressure on time, we could have had a more fruitful discussion on the budget. The fact that we moved on to general drugs policy marred the debate. We could have had a debate about the level of budgetary spending in the three portfolios to tackle drugs abuse in Scotland.

Again, I agree totally.

As there are no questions, do we agree to note that report back?

Members indicated agreement.

The next two agenda items will be taken in private, as previously agreed. I thank members of the public for attending and ask them to leave, so that we can consider draft committee reports.

Meeting continued in private until 12:49.