The Ever Shrinking State Questions the CPS to Justify Its Activities

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 26th, 2010 at 7:23 pm

The CPS look set to be the first Whitehall department to show that the implementation of George Osborne’s expected 25-40% indicative cuts will affect front line services and have a detrimental impact on the policy of criminal prosecution.

Having already undergone an efficiency programme the CPS will begin a business transformation plan that will see around 22% of its staff lose their jobs. However, the CPS is expected to outline to the Treasury that this measure will still leave them £16 million short of the required target set by the Treasury.

Warnings have already been sounded out regarding the potential loss in services throughout all Whitehall departments due to marauding cuts but the CPS perhaps has more cause for concern than others.

Aside from job cuts leaving existing staff potentially over-stretched and unable to deal with workloads (in effect being able to provide a service) it has already been announced that at least 100 magistrate courts will be closed. Potentially there could be less criminal defence solicitors available to handle cases and workloads, with both solicitors and defendants having to travel further.

The worrying aspect of the CPS stating that the cuts could “delay and possibly deny justice” is equally matched by the risk of the cuts going too deep and in effect leaving the CPS in breach of its statutory obligations.

Every Whitehall department is expected to be make reductions in their budgets and justify every area of their ‘activity’ by answering a Treasury Department checklist regarding their actions in terms of expenditure:

1. Is the activity essential to meet government priorities?

2. Does the government need to fund it?

3. Does it provide substantial economic value?

4. Can it be targeted at those most in need?

5. How can it be provided more cheaply?

6. How can it be provided more effectively?

7. Can the activity come from a non-state provider or by citizens, wholly or in partnership?

8. Can non-state providers be paid to carry it out according to the results they achieve?

9. Can local bodies, as opposed to central government, provide it?

Questions must be asked as to what the government priorities are and whether or not measures will actually be cost effective; if 22% of the CPS loses their jobs what will be the cost in redundancy and is there a government understanding between the differences in cost and value?