5 Cost and benefits for UK citizens
The potential proliferation of
costs
118. Many commentators consider it likely that
there will be a proliferation in the volume of legislation passed
in the area of criminal justice following the entry into force
of the Lisbon Treaty.[237]
We asked the Government about the extent to which costs will be
a factor influencing the capacity of the member states to implement
measures to place citizens "at the heart of the EU";
particularly when economic circumstances have reduced public expenditure
across Europe. Lord Bach acknowledged the importance of this issue.
On the "road map" measures, he suggested that the UK
is "highly unlikely to incur any costs let alone significant
costs"—following the implementation of the Stockholm
programme—because the UK legal system already fulfils, and
in some cases exceeds, its European Convention on Human Rights
obligations (for example through legal aid provision and the notification
of rights to suspects and defendants).[238]
However, the costs of free-of-charge interpretation and translation
of an appropriate quality in pre-trial proceedings may be a new
cost falling on the public purse. The Government has not provided
an estimate of the costs of the first draft of the directive,
but we understand that, in the UK, a range of video-conferencing
facilities are already in place which could be used to facilitate
cross-border interpretation.[239]
119. The Government does not
seem clear about how it will control costs if the UK opts in to
"road map" measures that create obligations on the Government
to provide costly services implementing new rights and protections.
As more information is made available to EU citizens, so they
will be more aware of their rights when they are suspected of
committing an offence.
120. Our witnesses suggested that there were
many measures in the Stockholm programme, and the Lisbon Treaty,
that had cost implications. The Government is clear that its participation
in specific projects at EU level depends on the costs of participation
and the likely savings, or added value, that would be achieved.[240]
The Ministry of Justice acknowledged that, while the costs involved
in European projects can sometimes be significant, these may be
off-set to some extent by the savings; although the complexity
of the measures in question makes it difficult to determine cost-benefit
implications with any certainty.[241]
121. The Government stated that it was unable
to cost the entire Stockholm programme but explained that cost-benefit
analysis will be conducted measure-by-measure as they are proposed.[242]
We were assured by officials that financial costs are factored
in to Government decisions on participation, and that such considerations
form part of the scrutiny undertaken by the European Scrutiny
Committees of both Houses.[243]
However, when we asked for illustrations of the potential financial
impact of various mutual recognition instruments and other mechanisms
which were due for implementation (for example, the European supervision
order and the e-justice portal) as well as those that have been
in operation for some time (including the European arrest warrant)
the Department was not able to provide them.[244]
122. It appears to be particularly difficult
to ascertain the cost implications of transferring elements of
the administration of justice to other member states, to inform
impact assessments prior to the introduction of measures that
rely on mutual recognition. For example, the Framework decision
on the mutual recognition of financial penalties allows fines,
compensation and court costs imposed in criminal proceedings in
one member state to be transferred and enforced in another. Thus,
fines may be collected in the UK based on judgments against UK
nationals—who subsequently return to the UK—by courts
in other member states.[245]
Yet, no information is collected about financial penalties imposed
by other member states and thus the Government is unable to estimate
the revenue foregone as a result of delays in implementation,
nor to monitor the success of the measure in terms of percentage
of fines collected.[246]
It is equally difficult to make such assessments after implementation.[247]
123. E-justice (use of technology in innovative
ways with the justice field) is one of the areas where implementation
often requires considerable financial input, although the application
of technology to justice systems can potentially result in savings
in Court costs and legal aid by speeding up the processes involved.
For example, the European Commission has accumulated emerging
evidence of savings made in Norway[248]
and Austria, in piloting e-justice tools. Norway has estimated
it saves 785 Euros in travel time each time a video-conference
takes place and Austria calculated overall savings of 80,000 Euros
per year during the early stages of implementation of video-conferencing
facilities. Mr Faull described the initial investment in the e-Portal
of two million Euros as a "modest start".[249]
The Justice secretary has commented on the costs of e-justice:
There is no compulsion for member states to be involved
in individual European e-justice projects and the decision about
whether or not we will fund participation in particular projects
will be made by the appropriate budget holding department on a
case by case.[250]
We agree with the Government's proposal
that comprehensive analysis of current EU funding streams should
be undertaken, to ensure that they are used effectively to support
the e-justice strategy.
124. There may also be budgetary implications
arising from the growth in the remit of the Court of Justice.[251]
For example, the capacity of the European Court of Human Rights
at Strasbourg is limited: it currently has around 108,000 cases
in front of it. The average time taken from lodging to hearing
on this basis is 6 years. In the event 95% of cases are not continued.[252]
However, once the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights enters into
force there is the potential for EU citizens to receive much faster
and more effective justice if human rights cases are taken to
the Court of Justice—which has recently introduced a system
of speedy referrals—in relation to obligations under the
Charter.[253]
125. We accept that costing
the entire Stockholm programme is very difficult, but we are surprised
that the Government has been unable to give us at least an indication
of the cost implications of key measures contained within it.
126. We believe that, while
the cost of these e-justice technologies may inhibit speedy progress,
the Commission should seek to consolidate funding for e-justice
projects in order to ensure that the best can be made of innovative
technology in the interests of all member states and their citizens.
237 HL Paper (Session 2007-08) 62-I, para 6.27 Back
238
Q 247 [Lord Bach] Back
239
Q 247 [Lord Bach], Ev 105-106 Back
240
Ev 105 Back
241
Q 258 [Ms Gibbons] Back
242
Q 250 [Mr Kilby] Back
243
Q 255 [Ms Gibbons] Back
244
Ev 103-104 Back
245
Qq 18-20 Back
246
See also Ev 104 on the potential impact of the Prisoner transfer
agreement on the number of EU nationals detained in British prisons Back
247
Q 20 [Ms Gibbons] Back
248
While Norway is not a member of the EU it is a member of the European
Economic Area, Schengen and the European Judicial Network Back
249
Q 91 Back
250
HC Deb, 24 March 2009, col 304 [Commons written answer] Back
251
HL Paper (Session 2007-08) 62-I, paras 6.90-6.95 Back
252
Q 134 [Ms Blackstock] Back
253
Qq 134, 141 [Ms Blackstock, Mrs Mole] Back
| 
