Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Official Report 479KB pdf

---

Draft Budget Scrutiny 2013-14

This is the final evidence session on the draft budget. I ask members—although they do not have to do this—to focus questions on police reform and on the courts budget, which we decided would be our target to start with. You may also ask about any other issues that you wish to raise. We will cover the budget for implementing the findings of the commission on women offenders during the following agenda item, so you do not need to get into that just now—I can see that Alison McInnes is raring to go.

I thank the cabinet secretary and Richard Dennis, head of the fire and rescue services division at the Scottish Government, for staying with us for this item and I welcome other Scottish Government officials: Colin McKay, deputy director, legal system division; Deborah Smith, head of police division; and Joe Griffin, deputy director of community justice.

The cabinet secretary will make a short opening statement, after which members will ask questions.

I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. When I was here to discuss last year’s draft budget I made the point that our record of investment across the justice portfolio was delivering benefits for our communities. That remains the case and it is worth while reminding the committee of what has been achieved.

We have put 1,000 more police on Scotland’s streets and we are driving reform of our police and fire services to maintain them in the face of the United Kingdom Government’s budget reductions. Recorded crime is now at its lowest level in 37 years and more than 100,000 fewer crimes were recorded by police in 2011-12 than in the period before we came to office.

Critically, reconviction rates in Scotland are at their lowest level in the past 13 years. The clear-up rate for all recorded crimes is at its highest level for more than 30 years. The number of violent crimes is down by just under a third and the number of offences involving a firearm is down by almost half since the Scottish National Party came into government. The number of crimes of handling an offensive weapon is down by 44 per cent since we took office and custodial sentence lengths are up for the sixth consecutive year.

Almost three quarters of summary court cases were dealt with within 26 weeks in 2011-12, compared with only two thirds when we came to office. We have ploughed the proceeds of crime back into communities by investing more than £46 million that has been seized from criminals in community projects that will benefit more than 600,000 young people.

Only this morning, statistics were released that show a fall in the number of homicides. In 2011-12, the police recorded 88 homicide cases, which is a decrease of 11 per cent from the 99 cases that were recorded in 2010-11. I could say more about our record on tackling serious and organised crime, our investment in the prison and court estates, our commitment to reducing reoffending and our determination to support recovery from drug addiction, but those issues might arise during our discussion today.

Our draft budget for 2013-14 is focused on maintaining services in the face of Westminster cuts while supporting activity to modernise our justice system. Our track record is one of ever-greater efficiency and improvement, and that work will continue. As for the technical budget, adjustments to funding for the police and fire services were referred to in my letter of 30 October, which I hope was helpful to the committee.

I realise that the committee wishes to focus on the police reform, women offenders and court budgets, so I will not go into those issues in depth at this point. I will simply say that our draft budget priorities are to further reduce crime, particularly violent and serious organised crime; to reduce the harmful impact of drug abuse; to prevent criminal behaviour by young people; to build on our strong record of reducing reoffending; to reduce the fear of crime in communities; to reduce the harm from fires and other emergencies; to continue to tackle hate crime and sectarianism; to transform civil and administrative justice while widening access and implementing law reform; and, of course, to continue to support victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system.

I hope that I have made clear the significant achievements of recent years. In these difficult economic times, the Government is planning its spending wisely to keep Scotland’s people safe. I and my officials are happy to take any questions.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. For the sake of our report, I would like to focus on the budget in relation to police reform, then move on to courts and other issues. We will talk about Cornton Vale during the next item of business. I hope that that will give the drafting of our report some coherence.

The First Minister denies that police officers are doing civilian staff duties, but recent reports in the Sunday Herald reveal that a group that reports to you, cabinet secretary, and which is made up of chief constables and Scottish Government officials proposed that cuts to police staff would have to be delivered by

“police officers performing basic administrative duties themselves”.

Is the First Minister wrong to have denied the existence of backfilling?

The best evidence was the evidence that the committee received from the newly appointed chief constable for the police service of Scotland, who made it clear that he was not aware of any evidence of such a strategy. He is in the best position to confirm that, and I accepted his evidence.

A paper that was prepared by your officials suggested that such backfilling should happen and that it was an obvious route to take.

I have always been taught to accept the best evidence rule in law. That might not be known to you, Ms Marra, but it is known to me and doubtless it is known to other members. The best evidence is the evidence of the newly appointed chief constable. He sat before the committee and answered a question from you or one of your colleagues by making it clear that he was not aware of that strategy. It is not being pursued and he would not support it. Of course, that is not to underestimate the challenges that he and his colleagues face. That is the best evidence, and I accept the evidence of Chief Constable House.

So you can guarantee today that no backfilling is going on across Scotland.

I accept the evidence of Chief Constable House, who said that he was not aware of that, that there is no strategy to pursue such a course and that it would be the wrong course to take.

Can you guarantee that backfilling will not happen in the future?

I came to the committee many times during the passage of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. I took many questions from you and other members about how I must not direct or otherwise interfere with the police. On that basis, we have enshrined in an act of Parliament the fact that the chief constable is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority. My office is entirely separate from that, which is constitutionally correct, so I have to leave such matters to the chief constable and the authority.

I accept the word of Stephen House and I congratulate him on his appointment. He has made his position clear, and I have no evidence from anyone else that would make me believe that what he said is not the situation.

10:15

Despite the recommendations in the paper put to you by your own officials.

I go on the evidence of the chief constable, which is the evidence that the committee took in response to its questions. I accept the statement that he made.

Can I move on to something else, convener?

Is it still on policing?

Yes.

Okay.

The same group that reports to you, cabinet secretary, suggests in its paper that there will be a 20 per cent reduction in the overall estate footprint of the Scottish police. Can you assure us today that that will not result in the closure of any local police stations?

Again, Chief Constable House touched on that when he gave evidence. I reiterate that, at the committee’s request and with the Government’s support, such decisions are for the chief constable and the Scottish Police Authority. That is the constitutional position that we have enshrined and that is how it will be. I will adhere to that.

Chief Constable House made it clear that any reference to the police estate relates to the fact that we will not need eight human resources departments, eight payroll departments and so on. It was not a reference to police stations.

With respect, cabinet secretary, not all such decisions are at the discretion of Chief Constable House. The Scottish Government has given him a figure of 17,234 police officers that he must stick with, so these are not all operational decisions for him. With respect, I am asking you whether you can guarantee that there will be no local police station closures.

No justice secretary can ever give a guarantee of that, because it is not their decision to make. As things are constituted, a decision on the closure of a police station is made by the chief constable of one of the eight forces, subject to their board, be it unitary or otherwise. Under the new service post-1 April 2013, such a decision will be for the new chief constable and will be subject to the scrutiny and approval of the Scottish Police Authority.

The paper to which you refer was not from my officials but from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. That organisation will to some extent be superseded and trumped post-1 April by the chief constable of Scotland’s police service, Mr House. I stand behind the evidence that he gave. It would be entirely wrong for me to give the commitment that you ask for, because it would indicate that I was interfering in operational matters that must remain in the remit and running of the chief constable, subject to the scrutiny of and accountability to the Police Authority.

So that would be interfering in operational matters, but to give the arbitrary figure of 17,234 police officers does not represent interfering.

I do not think that it does. As a Government, we take the view that the visible police presence is delivering a 37-year low in crime and, as shown in figures that are out today, an 11 per cent reduction in homicides. I know that that view is disputed by other political parties, but that is a matter of political choice. That is why we have elections in Scotland, just as there is an election in the United States today.

We believe that a visible police presence reassures people. That is not the position that has been adopted south of the border, where people face a loss of 16,000 to 18,000 officers under the coalition Government, and where the Labour Party, in opposition, believes that 10,000 officers should be lost. In Scotland, we believe that to maintain the police presence is a good thing to do.

If the chief constable and the authority were to come to me at any stage and raise other matters, I would be happy to discuss those with them. At present, however, Chief Constable House agrees that a visible police presence helps to make our communities safe. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. I read out the fine track record that our police service—including support staff, uniformed staff and detective officers—has delivered, and I pay tribute to it.

Convener, can I move on to a final question on the budgetary implications of terms and conditions for serving police officers?

Okay. This should be your last question for now, as I have a big list of members who want to come in. Just to let people know where they are, my list is Alison McInnes, then Graeme Pearson, Roderick Campbell and Sandra White.

When Chief Constable House gave evidence to the committee a couple of weeks ago, I asked him about terms and conditions for police officers and police staff. The weekend before that, you told the SNP conference in Perth:

“For those who serve, there will be no attack upon the terms and conditions under which they serve”.

I understand that you have been nominated for a debating award for that speech. However, Stephen House told the committee two weeks ago that terms and conditions would be

“a fairly obvious place to go in many respects”.

Which of you is right?

I have another nominee beside me. Jenny Marra is nominated in the one to watch category and I am watching this little duel go on. The rest of us have not been nominated, although we are all brilliant.

In any employment, terms and conditions are agreed between employers and employees. The employer of the Scottish police force is the chief constable, who is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority. The representatives of the employers and employees—whether they are the Scottish Police Federation, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, ACPOS or its successor, or the Scottish Chief Police Officers Staff Association—would enter into discussions about the matter.

As an Administration, we have made it clear that we reject and will not implement the proposals introduced south of the border by Tom Winsor. The coalition Government is delivering those proposals, but we reject them. I do not know the position of the Labour Party south of the border or north of the border on the Winsor review, but we will not implement those proposals.

Beyond that, the relationship between employer and employee is a matter for the chief constable and the Scottish Police Federation. I meet both individually. If need be, I am happy to meet them collectively in some instances. However, it is constitutionally and correctly a matter for them to deal with.

I ask Jenny Marra to confirm that the Labour Party’s position is that the Winsor review is wrong.

Actually, cabinet secretary, you—not the Labour Party—are being asked the questions.

Thank you, convener.

Cabinet secretary, you told us that you accept the very good evidence from Chief Constable House on the previous two issues that I asked you about, so will you accept the evidence that he gave to the committee that, when looking to save money, terms and conditions are

“a fairly obvious place to go in many respects”?—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 23 October 2012; c 1855.]

Do you accept that that was his evidence to the committee?

I meet Chief Constable House and I also meet the SPF. I was on the phone to its general secretary yesterday regarding the tragedy at Baird Street police station, and I put on record my sympathies and condolences to the family of the police officer involved and, indeed, to his colleagues there.

I meet Chief Constable House and the SPF regularly, but I have to leave terms and conditions to them. As Mr Pearson will know from his experience, there are various pay and pensions issues, and some of them are clearly critical. I regularly meet the Scottish Police Federation because of the UK Government’s attack and cash grab on police pensions, on which I am only able to sympathise and write letters of objection.

I disagree with the unilateral way in which the Home Secretary has disbanded the Police Negotiating Board, but we are setting up a separate authority in Scotland to shadow that body. I will not sit on that authority, but there will be officials representing the employers and officials representing the employees.

Matters are dealt with not by the diktat of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, but through the relationship between the employers and employees. Scotland is precluded from handling some aspects of terms and conditions because they are dealt with on a pan-UK basis. We have made it clear where we stand on Tom Winsor’s review. Some matters will be constantly under discussion between the Scottish Police Federation, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and SCPOSA or whatever organisation supersedes it, together with the Scottish Police Authority and the chief constable.

So terms and conditions are an operational matter and you cannot guarantee that they will not be undermined to save money in your budget.

I give you an absolute assurance that we are not implementing the Winsor review now or ever. I made that clear to the Scottish Police Federation conference, and it appreciated that.

On terms and conditions, there are matters that ebb and flow. We have had situations relating to police officers’ houses and boot allowances—there are a whole variety of matters. Some of the complexities that we face in implementing the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 concern police benevolent trusts.

The devil is always in the detail, but I leave that to the good offices of those who represent the employees—those who serve—whether that is the SPF or, for support staff, Unison and Unite, and those who represent the employers, who will be the chief constable, his support staff and the Scottish Police Authority.

The current police authorities are making significant savings this year to ease some of the budget pressures in the forthcoming year. The additional reserves that are beginning to be built because of those savings probably amount to about £14 million. That is in addition to the £36 million in reserves that you have already discussed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; you have negotiated how that money will be shared out. We heard from Chief Constable Smith that he would urge you to consider giving the money back to the new authority. Have you been able to think about that?

We agreed with COSLA that all uncommitted reserves will be split by the Scottish Government and local authorities on a 51 per cent to 49 per cent ratio. There was a different ratio for fire. It is for the Scottish Government to determine how to allocate its share in line with priorities across all portfolios, including justice. That is a matter that we require to tackle. Sometimes the police require additional funds. For example, additional funds were provided in my first year in office when we faced the challenge that was presented by the airport terrorist. The same applies when funds are required elsewhere. It is for the Government to determine by looking across all portfolios, including the justice portfolio, where the requirements are.

So you do not anticipate that the additional £14 million will be allocated in a different way. Are you saying that you will continue to allocate money based on a 51 per cent to 49 per cent split?

What we are saying is that it does not require to be put away in a savings fund by any one authority. No doubt I will take questions from the committee on other aspects of the justice portfolio in which there are challenges. You would probably not wish me to say that we do not have the money for those things because it is squirreled away somewhere, gathering 0.5 per cent in interest or whatever.

The tight budgets that we face are challenges for Kevin Smith in his portfolio, for Chief Constable House, for the Lord President and for everyone in the Government and in local government. This is about ensuring that, across the justice portfolio and across Government, we use the limited amount of money that we have as wisely as possible, which is why we will put it where the priorities are. I am happy to discuss that with the committee.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I would like to cover three areas. At our meeting two weeks ago, Kevin Smith said that a paper had been prepared that would identify the areas of savings for years 1, 2 and 3 in the new arrangement for a single police force. We were promised that paper but, as I understand it, we have not received it. Have you received details of how the savings will be achieved? They are significant savings. Can you say where they will come from?

Those are fundamentally matters for the Scottish Police Authority. Deborah Smith might want to comment on that.

I was just going to say the same thing. We have not seen detailed proposals. Chief Constable Smith will have prepared some proposals, which will require to be discussed not only with the new chief constable but with the Scottish Police Authority. They will need to be comfortable with the proposals before they are formally submitted to us. I suspect that that is why they have not yet been forthcoming.

As I understood it, the details were in hand. They just had not been shared with us. I would have thought that, in preparing the business case, the Government would have been interested to know where the savings will come from. Off the top of my head, I think that the savings are about £22 million in the first year and £44 million in the second and third years. The total is £100-odd million by the end of the three-year process. I would have thought that you would have taken some interest in where the savings will come from in order that we could have some comfort about that.

As the cabinet secretary knows, I am a great supporter of the creation of a single police force. This is not an argument against that; what I seek is the comfort of knowing that it will work.

The committee heard in evidence from Vic Emery and Steve House that they thought that there was no funding gap. It has been said that the savings will have to be managed. As I said to Jenny Marra, it is not for me to direct on that. However, I note that Steve House thought that, although it will be challenging, they will be able to do it.

I do not wish to interfere—or to risk being challenged by the committee for interfering—in police matters. For a while, one of the great fears about the creation of a single police service—it is a fear that I know you did not share, Mr Pearson—was that there would be interference from me.

I am due to meet the chair of the authority later this week and I undertake to raise with him that the committee has concerns and to ask him to make information available to you as matters become clearer. I certainly accept the comments by Chief Constable House and Vic Emery that these things are under way. They are being managed capably, but I will ask the authority to share that information wherever possible.

10:30

In response to Jenny Marra, you mentioned operational independence, and you talked about the fears about interference that were generated by earlier discussions. The other week, the convener of the SPA announced that it will provide strategic leadership to the police and he added that matters that involve the direction and control of officers are rightly for the chief constable. He also made it clear that he will employ all police staff and maintain corporate services such as human resources, finance, marketing and other important functions that the authority will manage.

What is your understanding of operational independence? Will the holding of staff management and corporate services at board level and the belief that the authority’s purpose in life is to provide strategic leadership to the police not make for a difficult relationship with the chief constable? Finally, are you aware of the growing discomfort over those matters and have you had any discussions with the various postholders, including Sir Peter Housden?

I have not discussed the matter with Sir Peter Housden, but I have had regular discussions with the chair of the authority and the new chief constable since their appointment. Indeed, the chief constable and I recently met the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and the director of public health, so these things are on-going.

We must recognise that the Scottish Police Authority’s function, as enshrined in statute, is to scrutinise and maintain Scotland’s police service. It takes a historical view, if you like, and examines what has been done, but it will also look at certain contemporary issues.

I wonder how your line of questioning fits into our scrutiny of the budget, Mr Pearson. I know that you are concerned about the roles of the SPA and the chief constable, but I want us to focus on the budgetary implications.

When it comes to how we deliver the spend in the first two years, if elements of the budget are maintained at board level and managed by the authority separately from the chief constable, it is of interest to know how such matters will be addressed corporately.

That is a helpful clarification.

The chief constable is new to his office and the authority and its chair, too, are newly appointed. Discussions are continuing and I have no reason to believe that a happy accord over interpretation will not be reached.

It seems to me that both sides have accepted that the chief constable has operational responsibility—although that is not just a matter of moving police officers around Scotland—and that the authority’s responsibility is not simply to look at what has already been done but to examine what is being done. We have to give the newly appointed individuals an opportunity to discuss the issues and work things out. As I said, I will meet the chair of the SPA later this week, and I have no doubt that I will meet the chief constable as well. I understand the member’s concerns and assure him that these matters are being chivvied along.

Chivvied, cabinet secretary?

Indeed. They are being chivvied along, convener.

That is a quaint term.

It seems quite a friendly way of doing things.

Doesn’t it?

The cabinet secretary must bear it in mind that, in order to do these things well, people need the levers to do the job properly. The chair of the SPA has said that, as a businessman, he sees policing through that lens and equates the chief constable with a chief operating officer. When I asked him the other week about democratic oversight, he said that his “way of doing business” was to have “transparent and open communication” and that

“from a democratic point of view ... such an approach satisfies what needs to be done.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 23 October 2012; c 1860.]

I look forward to seeing the subtleties in this new relationship, and I understand from previous conversations that you are sensitive to them. However, I ask that you be aware that sensitivity over these issues is growing in the service.

You have put your point on the record, Mr Pearson, but I want to keep to the budget.

I have a final, brief question. The Scottish Police Federation has said that there is particular sensitivity about the way in which pensions will be managed. The federation seems to suggest that the Scottish Government can take its own approach to pensions in terms of retirement age and financing the pension pot for the future. Have you thought about those matters and can you give us any advice on them?

We have been corresponding with the United Kingdom Government not only on police pensions but on prison officers’ pensions. The UK Government’s position of seeking to have prison officers work to the age of 68 is unacceptable because some jobs are restricted by age and capacity. Their pensions are dealt with by the local government scheme, over which we have no control. Police and fire service pensions are slightly different, but the general secretary of the federation has made it clear in a letter to every officer that whatever levers we have tried to use to deal with the matter have been closed down, if I can put it in that way, by the UK Government.

I sympathise greatly with the Scottish Police Federation’s position. We have sought to raise the issues that it is concerned about not just with the Home Secretary but with the Treasury. Sadly, however, we have been rebuffed. I am grateful that the federation has made the position clear in that regard.

Good morning, cabinet secretary.

Good morning.

I start with a couple of questions just for the record. We talked about police station closures. Chief Constable House said in his evidence to us:

“I can give you a guarantee that we will try to avoid any police station closures. It would be the last thing that we would want to do, but there have been occasions in the past five years when we have closed police stations with public acceptance and support.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 23 October 2012; c 1855.]

Have you any comment on that?

That is a sensible and pragmatic attitude, because we live in a changing world. When I first moved into my home in Newington, there was a police station around the corner, but it and other stations closed because a new one opened in St Leonard’s. Such things ebb and flow with changes in society. Clearly, police stations play an important role in communities, which is why the police consider the issue carefully.

As I said earlier in relation to the police figures that are being bandied about, back-office administration is being done eight times over. That cannot be sustained, given the financial pressures that we face, as we move to a single police service. As I said, police stations are in a different category. Sometimes, though, communities move, which means that the police must move with them.

Thank you. Chief Constable House also talked about discussing terms and conditions for police officers, which Ms Marra commented on, in

“open and honest negotiation with the relevant staff association or union.”

However, he also said:

“I imagine that the association will agree to terms and conditions that it sees as beneficial to its members. It will not agree to anything that it sees as detrimental to its members.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 23 October 2012; c 1855-6.]

Do you have any comment on that?

The Scottish Police Federation is, quite correctly, not shy in looking after its members’ interests. I have great faith in it and I have no doubt that, if there are any difficulties, as there sometimes are between employers and employees, the employees will be treated fairly by the employers. However, I am sure that those who represent the employees will, quite correctly, not be shy in looking after their members’ interests.

On the funding of the approximately 300 police officers who are currently funded by local authorities, it has been suggested that the Government expects local authorities to continue to provide extra funding for that. Have there been any recent discussions about that?

We have regular discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The issue was raised previously by me and by David McLetchie. The powers will continue for local authorities to provide that funding. All our information to date is that local authorities welcome the benefits from the work that those officers do, because they are brought in for specific tasks in their communities. We have no reason to believe that those circumstances will change.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Thank you for your opening statement and your comments on the excellent fall in the number of homicides, particularly in my area in Strathclyde.

I want to touch on an issue that has been raised on a number of occasions, which is operational independence. It is obviously to do with the budget as well.

There was no hint of that being raised in your question, but I am now listening carefully.

Cabinet secretary, we heard from numerous witnesses about the operational independence of the police force. Unison’s submission states:

“the Scottish Police Authority and the Chief Constable should be able to decide the correct balance of police officers and police staff”.

Chief Constable House gave evidence on that point as well.

I will not ask you whether you agree with that because you have already mentioned it, but one issue that Chief Constable House raised was the gap between the current costs of policing and the proposed budget for next year. He said that the gap is about £70 million, but he also said:

“Let me be clear. I believe that the budget is doable ... as does my chairman.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 23 October 2012; c 1847.]

I want to link that with the question of operational independence. Can you confirm the £70 million figure that Chief Constable House mentioned? Will you comment on how the savings will be achieved, bearing in mind the independence of Chief Constable House and the single police force?

It is not a funding gap. You are quite correct, in that both the chair of the SPA and Chief Constable House confirmed in evidence that the budget for 2013-14 is sufficient. They recognise, though, that savings are needed, and part of those savings will come through police reform, which will protect and improve local services despite the financial cuts. Most of the £70 million relates to savings that are expected through police reform—I think that the figure is £41.8 million in 2013-14—and resources are available within the police central government budget to support the SPA in delivering those reform savings.

Other matters such as inflationary challenges are being looked at by the SPSA, but I am confident from the evidence of Vic Emery and Steve House that the budget that has been provided for them has no gap and that the challenges that they face will be met. The challenges will be dealt with by them and not through interference from me. Doubtless they will keep me and the committee apprised of what they are doing, but it has been made quite clear that they do not see a difficulty. It will not be easy, but they expect to be able to meet those challenges.

You mentioned police reform. We heard evidence from various groups and branches of the police force, trade unions and so on, and one issue that they raised was the difference between police support staff and police. I commented in our meeting on 23 October that everyone has a different version depending on which group they represent.

Chief Constable House and others said that there was no way that staff would be made redundant and that there would be ways of ensuring that staff had other jobs. It is a thorny issue and one that has to be raised. Can you assure us, despite the independence of the single police force and the chief constable, that staff will not be made redundant and there will be no compulsory redundancies?

We have made it clear that there will be no compulsory redundancies. There have been on-going voluntary redundancy schemes, particularly for forensic science posts. You might be aware of that as some of them have been in your constituency. The voluntary redundancy schemes exist in the current service and they may or may not apply thereafter.

Mr Emery, as chair of the authority, has accepted that, as part of the Government’s broader position on the public sector, there will be no compulsory redundancies. Although there are challenges given the cuts that are coming in from Westminster, Chief Constable House recognises the important role that is played by support staff, which in many instances cannot be played by police officers because of the specific nature of the skills. That is a matter for the authority and the chief constable.

We will move on to courts. John Finnie and Jenny Marra are already bidding to ask questions. Are there any other bids to ask questions on courts? I will take Graeme Pearson and Rod Campbell after John and Jenny.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to ask about the Scottish Court Service consultation that is due to be completed at the end of next month. The consultation looks at court structures and, in particular, shrieval specialisations and the High Court circuit.

A written submission from the Public and Commercial Services Union states:

“We believe the proposed reduction in the budget of the Scottish Court Service is dependent upon acceptance of the recommended court closures. This would prejudice the consultation currently underway and also make more difficult the proper scrutiny by Parliament of the proposals which will emanate from the consultation.”

Is there a linkage? What flexibility exists? Other reforms are coming through the victims and witnesses bill and there are developments in information technology and so on.

10:45

There is a consultation document and, ultimately, as well as that consultation and consideration by the Scottish Court Service, the matter has to come to the Parliament: I have to come before the committee on any changes that the Lord President and the SCS wish to consider making.

The document makes it clear that the consultation is about creating

“a court structure that (a) provides Scotland’s citizens with services and facilities consistent with the standards of a modern system; (b) is ready to support the anticipated reforms effectively, and (c) is affordable”.

That caveat exists, but not to the extent suggested.

Parliament will ultimately have the opportunity to judge whether any court closure proposals brought forward after the consultation meet all three of those challenges. Ministers will not prejudge the consultation process, but tough choices will no doubt have to be made.

The SCS has tried to deal with matters within the existing financial envelope. We will see what the consultation brings. There is obviously still the further failsafe that we have to bring the proposals before Parliament.

I will ask about the capital implications that arise from the proposals. The consultation proposes the retention of courts that are not of the best standard at the expense of courts at which there has been recent upgrading. Is a plan in place to deal with future capital implications that arise from the outcome of the consultation?

We accept that the budget is tight but it is unacceptable not to do anything about a court estate that is not fully fit for purpose, given the changes that have taken place in communities. The SCS will have to work through some of those issues.

During my five years in post, there have been on-going difficulties related to the High Court, some of which are to do with the challenges posed by the nature and complexity of the building. Nobody disputes that there are challenges for the SCS. That is one reason why it has launched the consultation, although it is not the sole reason, as the court structure has to be affordable.

We must recognise the changes that are coming in technology as well as those that have occurred in society. I cannot prejudge what the SCS will do or where it will do it, but one reason for the reform of the court structure is to ensure that we do what we can to maintain the existing fabric.

Can you comment on the suggestion that savings made in the court budget will simply be transferred to meet witness costs under the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service budget?

That matter is covered in the Scottish Court Service consultation document and in some of the evidence that Eric McQueen gave last week. The SCS consulted extensively with the other justice organisations. My recollection of the evidence is that they all said that the costs would be neutral or that there would be small savings.

There are clearly some swings and roundabouts in relation to the Procurator Fiscal Service as it may have to pay expenses for more people with more expensive travel, but there will be savings in other respects. As Eric McQueen said, some closures will mean that some people spend less time and money travelling to court than would otherwise have been the case. The Crown Office has done that analysis and I think that it indicated in its evidence that it anticipated that, overall, there would not be a significant cost impact.

I do not know whether we would all accept that.

I would like to ask a question before we move on. The cabinet secretary said that when the hit list is created it would have to come before Parliament. Can you confirm the process? Will there be subordinate legislation? If so, will it be subject to the negative procedure or the affirmative procedure?

There will be subordinate legislation. I apologise, because at the moment I cannot honestly tell you whether it will be subject to the negative procedure or the affirmative procedure. We will certainly confirm that for the committee.

Thank you. Sorry to interrupt, John.

My point has been covered, convener.

The court budget will be cut in real terms by £5.5 million in 2013-14 and by a total of £10.9 million between 2012-13 and 2014-15. Are not those budget reductions driving your proposal for court closures in Scotland?

We are facing huge budget cuts from Westminster. This is the world in which we live, Ms Marra. I wish that, rather than Westminster spending £250 million on a further upgrade of Trident, we got a Barnett share of that money so that we could do sensible things with it, such as spend it on the courts or use it to deal with the problems that people have heating their homes during a cold winter.

We face significant budget cuts. Every area of my portfolio presents challenges—the Scottish Court Service is but one. I am grateful to the Lord President and the staff of the Scottish Court Service for the job that they are doing to maintain the service in the face of such pressure.

If you think that our budget is too little, perhaps you should tell us from where cuts should come.

Are you saying that the budget is driving the court closure proposals?

No. A variety of matters drive the proposals. As I said, we must ensure that our courts are up to date. Some of our courts are very old and are not the easiest places to deal with when improving technology—I know that the committee wants to bring in modern technology. It can be difficult to put modern technology into old buildings, given their configuration. Also, towns change and communities move. John Finnie touched on that, as did Colin McKay.

The exercise is about looking, at the start of the 21st century, at a court estate that in many instances has been with us since the 19th century, when Sir Walter Scott was presiding in court—I know that he is someone whom the convener takes very much to heart. In 21st century Scotland, communities have changed, and the Scottish Court Service has to look at that.

We must operate within the budget, which is challenging, because Westminster is imposing huge cuts on the Scottish Government and prefers upgrading weapons of mass destruction to looking after the fabric of our communities. We must also ensure that the court estate is best placed to deal with the challenges of the 21st century and the changes that have taken place in our communities and towns.

I grew up in Linlithgow—this was long before I became justice secretary or even qualified as a lawyer. The sheriff court was in Linlithgow—I do not know whether Mr Pearson gave evidence there—because historically the area was Linlithgowshire. The biggest community in West Lothian, formerly Linlithgowshire, is Livingston, so it made sense to move the court to Livingston, because more people had to travel from Livingston to Linlithgow than from Linlithgow to Livingston.

Such issues have to be factored in. There is a tight, difficult budget and I am grateful for the outstanding service that the Lord President and the Scottish Court Service provide. In the second decade of the 21st century, we need to consider what courts we require and where, and whether our courts can deal with the challenges of the modern technology that we all want to bring in.

We are in quite a heady period of legal reform, given the changes that have been recommended in the Carloway review and the proposed reduction in the drink-driving limit, which we debated in Parliament last week. Do you agree that there will be an increase in court business as a result of the reforms?

I am not aware that a huge upturn in business is anticipated as a result of the drink-driving legislative change. I am driving the matter forward and I am grateful for the cross-party support that it has received. If there is an increase in business, so be it; people who flout the law and endanger the lives of themselves and others must be dealt with. I do not think that the matter is causing the Scottish Court Service great distress or worry.

In driving matters forward, Lord Gill, the Lord President, has taken account of the fundamental changes of which he is the author and the proposals of his deputy, the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Carloway. Such matters have been factored in.

Would it be better to wait for the reforms to bed in, to see whether there is an increase in business, before steam-rollering ahead with court closures?

No, I do not think so. I do not think that there will necessarily be an increase in business, but any increase will be factored in. It is about looking at the budget, the changes in our communities and the opportunities to make use of new technology.

I went to Kittybrewster in Aberdeen, where a new custody suite is about to be built to replace the facility that currently exists at the police headquarters. Video technology will be built into the new facility. That is a sensible approach. Currently, someone is taken to the police station and then from the police station to the court and from the court to the prison. We will be able to cut down on needless journeys, which will benefit the prisoner and will certainly benefit the system and the service.

Do you have any evidence that there will not be an increase in business as a result of the reforms? They have not yet been implemented, so we do not yet know. The last thing that we want is further delays in our court system. Delays already disrupt the system.

Those matters have been taken into account. We are talking about two fundamental issues. One is that of the Gill reforms. Lord Gill is the Lord President and is currently dealing with matters, and I am grateful for the work that he is doing. The other is that of the Carloway reforms. Lord Carloway is the Lord Justice Clerk. Both of those pieces of work are integral to what we are doing. They are factored in. I am perfectly confident that the matters are all considered and taken on board, given that, in one situation, we are dealing with the same individual. Matters are looked at in the round in relation to the Scottish Court Service, in terms of not simply any increase in court business that might result from the Carloway reforms but, quite rightly, what might happen in terms of reductions in the workload as a result of changes such as videoconferencing and the work that is going on in Aberdeen and elsewhere, which I have referred to.

If you discovered that there had been an increase in court business or that the courts had become much busier as a result of the reforms, would you reconsider your programme of court closures?

The Lord President has considered these matters. I am due to meet him again, as I meet him regularly. I am happy to give you an assurance that I will flag up to him the concerns that you have and that either he or I will get back to you on them. However, I am satisfied that the Lord President has taken into account issues around the proposals that he and his colleague, the Lord Justice Clerk, have made.

In Scotland, the Lord Justice General and the Lord Justice Clerk are in charge of driving forward these fundamental changes. The issues are factored in. As I say, nothing about them concerns me but I will raise them with the Lord President on your behalf.

Will you share with us the mechanisms that you have in place for examining and assessing the impacts of the reforms of Lord Gill, Lord Carloway and others? How are they factored into the budgetary processes? There is a fairly substantial decline in the budget for the Court Service; alongside that, there is an equal decline in the legal aid budget. How have those issues been factored in? How has that work been done on the ground?

A variety of pieces of work are going on. Colin McKay can tell you more about them, but, clearly, there is the making justice work programme, which is separate and non-statutory. Some of Lord Gill’s proposals, which were made several years ago, did not require legislative change and some did. That is why, next week, we will proceed to stage 2 of the bill that will allow those changes to be made. Other matters, such as videoconferencing, are dealt with through the making justice work programme. They are not dealt with in one particular silo; they are on-going work. They are factored in.

I can give a little more detail. Clearly, the overall envelope was set by the original spending review. At the time of the spending review, there were discussions with the justice agencies in relation to the bids that were put forward and ultimately included in the budget, including discussion with the Scottish Court Service as a separate, non-ministerial department about what it needed to live on, as it were. Following that setting of the budget and the provision that was made, work has gone on within the individual agencies in terms of their business and corporate planning on how they are going to live through the next period.

There are two mechanisms that bring that together. In terms of the reforms, as Mr MacAskill has said, the making justice work programme, about which he has written to the committee in the past, brings together all the different structural and procedural reforms. One of its projects deals with the Gill reforms. The project board is chaired by the chief executive of the Scottish Court Service. It will consider the business case for those reforms and the implications for legal aid, the Crown Office and the police, all of which are represented on the project board for the Gill reforms as well as the project boards for the other reforms.

There is an overarching programme board that has on it the chief executives of the Court Service and the Scottish Legal Aid Board, the Crown Agent and a representative from the police. They oversee that overall process.

11:00

Right at the apex of official co-ordination there is a thing called the justice board that looks, over the piece, at the work of all agencies that are involved in the justice directorate; it also looks at planned reforms and generally monitors how the finance is going over the year, any contingencies that have arisen and any plans that need to be put in place.

There is a fairly coherent structure in place that allows the Government to work with the different justice agencies, including the independent Court Service, to ensure that the reforms are properly budgeted for and the implications for the other agencies are fully taken into account.

How are the interests of victims and witnesses weighted in those arrangements? How do you balance a judgment about saving money with the needs of the end customers, so to speak, whether those are victims, witnesses, accused persons or others?

To some extent, that is why the process is overseen by the Government, which has an interest in victims and witnesses. There is engagement with a wide range of organisations in the broader network within which it operates, including Victim Support Scotland and organisations that have an interest in particular groups such as Scottish Women’s Aid. They are all spoken to regularly about all such issues. There are also political commitments to victims and witnesses, which the officials in the various agencies have to—

But the key point is how you weight their views. We have heard from the cabinet secretary about the imperative of saving money: the pressure is on. Given the views that those groups will express, how do you set the benchmark that says that the impact is too great?

There is no formula as such. As Colin McKay has said, I engage with Scottish Women’s Aid, Victim Support Scotland, People Experiencing Trauma and Loss and others. To some extent, we just leave matters to be resolved by people of good will taking matters on board. Nobody goes out of their way to make matters worse. The previous Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, raised the issue that we should deal more appropriately with victims, and progress has been built on that. The current Lord Advocate, Frank McConnell, correctly recognises the problems that are faced by witnesses, not just victims, which is why we are proceeding with the victims and witnesses bill.

There is no formula; we are required to look at the budget and take on board the views of others. As well as the views of those around this table, the Government takes on board the interests of stakeholders—those who represent the rights of the accused and those who represent the rights of victims and witnesses. You may say that the process is bureaucratic, but all those views require to be taken on board, and that is what we seek to do. That is why we take representations from individual members on particular issues relating to the care and welfare of either victims or prisoners.

I am advised by the deputy convener that Frank McConnell is a dancer. The Lord Advocate is Frank Mulholland.

I meant Frank Mulholland. My apologies to my friend.

Maybe Frank Mulholland dances as well—who knows? We will find out one day.

Mr McKay wants to add something.

I will add just a small supplementary point on the courts programme that is produced by the Scottish Court Service. The concerns of victims and witnesses were of concern to the judiciary, which was one of the reasons why, before the Court Service developed its plans, the Lord President laid down some principles of access to justice. Those were included in the consultation document to guide the Court Service in developing its plans. They include the desirability of criminal justice being delivered locally; the requirement that the court should be accessible within a day’s travel, wherever possible; and the requirement to provide proper facilities for victims and witnesses in courtrooms. The concerns of victims and witnesses were addressed in setting the parameters within which the Court Service had to work out how it was going to deliver the savings.

Thank you. My last question is on the impact of the use of corroboration on Government budgets going forward.

In the event that the legislation is passed and the approach to corroboration changes, does the cabinet secretary see a need to continue to require corroborative evidence in the area of forensic science analysis and post-mortem? We know from experience that mistakes can, on occasion, be made in those circumstances, and that there is a special need for corroboration in that regard. That is an obvious budget cut, but it might be a budget cut too far.

I was waiting for the magic word “budget” to slither in, and you said it.

I never slither, convener.

We are consulting on those matters. In my experience—and doubtless in that of Mr Pearson—there is usually an autopsy by the defence as well as one by the Crown. We need to see the outcome of the consultation.

Mr Pearson makes a valid point. There have been some high-profile cases, but equally there have been many that have gone remarkably unchallenged. I am happy to assure Mr Pearson that we will consult properly on the issue.

In relation to the maintenance budget for the courts, the written submission from the Scottish Court Service states that the proposed capital funding will leave “little for on-going maintenance” in the next two years.

The acting chief executive has confirmed in written evidence that the SCS has a maintenance backlog of £57 million. Even if the proposals in the court reform consultation document are implemented, the savings will potentially be a drop in the ocean against that backlog.

It is clear that, beyond the two years, unless a substantial improvement in the Government’s financial position comes from somewhere, the SCS will be under considerable pressure.

The SCS is under pressure, which is why the status quo is not tenable and why, as I said, it is consulting on making changes. Roderick Campbell is correct that challenges still exist. We have discussed before how to balance those matters. That is the art of politics: how do we decide what we put into health as opposed to what we put into justice or education?

We believe that our budget is appropriate and covers the needs of the Scottish Court Service at present. However, this is not simple or easy. Once we come to a further spending review, the priorities might have to be changed; that is how the process operates.

As a Government, we have preserved health spending as we think that it is important to the wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Opposition parties have disagreed with us on that, but we have had to take the decision.

We believe—and Eric McQueen has confirmed—that the budget is manageable. It is not easy, but that is the same across the portfolio. We wish that we were not in the current situation, but the cuts are coming from Westminster and we have no alternative way of dealing with them. We will work with the stakeholders and institutions, and together we will create a fair and appropriate balance. Roderick Campbell’s point is valid, and the matter will have to be considered and reviewed in due course.

I will ask a question, which is a bit of a surprise. The committee has focused on criminal procedures in relation to court closures, but most people are involved in civil matters. I am thinking of things such as small claims, adoption, child welfare, matrimonial contact and interim interdicts. All those matters—for example, interim interdicts for residential contact—need to be heard pretty quickly, and all the people who might be involved will be very local.

I have concerns that civil work, which we tend to put to one side without thinking about it, will be prejudiced by the closure of rural courts. I appreciate that custody has to exist for criminal procedures and requires certain assets such as jails and custody suites. However, last week, I asked whether it would be possible for civil procedures to be held in buildings other than court buildings. The social work department, the general practitioner or whoever would all be on site and able to give evidence at hearings or interim hearings. What is your view on that?

That is a matter for the Scottish Court Service, and I have no real view on it. In my past experience as an agent, I appeared at referrals from children’s panels in Dundee, which at the time were dealt with in a separate building and not in the sheriff court—the sheriff moved to a separate building.

However, a lot depends on what is available, and it must be counterbalanced with the greater specialisation that we face in legislation. I have not practised law for 13 years, but when I was doing so in Edinburgh, which is one of our largest sheriffdoms, very few sheriffs did adoptions. There was usually one sheriff in particular who did adoptions—at one time it was Sheriff McNeill, who was replaced by Sheriff Scott, I think—but other sheriffs did not do adoptions. We now have mental health measures, guardianships and so on, and I know from discussions with people in the Scottish Court Service that there are many cases in which there is only one sheriff in any particular locality who can or does deal with such cases. Your point is valid.

To some extent, the point is about police stations. I often go to places where the police officer is not in a police station but in the same building as council services, such as social work. Frankly, that makes a lot more sense because people tend to take care of multiple issues. If opportunities arise, it would be good to deal with them. However, a particular sheriff who specialises in adoption, mental health measures or guardianships might be in a different place.

Whether we are talking about buildings or new technology, we have to break out of saying that particular courts and particular sheriffs have to deal with particular issues. That cannot continue in the world in which we live today. The court might not be in the right place and, in some cases, the sheriff who is there might not have the right skills. That is not to criticise that sheriff, but they still might not have the skills to deal with a particular matter.

I accept your argument about sheriffs and specialisms, which has been going on for a long time. Nevertheless, there are not only issues about access to justice, because costs are involved, too. I am therefore sceptical about court closures being cost neutral when I can see civil cases in which a social worker or a GP, for example, might have to travel into a city rather than giving their evidence within the community. Not only would their travel incur costs, but it would cost them time and so on. I challenge the idea on those grounds. I accept that the situation might be different when custody suites have to be provided, but I draw your attention to the fact that civil work forms the majority of people’s contact with the courts in Scotland. We must not overlook that when we look at the costs of access to justice and the financial costs of moving a court 40 or 50 miles away.

I accept that, but the Scottish Court Service has pronounced from on high, and the case of B v G was about how matters are dealt with, not just where they are dealt with. The Lord President has my full support on that. We have to recognise that some cases have to be dealt with expeditiously. I take your point on board, but the overwhelming majority of cases do not ever go to proof.

The cabinet secretary is aware that Graeme Pearson wants to ask a certain question. I am a bit dubious because I do not really see what it has to do with the budget but because consensus seems to have been reached behind my back, you may proceed, Mr Pearson.

I am sorry, convener, but you agreed to have word passed to the cabinet secretary.

Woops. Then I did forget; forgive me—I had a senior moment.

The issue of fatal accidents abroad and the ability of our authorities to deal with them has been mentioned at the committee before, and a number of members are concerned about it. We have had a number of responses that indicate that the Government will introduce legislation at some point in the future. I hoped that you would be able to give the committee some indication today about when that would happen. In the event that you find that you are too busy, would you object to someone from the committee taking the matter forward independently?

The parliamentary timetable is not within my domain but we are committed to implementing Lord Cullen’s recommendations about deaths abroad and wider issues. The fatal accident legislation is now from a past century and we have to progress it. I reaffirm the commitment that we will bring in the legislation before the end of this parliamentary session, but I cannot give you a precise timetable.

We are doing what we can and, as I have said previously, we have already managed to implement the measure for military deaths abroad. I am grateful for the support on that from south of the border and for the excellent work that has been carried out by the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland. I wanted to get that on the record.

Some clear issues that individual concerned citizens have brought to me require not so much a legislative change as an improvement in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s interaction with individuals. To be fair, I think that the FCO is seeking to address that. All that I can say is that you may care to discuss the issue with the Minister for Parliamentary Business, although I give you the assurance that we are committed to the issue in the interim.

Mr Pearson is happy. He smiled: I think that that means that he is happy.

I thank the cabinet secretary and the officials very much for their attendance. I suspend the meeting for 10 minutes before we move on to the next item, which is on Cornton Vale.

11:15 Meeting suspended.

11:27 On resuming—