Report on the 2013/14 Draft Budget

Web Only

The Scottish Government's Draft Budget 2013-14

The Committee reports to the Finance Committee as follows—

Background

1. The Scottish Government published its Draft Budget 2013-141 on 20 September 2012. The Justice Committee agreed at its meeting on 2 October to focus its scrutiny of these spending plans on the budgets for (a) the police; (b) the courts, and (c) treatment of women offenders (in light of the recommendations of the Commission on Women Offenders).

2. The Committee decided to examine these areas as each is facing significant change in the coming years. A new single police force is to become operational on 1 April 2013; the Scottish Court Service is currently consulting on proposals to change the structure of the courts; and development of a new women’s prison and overhaul of related services is planned.

3. The Committee received 17 responses to its call for written evidence. It also heard from two panels of witnesses on police reform2 on 23 October and one panel each on the courts3 and women offenders4 on 30 October. An evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and his officials on 6 November concluded the Committee’s evidence-gathering on the Draft Budget 2013-14.

Overview of the justice budget

4. The Committee notes that the cash terms figures for justice spending, as set out in the Scottish Government’s Draft Budget 2013-14 are broadly similar to those provided in the Scottish Spending Review 2011. However, the Draft Budget document 2013-14 notes a number of budget changes as follows:

  • Additional capital funding of £20 million has been allocated to the Scottish Prison Service for 2014-15, targeted towards the needs of women prisoners. This was agreed during the Stage 3 debate on the Budget Bill 2012-13.

  • The establishment of the new Scottish Police Authority and Scottish Fire and Rescue Service brings together funding sources from both the justice and local government portfolios. As a result the justice portfolio rises significantly as a share of the overall budget in 2013-14. (In cash terms this amounts to an increase of £1,205.6m between 2012-13 and 2013-14.)

  • Central government grants to local authorities reduce markedly in 2013-14 to reflect that police funding is now included in the Scottish Police Authority budget and the Fire Capital Grant is now included in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service budget.5

5. Overall spending on justice, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and grants to local authorities for 2012-13 to 2014-15 is set out in the table below.

Spending on justice, COPFS and grants to local authorities, 2012-13 to 2014-156

 

2012-13

budget

£m

2013-14

draft budget

£m

2014-15

plans

£m

Cash terms

Justice

1,341.0

2,546.6

2,527.4

COFPS

108.1

108.1

108.7

Grants

Police

480.3

-

-

 

CJ Social Work

86.5

86.5

86.5

Fire Capital

16.4

-

-

Total Grants

583.2

86.5

86.5

Real terms

Justice

1,341.0

2,484.5

2,405.6

COPFS

108.1

105.5

103.5

Grants

Police

480.3

-

-

 

CJ Social Work

86.5

84.4

82.3

 

Fire Capital

16.4

-

-

 

Total Grants

583.2

84.4

82.3

6. More detailed figures for spending within the justice portfolio (in cash terms) for 2012-13 to 2014-15 are set out in the table overleaf. Funding for the police, courts and women offenders is explored in more detail later in this report.

Justice spending in cash terms, 2012-13 to 2014-157

 

2012-13

budget

£m

2013-14

draft budget

£m

2014-15

plans

£m

Community Justice Services

31.3

31.8

32.3

Courts, Judiciary & Scottish Tribunals Service

52.4

52.1

51.6

Criminal Injuries Compensation

25.5

20.5

17.5

Scottish Resilience

17.9

14.0

14.0

Legal Aid

155.8

149.3

142.8

Scottish Police Authority

-

1085.5

1040.6

Scottish Fire & Rescue Service

-

293.1

288.1

Police Central Government

242.4

115.8

106.1

Drugs & Community Safety

38.3

38.7

39.7

Police & Fire Pensions

281.9

291.8

309.8

Scottish Prison Service

400.6

364.5

398.7

Miscellaneous

17.9

16.2

16.8

Scottish Court Service

77.0

73.3

69.4

Total

1,341.0

2,546.6

2,527.4

THE POLICE

The police: an overview

7. The Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 establishes one national police force (the Police Service of Scotland) to be overseen by a Scottish Police Authority, which will become operational on 1 April 2013. The existing eight territorial police forces will be abolished along with the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency (SCDEA).

8. The Committee considered the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 at Stages 1 and 2 earlier this year. The Committee’s Stage 1 report noted witnesses’ concern in relation to the lack of detail in the Outline Business Case (OBC) for police reform; the ability to achieve the projected savings in the OBC within the expected timescales; and the impact of the projected redundancies amongst support staff on the front line.8 It is against this background that the Committee decided to examine the budget for police reform in more detail as part of its scrutiny of the Draft Budget 2013-14.

9. Policing is currently funded through (a) central government expenditure within the justice portfolio; (b) a ring-fenced grant from central government to local authorities through the local government portfolio; and (c) resources that local authorities choose to spend on policing (around one-third of total police funding).9

10. The 2012 Act provides for consolidation of these elements of police funding into one single funding stream to be provided directly by the Scottish Government to the Scottish Police Authority. Local authorities will still be able if they wish to provide additional funding to supplement policing in their areas. These new funding arrangements are reflected in the Draft Budget 2013-14. However, not all of the Police Central Government budget line is transferred to the Scottish Police Authority. It is proposed that Police Central Government should retain £115.8 million in 2013-14 (and £106.1 million in 2014-15) to pay for the new Scottish Crime Campus at Gartcosh, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and initiatives such as the Scottish Safety Camera Programme and Airwave.10

11. Further details of police spending for 2012-13 to 2014-15 are set out in the table below.

Police spending 2012-13 to 2014-1511

 

2012-13

Budget

£m

2013-14

Draft budget

£m

2014-15

plans

£m

Cash Terms

Scottish Police Authority

-

1,085.5

1,040.6

Police Central Government

242.4

115.8

106.1

Police Pensions

222.6

231.0

249.6

Total

465.0

1,432.3

1,396.3

Real Terms

Scottish Police Authority

-

1,059.0

990.5

Police Central Government

242.4

111.3

101.0

Police Pensions

222.6

225.4

237.6

Total

465.0

1,397.4

1,329.1

12. The SPICe briefing on the Draft Budget 2013-14: Justice notes that the proposed combined total of £1,201.3 million for Scottish Police Authority and Police Central Government funding in 2013-14 “is very similar to the sum allocated for Police Central Government in the Spending Review 2011 plus elements of the Local Government settlement which have been moved to police spending within the justice portfolio”.12 It also confirms that figures for police pensions are identical in the Draft Budget 2013-14 and Spending Review 2011.13

13. Before the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections, the Scottish National Party included in its election manifesto a commitment to deliver 1,000 additional police officers.14 This policy was given effect through the Scottish Budget Spending Review 2007. The number of police officers in post as at 31 March 2007, 16,234, is used as the baseline figure for the commitment. The Scottish Government has since continued its commitment to maintain police numbers at a minimum of 17,234.15 The Scottish Government’s most recent police officer quarterly strength statistics show there was a total of 17,373 police officers (full-time equivalent posts) on 30 June 2010.16

14. There is no such commitment for police support staff. As at 30 June 2012, a total of 6,890 support staff (full-time equivalent posts) were employed. This is 462 fewer than on 31 March 2007.17

The police: evidence

Draft Budget 2013-14

15. The majority of witnesses agreed that the savings required for policing contained in the Draft Budget 2013-14 were challenging but achievable.18

16. In its written submission, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) stated that this challenge was even more significant than previously anticipated.19 However, ACPOS President, Chief Constable Kevin Smith, told the Committee on 23 October that savings required in 2013-14 could be realised, particularly now that a voluntary redundancy and early retirement process would be able to be offered in the coming year.20

17. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS) stated in its written evidence that “the recent release of high level figures provides a growing level of confidence that the savings in the very early years of reform will be met”.21

18. Stephen House, Chief Constable of the new Police Service of Scotland (PSoS) said he was confident that the budget was “doable” on the basis of his experiences at Strathclyde Police, where significant improvements in performance had been achieved at the same time as reductions in its budget. He further noted that a great deal of “groundwork” had been done by the reform team.22

19. The Chair of the Scottish Police Authority (SPA), Vic Emery, told the Committee that “the target for the first year is eminently achievable” and “in fact, it will be exceeded”.23

20. Mr Emery and Chief Constable House agreed that the first step in their new positions was to establish the exact cost of policing, to identify the gap between that cost and the level of funding to be provided, and then to establish how that gap might be filled. They told the Committee that they estimate the gap to be “about £69 million or £70 million for next year” and that “it will be the same the following year”.24

21. Commenting on this potential gap, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said he was confident in the evidence provided by Vic Emery and Chief Constable House that, although it will be challenging, they will be able to achieve the required savings.25

22. However, the Committee received limited evidence raising concerns in relation to savings in subsequent years. Chief Constable Smith, for example, told the Committee that “in the years to come there would be difficult decisions to make about policing”.26 Indeed, the ACPOS submission suggested that the savings required in 2014-15 would be around £141.5 million (rather than £88.2 million) as a result of a reduction of £12.9 million in the police settlement and other cost pressures, such as wage inflation, of £40.4 million.27

23. The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS) indicated in its written submission that it is “sceptical about the strength of the financial foundations on which the Scottish Government Outline Business Case was originally built”. It added that “clarity is required about the costs associated with the Police Service occupying Gartcosh Crime Campus, the impact of the 1 per cent pay rise recently announced, costs associated with ICT and what the contingency plans are in the event that insufficient numbers of police staff apply for voluntary redundancy or early retirement, or too many with critical skills and knowledge do seek voluntary redundancy or early retirement”.28

Police officer numbers and police support staff

24. A theme arising from the Committee’s scrutiny of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 was the need for a balanced workforce in the police service – between police officers and support staff.29 The desirability of having a balanced workforce was reflected in the evidence from police organisations on the Draft Budget 2013-14.30 There were, however, differing views on what the appropriate balance should look like.

25. The Committee heard from some witnesses that a proper balance in the workforce could not be achieved while the Chief Constable was constrained by the Scottish Government’s commitment to maintaining at least 17,234 police officers. For example, Chief Superintendent David O’Connor of ASPS told the Committee that “essentially the challenges would be easier for the SPA if it was freed up from the political target and allowed to set the right balance between police officers and police staff”.31 Chief Constable Smith of ACPOS agreed with this position.32

26. Dave Watson from Unison said that the target on police numbers “means that the service can focus its savings only on a very small part of its budget” including police staff. Mr Watson also expressed concern that the Scottish Government’s commitment was in effect political direction regarding operational matters which should be decided by the SPA and Chief Constable.33

27. However, some other witnesses, such as the Scottish Police Federation (SPF), supported the Scottish Government’s commitment on police numbers which they believe has resulted in “record low crime and record public confidence”.34

28. When asked to respond to concerns expressed by some witnesses on the Scottish Government’s policy on maintaining at least 17,234 police officers, Chief Constable House of the new Police Service of Scotland, said that it was “not his role” to question this policy and he was “happy to work with a high number of police officers”.35

29. When asked whether the Scottish Government’s commitment to 17,234 police officers represented interfering in the operational matters of the Chief Constable and SPA, the Cabinet Secretary stated: “I do not think that it does”. However, he did indicate that “if the Chief Constable and the SPA were to come to me at any stage and raise other matters, I would be happy to discuss those with them”, but “at present, however, Chief Constable House agrees that a visible police presence helps to make our communities safe”.36

30. Recent media reports have suggested that as many as 3,000 police support staff could lose their jobs under police reform.37

31. The Scottish Police Federation said it was not surprising, given that the percentage increase in support staff numbers since devolution was significantly greater than the increase in police officer numbers, that there are plans to reduce police staff numbers while police officer numbers are expected to be remain largely the same.38

32. However, the Chair of the SPA said in his written submission that “the narrow focus on police staff jobs in some [media] reporting has exacerbated the concerns of police staff that they are the sole target and sole solution to the financial challenges we face”. He gave assurances that there will be “a thorough examination of all costs associated with Scottish policing before any key decisions on staff headcount are made”.39 Doug Cross from ACPOS reiterated that every line of the budget is being looked at, including duplication, procurement, the size of the fleet, maintenance and use of the estate, as “credible alternatives” to workforce savings.40

33. Chief Constable House explained to the Committee that the need to reduce support staff was driven by two issues: “rationalisation of eight or ten organisations into one, and the need to look at support staff for a proportion of our savings”.41 He added that, while “technically” a reduction of 3,000 police support staff was “the absolute upper limit”, he did not believe this was a realistic figure.42 He further stressed that not all applications for voluntary redundancy would be granted and in particular those in jobs that would require backfilling by police officers were unlikely to be accepted.43

34. Chief Constable Smith from ACPOS agreed that job losses in areas where there would be an automatic backfill should be avoided. However, he conceded that “if job cuts among support staff reach a certain level, the risk of backfilling will emerge” and “it might become a necessary evil in order to balance the budget” next year or in subsequent years.44 The SPF also confirmed in its written submission that it has “no desire to see police officers taken from public facing roles to be deployed on administrative tasks”, but it “accepts the argument that loss of police staff will see police officers taken off the street to fill their roles”.45

35. Unison argued that backfilling was already occurring.46 It highlighted a survey of Unison membership that showed that around 53 per cent of the 1,000 police staff posts that have already disappeared are being covered in part or in full by police officers. Unison went on to argue that “taking trained operational police officers off the streets to perform administrative or specialist tasks – at greater cost, is economic madness” and would “return the police service in Scotland to almost the 1980’s, with inefficient and outdated police practice”.47 Unison also highlighted further work on the police budget undertaken by ACPOS that identified a list of savings options for the next four financial years, including cuts of 94 custody staff “to be replaced by police officers” and of 131 clerical staff with “police officers performing basic administrative duties”.48

36. There was consensus that the operational impact of having fewer police on the streets and involved in community policing was more significant than the financial implications. Doug Cross from ACPOS explained that because funding is provided for 17,234 police officers, backfilling would have a minimal effect on the police budget, although Chief Constable Smith highlighted there could be small cost implications from training police officers to undertake support staff jobs.49 However, all witnesses agreed that the backfilling was not the most effective or efficient way of using resources.50

37. Chief Constable House stated that there was “no plan or strategy for reform that I am in charge of that is predicated on backfilling”.51 He did however acknowledge that it may be happening “in isolated individual cases” but is “not something that I would support at this moment in time”.52

38. The Cabinet Secretary told the Committee that he “accepted the evidence from Chief Constable House, who said that he was not aware of [backfilling occurring] …, that there is no strategy to pursue such a course and that it would be the wrong course to take”.53

Local authority funding of police officers

39. As with current arrangements, local authorities can under the 2012 Act provide additional sums for local policing, for example, to ensure a visible police presence in a particular local area experiencing high levels of crime.54

40. Doug Cross from ACPOS advised during evidence that around 300 extra police officers are directly funded by local authorities.55 Chief Constable Smith added that “at this stage, there appears to be a commitment to continue this approach”, but that “the matter is ultimately a local decision for local authorities and their leaders”.56

41. The Cabinet Secretary confirmed that the powers will continue for local authorities to fund extra police officers to work on particular priorities within their local authorities and that there is no reason to believe that those circumstances will change.57

Reserves

42. The Police and Fire Services (Scotland) Act 2001 currently allows police authorities and joint boards to carry forward unspent balances from one financial year to the next, and in this way reserves of up to 5 per cent of revenue budgets can be held.58 Under the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, neither the SPA nor the Police Service of Scotland would be able to accrue financial reserves.59 The Scottish Government has agreed with COSLA that reserves of £36 million currently being held by police authorities and joint boards will be split with 51 per cent being returned to the Scottish Government and 49 per cent to COSLA at the end of March 2013.60

43. The Committee notes evidence from ACPOS that the level of reserves accrued by the end of 2012-13 is likely to exceed £36 million “due to proactive and determined attempts to reduce the cost base of the service going into police reform”.61 ACPOS suggested that “any reserve balances over and above the sum already agreed by the Scottish Government and COSLA should be used strategically to manage the budget for 2013-14 and beyond to enhance the prospects of delivering police reform savings, particularly in the first year”.62 Chief Constable Smith told the Committee that the additional underspend was expected to be around £14 million and that, as this money is “being saved by the current service for the new service, it seems perverse that it cannot be passed to the new authority”.63 Vic Emery, Chair of the SPA, indicated that he would welcome that outcome.64

44. The Cabinet Secretary confirmed however that “all uncommitted reserves will be split by the Scottish Government and local authorities on a 51 per cent to 49 per cent ratio” and that it is for the Scottish Government to determine how to allocate its share in line with priorities across all portfolios.65 He did however say that he would be happy to discuss the priorities for funding with the Committee.66

Information and Communication Technology

45. ASPS questioned in its written submission whether the £60 million annual spend provided for ICT in the outline business case was ‘value for money’ and stressed that other options, such as collaboration, shared services and business partnering must be explored.67 ASPS suggested that “police ICT does not have a happy or particularly successful history”, highlighting the Common Performance Management Platform68, an ICT project managed by ACPOS costing £7.7 million, which was abandoned after it was decided that there was no longer a business need for the project.69 Unison also expressed concerns over the savings estimates in relation to ICT.70 The Committee seeks an assurance regarding appropriate governance in the future in relation to ICT projects.

46. HMICS highlighted in its written submission that “ICT will be a key enabler of change, modernising processes and, in turn, delivering economies and efficiencies in the use of staff”, but that “many of the original systems would still be in place on 1 April 2013 with work to converge the systems not being as advanced as expected at this stage”.71 HMICS argued that this would have a knock-on effect on the release of staff costs which would have amounted to a significant proportion of savings in the early years of reform.72

47. Vic Emery, Chair of the SPA, was asked to comment on the suggestion that there was a lack of skills and resources to deliver on the IT requirements for the new Scottish Crime Campus at Gartcosh, an issue which was recorded in the Scottish Police Services Authority minutes of April 2012.73 He confirmed that this issue had now been resolved with six or seven Government-funded IT specialists having been brought in “to plug the gap in the resource and skill mix for delivering the ICT”.74 He did however highlight that, while there was no problem in putting the basic infrastructure into Gartcosh”, issues might arise when the building is populated”.75

Police estate

48. Chief Constable House of the Police Service of Scotland was asked whether police stations would be closed in an attempt to achieve the required savings. He confirmed that, although one of the options is to look at reducing the police estate, “we will not seek in the first instance to close police stations because that is an issue of huge public confidence”. He later gave a guarantee that he would try to avoid any police station closures.76

49. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice told the Committee that any decisions on police station closures would not be for him, but would be for the Chief Constable (from 1 April 2013) and would be subject to the scrutiny and approval of the Scottish Police Authority.77

Terms and conditions for police officers and support staff

50. Chief Constable House told the Committee during evidence that, in looking for areas where savings could be made, the negotiation of terms and conditions of police officers and support staff was “a fairly obvious place to go in many respects”, but that there would be “open and honest negotiation with the relevant staff association or union” on any proposed changes.78

51. The SPF’s written submission highlighted that a settlement agreed with Scottish Ministers in 2010 saw its members giving up around £2,000 per annum, but also confirmed that discussions are on-going on terms and conditions with representatives from the Scottish Government and ACPOS.79

52. The Cabinet Secretary reiterated that the terms and conditions of police officers and police staff was a matter for the Chief Constable to agree with those officers/staff and their representatives.80

Operational independence

53. The Scottish Police Federation stated in its written submission that executive support, such as IT, human resources and finance must come under the direction and control of the Chief Constable rather than the SPA, as that would be “a source for conflict as debate over primacy would take priority”.81

54. Some Members expressed concern regarding comments made by Vic Emery that the Scottish Police Authority would take on the direct management and control of the finance and human resources functions of the single service, when in fact these functions are vital to the operational independence of the Chief Constable.82

55. The Cabinet Secretary stated that “both sides have accepted that the Chief Constable has operational responsibility” and that “discussions are continuing and I have no reason to believe that a happy accord over interpretation will not be reached”. He also said that he understood the concerns of Members surrounding this issue and gave an assurance that matters are being “chivvied along”.83

The police: conclusions

56. The Committee welcomes the assurances from the new Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland and the Chair of the Scottish Police Authority that the police budget for 2013-14 will be achieved. However, following concerns we raised in our Stage 1 report on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 regarding the lack of detail in the Outline Business Case, we remain concerned that there still appears to be a lack of detailed financial information available for scrutiny on exactly how the savings will be achieved next year and in subsequent years. We would therefore require detailed financial plans for policing to be drawn up as a priority and then made available to the Committee. Given the imminent launch of the Police Service of Scotland, the Committee would welcome early sight of these plans.

57. The Committee noted its concerns during scrutiny of the 2012 Act as to the impact of civilian redundancies on the front-line. The Committee also noted the assurances from the Chief Constable regarding redundancies and backfilling, but our concerns remain. The Committee will continue to seek assurances that any cuts in support staff will not be on such a scale that it risks de-civilianisation of the police service and widespread ‘backfilling’ of support jobs by police officers.

58. The Committee notes that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice indicated that the estimated £14 million additional underspend will not be made available to the new service for 2013-14. ACPOS gave evidence of the value they attached to the use of this fund in the first year planning for the new service. We welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s commitment to discuss funding priorities with the Committee.

59. The Committee is concerned regarding evidence received from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary that ICT systems are not as advanced as expected at this stage of reform. We would therefore welcome further details from those in charge of the ICT projects identified as requirements for a single police force and an indication of when they will be completed and the implications if they are not ready for 1 April 2013.

60. The Committee looks forward to an effective conclusion to the discussions in relation to operational independence and its application as it pertains to budgetary priorities.

THE COURTS

The courts: overview

61. The Scottish Court Service (SCS) budget covers the main operating costs of the courts, including staff costs and the maintenance and development of court buildings. SCS spending for 2012-13 to 2014-15 is set out in the table below.

SCS spending 2012-13 to 2014-1584

 

2012-13

Budget

£m

2013-14

Draft budget

£m

2014-15

plans

£m

Cash Terms

Operating Expenditure

68.5

67.3

65.4

Capital

8.5

6.0

4.0

Total

77.0

73.3

69.4

Real Terms

Operating Expenditure

68.5

65.7

62.2

Capital

8.5

5.9

3.8

Total

77.0

71.5

66.1

62. Spending provided for the SCS in the Draft Budget 2013-14 differs from the Spending Review 2011 only by very small reductions to operating expenditure of £0.1 million in 2013-14 and 2014-15. This is explained as an adjustment to include a transfer to the Scottish Tribunals Service to support the funding for shrieval conveners.85

63. Figures for the Scottish Tribunals Service are shown in the table below, along with the costs of judicial salaries and pensions, and the running costs of a number of justice agencies, such as the Judicial Appointments Board of Scotland.

Courts, judiciary and Scottish Tribunals Service, 2012-13 to 2014-1586

 

2012-13

Budget

£m

2013-14

Draft budget

£m

2014-15

plans

£m

Cash Terms

Courts, Judiciary Services

10.8

10.3

10.0

Scottish Tribunals Service

11.8

11.5

11.0

Judicial Salaries

29.8

30.3

30.6

Total

52.4

52.1

51.6

Real Terms

Judicial Costs

10.8

10.0

9.5

Scottish Tribunals Service

11.8

11.2

10.5

Judicial Salaries

29.8

29.6

29.1

Total

52.4

50.8

49.1

64. The increase in the Scottish Tribunals Service budgets of £0.7 million for 2013-14 and 2014-15 is explained in the Draft Budget 2013-14 as a result of a delay in the transfer of administrative functions for reserved tribunals. Additional funding that was allocated in 2012-13 for this transfer is now required to be made available in 2013-14.87

65. The Committee considered courts and legal aid as part of last year’s budget scrutiny. In a written submission submitted to the Committee during that process, the SCS indicated that a review of court locations was at an early stage.88 In its report on last year’s budget scrutiny, the Committee “accepted that rationalisation of court premises could make significant savings, including, for example, where there is duplication of sheriff court and justice of the peace court buildings”. However, the Committee “urged the SCS to ensure that access to justice and local needs are both taken into consideration when deciding how best to rationalise the estate”.89

66. In May 2012, the SCS published Shaping Scotland’s court services: a dialogue on a court structure for the future90 and held six events across Scotland over May and June to examine its proposals. The paper highlighted “significant changes to the system that the Scottish Ministers have signalled their intention to bring forward in the next few years”, including reforms proposed by Lord Gill in his review of the civil courts and by Sheriff Principal Bowen in relation to sheriff and jury procedure. The paper also indicated that the SCS operating budget is set to decrease by 20 per cent in real terms by 2014-15, compared with 2010-11 and there is therefore a “consequential need to find efficiencies in the way business is conducted”. The SCS explained that it is “for these reasons, therefore, the status quo is not a sustainable option for the SCS”.91

67. In September 2012, the SCS launched ‘a public consultation on proposals for a court structure for the future’92, which is to run until 21 December 2012. This paper highlighted further the economic constraints faced by the SCS in the coming years, including that its “capital budget, which we use to provide buildings and technology, will reduce from £20.3 million in 2010-11 to £4 million in 2014-15” and reiterated that “carrying on as before is simply not an option”.93

68. It is against this background that the Committee decided to concentrate part of this year’s budget scrutiny on proposals for structural reform of the courts.

The courts: evidence

Draft Budget 2013-14

69. The Committee heard from Eric McQueen, Chief Executive of the Scottish Courts Service, that the SCS would be able to achieve the financial reductions included in the Draft Budget 2013-14 through “a combination of factors”.94 He also confirmed that meeting the 2013-14 budget was not dependent on implementation of the proposals on structural reform of the courts contained in the ‘Shaping Scotland’s court services’ consultation document.95 The “combination of factors” referred to by Mr McQueen included:

  • reducing staff numbers, saving £3.7 million;
  • limiting the reliance on part-time sheriffs and cutting sitting days in the court system, saving £1.5 million;
  • consolidating the number of justice of the peace courts into sheriff courts, saving around £500,000, and
  • re-examining procurement, supplies and services, reducing the “spend base” by about £2 million.96

70. Mr McQueen told the Committee that further reductions in staff and sitting days had been considered by the SCS as a way in which savings for subsequent years could be achieved, but that the SCS had concluded that this would not be in the interests of the delivery of justice. He indicated that this was one of the reasons why court restructuring is important (i.e. as a way of cutting costs without simply cutting staff and sitting days), but added that such restructuring would also “help us to facilitate the justice reforms that are coming our way”.97

71. A written submission from the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) suggested that “the anticipated savings are vague in places and in others demonstrate aspirations rather than projections”.98 However, Mr McQueen confirmed the SCS assessment that the proposals would generate annual savings of £2 million, a one-off saving on backlog maintenance of £4 million and potential capital receipts in excess of £2 million to support future investment. He acknowledged however that these savings would not be available for the 2013-14 budget, but would be progressive as implementation was advanced.99

72. The Committee heard that a number of witnesses were unconvinced by some of the arguments put forward in the SCS consultation and feared that the primary motivation is to cut costs100.

73. The Committee asked the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to confirm his view on whether the rationale for structural reform in the courts was purely financial. Mr MacAskill acknowledged that “we must operate within the budget, which is challenging, but 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”.101

Access to justice

74. A number of witnesses expressed concern that the closure of courts would risk access to justice.102 The Law Society of Scotland indicated in its written submission that court users would have to travel further and with greater cost, or may be “dis-incentivised to attend at all, with the associated churn that this would create for the court system”. The Law Society went on to argue that rural areas, which are often poorly served by public transport, would be most affected by the proposals103.

75. Victim Support Scotland raised concerns that victims and witnesses might feel or experience intimidation if they have to travel to court on the same transport as the accused and their families, increasing the likelihood that some may be too traumatised to give their best evidence or may, as noted by the Law Society, not attend at all.104

76. However, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) argued in written evidence that “none of the distances from existing courts to the proposed courts are prohibitive”. The COPFS written submission also highlighted that it is conducting detailed analysis of the postcodes of civilian witnesses compared with the location of the courts to identify any local issues which will be discussed with the SCS.105

77. The Committee asked the Cabinet Secretary to confirm how the views of victims and witnesses in particular were taken into consideration as part of this review of court structures. Colin McKay, Deputy Director, Legal System Division at the Scottish Government, explained that “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”. These included “desirability of criminal justice being delivered locally, the requirement that the court should be accessible in a day’s travel, wherever possible, and the requirement to provide proper facilities for victims and witnesses in courtrooms”.106

78. The Committee explored with witnesses whether there were any alternatives to court closures that would better protect access to justice.

79. Stuart Naismith from the Law Society of Scotland said that there must be scope for reforms in civil procedure, for example, employment tribunals could be booked online rather than requiring attendance at the sheriff court to obtain a warrant on a summary cause. Mr Naismith also suggested that many routine civil procedural matters, such as typing interlocutors, could be conducted centrally rather than locally.107

80. Brian Carroll of PCS highlighted that using alternative accommodation for certain types of business was suggested at some of the earlier dialogue events on court structures, but that this did “not come through particularly well” in the consultation document.108

81. The Committee explored with witnesses the possible benefits of using other buildings in communities for civil proceedings, where those involved, such as social workers, lawyers, the accused, victims and witnesses are based in the local area. The Committee does however recognise that criminal business raises particular issues due to security considerations.

82. Mr McQueen indicated that hearing civil business in other locations in local communities “would not be unreasonable”.109 The Cabinet Secretary agreed that the view put forward by the Committee was valid, but that it would be a matter for the SCS.110

Maintenance

83. Mr McQueen acknowledged in evidence that, on the capital side, court restructuring would not bring in any additional funding for “investment, improving facilities or any major disasters in the court estates”.111

84. Concerns were expressed by Brian Carroll from PCS that “if money is not spent on maintenance, the fabric of buildings deteriorates and what needs to be spent increases”. Mr Carroll went on to suggest that “deferred costs should be balanced against savings and that should be a significant factor in deciding whether budget cuts will impact on the delivery of justice”.112

85. Mr McQueen confirmed in supplementary written evidence that the estimated backlog of maintenance for the whole of the Scottish courts’ estate is currently £57.1 million.113 Mr McQueen said the timescale for maintenance would largely be “anything between zero to five years”. He added that “each of the pieces of work is prioritised on the basis of its importance with regard to compliance, health and safety and desirability”.114

86. When asked to comment on the assertion that this maintenance backlog would put the SCS under considerable pressure, the Cabinet Secretary confirmed that “the SCS is under pressure, which is why the status quo is not tenable and why … it is consulting on making changes”. He added that “we believe that our budget is appropriate and covers the needs of the SCS at present.”115

Unintended consequences

87. Some witnesses had concerns that the reforms, while saving the SCS money, may have unintended consequences for other justice agencies. For example, Stuart Naismith of the Law Society of Scotland told the Committee that it was “inconceivable” that closing courts would be cost neutral for all other court users.116 The Law Society’s written submission anticipated that there would be “displacement of costs into other budgets”.117

88. Mr McQueen told the Committee that the SCS had involved justice agencies, including the police, COPFS, and the Scottish Legal Aid Board in the development of its court structure proposals to assess the overall impact. He said that “the view came back from those organisations that they expect the impact across the board either to be cost neutral or to generate some small savings”.118

89. Colin McKay also noted that the matter was covered in the SCS consultation document on court structures and that his “recollection of the evidence is that they all said that the costs would be neutral or that there would be small savings”. He went on to say that “there are swings and roundabouts in relation to COPFS as it may have to pay expenses for more people with more expensive travel, but there will be savings in other respects”.119

Implementation of court reforms

90. Some witnesses were of the view that there would be merit in delaying any court closures until court reforms arising from reviews by Lord Gill120, Lord Carloway121 and Sheriff Bowen122 had been implemented. For example, Mr Carroll of PCS argued that the current consultation on structural reform “does not put in place any revised structure in the event of future reforms or changes in how court work is processed”.123 Stuart Naismith from the Law Society of Scotland agreed that court restructuring should wait as “court closures are not related to reform”, and Susan Gallagher of Victim Support Scotland suggested that revised structures should “wait until we have decided how we will move justice forward in this country”.124

91. However, witnesses from the SCS and COPFS said that there was no need to wait as all of the proposed reforms, technological developments and court structures were being brought together through the Scottish Government’s overarching Making Justice Work programme.125

92. The Cabinet Secretary was asked whether he thought there would be any merit in delaying court closures until it becomes clear whether there would be increases in the volume of court business as a result of reforms such as Lord Carloway’s recommendations and the proposed reduction in the drink-driving limit. Mr MacAskill said that he did not think that there would necessarily be an increase in business, but he was “perfectly confident” that these matters had been taken on board as part of the SCS proposals.126

The courts: conclusions

93. The Committee notes the concerns of some witnesses that court closures may compromise access to justice, particularly for victims and witnesses who may face longer travel distances and, additionally, the prospect of intimidation during travel to court. We therefore recommend more opportunities for victims and witnesses to give evidence by video-conferencing where intimidation is likely or to avoid unnecessary travel.

94. The Committee reiterates the recommendation it made in its report on the Spending Review 2011 and Draft Budget 2012-13, calling on the SCS to ensure that both access to justice and local needs are taken into consideration when deciding how best to rationalise the court estate.

95. The Committee welcomes the detailed analysis of the postcodes of civilian witnesses compared with the location of the courts that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is currently undertaking to identify any local issues. We would welcome early sight of this analysis when it becomes available to assist us in our scrutiny of any proposals arising from the consultation on court structures.

96. The Committee urges the Scottish Court Service to consider other options for saving costs, including using other buildings in communities for civil proceedings, using technology to simplify civil procedure, (e.g. by booking employment tribunals online) and centralising routine processes.

97. The Committee is concerned that the backlog of maintenance on court buildings, currently estimated at £57.1 million, is a ‘ticking time bomb’ for the Scottish Court Service. We therefore seek the Cabinet Secretary’s views on whether the SCS can be assisted to address some of these maintenance costs before they become entirely unmanageable.

98. The Committee is sceptical that court closures will be cost neutral for court users and we therefore intend to monitor closely the effects of any closures on others if and when they are implemented.

99. The Committee notes the divergence of views on whether court closures should be delayed until implementation of justice reforms recommended in recent reviews by Lord Gill, Lord Carloway and Sheriff Principal Bowen. The Committee therefore urges that all reforms arising from these reviews and any other forthcoming reviews are considered carefully before any decisions on court structures are made.

THE TREATMENT OF WOMEN OFFENDERS

Treatment of women offenders: an overview

100. The Committee’s work on women offenders was prompted by unfavourable inspection reports of HMP and YOI Cornton Vale in 2009 and 2011 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland, who described Cornton Vale as “in a state of crisis”.127 Since September 2011, the Committee has sought to monitor progress towards implementing recommendations arising from the Chief Inspector’s reports on Cornton Vale, which has included committee visits to Cornton Vale, Edinburgh prison (where a number of women prisoners were transferred to in 2011) and the 218 Service128.

101. During scrutiny of the prisons budget last year, the Committee reported its concern about the number of prisoners and suitability of their accommodation, particularly at Cornton Vale.129

102. On 26 June 2012, the Committee took evidence from the Commission on Women Offenders130 in relation to its report aimed at improving outcomes for women in the criminal justice system. Included in the Commission’s findings was a recommendation that Cornton Vale be replaced with a smaller specialist prison. It also indicated that many of its recommendations could be funded through more efficient and effective use of existing resources.131 The Scottish Government accepted 33 of the Commission’s 37 recommendations132 and highlighted the £20 million additional capital funding which was allocated during Stage 3 of the Budget Bill 2012-13 to the Scottish Prison Service for 2014-15 for the needs of women prisoners.133

103. The Committee was keen to ensure that sufficient funding had been allocated to implement the Commission’s recommendations and therefore agreed to include this issue as part of its budget scrutiny this year.

104. In August 2012, the SPS launched a consultation (which concluded in September 2012) on the size, nature and location of a new prison for women offenders and in the meantime sought to improve conditions at Cornton Vale (as recommended by the Commission).134

105. The Cabinet Secretary announced in his report to the Parliament on progress towards the Commission’s recommendations on 29 October 2012 that the planned HMP Inverclyde would be used for women prisoners (rather than male prisoners) – replacing Cornton Vale once completed – and that a new specialist unit at HMP Edinburgh would also be built for women. In the meantime, work would continue to improve the facilities at HMP Cornton Vale.135

Treatment of women offenders: evidence

Draft Budget 2013-14

106. Colin McConnell, Chief Executive of the SPS told the Committee that in relation to his budget, he foresees “no particular difficulties in the immediate future in establishing the seedcorn of taking Dame Elish’s recommendations forward”. However, he did suggest that the next budget review would be “critical”.136

HMP Cornton Vale

107. The Committee heard from Kate Donegan, Governor of HMP Cornton Vale, that plans were being developed to change and dramatically improve the environment in Cornton Vale. However, she did “not intend to spend ridiculous amounts of money on that, as … you do not have to spend that kind of money to significantly improve what is already there”.137

108. The SPS Chief Executive confirmed that “the Cabinet Secretary and the Scottish Government have made sure that the Scottish Prison Service is appropriately resourced to do the business that it has to do, and that includes the necessary improvements that we need to make pro tem at Cornton Vale”.138 He reiterated that these improvements “are already funded and I have set the money aside, so we will see some significant improvements to the living accommodation at Cornton Vale and the development of a family centre there, which we fully intend will be operational by the spring”. He added that “we are also looking to improve the training of staff who work with women, and that is already being brought forward”.139

HMP Inverclyde

109. Colin McConnell explained the rationale behind his decision to propose to the Cabinet Secretary that the planned HMP Inverclyde should be a new national prison for women prisoners.140 He outlined that using HMP Inverclyde would allow significant improvements in addressing the needs of women prisoners within a timeframe of “four years or so”, whereas, if he had stuck to the original plans a new women’s prison was unlikely to be built until 2019-20 and only if funds were available at that time.141

110. He explained that the budgetary implications for the SPS in the current budget round are “to all intents and purposes minimal, because those moneys are already in the system and were allocated for building Inverclyde prison”.142 He confirmed that he did not foresee any difficulty with funding in the early phases and, although the SPS would need to bid for additional funds in the next budget round, it would have had to do that anyway.143 He added that the cost for HMP Inverclyde will be somewhere between £70 million and £80 million.144

111. Mr McConnell was asked whether male prisoners would lose out as a result of the allocation of HMP Inverclyde to women prisoners; he confirmed that the life of HMP Greenock (which was to be replaced by HMP Inverclyde) would be extended, as it was still in reasonably good condition. From a budgetary perspective, this could be done “at reasonable value to the public purse” and that, as he did not envisage parallel running in the long term between HMP Cornton Vale and Inverclyde, the running costs for HMP Cornton Vale would move to HMP Inverclyde.145

112. The Committee also asked Mr McConnell to confirm the capacity of HMP Inverclyde, given that the Commission on Women Offenders had recommended that a small specialist prison be built dealing mainly with long-term and dangerous prisoners. Mr McConnell advised that, “ultimately [we] have to be able to cope with a population of between 450 and, say 480, because historically that is where we have been, but it will have an absolute imperative to put in place proper support services that, in time, will reduce that population”.146 He also stated that “although our proposals might not meet the fine detail of what Dame Elish wants, I think that they meet her recommendations in the broad sense”.147

Momentum

113. Witnesses agreed that, since publication of the Commission on Women Offenders’ report, there has been a real momentum to ensure that the needs of women offenders are finally addressed. Kate Donegan, Governor of HMP Cornton Vale, explained that “the difference now is that all parties are working together and are keen to give life to Dame Elish’s recommendations and there is a real passion among third sector and statutory bodies to do exactly that”.148 Ann Pinkman of the Scottish Working Group on Women Offenders, and Sean McKendrick of the Association of Directors of Social Work agreed that there was an appetite and energy among partners to use existing funding more creatively.149

114. Brigadier Hugh Monro, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland, who had produced two unfavourable inspection reports on Cornton Vale in 2009 and 2011, said that he was “more hopeful that the situation is more optimistic” not least because of the leadership of the new SPS Chief Executive and appointment of Kate Donegan as Governor.150

115. The SPS Chief Executive said that the Commission report had allowed him to look afresh at the SPS’s long-standing strategic planning approach in the context of the Commission’s report. He gave assurances that he would personally lead on driving the proposals forward.151

116. The Committee is hopeful that the culture at Cornton Vale will change as a result of strong leadership from the new SPS Chief Executive and a willingness to meet the objectives of the Commission’s report. The Committee intends to continue to monitor progress towards meeting the Commission’s recommendations in the coming years.

Mentoring

117. The Cabinet Secretary’s report to the Parliament on progress in relation to the Commission on Women Offenders’ recommendations of 29 November stated that the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund (RRCF) announced in the last spending review is being used to establish mentoring for offenders across Scotland. The Fund provides £7.5 million over the three years of the 2011 Spending Review period.152 Joe Griffin, Deputy Director, Community Justice at the Scottish Government, provided further details of the approach and mentoring projects funded—

“We have now allocated funds for the first year. Groups working with women are among those that are receiving the funding. The model that we are looking at for years 2 and 3 of the change fund is something called a public-social partnership. It is a funding model that originated in Italy whereby the third sector and statutory funders come together to co-design a service and then reach an agreement that, provided certain outcomes are met during the delivery of that service, it will be sustained over a period. We have deliberately used the change fund to test that approach in Scotland because we feel that it could be an innovative way of ensuring that the projects that really work and deliver outcomes get sustainable funding.”153

118. The Association of Directors of Social Work suggested in its written submission that mentoring, such as that funded through the RRCF “has the capacity to improve lifestyles and compliance with the decision of the court, thereby potentially reducing the use of imprisonment, particularly that of remands”.154

119. During last year’s budget scrutiny it was not yet clear exactly what type of projects would be funded through the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund.155 The Committee notes from its visit to the 218 Service in 2011 that mentoring for offenders on release can be successful in deterring reoffending behaviour and is pleased that the RRCF is being used to fund such projects.

Accommodation and benefits

120. The Committee has previously noted that suitable accommodation is not always provided to women prisoners on release and that this failure makes reoffending more likely.

121. Ann Pinkman told the Committee that various housing protocols among prisons and housing services were now being established within community justice authorities and that there was now a housing officer post in Cornton Vale to address housing needs of women on admission and on release from prison.156

122. Kate Donegan told the Committee that “one of the principal difficulties for women who are released from prison is the business of needing to have secure accommodation, and that does not happen for them as often as we would like”. She added that “the impact of change in benefits could be fairly dramatic, so we obviously need to address it”.157

123. The Committee welcomes this work and that of the Scottish Government on different models of housing support for women leaving prison, including the ‘Housing First’ project where individuals with complex needs are supported in a tenancy, and work with Glasgow City Council aimed at preventing homelessness.

124. The Cabinet Secretary indicated that the Scottish Government was committed to preventing homelessness more generally and that he was awaiting a report from the Supported Accommodation Implementation Group158 which aims to integrate the Commission’s recommendations into the strategic planning and implementation of all housing providers.159

125. The Cabinet Secretary told the Committee he was also working on a pilot project with the Department for Work and Pensions to allow women prisoners leaving Cornton Vale to access their benefit entitlement immediately on release from prison.160

Treatment of women offenders: conclusions

126. The Committee welcomes the work of the Commission on Women Offenders in developing a momentum to properly address the needs of women prisoners. We also welcome the Scottish Government’s response to the Commission’s recommendations, including putting in place the necessary resources for their implementation. The Committee will continue to monitor progress in relation to implementing the Commission’s findings to ensure that the strong momentum for change does not weaken.

127. The Committee welcomes the proposal by the Scottish Prison Service Chief Executive and accepted by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to develop the planned prison at HMP Inverclyde for women prisoners, allowing it to be in place within four years. We urge the Scottish Government to find the necessary funds in subsequent budget rounds to provide facilities necessary to address the needs of women prisoners.

128. The Committee is interested in the potential for public-social partnerships which are being trialled in years 2 and 3 of the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund, to secure sustainability of projects. We would welcome further details of this approach from the Scottish Government.

129. The Committee notes the pilot projects that the Scottish Government and other agencies are undertaking in relation to providing suitable accommodation and access to benefits for women prisoners on release from custody and would welcome updates on these projects in due course.

CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES

130. All committees have been asked by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee to include in their reports to the Finance Committee any climate change issues arising during their scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s Draft Budget 2013-14. A number of climate change issues arose in relation to the budgets for the police, the courts, and the treatment of women offenders (in light of the recommendations of the Commission on Women Offenders) and these are discussed below.

131. During evidence, the Committee heard that there were significant opportunities arising from the creation of a single police force to reduce the environmental impact, particularly in rationalising the police estate and vehicle fleet, and better use of technology. Indeed, ASPS suggested in its written submission that “the police building estate is overdue for review and that some significant savings can be made from the selected closure of under-utilised and energy-inefficient buildings”.161 ASPS also highlighted in written evidence the police vehicle fleet as a possible area where carbon savings might be made.

132. The Committee notes that the Minister for Environment and Climate Change has written to all senior accountable officers of public bodies in Scotland highlighting the advisory guidance on the production of Sustainability Reports alongside annual reports and accounts.162 We intend to consider the Chief Constable’s plans in relation to reducing the carbon footprint of the new service in due course.

133. The Committee received evidence that similar opportunities to reduce the environmental impact were likely to arise from the SCS’s proposals on court structures. The SCS’s written submission outlined that “a well-managed estate makes best possible use of our buildings and meets our environmental responsibilities”, as one of the elements critical to successful delivery of financial savings.

134. During evidence on 30 October, Eric McQueen of the SCS was asked whether consideration had been given to the energy efficiency of buildings that will remain after court closures. He explained that the SCS has “an active carbon management plan in the organisation” and that, “despite the fact that we operate largely out of Victorian buildings, which are not normally the type of buildings where you would succeed on carbon management, we are very much seen as being an exemplar across the country”.163

135. However, some witnesses suggested that travel distances for court users could be greater as a result of local courts closing. Mr McQueen said that “there is no doubt that some of the proposals on court structures may increase travel distances”, however, he does not believe that this will have a major impact on the SCS’s ability to meet future carbon reduction targets.164

136. Some Members indicated their frustration that, while funding had been invested in prisons and courts to allow court appearances by video-conferencing, there was little evidence that the technology was being used, despite this being a way of producing substantial savings and reducing the impact on the environment. This issue was first raised by the Committee in its report on the Spending Review 2011 and Draft Budget 2012-12 and has since been an area of on-going interest.165

137. Mr McQueen told the Committee that the Scottish Legal Aid Board is leading a project aimed at increasing the use of video-conferencing, the first phase of which is to establish agent-to-client access between solicitors’ offices and prisons and police stations, to allow solicitors to have discussions with clients. He indicated that there had been a “resurgence” in the use of video-conferencing and that around 40 per cent of full committal hearings were now taking place by video-conferencing.166

138. The Commission on Women Offenders’ report recommended that a new national prison for women offenders be built to replace HMP Cornton Vale and recommended that this new prison be built in an environmentally sustainable design. The Committee notes the Cabinet Secretary’s decision to reassign the planned HMP Inverclyde to women prisoners and that this new-build would be operational within four years, rather than seven or eight years, and only then if the money was available.

EQUALITIES ISSUES

139. Committees have also been asked by the Equal Opportunities Committee to include in their reports to the Finance Committee any equalities issues arising during their scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s Draft Budget 2013-14. A number of equalities issues arose in relation to the budgets for the police, the courts, and the treatment of women offenders (in light of the recommendations of the Commission on Women Offenders) and these are discussed below.

140. The Committee notes that recent media reports have suggested that as many as 3,000 police support staff could lose their jobs under police reform.167 While the Chief Constable of the new Police Service of Scotland, Stephen House, said that “technically” a reduction of 3,000 police support staff was “the absolute upper limit”, he does not believe this is a realistic figure. The Committee has expressed concern about the possible de-civilianisation of the police and notes the effects that job losses would have on individuals, their household incomes and socio-economic status.

141. The Committee heard evidence that access to justice, particularly for vulnerable people, such as the accused, victims and witnesses, would be compromised by the SCS’s proposals on court closures. The Law Society of Scotland, for example, argued that “court users will have to travel further and with greater cost, or may be dis-incentivised to attend at all, with the attendance churn that this could create for the court system”.168 It added that “this will affect the public, lawyers, police, social workers and others”.169 The Committee notes that the Scottish Court Service conducted an Equality Impact Assessment, which indicated that this policy is likely to affect staff, judiciary and court users including persons with particular protected characteristics. It also indicates that people under 29 and over 60 are “likely to be disproportionately affected by more complex or lengthy trips to courts by public transport”.170

142. In response to these concerns, the Committee has recommended that more opportunities for victims and witnesses to give evidence by video-conferencing are made available to minimise the impact of court closures, and that access to justice and local needs are both taken into consideration when deciding how best to rationalise the court estate. The Committee will also consider any equalities implications from the final proposals on court closures once the consultation has concluded.

143. During last year’s budget scrutiny, the Committee expressed concern about the number of prisoners and suitability of their accommodation, particularly at Cornton Vale. The Committee notes and is encouraged by the work of the Commission on Women Offenders in developing a momentum to properly address the needs of women prisoners. The Committee has however indicated that it will continue to monitor progress on implementing the Commission’s recommendations “to ensure that the strong momentum for change does not weaken”.

ANNEXE A: EXTRACTS FROM THE MINUTES

24th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 4 September 2012

Draft Budget Scrutiny 2013-14 (in private): The Committee agreed not to appoint a budget adviser this year.

28th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 2 October 2012

Draft Budget Scrutiny 2013-14 (in private): The Committee considered its approach to the scrutiny of the Scottish Government's Draft Budget 2013-14 and agreed: (1) to focus its scrutiny on the courts, police reform and the Commission on Women Offenders; (2) a list of witnesses; and (3) to delegate to the Convener the final composition of witness panels.

29th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 23 October 2012

Draft Budget Scrutiny 2013-14: The Committee took evidence on the Scottish Government's Draft Budget 2013-14 from—

Chief Constable Kevin Smith, President, and Doug Cross, Chair, Finance Management Business Area, Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland;
Chief Superintendent David O'Connor, President, Association of Scottish Police Superintendents;
Calum Steele, General Secretary, Scottish Police Federation;
Dave Watson, Scottish Organiser (Bargaining and Campaigns), Unison Scotland;
Chief Constable Stephen House, Police Service of Scotland;
Vic Emery, Chair, Scottish Police Authority.

30th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 30 October 2012

Draft Budget Scrutiny 2013-14: The Committee took evidence on the Scottish Government's Draft Budget 2013-14 from—

John Logue, Procurator Fiscal, East of Scotland, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service;
Stuart Naismith, Convener, Access to Justice Committee, Law Society of Scotland;
Brian Carroll, TUS Scottish Court Service Branch Secretary, Public and Commercial Services Union;
Eric McQueen, Chief Executive, Scottish Court Service;
Susan Gallagher, Deputy Chief Executive, Business Delivery, Victim Support Scotland;
Sean McKendrick, Vice-convener, Criminal Justice Standing Committee, Association of Directors of Social Work;
Kate Donegan, Governor, HMP & YOI Cornton Vale;
Brigadier Hugh Monro, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland;
Colin McConnell, Chief Executive, Scottish Prison Service;
Anne Pinkman, Convener, Scottish Working Group on Women's Offending.

31st Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 6 November 2012

Draft Budget Scrutiny 2013-14: The Committee took evidence on the Scottish Government's Draft Budget 2013-14 from—

Kenny MacAskill, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Colin McKay, Deputy Director, Legal System Division, and Deborah Smith, Head of Police Division, Scottish Government.

Draft Budget Scrutiny 2013-14 (in private): The Committee considered the main themes arising from evidence received on the Scottish Government's Draft Budget 2013-14.

32nd Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 13 November 2012

Draft Budget Scrutiny 2013-14 (in private): The Committee considered a draft report to the Finance Committee on the Scottish Government's Draft Budget 2013-14. Various changes were agreed to and the Committee agreed its report on the Draft Budget 2013-14.

ANNEXE B: ORAL EVIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED WRITTEN EVIDENCE

29th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 23 October 2012

ORAL EVIDENCE

Chief Constable Kevin Smith, President, and Doug Cross, Chair, Finance Management Business Area, Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland;
Chief Superintendent David O'Connor, President, Association of Scottish Police Superintendents;
Calum Steele, General Secretary, Scottish Police Federation;
Dave Watson, Scottish Organiser (Bargaining and Campaigns), Unison Scotland;
Chief Constable Stephen House, Police Service of Scotland;
Vic Emery, Chair, Scottish Police Authority.

WRITTEN EVIDENCE

Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland
Association of Scottish Police Superintendents
Scottish Police Federation
Scottish Police Federation (supplementary submission)
UNISON Scotland
Scottish Police Authority

ORAL EVIDENCE

30th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 30 October 2012

John Logue, Procurator Fiscal, East of Scotland, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service;
Stuart Naismith, Convener, Access to Justice Committee, Law Society of Scotland;
Brian Carroll, TUS Scottish Court Service Branch Secretary, Public and Commercial Services Union;
Eric McQueen, Chief Executive, Scottish Court Service;
Susan Gallagher, Deputy Chief Executive, Business Delivery, Victim Support Scotland;
Sean McKendrick, Vice-convener, Criminal Justice Standing Committee, Association of Directors of Social Work;
Kate Donegan, Governor, HMP & YOI Cornton Vale;
Brigadier Hugh Monro, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland;
Colin McConnell, Chief Executive, Scottish Prison Service;
Anne Pinkman, Convener, Scottish Working Group on Women's Offending.

WRITTEN EVIDENCE

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
Law Society of Scotland
Public and Commercial Services Union Scotland
Scottish Court Service
Scottish Court Service (supplementary submission)
Victim Support Scotland
Association of Directors of Social Work
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland
Scottish Prison Service
Scottish Working Group on Women Offenders

31st Meeting, 2012 (Session 4), Tuesday 6 November 2012

ORAL EVIDENCE

Kenny MacAskill, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Colin McKay, Deputy Director, Legal System Division, and Deborah Smith, Head of Police Division, Scottish Government.

CORRESPONDENCE

Letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth (23 October 2012)

Letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the Scottish Police, Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority (30 October 2012)


Footnotes:

1 Scottish Government (2012). Scottish Budget: Draft Budget 2013-14. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/09/7829 [Accessed on 7 November 2012].

2 Witnesses from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, Scottish Police Federation, Unison, appeared in the first panel on 23 October 2012. Vic Emery, Chair of the new Scottish Police Authority and Chief Constable Stephen House of the Police Service of Scotland appeared in the second panel on 23 October 2012.

3 Witnesses from the Scottish Court Service, Public and Commercial Services Union, Victim Support Scotland, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Law Society of Scotland appeared in the panel on the courts budget on 30 October 2012.

4 Witnesses from the Scottish Prison Service (Chief Executive and Governor of HMP Cornton Vale), Association of Directors of Social Work, HM Chief Inspectorate of Prisons in Scotland, and the Scottish Working Group on Women’s Offending appeared in the panel on women offenders on 30 October 2012.

5 Scottish Parliament Information Centre (2012). Draft Budget 2013-14: Justice. Available at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Research%20briefings%20and%20fact%20sheets/SB_12-63.pdf [Accessed on 7 November 2012].

6 Scottish Parliament Information Centre (2012). Draft Budget 2013-14: Justice.

7 Scottish Parliament Information Centre (2012). Draft Budget 2013-14: Justice.

8 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. 4th Report, 2012 (Session 4). Stage 1 Report on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. (SP Paper 120). Available at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/50170.aspx [Accessed on 8 November 2012].

9 Scottish Parliament Information Centre (2012). Draft Budget 2013-14: Justice.

10 Scottish Parliament Information Centre (2012). Draft Budget 2013-14: Justice.

11 Scottish Parliament Information Centre (2012). Draft Budget 2013-14: Justice.

12 Scottish Parliament Information Centre (2012). Draft Budget 2013-14: Justice

13 Scottish Parliament Information Centre (2012). Draft Budget 2013-14: Justice.

14 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. 4th Report, 2012 (Session 4). Stage 1 Report on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. (SP Paper 120).

15 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. 4th Report, 2012 (Session 4). Stage 1 Report on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. (SP Paper 120).

16 Scottish Government. (2012). Police Officer Quarterly Strength Statistics Scotland, 30 June 2012. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/09/6095 [Accessed on 8 November 2012.]

17 Scottish Parliament Information Centre (2012). Draft Budget 2013-14: Justice.

18 Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, Chief Constable Stephen House, Vic Emery, Chair, Scottish Police Authority.

19 Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Written submission, paragraph 3.6.

20 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1819.

21 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland. Written submission, paragraph 1.2.

22 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Cols 1847-1848.

23 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1847.

24 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1844.

25 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1946.

26 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1818.

27 Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Written submission, paragraph 4.1-4.2.

28 Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. Written submission, paragraph 5.16.

29 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. 4th Report, 2012 (Session 4). Stage 1 Report on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. (SP Paper 120).

30 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Cols 1849-1850.

31 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1823.

32 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1825.

33 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1822.

34 Scottish Police Federation. Written submission, paragraph 3.

35 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1850.

36 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1942.

37 BBC website. Stephen House warns of Police Service of Scotland job losses. Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19728563 [Accessed on 8 November 2012].

39 Scottish Police Authority. Written submission, paragraph 8.

40 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1829.

41 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1850.

42 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1856.

43 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1852.

44 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1821.

45 Scottish Police Federation. Written submission, paragraph 12.

46 Unison. Written submission, paragraph 8.

47 Unison, Written submission, paragraph 8.

48 Unison. Written submission, paragraph 9.

49 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1831.

50 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Cols 1830-1832.

51 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1851.

52 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1851.

53 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1940.

54 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. 4th Report, 2012 (Session 4). Stage 1 Report on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. (SP Paper 120).

55 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1835.

56 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1835.

57 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1950.

58 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. 4th Report, 2012 (Session 4). Stage 1 Report on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. (SP Paper 120).

59 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. 4th Report, 2012 (Session 4). Stage 1 Report on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. (SP Paper 120).

60 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. 4th Report, 2012 (Session 4). Stage 1 Report on the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. (SP Paper 120).

61 Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Written submission, paragraph 6.6, and Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October, Col 1841.

62 Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Written submission, paragraph 6.6.

63 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1841.

64 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1847.

65 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1945.

66 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1945.

67 Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. Written submission, paragraph 5.19.

68 The Common Performance Management Platform aimed to standardise performance management reporting, and allowing comparison across policing organisations.

69 Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. Written submission, paragraph 5.19.

70 Unison. Written submission, paragraph 4.

71 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland. Written submission, paragraph 3.5.

72 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland. Written submission, paragraph 3.5.

73 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1859.

74 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1859.

75 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1859.

76 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Cols 1854-1855.

77 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Cols 1941 & 1949.

78 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1855.

79 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Cols 1829-1830.

80 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Cols 1943-44.

81 Scottish Police Federation. Written submission, paragraph 17.

82 Vic Emery. (2012). Letter to MSPs on police reform.

83 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1947-1948.

84 Scottish Parliament Information Centre (2012). Draft Budget 2013-14: Justice.

85 Scottish Government (2012). Scottish Budget: Draft Budget 2013-14.

86 Scottish Parliament Information Centre (2012). Draft Budget 2013-14: Justice.

87 Scottish Government (2012). Scottish Budget: Draft Budget 2013-14.

88 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee (2011). Report to the Finance Committee on the Spending Review 2011 and Draft Budget 2012-13.

89 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee (2011). Report to the Finance Committee on the Spending Review 2011 and Draft Budget 2012-13.

90 Scottish Court Service (2012). Shaping Scotland’s court services: a dialogue on a court structure for the future. Available at: www.scotcourts.gov.uk/courtsadmin/shaping_scotland’s_court_services.pdf [Accessed on 7 November 2011].

91 Scottish Court Service (2012). Shaping Scotland’s court services: a dialogue on a court structure for the future.

92 Scottish Court Service (2012). Shaping Scotland’s court services: a public consultation on proposals for a court structure for the future. Available at: www.scotcourts.gov.uk/consultations/docs/CourtStructures/ShapingScotlandsCourtServices.pdf [Accessed on 7 November 2011].

93 Scottish Court Service (2012). Shaping Scotland’s court services: a public consultation on proposals for a court structure for the future.

94 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Cols 1883-1884.

95 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1885.

96 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 23 October 2012, Col 1884.

97 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1884.

98 Public and Commercial Services Union. Written submission, paragraph 20.

99 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1885.

100 Public and Commercial Services Union. Written submission, paragraph 20. Law Society of Scotland. Written submission, paragraph 20.

101 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1955.

102 Law Society of Scotland. Written submission, paragraph 15. Victim Support Scotland. Written submission, paragraph 3.

103 Law Society of Scotland. Written submission, paragraph 15.

104 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Cols 1892-93

105 COPFS. Written submission, paragraph 9.

106 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1959.

107 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1900.

108 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1901.

109 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1900.

110 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1961.

111 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1885.

112 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1892.

113 Scottish Court Service. Supplementary written submission, paragraph 2.

114 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Cols 1905-1906.

115 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1960.

116 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1888.

117 Law Society of Scotland. Written submission, paragraph 19.

118 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1886.

119 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1953.

120 Lord Gill’s report of his Scottish Civil Courts Review was published on 30 September 2009. The Scottish Government published its formal response to this review in November 2010, which accepted the majority of Lord Gill’s recommendations and committed to taking forward legislation and other changes necessary to deliver reform to Scotland’s civil courts.

121 Lord Carloway’s report on the review of criminal law and practice was published on 17 November 2011. The Scottish Government consulted on Lord Carloway’s proposals from July to October 2012 and intends to implement the recommendations as part of a Criminal Justice Bill, to be introduced to the Scottish Parliament in 2013.

122 Sheriff Principal Bowen’s report of his independent review of sheriff and jury practice and procedure in Scotland was published on 11 June 2010. The Scottish Government is undertaking further work on the issues raised in the report.

123 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1908.

124 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1908.

125 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1908.

126 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1956.

127 Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons inspection reports, 2009 and 2011. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/public-safety/offender-management/offender/custody/Prisons/hmip [Accessed 13 November 2011].

128 The 218 Service in Glasgow is a Turning Point and Glasgow Addiction Service initiative designed to address issues that women offenders face, such as substance use, physical and mental health and other social needs including housing and childcare.

129 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. (2011) Report to the Finance Committee on the Spending Review 2011 and Draft Budget 2012-13.

130 The Commission on Women Offenders comprised former Lord Advocate, Dame Elish Angiolini, Dr Linda de Caestecker, Director of Public Health for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and Sheriff Daniel Scullion.

131 Commission on Women Offenders. (2012). Commission on Women Offenders: Final Report. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Review/commissiononwomenoffenders/finalreport-2012 [Accessed 13 November 2012].

132 The Scottish Government said it would further consider the other four recommendations.

133 Scottish Government. (2012). Response to Commission on Women Offenders: Final Report. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0039/00395486.pdf

134 Scottish Prison Service. (2012). Women in Custody: consultation document, August 2012. Available at: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Publications/Publication-4199.aspx [Accessed 13 November 2012].

135 Scottish Government. (2012). Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s annual progress report on steps taken to implement the Commission on Women Offenders’ recommendations. Available at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Inquiries/CSfJ_Oct_2012_update.pdf [Accessed 13 November 2012].

136 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1913.

137 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1920.

138 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1968.

139 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1968.

140 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1968.

141 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1920.

142 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1920.

143 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1920.

144 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1923.

145 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1925.

146 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1967.

147 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1923.

148 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Cols 1910-1911.

149 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1913.

150 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1909.

151 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Cols 1965-1966.

152 Scottish Government. (2012). Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s annual progress report on steps taken to implement the Commission on Women Offenders’ recommendations.

153 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Col 1970.

154 Association of Directors of Social Work. Written submission, paragraph 6.

155 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. (2011) Report to the Finance Committee on the Spending Review 2011 and Draft Budget 2012-13.

156 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Cols 1926-1927.

157 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1912.

158 The Supported Accommodation Implementation Group (SAIG) was established to take forward the recommendations of the Cross Sector Supported Accommodation Working Group’s final report published in March 2011. SAIG is to produce proposals for implementation in relation to supported accommodation for those at risk of homelessness in Scotland by November 2012.

159 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1972.

160 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 6 November 2012, Cols 1968-1969.

161 Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. Written submission, paragraph 5.21.

162 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee. (2012) Budget process 2013-14. Guidance to subject committees, the Equal Opportunities Committee and European and External Relations Committee. Available at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_FinanceCommittee/Reports/Draft_budget2013-14_.pdf [Accessed 13 November 2012].

163 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1887.

164 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1887.

165 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. (2011) Report to the Finance Committee on the Spending Review 2011 and Draft Budget 2012-13.

166 Scottish Parliament Justice Committee. Official Report, 30 October 2012, Col 1903.

167 BBC website. Stephen House warns of Police Service of Scotland job losses. Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19728563 [Accessed on 8 November 2012].

168 Law Society of Scotland. Written submission, paragraph 14.

169 Law Society of Scotland. Written submission, paragraph 14.

170 Scottish Court Service (2012). Equality Impact Assessment on Shaping Scotland’s court services: a dialogue on a court structure for the future. Available at: www.scotcourts.gov.uk/courtsadmin/shaping_scotland’s_court_services.pdf [Accessed on 7 November 2011].

This website is using cookies.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we’ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website.