 Well, good morning and welcome to the justice committees second meeting 2017. We have apologies from John Finnie. Can I just mention in the gallery, we also have the speaker of the New Zealand Parliament, the right honourable David Carter, MP. We're very pleased to have you with us this morning. Agenda item number one is with her to take a decision on private item six in private, which is consideration of the written evidence received on the criminal finances bill UK parliament legislation legislative consent motion. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Agenda item number two is our evidence session for the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service inquiry, and I welcome to the committee the Lord Advocate, the right honourable James Will QC, and David Harvey Crown Agent and chief executive of the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service to the committee. I refer members to paper one and paper two and the Lord Advocate. I understand you don't tend to make an opening statement. I don't, convener, but perhaps I can wish the committee a good new year. We reciprocate to you and the Crown Agent. It is likely to be quite a long evidence session, so I propose maybe to take a comfort break and a suspension about 10, 11, 15 round about that, just so that we have a natural break. With that, I invite questions from members. I believe that you have an opening one, Stuart Stevenson, and Douglas Ross. Lord Advocate, I just wanted to give you the opportunity to lighten my personal darkness, because I got a little bit confused in talking to the cabinet secretary about the nature of the relationship between the Lord Advocate, the Government as a body, individual ministers, and your independent role as a head of the prosecution service. It would be useful if I heard your statement on it, and then, if I find supplementary questions, I might ask those. Indeed. The Lord Advocate, by statute under the Scotland Act, is a member of the Scottish Government, as is the Solicitor General. As Lord Advocate, I am a member of the Government, and, in that role, I have a number of responsibilities in relation to the legal advice that the Government takes and on which the Government acts and other constitutional responsibilities. As head of the prosecution service and as head of the system of the investigation of deaths in Scotland, I am, by statute, required to exercise those functions entirely independently. Those are what are described in the statute as my retained functions, and that term refers to the fact that those are functions that the Lord Advocate exercised long before devolution. They go back, certainly, to the 16th century. Their functions that, as a matter of our constitution, are essentially separate from the devolution settlement. They are functions that are attached to my office by virtue of the office in which I predate and are independent of the devolution settlement. By statute, I exercise those functions independently, and I am obliged to exercise them independently of any other person, I think, is the phrase. In relation to those matters, I am personally responsible for the activities of those parts of the service. I do not know whether that is helpful in teasing out a little the two roles that I play. The important point from the perspective of the inquiry is that the role as head of the system of prosecution and the system of investigation of deaths in Scotland is one that I exercise independently and personally. Perhaps just a tiny supplementary, are you satisfied that ministers are always clear which hat you are wearing when they are interacting with you? I have not been aware of any difficulty in that regard, and I have certainly not detected any interests on the part of ministers in trespassing on my independent responsibilities as a prosecutor. I ask, since your appointment, what is the single biggest feeling that you have identified in the Crown Office and Procretary Fiscal Service? I have looked at the evidence that you have received with interest. It is identified a number of issues. I have no doubt that we will look at the detail of those in the course of the evidence session. A number of those are issues that the service itself has recognised and identified. The service itself is taking steps to address those, and I have no doubt that, as we go through the morning, we will be discussing some of that work in more detail. I hope that you will forgive me if I do not take up your invitation to pick out one particular issue and identify that as an inherently failing on the part of the service. There are a number of challenges that the service needs to address. You have heard evidence about them. Many of those are challenges that the service itself recognises and which the service itself is taking steps to deal with. One of the issues that you have heard evidence about relates to staff. You have also had some evidence about the Fair Futures programme, which the Crownations and Senior Management are putting into effect to seek to address some of those issues. You have heard evidence about the issues that relate perhaps to the broader criminal justice system and the way that that operates, and the challenge that that presents for all of us, including the Crown, and you have also got evidence that work is being done, particularly through the court service evidence and procedure review, to seek to effect a transformational change that will address some of those issues. In relation to the position of victims, we recognise that there are challenges for the service in providing support for victims in the way that victims would most like support to be given. The former solicitor general, Leslie Thomson, carried out a study and her review has been published in the last week, which points the way forward. I am not going to take up your kind invitation to pick out one particular issue. There are a number of challenges that the service has to meet and steps that are being taken to seek to meet those challenges. I will not phrase it as an invitation. It is a question from a committee looking at the office in which you manage asking that, after six months in the position as head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, had you identified one issue that you think really needs to be addressed as a priority? I can understand in your answer that you are giving many issues, but if there are many issues, nothing is a priority. I have some concerns about that. However, given your response to that point, do you think that anyone could read the 20 pages submitted by the Crown Agent in response to our inquiry, which we have had to go through, and consider that the Crown Office is really taking seriously a number of the concerns? I read it very carefully and I was quite disappointed that a large bulk of what has been submitted by the Crown Agent and Procurator Fiscal Service is basically saying that the evidence that you have received is wrong. There is no real concern here. If that is the response to the evidence that you have heard over five months of this inquiry, depending on what the Justice Committee puts in our report, is anything really going to change or are you just determined to say that there are small things that we can tweak but really there will not be an overhaul of the justice system that witnesses, after witnesses have said, is required? Perhaps I can make three points in relation to that question. The first is, I think that it is an unfair reading of the Crown Agent's letter to read it in the way that you read it. You will all have read it for yourselves. He is sought to provide on a number of issues on which you have heard evidence, data that puts the evidence that you have heard in its proper context. I would invite the committee to focus on where data is available on the relevant data. He certainly acknowledges—the Crown Agent is here and will speak for himself—he acknowledges the challenges that the service faces, particularly the challenges that I mentioned a moment ago. The first point is that it is unfair reading of the Crown Agent's position. The second point is that you have heard evidence from some witnesses where a look at the data that is available does put the position in a different light, and no doubt we will discuss that as we go through the morning. The third point is that, yes, there are challenges. The Crown Office recognises those. I certainly recognise them. I was very pleased to hear you say, Mr Ross, in your question, or to refer to the need for significant change in the criminal justice system. I take many things from the evidence that you have heard, but one thing that came across to me very eloquently was the support that it provided for the programme of significant reform that the parties in the justice system are currently engaged on, in particular, through the evidence and procedure review. Much of that evidence, it seems to me, makes the case for the need to do criminal justice in quite a different way from the way we have been doing it. The £700,000 that you have to save in staffing costs over the next year, how many jobs do you anticipate losing in the Crown Office? Perhaps I can invite the Crown Agent to deal specifically with the question of that aspect of the budget. As you will appreciate, we have the same funding in cash terms as we have had in the previous year. I accept that that involves a real-term cut, and perhaps the Crown Agent can deal with that matter. I am happy to get a straightforward answer to that, Mr Ross. The position is that £750,000 will equate probably to around £30,000. The basis for that, in terms of how that would be achieved, is that, given the natural turnover that we have within the organisation—this has been communicated to staff—it means that, with the natural turnover, we will be unable to replace everyone who goes, but we would anticipate that we would be in a position to replace around half. You said in your document that you submitted that the reduction in senior staff, since 2009, I think that you said that there were 39 senior civil servants. As of October 2016, that is now 23, so there have been 16 vacancies or 16 jobs being reduced at the senior level, yet there has been an increase in the number of first promoted grade prosecutors, the number of deputes and senior deputes that has increased over a similar period by 69 from 285 to 534. Therefore, do you feel that you have cut all the fat at senior levels, and because you have increased the number of deputes and senior deputes, that is the most vulnerable area for the job reductions as a result of your budget cuts? As I said in my letter on the last occasion in relation to the budget, it is becoming increasingly challenging and options are reducing. There is no doubt about that, but there are still choices that can be made. I think that I have made reference to intelligent choices, and one of the key things that we would be seeking to do, because we identify the benefits that there are in having a core number of front-line staff, legal staff, is to seek to protect that. So are you saying that yes, it would be more likely that these reductions would come from the depute and senior depute level? No, I am saying that. I will be seeking to protect those grades. It will be protected, and you have already reduced the number of senior civil servants, so where do the job losses come from? They will have to be from other grades. Can I ask it, maybe still with the Crown Agent, if I can? I thought that we are speaking about £1.4 million for half of that 50 per cent of staffing that would come to £700,000, but you are saying £750,000. Sorry, I think that the overall number was 1.5 from recollection, because I think that there was point 1 in relation to capital as well. Okay, okay. Of the other £750,000 that you are taking from non-staff costs, you said in December that you could not really give a timescale for that, because you were waiting for an additional analysis. Has that now been done, and when you anticipate being able to see where those 50 per cent of the £1.4 million, £1.5 million cut that you have received in real terms from the Scottish Government will come from? That analysis is on-going, but it is certainly becoming more concrete. I think that I mentioned previously that we identified that there would be savings required from our estates in particular, and also savings in relation to matters. I think that you have noticed, for example, that we have provided evidence in relation to savings that we have made in relation to expert witness costs. For example, those costs have been going down, and we would seek to reduce those kinds of costs. I think that I made reference to seeking to focus on pathology as well. There are a variety of different levers that we are seeking to pull over a period of time, some of which might enable us to make more significant savings in certain areas that will then give us choices about how to redeploy those funds. Is there a risk, however, that because you still have that analysis to complete and the timescale is not in place, given that you have got £1.5 million in real terms to save this coming financial year? If that analysis takes longer and the timescale is stretched, will you then have to save more in staffing over that period to compensate for not being able to achieve the 50 per cent saving from non-staff costs? There is that risk, but I do not think that it is a significant risk. Our plans are sufficiently in train that we are confident that we will be able to do that. Could I ask if you would ever make a request for additional funding from the Scottish Government that was naive or foolish? I would like to think not. No. That is just for the record, based on the evidence that we got from the cabinet secretary last week. Could I move away from funding and ask what is the average time that it takes your office to respond to letters from MSPs? I do not have that information to hand, but I am happy to do it. Would you be able to provide that, both the average time that it takes and the longest weight that MSPs have had for correspondence from your office? It really goes back to evidence that we have heard during the inquiry about a particular case that I have struggled to communicate with you. I have had a letter that took some time to get a response, which was acknowledged in the final response, but that is now, when I have spoken to other MSPs, seems to be a theme. Then I thought that that relates to what we were told by defence solicitors, that they quite often write to ffiscals and fiscal deputes two or three times before they ever get a response. Is it because they see it at the very top of the organisation that it takes a long time for the Lord Advocate, the Crown Agent, the Solicitor General, etc., to get back to correspondence? I am certainly happy to see if that data can be provided. A lot of people want in, so I am going to leave it there, Douglas, and you will get another opportunity to come in. There are people who want in with supplementaries. Before they do, the point was raised about the submission that we have heard from the Crown Office agent. In three places, I have marked very good listening and definitely taking on board. However, I have to say that my initial reaction to the submission has been that a lot of the evidence has not been taken on board. You might be hearing what is said, but are you really listening, particularly in relation to staff concerns? We are all agreed, and you have very fulsome Crown Agent in your description of the service, and we are all agreed that it is a very dedicated, hard-working service. My question to you is, are you taking advantage of these dedicated, hard-working people, given that 44 per cent said that they do not want to remain in the service? Given that, if we look at adjournments, and this is all going back to their workload that they say, they have got 40 per cent who want to remain in the service, 44 per cent say that their workload is unacceptable, it is 2 per cent higher than the civil servant average, and adjournments, as we now know, from the evidence taken by the Cabinet Secretary, which he is now supplied, in sheriff courts, in summary sheriff courts, then the adjournment from Crown motions is increasing year on year and now stands at 8,387. In solemn cases it stands at 1,572, but three times as much as the adjournments requested from the defence. It is quite a serious question. Are you listening and are you taking advantage of your very dedicated workforce who, I have to say, have expressed some fear in coming to give evidence to this committee, but have not been short in their criticism? Perhaps I could say a few words and then I am sure that the Crown agent will want to say something. The first thing to say is that I have been very clear, and I continue to be very clear, that the greatest resource of the service is its staff. I am not surprised to have seen the evidence that you have received about the quality of the Crown staff. That has been my own view. It is a view that I have sought to reinforce repeatedly since I came into office. The committee should be under no doubt of the value that I place on the staff who prosecuted my name and, indeed, all the staff who supported them across the service. In the session that we had on the budget, I drew the committee's attention to the most recent staff survey. I pointed out that the numbers in that survey are pleased to see moving in the right direction. That is not to suggest that there are not challenges. That is not to suggest that there is not a great deal of room for improvement, but the numbers are, on any view, moving in the right direction. On the particular issue of the desire of staff to remain in the service, it is encouraging to see that the proportion of staff who wish to stay in the service over the long run—for more than three years—is very significantly higher than the civil service average. A key feature of the service's response to the challenges that the staff face is the fair futures programme that you have heard about and which the Crown agent I am sure can speak about in more detail. One of the purposes of which is to seek to address any issues around the morale of staff. I hope that that sets in context my view in relation to the importance of the staff who perform the important public functions that they do. You made a point about adjournments and the number of adjournments. I can provide statistical information about that. Perhaps the important point that I take from the data that I have been provided is that, if one is looking at the summary courts, 80 per cent of the Crown motions to adjourn were, as a result of the non-attendance of an essential witness, 80 per cent. That perhaps illustrates the challenge that we all face in the criminal justice system in operating a system that depends on everybody getting into the same room on the same day at the same time and being ready to go. 80 per cent of Crown motions to adjourn and more in the summary courts are due to the absence of an essential witness, someone who has been cited to attend and who fails to attend. That is part of the picture and part of the background for thinking seriously about whether we can deal with summary justice in a different way through significant procedural reform. I invite the committee, as I have invited them previously, to look at the part of the evidence and procedure review project with which the Crown is very fully engaged, which is seeking to move forward that agenda. That agenda, if we can get it right, will affect transformational change in the system, which will not only benefit members of the public who currently are inconvenienced by the way the system operates, but will also alter the landscape in which prosecutors, defence agents and all of us operate. It was specifically on the workload. That is why I mentioned adjournments. There will be some reasons for them, but the staff feedback from 44 per cent to 2 per cent above the civil service average, saying that they thought that their workload was unacceptable. I will add more generally the first relation to the letter before I come back to the point. In the question, convener, you raised three points on observation on the letter, which reflects Mr Ross's comments that I would like to pick up on, if I may. Then there were issues about staffing position and then also in relation to adjournments, if I can seek to draw those three together. First of all, in relation to the letter, the intention of the letter was multiple purposes. The first one is in the second page of the letter. I highlight that, far from Mr Ross's characterisation of not accepting that there is need for significant change, I highlight that there is a very strong argument for system change in its entirety. I am advocating and Lord Advocate supports, and I think that I have heard evidence from others. Part of a significant contributor to the difficulties that have been identified not only by the committee but by other professionals in the system relates to that system issue. The first thing is that there is a need and an opportunity for transformational change, and I was trying to communicate that. It is not about the same as before. It is about acknowledging the challenge and trying to approach that in a different way. The second purpose of the letter was to seek to provide a level of reassurance that many of the issues that the committee has heard evidence about were issues that had been recognised and which work was on-going. For example, in relation to the via review, in relation to the evidence and procedure review, in relation to the shaping of the future, the fair futures, etc., all of those things are matters that are relevant to the evidence that the committee has heard, and to the extent that it was possible to provide a level of reassurance to the committee about those matters that had been identified and were matters that were already being taken seriously, that that was again a purpose of the letter. The third purpose of the letter, and perhaps those are the items that the convener has identified as the very goods, was to acknowledge that there have been matters that have been raised in evidence that were new matters that require a response. I think that there have been a number of those that I have reflected in the letter. Again, that was not to suggest that I was not in the letter saying that we were not responding to the other matters, but that I was highlighting that those were new matters, so those were matters that had not been previously identified as significant priorities, but which, having heard the evidence, completely accepted that that remains the position and that those were required to be addressed. That was the purpose in the letter. Also, the final purpose was where the committee has heard some evidence that perhaps was not supported by data to seek to provide the data that is available to both COPFS and to the organisation as a whole, but also to the wider system to inform the committee and allow the committee to take a view on the weight of the evidence to be attached to what you have heard. That was multiple purposes in the letter. As far as the specific issues that have been raised are concerned, again, in my letter, I highlight, and for the avoidance of any doubt, I am very happy to reconfirm before the committee. Our staff are our most valuable resource. There is no question whatsoever of seeking to take advantage of them, and you will see from the efforts that have been made to try to secure and maintain staff numbers against a challenging budget position. I hope that you will recognise that there are significant steps that have been taken in trying to ensure that staff are appropriately resourced and supported. I am very happy to look at that in more detail as we go through the evidence in relation to how we are sought to approach that and how we will try to meet the challenges in the future with that mindset. Finally, in relation to the adjournments, Lord Advocate has already indicated that the 80 per cent of the Crown adjournments relate to non-attendance of witnesses. Those are members of the public who, for whatever reason, are choosing not to engage with the system as currently structured. Those are members of the public where the system is having to chase them in order to get them to co-operate, to contribute towards the justice system. Part of the reason for that is because they perhaps do not want to give evidence on that particular issue. Part of it feels that they do not particularly feel vested in the justice system as it is currently structured. All those matters are matters that should be of concern to the broader system, including to the committee, about how we can seek to move the conversation on. For example, it is an issue if a member of the public does not attend a GP appointment. That is a debate that has a level of public support in relation to the waste that that creates. That lost appointment impacts on that individual and that individual's health, but it impacts on the doctor who is otherwise left with a vacant slot. If a member of the public fails to attend for trial, the inconvenience in contrast to the non-attendance at a GP appointment is to a far wider range of people because it is to every other witness who has bothered to turn up to give evidence on that day. It is to the court, it is to the accused who is left in a situation where the matter that is required to be determined by the justice system remains unresolved and has to be continued. That has left hanging over them. As part of the position in relation to the evidence and procedure review, there is a real opportunity and a willingness on the part of the system supported and driven by the court service and driven initially, if you will recall, by Lord Carlaway's report to look at those in a different way, to ask a different question about how the justice system operates and to ask something different about the engagement of civilian witnesses in particular. That conversation, and that is part of what I was trying to convey in the letter, is, from my perspective, the most significant one that we face. Let's not kid ourselves that there are significant issues in civilian co-operation with the current system. Let's improve it for them. The number of questions to get through and some supplementary questions. Do you still have a supplementary question or has it been answered? I just wanted to pick up on what seems to be a very valuable source of evidence about how the service is doing and the Lord Advocate has already opened up the issue of the staff survey. I wondered if the Lord Advocate thought that it was pretty good that there was an increase of 15 percentage points in staff reporting an acceptable workload in 2016. There was an 11 percentage point increase in the number of staff who were suggesting that they had an adequate work-life balance. Of course, in relation to the planning to stay figure, the Lord Advocate might have also said that that 17 percentage points above the civil service average. That is not the whole picture, of course, and it does not remove the proper need to identify further challenges, but it would suggest, as it is not Lord Advocate, that the staff themselves, in looking at the work that they are facing, think things are in some of the important aspects moving in the right direction. I am grateful for the opportunity to turn to the survey because I entirely agree with you that it is encouraging that the figures are moving in the right direction, not a basis at all for complacency, because, as we have already said, the services have recognised the need to engage more fully with staff welfare through the fair futures programme. On the specific issue of the plans of staff for the future, and it is perhaps a point that I ought to make, given the question that convener asked me a moment ago, in the 2016 survey, 60 per cent of staff stated that they wanted to stay working for the COPFS for at least the next three years. That is 6 per cent up on the last survey, 17 per cent higher than the civil service average. In the least favourable category, I want to leave COPFS as soon as possible. We have 8 per cent of staff who report that that is down 5 per cent from the previous survey and is 1 per cent lower than the civil service average. I would love all those staff to want to stay with the service for the next three years, but I do take from those figures that, in terms of the commitment of staff to the work of the service, one can take comfort from them. Against the background of those figures, I do not recognise the figure that convener put to me. Direct correlation, 40 per cent. If 60 per cent want to stay, 40 per cent do not. I think that it is important to look at the options. The options are, I want to leave as soon as possible, I want to leave within the next 12 months, I want to stay for at least the next year, 24 per cent are in that category, and that is 3 per cent up on last year. I want to stay working for COPFS for at least the next three years, 60 per cent. You are absolutely right, convener, that 40 per cent are not saying that I want to stay working for COPFS for at least the next three years, but of that 40 per cent, 24 per cent want to stay for at least a year. Those two figures are both up, and in particular the top figure is significantly higher than the civil service average. Without, in any way, wishing to suggest any level of complacency on this issue, because we are not complacent about it, there is encouragement to be taken from that survey, and indeed from those particular figures. You are asking if I still have one. I would like to raise a procedural point first. I have waited nearly 25 minutes to get in for a supplementary. Members will know supplementaries The Momentum King to Go. There were actually two points that I wanted to raise on issue with Mr Ross. When he mentioned having contact with the Lord Advocate, I would like to put on the record that I had to contact the Lord Advocate's office on one occasion and got a response almost immediately, so to have that balance and put that on record. The point that I was going to do, and I do accept that you know we are 15, 20 minutes away from it. The member is entirely at my discretion. I bring people in the supplementaries. This is going to be a very long evidence session. If it is helpful to cover things at this point, which are relevant, we will do it. Do you have a relevant point? I will take the opportunity still to ask the supplementary convener. Thank you very much for giving me that. It was about Mr Ross's question about the Lord Advocate and Mr Harvey, suggesting that there is any need for change. Mr Harvey has already gone on to answer the question somewhat, but I wonder if either the Lord Advocate or Mr Harvey could expand on exactly what that might mean, some of the changes that might take place, what it might mean for people involved in the justice system, those accused and witnesses, for example, possibly on the area of child witnesses, changes that might come there? Yes. I will make a couple of points, which are derived from the work that has been done on the evidence of procedure review. The court service has produced a helpful table. It is very clear that this is not a prediction, but it is an indication of the scope for improvement. At the moment, 52,000 trials are set down in a given year. Of those, 9,000 trials run. Every time a trial is set down, all the witnesses have to be cited to attend, and the court services document identifies approximately 460,000 witnesses cited to summary trials. If we only set down the trials that actually run, the 9,000 trials that run, we would be able to save 368,000 witness citations. As I say, one has to be very clear that that is not a prediction being made by the court service, but it is an indication of the scope if we can get the procedures right in terms of not fixing cases, not fixing trials in cases that are not likely to run. It gives an indication of the scope that is available within the system for effecting a transformational change. The other part of the evidence of procedure review is looking very closely at the way that we deal with children and other vulnerable witnesses. There is a real focus there on seeking to capture the evidence at as early a stage as possible and in advance of trial. In my former role when I was dean of faculty, we held a conference on vulnerable witnesses and the approach that the system takes to vulnerable witnesses. We had an address from Lord Judge, the former Lord Chief Justice in Wales, who has spoken very eloquently to the point that in future years people will look back and be astonished that we put children into the traditional court setting. The ambition is to deal with the evidence of children and vulnerable witnesses in a different way. Children are the obvious first focus for that. As I say, that is on-going work and it will be wrong to prejudge where that will get to. I can certainly say from my part, and I am sure that I can say on behalf of the Crown Office that that is work that we are very actively engaged with, along with other parties in the justice system. If I might just on the question of correspondence say that it will be appreciated that every letter raises its own issues and the time that it has taken to respond to it will reflect a range of factors, including the ease with which the issue can be addressed. That is a very wide supplementary. Liam, do you still have a point on that? It was basically following on from the Crown Agent's letter. I think that it was helpful to set out the intention behind the letter. In the main, I found it useful, but I think that the impression could be given that some of the evidence that we had across a range of issues was, in a sense, being dismissed. Leaving that aside, because I think that you have given an explanation for the purpose, whether it is in terms of the pressure on staffing levels, whether it is around the central marking of cases and the impact that that has had, whether it is on prosecution policy. We have heard concerns raised, and they are raised by key stakeholders of the Crown Office, Procurator Fiscal Service. I am struggling to understand how the evidence that we have heard seems to be at odds, in a sense, with where you see current policy and practice resting. Among people who, when they would have thought, are closely involved in the reviews that you have set out that have been undertaken for some time now and are building towards addressing some of the concerns that they were raising. I am struggling to understand why there is a lag effect in the evidence that they are giving us about concerns that they believe are still relevant and live now. The evidence that you are giving us, to some extent, says that it is not as it has been portrayed to you. Those people clearly are either misrepresenting what is happening or are referring to something that is more historical and not so relevant now. I will not speak to say that anyone who is misrepresenting where data is available is sought to provide data. As I said, that enables the committee to assess, from its own perspective, the true position, as opposed to a perspective on that position. As far as the lag is concerned, I think that that is an interesting point. On taking up appointment and following the appointment of the new law officers, there were a number of issues that we sought to take forward. In previous discussions, we have alluded to those issues and changes that we would like to make not only to the way in which COPFS approach casework but also to the wider system. I think that you are hopefully seeing in the letter that those matters are being taken forward and were being taken forward. To the extent that it was possible, as I said to you, one of the key points was to try and provide a level of reassurance that matters that were being raised as concerns to the committee were matters that had already been identified and which we were seeking to address. For example, on the VIA review, that was work that was already on-going, but the implementation of that is not the flick of a switch and it is something that happens overnight. The reassurance is issues that have been recognised, reviews have been conducted or are being conducted and thereafter we would seek to implement the fruits of those reviews and undertake to do so. Those reviews include the input from stakeholders. At the very least, it tends to point to a perception issue among many of those stakeholders, but the issues that they feel are still relevant and the need of addressing. I think that many of those who gave evidence were using live examples from very recent past to illustrate the points that they were making. At the very least, it sounds that the data that you are providing for this committee is not necessarily data that you have been sharing with those who, as the Lord Advocate indicated, have been raised for some time directly with the Crown Office in other fora, which is some cause for concern. The data is available and has been shared with stakeholders, but I think that one of the advantages of that, with respect to the committee conducting the inquiry, is that it gives an opportunity to engage through the committee with the wider public about the nature of the role of COPFS and the issues that the justice system faces and the sharing of such information. There are some issues that are, I would say, slightly more historic. There are others that are definitely live issues that you have heard examples of and which are matters that we are seeking to address. As I said, there was a third category of matters where you did hear evidence and we have learned from that, and I think that I have sought to highlight that in the letter. Across that full range of matters that were either slightly historic matters that were new, but which we were or live issues that we were seeking to address and issues that were genuinely new that we will now take forward, I just thought that it was possible to try and differentiate those and provide levels of reassurance about what was already on-going, but also for the avoidance of any doubt to provide a level of reassurance that the input from the inquiry and the other evidence that we have had will form part of the considerations as part of those reviews as well, that it is not simply that we have reached our own view and we will then close the door and say that is that done. There has been valuable evidence that we will use. For example, on the case marking and on the communication side, on the issues that were raised in relation to wildlife matters, et cetera, all of those. I just use those examples, but there are many examples of things that have been raised that we will take forward. There are a lot of supplementaries, because the first opening questions have been a very broad brush approach and looking at the inquiry and your response to date. This is our final evidence session. Mary is still in the supplementary and then we are into more detail with Oliver and Rona. Thank you, convener, and just for completeness on the matter of staff. Mr Harvie, I would like to ask you about fixed-term contracts of staff, because you mentioned it briefly in your letter and you talked about the good progress that you have made in moving staff from fixed-term contracts to permanent moving staff that are on temporary promotions to permanent. Can I just ask your relation to both legal and non-legal staff that are on fixed-term contracts? Do you see a point where you will have no staff on fixed-term contracts? The progress that you hope to make this year in relation to moving staff from fixed to permanent contracts, will that be all of the staff and will some of the staff that are on fixed-term contracts be caught up in the staff savings? First of all, the move to permanent contracts as opposed to fixed-term contracts was initially in relation to the legal staff, and I think that it provided some evidence in relation to what those numbers are. That remains a continuing journey and there will be further work on that. Similarly, in relation to the non-legal staff, which is the next phase in relation to that, there will be significant numbers of those individuals who will be appointed on permanent contracts and it will not be them all. I have made reference in the letter to a continuing requirement for a proportion of short-term contracts, but it will be a significantly smaller number of short-term contracts and it will be short-term contracts with a purpose as opposed to what has become an all-too-common place in nature of appointment. The third category that I mentioned previously in the last evidence session was the number of temporary promotions. Again, I think that that provided some evidence that that is currently sitting at over 100. It is too high, and, as we mentioned in the previous session, that has a number of very obvious consequences in relation to uncertainty for individuals, uncertainty for teams, issues in relation to training, loss of expertise, et cetera, all of which I fully accept. Those are the motivators for changing the approach to that and there will be significant changes in relation to the non-legal staff and the proportions in the coming weeks and months. I would certainly hope to be in a position where that would have been subject to quite significant change at or around the start of the new financial year, but it will not be the case that it will be absolutely all. Okay, that is helpful. Thank you. Just for the avoidance of doubt, is it the case that in 2009 there were 558 full-time equivalent prosecutors and, as of October 2016, there are now 24 less, 534? That's correct. December 2009 was the all-time high in terms of legal staff for that one month. Yeah, I think that that's quite a telling figure in itself, but we'll probably go on to that later. Oliver? Thank you, convener. I'm probably still sticking with questions that are a little bit too general, but I accept the points that you've made in relation to the data in the letter, but would you also accept that the data is just one part of the picture and that where people have perceptions and impressions relating to shortcomings around the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, that affects the integrity of the system as a whole. Is it not worrying that a number of witnesses are lacking confidence in where things are at least at the moment? I think that it's a couple of points. The first point is, plainly, if important stakeholders have a poor impression of the service, that's a matter of concern and something that the service ought to seek to address. I think that I've sought to reassure the committee that we are seeking to address the real challenges that face the service. I suppose that the second point is to say that it is important whether there is data to look at the data and to assess as objectively as one can what the position is. The third point is to pick up on your word, confidence. I recognise immediately that there are a whole range of perceptions of the service of which you've had evidence, issues to do with communication, issues in relation to the way in which particular victims have been engaged with by the service. I think that it's important to make this point that I do not detect and I hope that there is no lack of confidence in the robustness of the fundamental work that the prosecution service does, which is the effective, rigorous, fair and independent prosecution of crime. If there were any want of confidence on that issue, it would be important to go to the data and to look at the data that was published today, which indicates that, off the cases that are prosecuted, our conviction is brought in in over 80 per cent. There's a not guilty verdict in six per cent, a not proven verdict in one per cent, and there's a balance in which cases are discontinued. Those kinds of figures would suggest that the decision making, first of all, is robust and, secondly, that the fundamental work of prosecuting cases before our courts is being done effectively by the service, and the public ought to have confidence that the service is an effective, rigorous, fair and independent prosecutor. I accept entirely that you've heard evidence about important parts of the engagement of the service with the wider community, but that one shouldn't lose sight of is the fundamental public responsibility that I have and which the service has. I do accept that. I just want to come back on the first point, so you would accept from what we've heard from witnesses that there are key stakeholders who do have significant concerns about important aspects of your work. You've heard the evidence, so I've read the evidence, so I don't think that that could be disputed. I think that public confidence is key. I was listening to the remarks from the Crown Agent earlier about how willing witnesses are to engage with the service, their likelihood to turn up, the amount of importance that people attach to being cited as a witness in a case. I think that that is a worrying example of where people don't feel that it's necessarily worthwhile engaging. I note from page 10 of the letter that you say, as prosecutors, we can only do our job if victims and witnesses are willing to come forward and give evidence. Some of the things that we've heard, particularly more around a culture within the Crown Office, means that people don't necessarily believe that they're going to get the very best justice that they can. The numbers are strong in terms of prosecutions, but there are a lot of people who still feel that justice for them hasn't been done. There's a distinction to be drawn in relation to the service contribution to that issue and the wider system issue as well. I think that the point that I would make is that those are people who are not engaging with the system and there are a number of reasons for that, part of which might lie at the door of COPFS and part of which might lie elsewhere, particularly in relation to some fundamental structural issues about how we conduct our business, how we try to choreograph, for want of a better phrase, the attendance of so many individuals at a particular location at a particular time in order to progress a trial. I think that, as Lord Advocate has indicated, the evidence and procedure review and, indeed, the examination of other systems suggest that there are alternate and, frankly, better ways of securing the co-operation and the key inputs from members of the public to the justice system. Insofar as the data is concerned, you have heard evidence from individuals and from stakeholders in relation to particular failures for want of a better phrase in service provision, which, again in the letter, I have said that we accept and regret and we would seek to learn from. As I said previously, insofar as any reviews are on-going or indeed any new activity is required, that evidence will be key. In relation to the data in matters such as that, that was to be set by way of context. For example, in relation to the numbers of victims and witnesses that we are dealing with to set a sense of perspective about the nature of the service complaints and that, frankly, the vast majority of individuals who are engaging with VIA on a daily basis are provided with a good service, but that is not to say that there are individuals and there have been a number of good examples of individuals who have not had the standard of service that either I, as a head of that service, would expect or indeed as the individuals who are categorised as dealing with them would expect to be able to provide. Again, that is a learning point, but the data is to set the context of the numbers of interactions, as it says, the vast majority of which are positive. I wonder if I could pick up on the quotation that you have taken about the importance of the confidence of victims in the system. As prosecutors, we can only do our job of bringing criminals justice if victims come forward, speak up, are willing and enabled to give evidence effectively in the system. That is part of what we need to do as prosecutors. If you look at the former Solicitor General's review, you will see how far we have come in remarkably short time in the way that we deal with victims. We have really started as recently as 2000s and within my professional lifetime we had a criminal justice system that really paid no regard to the special needs and particular importance of victims within the system. We have come on a remarkable distance in the scale of things, a remarkably short period of time. I have no doubt that the commitment of the COPFS and the commitment of law officers to deal appropriately with the victims of crime has greatly enhanced the confidence of victims in coming forward. It is one of the reasons why we now, for the change in the prosecution of sexual offending, victims have more confidence in the system. We would like them to have still more confidence in the system, and we think that the way forward has been signed by Leslie Thomson in her review. The point that you make is a really important one about the need for us to give victims the confidence to come forward to speak up and to give evidence. I appreciate that answer. One of the most difficult things for me as a member of the committee was one of our early sessions where we met victims of crime who talked to us through their own experience. It is very hard, even though we spoke to three people in total, but the impression that we got from those victims was that things had been good for them. Victim support Scotland in their own submission had some questions about how things operated in practice. I think that they welcomed a lot of the directives that were coming from the top of the organisation, but we are saying that on a day-to-day basis that, for a lot of people, things have not changed at all and that they have not been given enough time to do their work, to get people ready for their day in court. People are in a position where they are coming into contact with the accused on the way into the courtroom. A lot of the good practice is starting to come through the system, but it is not there for people on a day-to-day basis. I hope that that is a point that you take forward. I wonder if I might intervene out conscious that perhaps there has not been sufficient time for you to consider the Thompson review in detail, but I think that it makes a number of points on those very issues. I think that there were undoubtedly, as I said already and have accepted, there were service issues where there were specific points where you heard evidence from those witnesses that fell below the standards that we would accept or expect in relation to the responsibilities of VIA. There were also other parts of it that were interesting from the point of view of the misunderstanding on the perspective of those witnesses about the role of what VIA were ever intended to do. There were also some misunderstandings, for example, in relation to the role of the prosecutor—I think that it was a reference to my lawyer—which, again, are matters that we need to learn and take cognisance of and make absolutely clear to those that we are engaging with, what they can reasonably expect not only from VIA support but from the role of the prosecution in the system in Scotland so that it is clearer for them. However, that is not to say that there is not, as I have highlighted in the letter and I think is highlighted in the Thompson report, a legitimate expectation on the part of victims to have more support consistently than they are currently receiving. However, whether or not that is a matter that could or should be provided by the prosecutor and VIA or whether or not there are separate issues about how that level of appropriate support might best be provided is a legitimate debate that is opened up by the Thompson report. In due course, I welcome the significant and robust views of the committee in relation to their thoughts on how that might be progressed. It comes back to the fundamental questions about how we ensure that, regardless of whether we are not a victim, a witness or an accused person in the criminal process, the system collectively finds a way of supporting you to give of your best in order to secure justice. As things stand in relation to some of the service delivery in relation to VIA, most of the vast majority of it is excellent but there have been service issues which we accept, but there are also issues in relation to the patchwork provision of other support across the country, how VIA then engages with that and whether or not the totality of that support in certain locations is sufficient and meets the legitimate expectations of victims and witnesses in the 21st century. That is a matter of legitimate debate and concern for the transformation of the justice system that I have alluded to in my letter. Two supplementaries on this, Mary and then I. Just very briefly, one of the points that came out in the evidence session that my group had with the victims and witnesses was that the service is not proactive enough in reaching out. Victims and witnesses are notified by letter that the service is available, but it is up to them to reach forward or reach out to the service and not the other way round. I have not had an opportunity to look at the Thomson review but I just wondered if that was something that you would be looking at in the way that you take forward the service. I know that you cannot have a one-size-fits-all and you cannot reach out to everybody because of the resources involved but if there is some way of being more proactively involved, particularly with vulnerable witnesses? Perhaps I can make a comment in response to that and then let the Crown Agent respond. It perhaps does come back to the point that the Crown Agent was alluding to about what the role of the victim support provided by the prosecutor is. It is entirely right that we provide information and we should be providing accurate and timeous information. It is entirely right that we administer the arrangements for special measures that help victims and other vulnerable witnesses to give their evidence. It is entirely right that we provide a point of contact within the prosecution system that hopefully helps victims in the ideal world to feel that they can engage appropriately with the system. It is entirely appropriate that we signpost people to other services that may be available but we are not a counselling service. We are not an advocacy service in terms of providing advocacy support with a little A for victims. The work that we do, which is important and significant work in seeking to support victims, is work that we do in the context of our fundamental responsibility as prosecutors. That is why the key point that I take from the Thomson review, which is that we need to look in a much more system-wide way at the needs that victims have and to start from that and to identify who within the system is the right person to provide different services and to try to deliver those services in a much more effective way. That is a high-level response from the Crown Agent. I wish to say something on the specific issue. There are two aspects. First of all, in terms of the approach that was legislated for by Parliament and following the EU directive, the first thing is that the identification of those who might be suitable for via support is hardly driven by crime type. There is a question in the Thomson review about whether that is the appropriate position. Therefore, if I am the victim of a housebreaking, I need via support. If, on the other hand, my grandmother, who is still alive, is the victim of a housebreaking, I would fully expect that she would benefit from via support. However, as things stand at the moment, the approach will be that we will both be offered that information and advice because of the nature of the crime type. The second thing is in relation to the special measures, which identify those who are deemed vulnerable. That has benefits in a way that simplifies a process, albeit that it could be simpler still and that is alluded to in the letter, in relation to categories of individuals, whether by age or otherwise, who are therefore deemed suited for special measures. However, that does not seek to identify whether that individual thinks that it is appropriate that they should have those special measures. That is one of the things that Thomson review has picked out. As a question mark, whether or not those services should be more appropriately targeted to those who are identified as vulnerable and therefore requiring of support, as opposed to that you have been a victim of this particular crime type and therefore you require this level of support, or you are this particular age, and you require this level of support. There are some individuals who fall within the categories who are candidly quite indignant about the suggestion that they need special measures and support, but that is the approach of the current legislative framework. It is almost an identical point to the point that Mary just raised there, because from speaking to some of the victims of crime, that was one thing that became apparent because I think that you suffer this trauma, whatever that might be, and then you are thrust into this situation. It just seemed like there are so many organisations that you do not know your way specifically through that. Essentially, what you need is some kind of one-stop shop for somebody to guide you and to tell you what is going to happen from here. These are the different people that will contact you. I think that, hopefully, I am never in that position, but you just think that if that was to happen to me, that is what I would hope for. I will touch on a point that all of us made earlier about the court setting in terms of victims of crime coming into contact with perpetrators. Is that something that you see as your role to try and tackle? I know that, obviously, the setup of the courts in some of the buildings can be quite hard to achieve, but is that something that you are also looking at? I am very grateful for your first remarks, because it chimes exactly with the recommendations of Leslie Thomson. Of course, the other bit of work that has been done in relation to victims is the vulnerable witness part of the evidence and procedure review in which we are looking as a system at the way that children and other vulnerable witnesses are dealt with by the system in a much more general sense, and we are looking at different ways of approaching the taking of evidence. I should say that one shouldn't underestimate that the process of giving evidence and the evidence being tested, as it may have to be tested entirely properly, is a very difficult one for many vulnerable witnesses and victims of crime. It is entirely right that, as a system, we look at what can be done to allow that process to take place in a way that does not, as far as possible, re-traumatise or exacerbate the impact of the original crime itself. Issues about court buildings, I am afraid, are matters for the courtservice. In terms of the trial process, the accused is, of course, entitled to be present throughout the trial. Special measures will allow a victim to give evidence when special measures are available in a way that either shields the perpetrator from the victim or, indeed, it may involve evidence being given from a remote site by CCTVs. There are mechanisms that are available. We deal with court buildings and, in the context of a case, victims may well encounter the accused in the context of those buildings. I think that you mentioned one-stop shop. The Thompson report talks in terms of a one-front door. In other words, from the individual's perspective, they have one point of access, and they are after collective services, multidisciplinary services, and they are after respond according to the need. That is the model that is proposed, or the principle that is proposed, and they are after being invited to seek to develop a model. If it assists the committee, the Thompson report is on the justice board agenda for this week. That is helpful. I do not think that there is any doubt whatsoever of the sincerity and the commitment of the Government and the Grand Procurator Viscal Service to ensure that victims have a good experience and the best experience in court. However, going back to the evidence that we all heard from serious assault rape victims, there were problems with communication. That is identified in the Thompson report, but it is more or less looked at as between agencies. This was much more fundamental problems. It was as fundamental as via giving out misinformation about the verdict that had been arrived. It was the victims being given misinformation at every stage of the process or no information. I very much welcome your commitment to work with this, but I hope that you take in board that there is a fundamental problem. I particularly welcome to, in the Crown Agents response, the commitment to look at language, less legalistic communication so that victims and witnesses understand exactly what is being asked of them when they get a communication from court. They are not fully engaged and I think that that stands to reason. There are undoubtedly, you have heard evidence of examples where, as I say, the service has not been of the standard that was accepted and would be expected. I would suggest the exception rather than the rule, but the mere fact that they are the exception and they are so significant is worthy of significant reflection and further work. I fully accept that. If we put it another way, certainly the person that some of us met said, if you ask me, would I do it all again? Absolutely not. Given your opening statement, if the criminal justice system and the court and the Crown Procurator Fiscal Service is to work, all the players need to be keen and to have confidence in the system. Hopefully, if we had this interview again, they would say absolutely that my experience was good and that is what we are all aiming for. We have still got Ben and we have still got Rona. Do you want to take a break or do you want to just go on at this point? Let us go on and get Rona and Ben and see where we get to with that and perhaps about half a living we can take a break and regroup. I want to ask about an issue that we have discussed several times during the inquiry, but I just wanted some clarification from you on it, and that is centralised case marking. Can you clarify whether it was brought in as a cost-saving exercise if you think that it has been successful and bearing in mind that we have heard concerns about the local knowledge being lost? I wonder if you could outline the position on that and where we are with it now? Yes, and that is perhaps an example of an issue that has been raised. It is picking up on the point that Mr MacArthur made earlier, where there are clearly different views about the advantages and disadvantages and where the balance of advantage lies. From my perspective, as the head of the system of prosecution for the whole of Scotland, a national service ought to be applying consistent national standards to the decision making that we make across the country. One of the benefits of a national case marking approach at the level of principle is that it allows dedicated teams who work together to do this particular task consistently to develop an expertise and a skill and a level of consistency across the whole system. They are organised by reference to sheriffdoms so that, although they are physically located in the national case marking service at two locations, teams are in effect servicing the particular sheriffdoms and who can therefore build up a level of knowledge of those particular sheriffdoms. The system can accommodate particular matters that are of concern in particular local areas and, indeed, the police may, in their reports, identify a particular issue as being a particular matter of concern. If I am putting it this way, we can secure that through having a national approach we can ensure that whether there is justification for a particular variation from the norm to be applied in a particular locality, that that itself is done consistently and does not depend on the particular views of a particular individual in a particular local area. I think that there is a separate issue that is about knowledge of local diversion schemes. Again, there is perhaps a stepping back and as the head of the service, an issue that I have reflected on in light of that evidence is a degree of question that the committee might be interested to consider, which is whether it is satisfactory that we do not have a consistency across the country in terms of the availability of diversion schemes. In terms of national case marking, again, the system is able to make sure that the staff who are in that particular part of the service do not have information about what is available in particular areas. There is perhaps a more fundamental question, which is, shouldn't there be a consistency of availability across Scotland? Is it right that the decision to prosecute or to adopt a diversion scheme may depend on the particular locality that you live in? There are a series of questions about that, but the key point in terms of the national case marking is that it is able to provide relevant information to those who are making the decisions about the position in particular areas. It ought to be able to accommodate the concerns that have been raised, but the Crown Agent can perhaps add to that. I will try to be brief, but there are a few points that I need to touch on. First of all, again, this has not been a process that has happened overnight. It has been, as I said in previous evidence session, many years since every local case was marked by the local procurator fiscal. We could count that in decades rather than simply years. Variety of different structures that have been in COPFS over recent years has been the case. The cases have been marked in hubs or because of the advantages that we have of our electronic systems. They have been portable and transferable. Therefore, when capacity has been made available in a particular occasion, cases have been transferred over. Long before this, for example, deputies and indeed, just as an example, may have been marking cases in which the offencing took place in Inverness. To that extent, the issue of locality is not a new one. Prior to this model, marking staff were not ring fenced. That led to all sorts of issues arising in relation to their time being called upon to, for example, go into court. That meant that, in particular locations, significant backlogs were developing because individuals were going into court. Therefore, that was, again, one of the reasons for dealing with that because of the abstractions. The other point with that was that, again, particularly in relation to custody cases, but just marking generally. When the marking caseload was spread across a wide range of deputies, not just ring fenced staff, that meant that that was another duty that they had to perform when they might, for example, have been going into court. Again, you have heard evidence in relation to court preparation time. If you free up the other staff of ring fenced and you are not having to mark cases before you go in to do your trials court, you can focus more on your trials court, so it has had that advantage. In relation to the provision of training in relation to new developments, not only in legislation but also in changes to prosecution policy. Again, you have heard evidence and we may touch on the prosecution policy review. It enables you to target a smaller number of staff with intensive training to make sure that you get your policies consistently in place and that they are after implemented. It has also been a model that has enabled us to learn and adapt. It is not set in stone, so Lord Advocate has already alluded to the reference to being divided into a sheriffdom model to allow that level of local contact and local understanding. That was not in the original proposal. That has been something that posts the changes to our structure where we moved to the local court model with the sheriffdoms in April of last year. That has seemed like the next logical step in order to create those connections. I suppose that the other thing that is suggested by way of context with this is that when one analyses the crime types across the country, I think that we have heard some evidence about what the 10 most commonly committed offences are. They are broadly similar across the country. There are not significant variations in the nature of the criminality that is most common in different parts. The other thing that is important is to highlight the difficulties that there were with previous models. In some locations, you may recall reading in the press at the time, and you may have had, depending on previous roles, some knowledge or experience of it, having perhaps been on previous committees, where you have heard evidence or been aware from press reporting of custody of your courts classically in Glasgow, still running at 9, 10 or 11 o'clock at night. That does not happen now. The new models have enabled us to deal with the work in, frankly, a more professional manner and a more consistent manner in a way that ensures that we are certainly from the feedback that we have had thus far able to service the custody courts across the country in a successful manner. However, that is not to say that the model is set in stone and the evidence that you have heard from others and, indeed, other learning, for example, in relation to the change to the sheriffdom model, we will continue to review and revise that model. I thank you. Just very briefly, has it saved money, just as an aside? In the sense that it has saved a court time, it will have, yes. Okay, thank you. A supplementary is all over then, Liam. I accept that there are some aspects of the central marking system that are brought about benefits, but would you acknowledge that perhaps taking marking away from local ffiscals has fed into the narrative that ffiscals based locally have less and less discretion, less ownership over cases, they are having to follow more centralised policies and that that has, again, in effect on just people's perception of how local justice is to them? I think that there's perhaps an important point and it's perhaps a constitutional point, ultimately. I am the head of the prosecution service and, in fact, I am the prosecutor in all solemn cases. Indeed, in summary cases, it's always been the case that ffiscals have acted within instructions and guidelines given to them by the Lord Advocate. One of the reasons for that is to make sure that there is consistency in the way that the prosecution service operates across the country. Baron Hume, who is our greatest writer on criminal law in the 19th century, said that my role as Her Majesty's Advocate is to vindicate Her Majesty's interest in the due and equal distribution of criminal justice to all her subjects. And the way that I secure that constitutional obligation is by setting prosecution policy. So I think that it's important in relation to this debate to recognise that consistency of approach across the country is part of making sure that all Her Majesty's subjects in Scotland have the equal protection for the criminal law and that there's a consistency of approach in similar cases across the country. There's a separate issue, which is about the trust and confidence that I have, and I certainly have, in those who prosecute in my name to exercise judgment and to make realistic and robust decisions within the policies that I set. I've been very clear from, I think, the first day that I was appointed that I have absolute trust and confidence in the judgment of those who prosecute on my behalf up and down the country. I recognise that there has been a perception of withdrawal of discretion from fiscals. Now, I think that it's important to put that in context. The background was a system in which decision making in relation to individual cases might, across the country, be significantly affected by the particular views of individual fiscals on issues that, essentially, one might regard as matters of policy. There was an entirely appropriate shift to a much greater commitment or clarity around the need for national policies in which all prosecutors are expected to operate. If it were necessary to do so, I've been sending clear signals that, within my policies, I expect prosecutors to exercise their judgment. It's the privilege and also the burden and responsibility of being a prosecutor. Do you think that the changes to the case marking system have contributed to a perception among fiscals that the role in the service has been downgraded on a local level and that they have less ownership for prosecution policy? I can't speak directly to the perception that people have, but I would certainly want to make it very clear that there is no downgrading of the role and responsibility of fiscals in my mind. If I may follow up with that very briefly, I go back to the point that it's been decades since every local case was marked locally. The point is that there can and should be a sense of collective ownership about the decision making. Two very brief points on that go back to the point of the lag and the perception in relation to certain issues that have arisen and whether they are being addressed. One of the issues that came out in the prosecution policy review wasn't so much about the policies themselves but the approval levels in relation to the ability of the local deputy to make decisions. As part of that prosecution policy review, a significant number of those approval levels have actually been removed in my entirety. Anything that has remained as requiring on approval has been tested and the grade for that approval has been reduced to a local level. Again, that has changed literally within the last few months in order to create that sense of local decision making. For the avoidance of any doubt, to re-emphasise the point that Lord Advocate is making on trust and confidence by a specific reference to the policies. Very briefly, going back to the materials that were published today in the statistical bulletin, Lord Advocate made a reference to the conviction rate and the acquittal rate where it is not guilty and not proven. A key point is that the 8 per cent of the cases that we start, we do not proceed with at a particular point where an either or not guilty plea is accepted or we choose to not continue with the proceedings and desert those proceedings. That is, I would respectfully submit, local discretion in action. I think that there are still some bigger concerns around that. We heard from Derek Ogg QC, who was a former deputy. He is saying that sometimes it is a bit like an arrow leaving a bow when someone has made a decision somewhere. No one wants to interfere with the decision and it just rattles down the track, sometimes ending up in court by accident rather than design. Is that an analysis that you would not accept at all? Do you think that you have got the balance right? Certainly speaking as it were across the system, I think that the crown agents already referred to the evidence, the data that shows that cases are discontinued, 8 per cent of cases are discontinued. That will have been for a number of reasons, but one would surmise that a proportion of those are cases where new information has come to light, new material has new evidence as there is in the end of the decisions being made that it is either no longer possible or no longer in the public interest to continue with the prosecution. There is evidence of discontinuation. If there is this as well, the discontinuation policy and the need to reinvigorate that discontinuation policy is a matter that has been the subject of discussion with ministers. I would anticipate that the service wishes to refresh and relaunch that discontinuation policy so that it is absolutely apparent what the expectation is on individual members of staff and the trust that we have in them to meet that expectation. Just for the avoidance of doubt, when the crown agents uses the term of ministers, he means myself and the solicitor general. Mr Harvie's point is made in relation to the approvals, because I think that you are right that that was a focus of the early evidence that we took. The insistence on the importance of consistency while I recognise, does rather ignore the point that those markings were taking place historically under guidance that was set essentially and therefore presumably secured a degree of consistency across the piece and that where if you are focusing your efforts on building up the skill levels of those in those two locations in a central pool, is there not a risk that what you do is that you extend the gap between the knowledge of those in the central marking pool and those who are then taking forward prosecutions at a local level, that their understanding of the latest developments in policy and law may not be a far cry from what it is that those essentially have. Forgive me if I have unintentionally misled the committee in relation to the way in which we operate our training. The NICP creates the opportunity to overhear your first targeted audience for your training, but for example the most recent changes in our policies under the prosecution policy review, the entirety of the staff have received that training, and as that today I am right in saying that that training is now concluded. It gives you an opportunity to focus the initial part of the training on a targeted group of individuals, but that training is then provided to others because it is an absolutely key point that regardless of whether or not you are involved in the initial decision to raise proceedings or whether you are the deputy with the responsibility of the case at the very end when you are getting to trial, the obligation to keep revisiting the nature and strength of the crown case continues, and I think that again that is reflected on the point that I was raising earlier about the statistics where 8 per cent are actually discontinued in 8 per cent of cases, whether that is because key witnesses have regrettably for reasons that we have spoken about already, failed to engage or whether that is because of representations and evidence provided by the defence that was not previously available. Prosecutors are making decisions in 8 per cent of cases that actually they are not going to continue with the prosecution, and so therefore that continuing obligation that they have, they are demonstrating that they are meeting that continuing obligation, that is not to say that you haven't heard evidence which I fully accept, that greater clarity in relation to that obligation and also greater confidence from the staff members in being able to exercise that discretion is not something that would be of benefit, and that's why I'm saying that, in particular, the discontinuation policy, which Lord Advocate will confirm, was one of the first items in the agenda when we had the discussion following his appointment, will be key in ensuring that there is that trusted confidence on the part of the individuals who are making those decisions, that when they take a professional judgment on that continuing obligation basis to reassess the case that their decision will be supported. I can just confirm that. The change in the prosecution policy through the prosecution policy review, the change in the approval levels, the anticipated discontinuation policy are all part of a suite of practical measures which are seeking to implement and underpin the message that I've been affirming from day one, which is the responsibility that individual prosecutors have and which I trust them to exercise, recognising, as I think we all do, that they have to fulfil their decision-making functions within the context of the policies that I set. That's helpful. Slightly surprisingly, you haven't picked up either of you the role of the community justice partnerships, which I understand have delivered some benefit in terms of that two-way flow of information, but can I pick up finally the invitation from the Lord Advocate answering the question that you posed earlier about whether or not there should be the same diversionary options available consistently across the country? I would turn that on its head and ask you, Lord Advocate, do you think that it is remotely realistic whether to be the same number and variety of diversionary options in Orkney, for example, as there is in Glasgow? That gets back to the point of, assuming that the answer to that is no, then an understanding of what is available in Orkney is absolutely essential, rather than assuming that there will be the same number and variety as there is in Glasgow or anywhere else in more urban centres? I certainly didn't—well, I hope that I didn't give the impression, didn't intend to give the impression that I believe that there is the same level. Of course, I recognise that the circumstances are different in different parts of the country and that what is feasible in a densely populated part of the country may have to be thought about in quite a different way in a less densely populated part of the country. Equally, I entirely accept that information about what is available in a particular area is information that should be available to the case markets and can be made available to them through the systems that we have. I was inviting a reflection on what the aspiration should be here, because, if one thinks about it, if there is a diversionary option that is available for a particular case, that provides the opportunity for the individual who is accused of the crime to engage in a process that may be more beneficial to that individual, which may be more beneficial to society and ultimately means that he or she does not have a criminal record. The question that one might reflect on is whether looking to the equal distribution of criminal justice to all Her Majesty's subjects wherever they may be in Scotland, should we be aspiring to have similar opportunities available? Recognising that there will have to be serious differences—there are significant differences in the challenges that are faced in delivering options in different parts of the country, shouldn't that be the aspiration that we should seek? If I may briefly pick up on that very same point. That is not to say that it needs to be exactly the same option that is available. It is about a minimum availability and agreeing a minimum quality and thereafter a minimum expectation about what collectively as a society we might reasonably expect should be diverted from prosecution consistently across the country, because if you think about it to its logical conclusion, if the alternative for us is to prosecute and after a conviction, a decision maker, another decision maker, this time not a prosecutor but this time a judicial decision maker, is left with the opportunity to consider what the disposals are. They are left with the same dilemma if that is not available locally. All that is ended up is that the individual now has a conviction but not the disposal that anybody might reasonably think would be the appropriate one, so that it is not a true alternative in that respect, because in many instances the judicial decision maker does not have that option available either. There is again a wider system discussion to be had about whether or not that is something that is regarded as acceptable in modern society. The other point that you made was reference to the community justice structures. There are so many sources of different information that are available. We are enthusiastically engaged in that community justice structure with the national authority as well. Indeed, those are the kinds of discussions that we are having in relation to not only what is available locally but what might be available locally in the future and having a better understanding collectively as a system of what really works, and then, after trying to find ways of making that available in a greater number of locations, whether in that form or in another form that suits the practicalities and the resources available in different locations. That is a worthwhile debate to have, rather than simply accept that there is the patchwork of services available that may lead to inconsistencies in an approach that is not conscious choices to be inconsistent as a result of local issues but as a result of constraints. Finally, to conclude on the national initial case processing unit, is there a backlog of cases currently? There is a work-in-hand. We have never described it as a backlog, and that sits at just under four weeks of work. That would equate to 5,000 cases? 10,000? 20,000 cases? At the moment, it is sitting. I think that the latest figure—and forgive me, because it does change on an almost daily basis—is just under 16,000, but I am very happy to write to the committee with the latest numbers. Is that not a staggering amount of cases? It has been higher in the past. If I can provide the committee with more detail in relation to how high it has been, how low it has been and where we are with it. Could I press you a little bit further and ask how the unions met with the head of the unit to express concern about how the NICP is operating? The unions are in positive discussions about the new unit and can see benefits in the new unit, but there are, as I have said already, changes in the unit, for example, in relation to the sheriffdom structure, and we will continue to make changes as appropriate. So have there been several meetings and have they been resolved or have people left discontented and feeling that their comments have not been taken on board that the meeting was to no avail, for example? I am not sure what information you have, convener, but certainly the information that I have is that positive discussions are on-going. Could I ask you perhaps to look into that and have a specific reason for asking? That is a good place to break. Five minutes come for a break and back to the second half of the evidence. Resume our line of questioning and then. Lord Advocate, I want to pick up on a few more specific questions in relation to some of the themes that came up earlier. The first was in relation to staffing and he talked about the number of staff that will be some natural turnover in terms of cost saving, but I was grateful to see in the submission an entry around trainee solicitors and around the concerns that we have heard in relation to trainees. In particular, in relation to the last paragraph in that submission, where you state that over the last three intakes, 30 have secured permanent contracts and a further 10 have secured fixed-term contracts. I wonder if you could comment about the importance in your mind of the trainee process in your service and the need to retain top young talent as it comes through the system and if there is a commitment in order to continue in that recruitment drive to hold the best talent at your service? Well, I'm certainly very committed to the importance of recruiting able young enthusiastic lawyers as trainees. It's important to recognise that trainee solicitors are trainee solicitors, that they are young professionals who play an important part in the service at the same time as receiving training. I know myself as someone who's had a career in advocacy that often what some young lawyers want to do is get into court and one of the unique features of the Crown Office traineeship is the range and depth of the opportunity to engage in that in court advocacy. I'm very committed to the recruitment of trainees. It's hugely important, in my mind, for the long-term health of the service. I picked up somewhere one of my predecessor's comments that you can't knit deputes and it's essential that we're recruiting some of the brightest and best into the service. Is there a similar commitment towards increased retention in order to build that capacity in the service of trainees? I think that one could see it in the numbers that you've alluded to. I don't know whether the Crown agent from his perspective would like to add anything. Both in context and in the commitment. In terms of context, there is absolutely no doubt that the training provided by the Crown remains highly desirable and that's reflected in the number of applicants that we get for the training. That, by definition, means that we are given an opportunity to select from a really, really high-performing group. That's evidence in the past. That's been consistently the case. When I started on the service that we took on, I think that it's four trainees. I think that the most that we've taken on on any given year is about 21 or 22 this year. It's, I think, about 2021. We're maintaining that commitment and the reason why we're maintaining that commitment is because we know about the quality. That's evidence by the fact that the three deputy Crown agents, all of them are former trainees, a very significant proportion of the senior civil service that are there, started off as trainees in the organisation and indeed a number of former Crown agents have been trainees. I wasn't, but a number of them have. It goes back for a long period of time about the acknowledgement of the quality. There was a period in the early days of the recession where choices had to be made and those choices were very, very difficult and choices that we hadn't had to make previously in relation to retention. I'm pleased to say that, through the more recent deputy recruitment processes, a number of those former trainees have now returned to us and I think that that's an indication of their view of this training that they were provided with and their view of the service. I hope in years to come, frankly, that in future recruitment exercises we might get more of that lost group of talent during those years when we weren't able to recruit. As far as the current position is concerned, I've summarised it in the letter about the end position. Some of those initially came in on the short-term contracts that we've already identified as deputies and have subsequently secured permanent contracts. The position, as I identified in the letters, is in essence the net position. Over the last three intakes, 30 of them have now secured permanent contracts with the organisation and others are on temporary. Certainly, it would be my expectation that, when we talked about the natural turnover and legal staff, that is inevitable. My first port of call, without any doubt, will be to our trainees and seeking to recruit as many of those as possible to be the deputies of the future. I think that the committee would be grateful if we could be kept informed in years ahead of how that retention level increases or is maintained. I was glad that you raised the point about trained deputies who have gone to work in other areas of practice returning to the system. It is interesting in the Lord Advocate's comments earlier about the proportion of the workforce who are perhaps dissatisfied in thinking about the service. I wonder if comment needs to be made in that area around the fact that some individuals in the service who are thinking about perhaps leaving the service may be doing so for entirely career-orientated constructive reasons to go and work for a portion of their career within the defence side of the practice and then come back. Is that a point raising in order to set the context of why people may be considering it and move away from the service at points? The numbers are the numbers. I cannot give any concrete evidence to the particular career choices that people might wish to make, undoubtedly over the course of a legal career people make choices for a variety of reasons. They are not always to do with dissatisfaction with their current position. However, I would not want to overstate the point. We recognise that in the sickness statistics, for example, there is an issue that needs to be addressed and the services are actively engaged through the fair futures programme in seeking to address the areas where there is an issue with morale. Similarly, in relation to those who are on fixed-term contracts, by definition, a good proportion of those will be looking from their perspective to try and secure greater certainty for their careers, whether they are on the legal side or the non-legal side. There are any number of motivations that there might be at any given time. From our perspective, the key commitment is that, within the financial envelope that is available, we will seek to provide as much security and certainty to our greatest resources as we possibly can. I have one more question on a separate theme for me. I spoke earlier about the needs for procedural reform and how evidence is collected. I think that one of the interesting themes that has come out throughout the inquiry, which was touched on earlier in general terms around witnesses, was that I was keen to raise specific other pieces of evidence that we took on specialist witnesses and the cost that can be caused to the fiscal service and the inconvenience to those who wish to or are required to give evidence. I wondered whether you could comment further on what capacity and determination there might be in order to try to make greater efficiencies towards how specialist witnesses are used in particular. Two points are there. One is the importance of expert and specialist witnesses to the prosecution of crime. It is undoubtedly the case that, as investigative techniques have changed and the nature of the evidence that we are able to lead has changed, there is an increasing use of a greater variety of different types of expert and skilled witnesses, so it is important that we use those witnesses appropriately. I read the evidence from the forensic medical examiners and one could not but have sympathy with the position in which they find themselves. There is a particular category of skilled witnesses whose services may be called on in a number of cases and that plainly presents them with some challenges given the system as it currently operates. The lesson that I take from that is the need to think much more creatively about the system as a whole. First of all, to try and minimise the setting down of cases for trial when the trial is not actually going to proceed because part of the issue is witnesses being cited for diets which will simply be a gerant. Part of the issue is about trying to secure as early a resolution of a case as possible so that witnesses are not resolved before they get to the point of considering having to cite a witness to a trial diet. Part of the answer may be in the greater use of video technology to take evidence from witnesses, particularly witnesses such as the forensic medical examiners. I am glad that you raised that point, because that is exactly what has come through through many of the other pieces of evidence that we have taken. There is a real enthusiasm out there to use video technology, whether that is live link or prerecorded technology, and it is enlightening to hear that that is already ready. There is enthusiasm from yourself, and I do not know if the committee wants to come in as well. I think that it is perhaps important to communicate to the committee that there is enthusiasm across the criminal justice system, back across the justice system as a whole, for real, significant transformational change. One of the reasons why I was very pleased to be asked to take on this office and was pleased to accept the invitation to take it on is because I am personally very enthusiastic for the job that I do at the moment at a time when, across the system, there is a collective commitment to trying to make the system work significantly better for the people whom we are all here to serve. A cultural change in greater use of technology might not face the psychological barriers that sometimes others might, in a less informed way, think could perhaps be there. The way that we are reflecting on what we have is subject to various amendments that have taken place in the legislation. The criminal procedure was developed in 1995. I do not think that I had a mobile phone in 1995. It is fair to say that there are real opportunities to update our procedures in a way that reflects not only the technologies that are available but the public expectation about the use of those technologies. I think that the evidence that you have heard from the professionals and the experts and the two distinct categories have been really helpful in supporting that cause, which I think is fair to say that there is a deal of enthusiasm for. The use of video technology, for example, is about to change with the new criminal justice provisions, but it does not yet go far enough to cover the type of situation that you have described. That would be a further debate about the propriety and best use of video technology for the taking of evidence, not only in pre-recorded fashion but also separately. That was a way of taking evidence live from witnesses, particularly in the categories that you have heard. We have provided some further evidence to the committee at the committee's request in relation to the costs of expert and professional witnesses, which is twofold. First of all, it demonstrates in terms of some of the points that we were making earlier about the opportunities to make some savings in that respect by pushing down and really testing whether or not the expert and our professional witnesses are truly necessary for proof of the case and being ever more robust with that. However, the flip side of that coin is that, by definition, as our costs decrease in relation to that, as we apply those tests, that means that we are actually inconveniencing fewer expert and professional witnesses in asking them to engage fully in the court process all the way to trial, so there is a mutual benefit. However, the issue is that once they are, it is clear that they are required to be engaged in the process. Again, going back to that point about engagement, the same applies to them as to your broader members of the public who have been eyewitnesses. They are people who have very significant demands on their time, by definition, and therefore we want them to be engaging with the criminal justice system with a level of enthusiasm about the contribution that they can make. It is incumbent on the system to try and find ways to make that as straightforward as possible, and there is a way to go on that. I thank you very much. I am aware that others want to come in on that point. I just want to conclude by saying that I look forward to working with you in order to take that enthusiasm forward. It is appreciated. Ben has very helpfully raised an issue that has come up again in terms of the advantages of technology and what it can deliver in terms of system change. The committee is also aware of where promises around IT as an enabler can come unstuck the I6 fiasco in terms of Police Scotland's unobvious example, but there are others. I suppose that it is more a plea than a question that, as you take that forward, the undertakings that you make in relation to what it will deliver are robustly tested as possible before they are rolled out. Another plea would be that, although technology can be a great enabler in opening up access to justice, if you are looking at that through the prism of somebody in Orkney or Shetland or the Western Isles, what that will deliver will look very different from what will be the case in the central belt. Therefore, if that is to be deployed in a way that is balanced across the piece, then that perspective needs to be understood and taken in cognisance of every bit as much as it is in more urban centres, where, again, the benefits are potentially huge, but it will be viewed very differently. That is a point well made. As a boy from Galloway, I entirely understand the different context for the work that is done in rural areas, as opposed to the urban centres. Of course, one of the potential benefits of technology is that it is robust and effective and precisely to allow us to provide a service across the country that is consistent. I think that, if it is seen as an enhancement, the concern is that what it does is that it provides an excuse for withdrawing something that is there deliverable face-to-face, etc. Therefore, I think that, as I say, the perspective of this will be probably very different in different parts of the country. I just hope that, as part of the taking forward of this strategy, that is borne in mind. Going back to the VR example, the provision of information to people at their convenience, if they have ready access, and that is one of the key issues, and if they are so minded to use those facilities, could have very significant benefits, that would not be with the view to then saying that that is the sole mode of delivery. That is with a view to saying that there is a category of people who are getting their information via this route that enables resource to focus on others who are not able or unwilling or otherwise not suited to that particular option, having the focus on them and the same information provided to them in different ways. It is about having a menu of options available to individuals and also to localities. I will drill down a little bit deeper on that. There has been quite a reliance from the beginning of our dialogue with you on digital improvements to make the system more efficient. I can quite see the case for conference calling and not having to physically transport a witness from jail to prison or an accused if that is not necessary. Are there computer-type, i6-type improvements that you are relying on? If there are, what cognisant has been taken of just about every other public service contract in the area that we have just ended in tears? One of the advantages of not having millions of pounds to spend on technology is that you do not try to embark on an exercise like that. One of the key points that we have invested in in recent years is, first of all, providing a stable platform with our existing systems. That exercise has recently been completed. Our director of IT will now characterise that as we now move into the app phase. That is about a series of interfaces to get the data that we have available out to the user, whoever that may be, in the appropriate format. It is about creating gateways into the databases that we have already. It is not about a huge redesign of a system, it is about securing gateways to the information that we have in readily acceptable ways. For example, that would form the platform for access to, via information, the platform potentially for access for information for a witness website, etc. All of which are things that we are looking at. Here is a blank piece of paper. Let's build something new. We have an excellent platform on which we can build how best we design ways of allowing people to have access to that in a way that is effective for them and enables them to have a level of certainty about, for example, when their case is calling. I wanted to bring up something that we have heard during the inquiry on domestic incidents. I heard two lines of thought on it. One was that there was a zero tolerance to domestic incidents, which I think was generally accepted in. I would say that that has been a good change given the harm that those incidents can cause to the victims. However, some people were saying that the zero tolerance approach takes precedent above all else, even when a case shouldn't go to court. Other people have said that that is not the case. There would always be a sufficiency of evidence. I wonder if the Lord Advocate would be in a position to explain how he sees that particular issue. The first point to be very clear about is that no case of domestic abuse or any other case should be marked for prosecution or continued if there is not sufficient evidence. The starting point for decision making in relation to any case, including cases that are concerned with domestic abuse, is sufficient evidence in law. I was not surprised that the prosecutors from whom you heard took it as a—I think that I read the words on the page correctly—something of an assault on their professional integrity to suggest that they would ever mark a case for prosecution if they weren't of the view that there was sufficient evidence in law. The second point is this, that you are absolutely right that against that background or on the assumption that there is enough evidence in law, the current policy is a very robust one. The presumption will be for prosecution. It is not an absolute presumption, but the presumption will be for prosecution. That is a policy deliberately put in place by my predecessor. It is deliberately put in place because domestic abuse is a form of criminality that has significant impact on the immediate victim and other members of the family. It is a form of criminality that, for far too long, the justice system collectively did not take sufficiently seriously. I do not apologise for a robust prosecution policy, but it is a prosecution policy that starts from living sufficient evidence in law that a crime has been committed. Those are two important things to always have in mind. It is in a context where, although the prosecution policy is robust and has very strong presumptions, it is not absolute. Thanks very much, Lord Advocate, for that response. You will be aware that this Government has made domestic violence and tackling a priority. That is supported by Arranger parties across the Parliament. How do you take cognisance of Government policies generally when implementing them into the criminal justice system? I suppose that, specifically in relation to that, as you have alluded to and answered some of, but also wider policy implications. I think that the first point to make is that the setting of prosecution policy is my responsibility and by statute it is a responsibility that I must exercise independently of any other person. It is my job to set the policies. In setting the prosecution policy, I seek to respond to criminality as it actually is affecting people and communities in this society today and also to respond to changes in appreciation of different forms of criminality. Domestic abuse is perhaps a good example of a form of criminality that, as I said a moment ago, for too long was not taken sufficiently seriously, where there is a collective commitment across the justice system and in Government to tackle it because of the impact that it has on individuals and families and therefore indirectly on communities. I reflect that in the policies that I set for prosecutors. Just on that, there has been a huge increase in the number of complex sexual cases and, obviously, that has a pressure on the service. In previous evidence, we have heard from the Barre Association that there is a little bit of concern that some cases, which are equally complex, might involve drugs, public order, dishonest, stay violent, prosecuted well. Serious cases might be almost being squeezed because of the presumption and the focus that there has quite rightly been on domestic abuse and serious sexual assault. I would certainly hope that that is not the case. As you know, within the Crown Office, there are a number of specialist units. One of the specialist units is the Serious Organised Crime Unit. It is a unit that has, within its ambit, dealing with Serious Organised Crime of all sorts. I would like to think that, if you look at the case that I think was popularly known as the Coke Boat case that has a lot of publicity, that is perhaps the tip of the iceberg, but demonstrates a difficult and important significant case involving drugs, which was prosecuted successfully to our conclusion. We have specialists within the Serious Organised Crime Unit. I certainly take the view that economic crime is something that we have to take seriously. I do not accept the proposition that that type of case is being squeezed. It is true that we devote resources to sexual offending. That reflects, as I said a moment ago, a need to address criminality as it is actually affecting people in our society today. We have seen a significant increase in the number of Serious Sexual Cases. There are a number of reasons for that. As prosecutors, we have to respond. Part of that response is about giving victims the confidence that we will take those cases seriously, handle them appropriately and where it is appropriate to do so and prosecute them to our conclusion. It is supposed to suffice to say that you are aware that the resources have to be there to future proof for all complex cases. With that, now supplementaries that would need to be very brief, Liam and Mark. Follow-up to the point, I think that Fulton McGregor was alluding to the evidence that we received from the Police Federation in relation to the policy around and the guidance around domestic abuse. It was also very evident in what we heard from the bar associations as well that, while they accepted the policy of zero tolerance, what concerned them was an apparent zero discretion, if I can characterise it as that, in terms of the way in which those cases were handled. You quoted, I think, or were alluding to Rachel Weir's evidence where she robustly denied that this would ever be the case, but we have also heard from current fiscal deputes that they have raised concerns around this in the past, which we would, to some extent, call to question the absolute assurances that we were getting in that regard. Do you see there being an issue in terms of allowing still levels of discretion, albeit within the framework of a zero tolerance policy, or do you think that you have got the balance absolutely right at this stage? I think that you are absolutely right, and I am grateful to you for putting it in that way. It is undoubtedly the case that the robust policy is not without its critics and has not been without its critics. One kind of debate about whether the policy is right or wrong, and that is a debate that I would be glad to engage in. I absolutely do not accept the suggestion that was made that a prosecutor would, by virtue of that policy, knowingly or deliberately be raising proceedings where they did not believe that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the case. That would be a serious matter. I think that there may be an issue about discontinuation, and the Crown Agents alluded to that. As he said, we are looking at a discontinuation policy to reinforce the importance of prosecutors continuing to assess cases as they go through the system. Let me ultimately look at the data of the domestic abuse cases that we prosecute. There is a conviction in 80 per cent of them. Certainly, 80 per cent of cases that go to trial are the right way to put it. That does not suggest that we are getting the decision making seriously wrong in relation to that class of cases. That goes to trial, so that is 80 per cent of those that go to trial. Just in terms of the discretion point, I have tried to allude to this in the letter and accept the points about data as well. If we look at page 12 of the letter, I think that I have referred to. Our general decisions not to prosecute across a range of offences are about 4.7 per cent in reported cases generally, but are between seven and eight in domestic abuse. The basic point with that is that, at the very first opportunity when cases are being assessed, it is less likely that the prosecutor will decide to commence a domestic abuse case than it is when compared to the average case. To me, that is a clear indication of the tests that are applied appropriately in relation to the evidential standards. Let us make no bones about it. The nature of those offences—this is something that the Parliament will doubtless debate in the forthcoming proposition in relation to the domestic abuse bill—are such that some of those matters take place by definition in private. There are issues in relation to how the offences are corroborated, and those need to be robustly tested. I would say to you that, by not embarking on seven or eight per cent of those cases that are reported, that being a higher percentage than the average case demonstrates that there is a critical eye applied at that first examination of the case. I think also that there was some evidence that you mentioned about the police federation, about attendance at a house and someone's leaving in handcuffs, I think, or something, or the phrase that was used. My understanding is that that was not borne out by the actual information about police attending at domestic abuse incidents. The numbers that are at them are subsequently charged. It is my understanding that the approximately half of the incidents that our police are called to result in someone being charged. That is rightly or wrongly, because that again suggests that the police themselves are applying a filter in relation to the incidents that they attend, whether they find evidence of criminality, but beyond that, whether they are not, even in their view, there is a sufficiency of evidence in order to be able to bring forth a charge. There are a series of filters going through. On that point, it might be possible for you to answer it now, but what is that trend look like? In the sense that at the start of a process where there is a zero tolerance approach, there are new guidance issued, people will respond in a particular way, is there evidence to suggest that people were taking a very much a precautionary approach at the outset, but over time that discretion is starting to be reinserted as people are comfortable with the way in which the new policy is to apply it? I think that there is an interesting debate about these types of offences generally. As Lord Advocate has indicated, there is an issue about the sufficiency of evidence, and the position in relation to sufficiency of evidence, I hope, is perfectly clear from the letter. In terms of that on-going review in relation to the sufficiency of evidence that we spoke about and the obligation that there is on the prosecutor, there is an interesting public debate to be had about that, where some of the stakeholder groups will take one view, some of the judiciary may take a different view, some defence-listers may take a different view, which is when there is a reluctance to engage on the part of a key witness, most often the complainer victim of the allegation. There are those who would say that because of the disparity in the power by definition of the nature of the relationship that actually one of the defence mechanisms for that relationship is to be able to say, I was forced to give evidence. Therefore, to be able to then say, in light of that disparity, it was not me who was choosing to do this to you in the nature of that relationship. There are very complex discussions to be had about that, about the particular nature of this kind of offending and the interaction of the power relationship, and whether or not the individual's desire not to co-operate in a particular case is motivated by fear and what we as a society and we as a system should do to respond to that. It comes back to that, how do we assist that person to give of their best? What is it that we can do to make sure that justice is done? It is not simple binary choice of this person's writing in and saying that they no longer want to co-operate. You have to look at the nature of the offending, you have to look at the position that that person is in, you have to look at what support you can give to that person if the support is what is needed in order to be able to get them to the position that they truly want, which is for justice to be secured. That might not be their initial position in terms of the way that they represent themselves to us. They may just simply say, I classically, because that is the statistics, I forgive him. However, it is because of the power relationship and that is not a true reflection of that person's views. You will hear from stakeholder groups, you have probably heard already from stakeholder groups about the views, and this type of offending is different. When you are debating the domestic abuse bill, I think that that particular issue will be front and centre about the power dynamic. I think that the Parliament's committee is conscious of that, and there will be legislation coming forward in the interests of moving on a little bit. Can I just press you a little bit on those 80 per cent of convictions? How is that broken down? How many were admonished? How many were given a very low fine, i.e. maybe indicating that perhaps the share of thought has gone through the trial, but, to be honest, I am wondering about the sufficient of the public interest of the 20 per cent that did not go forward. What is that equate to in numerical terms? The last thing that I will say, because I know that we are conscious of time, I noticed and I took this on board as being a very positive sign that, in the Crown Agent's letter, he recognises that the issue is about prosecution and having sufficiency. I do think that there is a contradiction sometimes between the Lord Advocate guidelines, or are we now on to Lord Advocate's instructions? If it is instructions, is there not a contradiction in terms of being able to issue discretion? I think that what I would like to say in that I am heartened that, in the Lord Advocate, in the Crown Agent's letter, there is a recognition and accept that the issue is a cultural one, that robust and entirely appropriate prosecution policies for certain offending may have led to a perception among our staff. I have to say the judiciary as well, and other people have given evidence that the ability to exercise professional judgment has been curtailed. We are now seeking to address that through our view of the prosecution policies. I understand why you do not accept some of the evidence here. I think that the committee is hugely heartened that you have confirmed that there would be at least a loose to see how that perception has arisen. I am very pleased by that remark. On the general point, I am sure to say that I set the application of that policy in an individual case depends on the evidence that is available in that case. I, of course, depend on the prosecutors who assess the evidence in the individual case and make judgments about how the policies that I set should fall to be applied. It is important to understand what is meant by discretion here. I can set a policy as I do in relation to domestic abuse, which sets a strong presumption, not an absolute by any means, but a strong presumption for prosecution if there is sufficient evidence. Of course, the individual prosecutor has to look at the evidence to assess the evidence and to decide whether or not it meets the test and then to consider the other relevant considerations. There are other areas of prosecution policy where staff are given a range of relevant factors that tell in favour of a decision one way or the other. I am not dictating the outcome of an individual case. I depend on the professional prosecutors who are employed in the service to take my policy and seek to apply that policy guidance, policy instructions, however you like to phrase it, to the evidence in the individual case that is in front of them. Just on the 80 per cent, 20 per cent split, I think that it is perhaps important to recognise that a non-conviction case that ends up in an acquittal is not necessarily because the case should not have been prosecuted. It may well be a case where there was sufficient evidence that amply justified the decision to prosecute the case, but at the end of the day, fact finder, judge or jury, was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. It is a high standard and does not just depend on sufficiency. It would be surprising in any criminal justice system if there were not a proportion of cases and one would have a proportion of cases in which the ultimate outcome is an acquittal. That is a system working, not failing. The last thing that was brought up was a real absence of senior prosecutors in summary cases. It is something that you could look at and perhaps comment on. I suppose that the inference being that maybe someone who is relatively inexperienced then delays to seek more guidance to go back to ask perhaps that this is something that could be taken on board, perhaps a more of a presence of senior prosecutors in those cases would help. If I may also just pick up on one of the points. You asked for a statistic and I have the reverse statistics, which perhaps we will do the maths later, but you asked about the number of acquittals and against a conviction rate of 80 per cent, the most recent figures and those were the ones that were published this morning and the statistical bulletin show that there were 12,374 convictions in 2015-16 for cases with a domestic abuse aggravator, which for the first time is actually a slight decrease. It is a 1 per cent decrease on the year before and it represents what is characterised in the report as a stabilisation because in 2010-11 there were 8,500 convictions. In essence, there has been a jump of about 4,000 convictions in relation to cases with domestic abuse aggravators and that 15-16 is the first year where that is now beginning to flatline. Ask if we could have the statistics and we are all crediters part of their point. Perhaps if I might convener because I wouldn't want to have unwittingly said something I shouldn't. The 80 per cent figure is the figure that I gave you when we appeared in December. It was the statistic available at that point. I have to confess that I haven't checked what was just issued this morning. I am just for the avoidance of doubt. I know that we are trying to cover everything at this time. Thank you. The exact information that I was looking for was pretty much what Liam was able to tease out in some of his questions because it was about that conviction rate because I think that the 80 per cent conviction rate is a very important point. The fact that the comments that you touched on were made by the Police Federation and Callum Steele when he talked about people not being able to have a row in their homes anymore but to do what he thinks was very unhelpful and wrong. I am glad that we were able to touch on that and discuss that a bit. I also have a broader point that I am really looking for more information on. I suppose that being completely new to this and learning as we go along is about your relationship with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service with the Government. We talked a bit about the policy there and your own policy making. When we were in the budget discussions before, you said that you liased directly with the Finance Minister in that respect. Do the Government consult you when it comes to other policies relating to criminal justice? Do they then consult with you? I am just more interested in the discussions that take place around that and how regular linen occurance is that. I suppose that, to some extent, that touches on the two hats that I wear. As a Minister myself, I am directly involved within Government in relation to the Government process of decision making. When we are dealing particularly with justice policy issues, justice policy is a matter for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. However, if justice officials are considering or dealing with an issue that relates to criminal justice and engages the interests of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, I would be surprised if they did not engage with the officials within the Crown Office and within the service in relation to those matters. I suppose that there is perhaps a broader point about justice policy, which is that we are in this moment when the various institutions that are engaged in the justice system have a common commitment to real reform that will make a difference to people. By the nature of it, the Crown Office is very actively engaged in that process. I do not know if the Crown Agent might wish to add from a practical point about that. On the policy side, we have a policy unit. It lays with Scottish Government officials when there are proposals in relation to legislation to ensure that the impacts on prosecution, perhaps on the criminal process generally, are taken. Indeed, in some instances, albeit exceptionally, the genesis of proposed changes has, in the past, been the prosecution service. Going back to the domestic abuse bill, you will recall that the former solicitor general was a key proponent of those changes. There is a dynamic relationship in relation to the ability to make proposals. That is reflected in the types of work that we are alluding to in terms of evidence and procedure review and how we intend to take the Thomson report forward. It is on the basis of that collective willingness to reform and improve. I would be interested in your opinion on whether the establishment of permanent domestic abuse courts across Scotland would be beneficial. I think that one has to approach that issue, perhaps mindful of the point that Mr MacArthur made, that we are dealing in Scotland with a very diverse country in which the concentrations of population are quite different in different parts of the country. What is practically feasible in one part of the country may be much more difficult to achieve in another part of the country in which the population is different and the throughput of cases is different. What seems to me key is that those who are prosecuting those cases are appropriately trained and appropriately skilled to prosecute the cases, regardless of where they are and regardless of whether it is in a court that is called the domestic abuse court or not. The practical issue that could arise if one were to take the view that one needed to have a dedicated domestic abuse court and that domestic abuse cases could only be tried in those courts in the more dispersed parts of the country is that one might well have to see people travelling much further to attend the domestic abuse court or one might have a situation where the throughput of cases is such that that court sits relatively infrequently and the timescales get longer. There are a range of issues that one has to think about. For me, the key issue is not about what the court has called but whether we have appropriately skilled people who are handling the cases and therefore the cases being appropriately dealt with by all those involved, whatever you call the particular court. If I might seek to answer that, it is a successful model in the number of locations and the decision on court programming rests with each of the sheriff's principle. I know that they are cognisant of the benefits but they are weighing those advantages and disadvantages as set out by the Lord Advocate to determine whether it would be appropriate to introduce a domestic abuse court in a particular location. I can advise the committee that there are live discussions about the introduction of further domestic abuse courts in locations across the country where there currently are not any but that is an incremental process based on those considerations. On the other point in relation to additional funding, that means that we were able to recruit additional prosecutors, which meant that we were able to demand courts that would not otherwise have sat focusing on domestic abuse cases and in particular trying to ensure that, on an incremental basis, the time between first calling and trial was reduced initially to 12 weeks in year 1 and there after down to 10 weeks across the country. I think that I am right in saying that we are now under 10 weeks across the country and if we are not it will be an exception of 0.5 or 4 per cent somewhere. That in itself has been a very significant development in trying to progress those cases, regardless of whether or not there is a bespoke domestic abuse court. Do you think that, though the establishment of a permanent court in a specialist area like that, we would help to build the specialist knowledge that prosecutors would need, but not only that, it would also help to build the relationship between the prosecutors, the support organisations that exist to support the victims and it would also help to build confidence in the prosecution of those cases? There is no doubt that it is a model that works well where it operates. The issue, as we have said, is what is the balance between that and the disadvantages of, for example. Forgive me, I will pick random locations, and they are truly random, but just for illustrative purposes if there were to be one in Inverness. That was also to deal with cases from WIC. There is a question arises because at the moment domestic abuse cases in WIC will be dealt with within the parameters that I have talked about in relation to the first calling to trial being within the 10 weeks. If they are being called to Inverness, there is an issue about if, whether or not it would be possible still to meet that 10 weeks. Also separately, would the witness want to travel to Inverness if that is where the domestic abuse court was? There are pros and cons in relation to that that just need to be carefully considered in each instance, but there is no doubt that where it has been introduced and where there are sufficient cases to justify a bespoke and exclusive court for one of a better phrase that deals only with domestic abuse cases has been a success. Can I ask how many times the Crown Office has paid damages or compensation to victims or witnesses as a result of being detained because of errors by the Crown Office? I do not have that statistic to hand, but I can get it for him. Would you also be able to provide the amount in compensation that has been paid out? I would. That would be very good. Maybe over the last 10 years. 10 years? If that is okay. I will try to. Whatever. Maybe Lord Advocate, if I can ask you, we have had a small amount of discussion about Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prosecution and there was some concern about the division in responsibilities between your office and their office. I do not really want to focus too much because time is short on that specific role, but would you agree that it is important that your office and the Crown Office are as accountable as possible to the public? It is certainly right that I am accountable for one of the reasons why we are here today, one of the reasons why the service has as its head someone who is by statute and constitutionally required to act independently, but who is also a minister is that it provides that conduit of accountability to you as parliamentarians who are in turn represent the public at large. That is the structure of accountability and it is absolutely right that it should be so. At the same time, it is important that as prosecutors and as a prosecution system, we are very clear that we act independently of any other person. It is absolutely essential to the integrity of the justice system. Just as the judiciary act independently in the decision making that judges make and the judiciary is independent in the role that it plays in our system that at the same time the prosecution service acts independently and that, as I said earlier, I exercise my responsibilities as head of the system independently, personally and uninfluenced by any other person. That is what you said in the December meeting when we are here. I think that I am getting from you that you do agree that there should be openness, transparency and that you should not be held to a different level from other public agencies in any way. Absolutely. Like other public agencies, there will be things that we have obligation on the Data Protection Act and confidentiality. We deal with highly sensitive information about individuals and individual cases. Therefore, there are things that we may not be quite improper for us to disclose, but in terms of the operation of the service, transparency and accountability are certainly something that I, for my part, am very comfortable with. That is useful to hear. There will always be occasions when you cannot release information, and I fully accept that. However, do you think that it is right in this day and age that your office is not—if I had a freedom of information request into your office, if you responded to it in such a way that I did not feel fully answered my query, yours is only office, along with the commissioner of freedom of information requests, the information commissioner, whom I cannot appeal that decision against? Surely, if you want to be as open and transparent as possible, as you have just said in your last two answers, that would be a way to ensure that we can appeal decisions that your office put out to the information commissioner. I have to say that I did not know that there was any particular rule that applied to my office, so I can certainly find out the position there. In relation to freedom of information, we will comply with the legal structures and the legal requirements that have been placed upon us by Parliament. It is part 4 of the 2002 act, section 47, which states that the applications are excluded for appeal to the commissioner if it is about the commissioner, a procurator, fiscal or the Lord Advocate. I think that there are examples where a legitimate case has been put to your office and presumably your predecessor's office, but I think that an appeal would be useful to tease out more information. I am grateful to you for putting on record that there would be no general objection to that. I quickly move on to the way that you are coming in. In the US, there is a link to the inquiry, so if you do not mind, we will move on. I just want to be very clear that, if I might just be clear about one thing, I am not cited on this issue, as the convener has alluded to. As I said a moment ago, we will operate within whatever structures Parliament imposes on us, whether it would be appropriate or not, to change any particular rule. That is something that I am not expressing any view on today. We are looking to cover the issues that we have not covered so far in the inquiry. I do not think that anyone has asked about inquiry point. This was something that we got from the defense solicitors very early on. You accepted in December that there was a change to number 300. One of the things that struck me in your 20-page document is that the average time for people to wait on the current inquiry point is between one and four minutes. An average at the upper end of four minutes is a long time. The Lord Advocate paused this morning for 10 or 15 seconds. If we multiply that by 16 times, that is how long people are waiting to get through to a service that should be giving them information. If I could ask the Crown Agent, does he believe that that is why, in subsequent points that he makes in his letter, there has been so little interaction and uptake in changes provided by your service and offered by your service? Really, defence solicitors and such have had so many feelings in trying to communicate with the service. If that is not the case, why do you think that when you are putting forward all those alternatives, there is such a low uptake from defence solicitors who are making it very clear that they are not happy with the current system? First of all, the alternative methods that I have listed were illustrative for the purposes of demonstrating the efforts that have been and will continue to be made to resolve some of those issues and also to emphasise the point that has been raised earlier about whether one size does not fit all. There are particular solutions that work quite well in certain localities with certain cadres of the local defence bar and there are others that are less successful. The majority of the solutions, for example, I think that there was one reference to a deputy carrying their mobile number. I worked mobile around with them and I cannot call whether I listed this one, but they did not get a call in eight months. There are a number of solutions that are put forward that do not involve the inquiry point number. I think that one of the key things that I am acknowledging in the inquiry point number is to the extent to which the O8 number is seen as an inhibitor. That is being addressed. Insofar as the waiting times are concerned, that was illustrative of being open about the realities of the current service provision in relation to that. From my perspective, the key is how, then, when the individual gets through, whether or not their issue is addressed, whether or not they get the information, or whether or not they are signposted and passed on to someone who can provide that to them. Again, there are references in my letter to the fact that there is a requirement for improvement. I can provide you with statistics in relation to the happy to do so, but my recollection is that more than 80 per cent of calls that come into the inquiry point are resolved by staff at the inquiry point. There are those that are required to be put forward to other individuals in the organisation. My sense is that that is where the vulnerability in the system arises, is where there is an effort on the inquiry point perspective to try to get a hold of the person who the solicitor or member of the public is saying that they need to speak to. I think that part of the issue is whether they need to speak to that person or whether they need to speak to the person who has access to the information that they can give them. That is why, for example, one of the things that I am talking about here is being able to put a lawyer into an inquiry point who would actually be able to, for example, conduct a plea negotiation, because one of the benefits of our system is that the material is available online. Therefore, it should not matter whether or not the call is through to David Harvey or to John Dunn or anyone else in the organisation. It is the key that it is whether or not the person that you speak to is able to resolve the issue for you. The other thing that I try to convey in the correspondence is that phone numbers and points of contact are really the only part of the issue. You have heard issues in and around CJSM, which is a service that we sought to provide because there was an issue in relation to the secure transfer of personal data, which I am sure all of us would support, but it needs to be securely transferred. That was a service that was already available and was made available to the defence bar. It is not perfect. We have completely acknowledged that. There is a need to drive forward with a better system, whether that is partially a bespoke website with communication or whether or not that is a secure email system. I think that where the difficulty has arisen in the past is that there is a collective responsibility. Rather than us saying, here is CJSM, that is the solution for you to be able to transfer data securely, not only to COPFS but to the court service and in between to the legal aid board, etc. There is an issue about ensuring that, as a system response, members of the public can have confidence that their data is being securely transferred. That is why I am saying in the correspondence that there is a real need to have further engagement with the law society to understand how solicitors will meet those obligations and how we can assist them in doing so. I would be very pleased if the remaining questions could be succinct and the responses to Mary. I want to ask you both about health and safety cases. You will know that we heard some quite concerning evidence about the low level of prosecution, particularly in relation to employers' liability insurance. Is there a particular difficulty or is there a particular reason that there is a very low prosecution level in liability cases? I will first of all say that it is important—I will deal with the employer's liability point in a moment—that it is first of all important not to assume that every accident at work involves a crime in breach of the criminal offences in the Health and Safety Act. That is important to make that clear. We prosecute cases that are reported to us. In the context of health and safety, the primary reporting agency is the health and safety executive. We are able to direct the police to make inquiries, but we do not direct other reporting agencies such as the health and safety executives. We depend for the cases that we prosecute on those that are reported to us by the HSE. I suspect that the Crown agent will, while I have been speaking, have identified the statistics of health and safety cases reported to us that we prosecute and in which a conviction is secured. Part of the answer is that we take the cases that come to us, are brought to us, and we make prosecutorial decisions and prosecute them appropriately. In relation to the particular issue about employer's liability cases, if those cases are not being brought to us, there may be a question to be picked up with the reporting agency, and that is certainly a question that we can raise with them. Crown agent, I suspect that you have got the numbers there. I think that it is reflected in my correspondence, so I wonder whether, in light of time— There was a positive response about looking at the low prosecution rates in your letter. Indeed, but it is subject to not being able to direct. Can I briefly ask you as well? The other concern that was raised in relation to health and safety cases was the view that health and safety is almost treated like civil cases. I know that, Mr Harvey, from your letter, you said that that is not the case. However, health and safety cases quite often enter into very lengthy negotiation periods when there is liable to be a guilty plea at the end of it. There is no time limit on the length of time that it can take to negotiate the case to reach an agreed settlement, and it causes considerable distress quite often to families. Is there anything that can be done to assist that process or shorten the negotiation process? I think that the point that I was trying to make in the letter is that it is not a matter of policy to have that approach. In terms of the realities of seeking to identify the issues in those cases, they are among the most complex that we deal with. They are also candidly because of the resources available to some of those who would be accused. Some of those best resources to defend is perhaps the way to look at it. Therefore, many points are tested. There is a clear benefit in ensuring that, when the charges are liable, they are appropriately tested. There was, again, by way of historical context a time before we had the specialist approach, and the case law regrettably is littered with those cases, where the Crown used to try to bring forth prosecutions, particularly in health and safety cases. The courts would either fling out the entirety or at least a significant part of the Crown case because of the way in which they were liable. That was pre-specialisation. Those lessons from the past have been learned about ensuring that, in those most complex cases, the Crown liables, which can be proved as a result of that specialist input and, as I say, subject to the testing of some of the best resource defences that are available. I wonder whether the Lord Advocate would comment on the implications for the service if the effective prosecution arrangements and co-operation between partner agencies in Europe are diluted following the decision to leave the EU? Yes. It is a feature of the world that we live in that crime is not confined by borders. We do not have time to touch on cybercrime, although we would be happy to discuss that. There is a good example of a type of criminality that does not have any regard to jurisdictional boundaries and people move around. In a way that means that, in order to be effective in dealing with some of the challenges that we face in the criminal justice system, we have to be engaged with agencies in other parts of the world, including in Europe. I am going back to the point about specialisation. Our international co-operation unit is the central authority for mutual legal assistance in Scotland. I am personally what is called the territorial authority for Scotland under the Crime International Co-operation Act of 2003, and I have responsibilities in relation to extradition. It is something that I personally get involved with. It is hugely important that we have effective relationships with criminal justice agencies in other countries. It is also hugely important that we have the legal and institutional structures in place that allow us effectively to deal both with investigation and evidence-gathering and extradition from Scotland to other countries so that we are not harboring criminals here and bringing people from other countries to Scotland when we wish to prosecute them. Those mechanisms are important to the work that we do. Departure from the EU will not change that. It will not change the importance of that. I have spoken publicly about the importance as we move forward with the Brexit process. However, that unfolds in making sure that we maintain the advantages of those international arrangements and that we have secure mechanisms in place so that whatever the outcome of that process our ability to deal with transnational crime is not diluted. Are you confident that the practicalities of being able to do that after the Brexit process or when it is being gone through the process will be realised? I understand what you are saying about the importance of it but will it be practically possible to have the same effectiveness? Well, there are decisions that are yet to be made and I think that what I can properly do wearing my independent prosecutor's hat is to make it clear that unless the right decisions are made, our ability to deal effectively with transnational crime will be adversely affected. It was encouraging to see that the United Kingdom Government decided to opt into the new European regulation. That, of course, is a decision made for now. What the position will be as and when we leave the European Union remains to be seen and is a matter upon which, so far as I am aware, decisions are yet to be made. All I can say is that it is important that the right decisions are made. I take you from the macro back down to the micro in terms of direct measures. You will be aware of the concerns that were raised with us around fiscal fines at your notes. Mr Harvey, I think, helped fully to respond to some of those. Clearly, the concerns expressed to us were perhaps an overzealous or an inappropriate deployment of fiscal fines in instances where, potentially as a result of cumulative fines, but not exclusively that, there was an inability to pay. There would almost be a denial of justice in it being diverted away from the court. It would be helpful to get your response to that, but particularly the point in your evidence that suggests that more than 80 per cent of direct measures are paid, which would suggest that 20 per cent are not. Therefore, whatever the numbers here, there is an element to which those fines are not being paid, even with the allowance for staggered payments or installments over a period. In terms of the information provided in the letter, I think that I have tried to indicate that the way in which that is impacting on the number of individuals or percentages of individuals who have had more than one fiscal fine during a period of time is important. As I understand it, from the evidence that was given by Eric McQueen, the chief executive of the SCTS, it is at any given moment in time that there are still collections on going and that they strive to recover over a period of time the full amount, but at any given time there is an outstanding balance, if you like, which is a moving feast as new fines come on board. As far as the use of the fines are concerned—forgive me, for once I have not managed to find the relevant page to draw on in relation to the statistical bulletin—it is available and published today. If I have a moment, I can perhaps draw the figures to your attention that the fiscal fines and fixed penalty numbers have gone down quite significantly in percentage terms. I think that I would draw your attention to that and allow you to reflect and draw conclusions based on that as to whether that is an on-going live issue or whether there has been a change in the approach in relation to the numbers of fiscal fines and fixed penalties. It would be good if you could send that information, but I suppose that the issue is one in five. That is the loss to the public parcel of quite a considerable amount of money and something you are always seeking to improve. As far as I am aware, that is the end of a question. There is just one thing that I wanted to say at the very end. First of all, could I ask you just to give a brief explanation of the Fear Future programme, how you liaise, how you get the feedback from staff? The Fear Future programme is, in essence, stage 2, something that arose from our shaping the future programme, which was the restructuring that took place. During the course of that very significant staff engagement, we got over 1,800 lines of feedback, so it was gathered in a wide variety of ways. It was gathered in face-to-face discussions. It was gathered by the ability to provide information online. It was provided by the ability to provide anonymously. It was to the point where you could even put up your comment on a poster and the poster would be collected. There is a huge range of ways of collecting feedback. As I said, there was a very significant level of engagement. With regular updates and regular face-to-face discussions with staff who were leading on that work, we would seek to continue with that level of commitment going forward. That is very helpful. I will conclude by saying that that is encouraging, but I will ask you to reflect on the workload issue. The fact that the committee has had absolutely no success on anyone coming with concerns about various things in the system appearing in front of committee, giving written evidence and appearing in private. There was a little bit of a fear that, if you criticised, it would affect your career projects. From the beginning, we have been very encouraged of your can-do attitude and the need to move forward and address the issues that have been raised, either perceived or otherwise. I hope that you would take that one on board particularly. I am encouraged that there was anonymous feedback and various ways for members to engage, but that would certainly be much appreciated. I thank you both for what has been a very long but very worthwhile and detailed evidence session. I hope that it is in order for me to thank you for giving us the chance to come and give evidence at length and also for all the work that the committees put in. I hope that you are reassured that we are taking on board seriously and that a significant degree reflects the issues that the service is already seeking to address. I will move straight on to public petitions. There are three public petitions in front of us. I propose to defer the first two to next week, but to take the third one, which is the independent into the inquiry to the McGracky conviction, in deference to the fact that we have witnesses who have sat through all of this evidence session and have come for that specific issue. The petition is discussed on page 4 of the clerks paper, and it provides an update from the Justice for McGracky. The committee had previously kept the petition open pending the completion of Operation Sandwich, which we understood at that time would end in 2016. According to the clerks recent update, it is on-going, and we do not have a date for its conclusion. The committee is asked to consider and agree if any action it wishes to take in relation to the petition. Do I have any comments? Stuart Stevenson? The petitioner in the letter to us concludes by asking the committee to allow the petition to remain open until the conclusions of Operation Sandwich have been announced. I think that that is a reasonable request, and we should accede to it. Can I just reiterate the points that Stuart Stevenson has made? I would have made the points if he hadn't, so I am grateful to him. Moving on now to agenda number 4, supporting legislation. The fourth item of business today is consideration of two negative instruments. Those are the Police Service of Scotland amendment regulations 2016, SSI 2016 oblique 419 and the Firemen's Pension Scheme amendment on traditional provisions Scotland order 2016, SSI 2016 oblique 431. The DPLR committee has made no comments in relation to those instruments, and I offer members to paper 4 to members who have any comments. No comments. Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make recommendations in relation to those instruments? Agree, thank you. Agenda item number 5 is the justice sub-committee on policing. Mary, you have something very briefly to say on this. Yes, very briefly. There is a note from the clerk and there is also an XA, which briefly details our work programme. I am happy if it would assist the convener in the committee to defer discussion of this to next week, but we will have more time. I think that that would be appreciated. Moving on to private session now, we are in private session. The next committee meeting will be 24 January, when the main item on business will be a round table evidence session on demand-led policing. I think that we have more or less emptied the public gallery. So, move into private session now and continue.