 Welcome to the Justice Committee's first meeting of 2017. We have apologies from John Finnie. Agenda item number 1 is a decision on taking an item in private, and the decision is whether to take item 3 in private, which is consideration of the committee's draft report to the Finance ond the Scottish Government's draft budget, 2017-18. Are we all agreed? Thank you for that. Agenda item number two is an evidence session for the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service in Quirey. It is my pleasure to welcome Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, to the meeting along with Neil Renwick, director of justice in Willie Cown, deputy director of the criminal justice division, and Cabinet Secretary, I wish you and your officials a very happy new year. I understand that you do not want to make an opening statement, Cabinet Secretary, so I merely refer members to papers one and two and invite questions starting with Oliver Mundell, then Stuart Stevenson and followed by Rona. Thank you. I would like to just start by asking you whether you feel and are satisfied that the Crown Office and Procurator's Fiscal Service is adequately funded? First of all, I just wish all the committee members a happy new year and I look forward to working with you over the course of the year. As you are aware, the budget for the Crown Office is a budget that is directly negotiated by the Lord Advocate with the finance secretary. As far as I am aware, from the evidence that you have received from the Lord Advocate and his evidence to the committee just before Christmas, he believes that the budget is adequate for him to be able to fulfil the functions in delivering an effective and efficient fiscal Crown Office service and to meet the public's expectations of those particular services. In that sense, I believe that it is an adequate budget to be able to deliver the services that it requires to do. Where then do you think that the concerns that the committee has heard from a range of different witnesses come from around the lack of adequate resources, delays, cases not making it to trial because they have gone past deadlines, and the actual fiscal has been under an awful lot of strain and pressure and very high absence rates in the service? There are a variety of reasons as to why some of those things may happen. It would all be based on finance in itself. Having said that, I recognise that finance will play a part in that. The cash settlement for the Crown Office for the forthcoming financial year is the same as the cash settlement that it has for this financial year, both for revenue and for capital costs. It will obviously have to find efficiencies within our budgets to be able to meet any in-year financial demands as well, but there are a whole range of factors that are to simply equate all those issues down to purely being a financial matter overly simplistic. However, there will be challenges that the service will have to meet and the Lord Advocate will need to take them forward in the way that he best thinks that that can be achieved within the service. As Justice Secretary, do you recognise that there is a resourcing issue within the service? I recognise that there are challenges across the public sector in managing their budgets effectively as possible. Have you heard from the evidence that you have got from the Lord Advocate just before Christmas that he believes that the budget is adequate to be able to deliver the services that he requires? Where are the concerns that we are hearing from other witnesses who are interacting with the service on a day-to-day basis that are coming from? Do you think that they are all historic? Which particular issues? Round the burden that ffiscals are under and that they have been asked to cope with too high a workload concerns from defence practitioners that things are not working as well as they used to in the past, that cases are going to trial that are not properly prepared, that we are seeing delays in some cases that mean that those trials are not even able to go forward? It is a matter for Lord Advocate to explain how the Crown Office deals with some of those issues because it is an area of his responsibility and how the Crown Office deals with those issues relating to individual cases and how they manage cases. Overall, some of the challenges that the Crown Office faces today are no different to some of the challenges that face for an extended period of time. I do not underestimate the challenges that ffiscals face in terms of their workload and the demands that are placed upon them and some of the challenges that go with that. Broadly, the Crown Office manages things as effectively and efficiently as it can, but how that is to be taken forward internally within the organisation is a matter for the Lord Advocate. Cabinet Secretary, I will press you a little bit more than that. It impacts on victims, it impacts on witnesses, it impacts really on the criminal justice system, the whole churn of it. So there is a wider view here than merely looking, I think, at the Lord Advocate satisfied that he can manage with the resources. Do you have some concerns about some of the evidence that is deeply concerning that we have heard from various witnesses across the board? It is important that we always look at the justice system as a whole system approach. The way in which our courts operate, the way in which our Crown Office operates, the police and other parts of the justice system, how they operate collectively is extremely important. That is the work that is taken forward by the justice board in looking at how they can co-operate and co-operate effectively to manage the challenges that they face and to make sure that they are operating in a collaborative way as well. That includes looking at victim services, how victim services are provided as well, how we can improve the system to reduce some of the challenges that victims can face as a result of the way in which the justice system operates. There are still some very significant areas where we can improve, although there have been marked significant improvements in recent years, which I am sure the member will recognise. Is there more to do? Yes, there is more to do right across the justice system, not just within the Crown Office and how our fiscal service operates. By and large, there have been significant improvements made for how we deal with victims in a whole range of different ways. We want to build on that moving forward. I can give you a practical example of where we can help to reduce the challenges that some victims can face, particularly children and vulnerable witnesses. In the procedure and evidence review, there has been a very compelling case made about the need to change the way in which we deal with witnesses and victims in those circumstances. We are keen to look at how we can take that forward, and some of that will probably involve legislative change in Scotland. It may be unfair to characterise that the system is one that has not improved and has improved. Is there more to be done? Yes, there is more to be done, but the best way in which to do that is to look right across the system to make sure that victims and witnesses from the stages when they come into contact with the police all the way through the justice system are getting the support and the assistance that they require. Since you have mentioned victim support, and I had not intended to bring that up too much later in the questioning then, there is a real concern that victim support funding has run out. In fact, the committee has been written to by the Moira fund expressing real concerns that the victim of homicide is not being supported. Despite giving £5,000 this financial year and £5,000 last financial year, our fund for serious crime seems to be depleted, and there is not any separate representation or allowance for people who have been the victims or the families who have suffered the most heinous crime that a family can suffer, and that is homicide. Do you have a comment on that? I am more than happy to look into the specific issue that you have raised. We provide over £5 million a year to Victim Support Scotland that provides services at a national level right across the country. Alongside that, we also provide funding to organisations such as PETL that work with individuals who have suffered a homicide. We provide funding to a range of organisations that operate at both a national and a local level in supporting victims. As I said before, if there is more that we can do, we should always look to do that. However, the specific issue that the Moira fund has raised is that we are more than happy to take that away and to look into it. The Victim Support Scotland is a fund that is provided by Victim Support Scotland on our behalf, which used to provide some financial support to victims in immediate aftermath of a particular crime, if there is financial loss and financial difficulty as a result. However, our funding to those areas has been pretty consistent over recent years. As I said, we are always looking to see if there are ways in which we can improve that than to ensure that we are meeting the needs of victims as best we can. I will let others come in. They say that they have worked very closely in England and that it works in England throughout Scotland as well with the Homicide Support Scotland in England in Wales. They have a homicide case worker and support for victims of homicide continues for 12 to 18 months if additional finances are needed. In particular, the Moira fund is a national, very small charity, a handful of unpaid volunteers who were formed after the death of Moira Jones, who was murdered in Glasgow in 2008. However, the particular point that her mother, who started the fund, is alarmed about is that the victim fund is depleted now before the end of December 2016, then she is raising a legitimate concern about where that leaves anyone else who unfortunately finds themselves in that devastating situation for the next three months of the financial year. I am happy to pass on that correspondence, cabinet secretary. If you do, we can check that with Victim Support Scotland to run the victims fund for us to provide that financial support to individuals and families. We can come back to the committee with further details on that once we have discussed it with them. In your initial answer, you used the word deficiencies, and you also referred to the procedure in the evidence review. I think that an outside observer looking at how our courts run would recognise if they were in a court 200 years ago the same basic structure, system and approach that we have. I wonder whether, given the appetite that we know there is in the Crown Office and Fiscal Service, and indeed in your own office and in the Lord Advocate's office generally, whether the use of technology to avoid people having to physically attend court, whether radical changes that can be made to the processes will benefit the operational efficiency of the system and make it run slicker and faster and, of course, ultimately more cost effectively. How are we placed to pick up that particular challenge and move the courts forward to something that makes better use of the opportunities that technology in particular might bring us? There is no doubt that technological development can support us in improving efficiencies in the justice system. The challenge in all those areas is to apply technology to them and to make sure that it is not just about the actual hardware in itself, but about the cultural change that is necessary within organisations. For example, one of the areas that we have taken forward over recent years is the use of CCTV links between our prisons and courts. All of our prisons now have those facilities in place. We have also got arrangements for first callings where individuals are in police custody where there could be CCTV links with the courts. However, there are some legal limitations in the circumstances in which those could be used. For those convenable recalls from the Criminal Justice Act, provisions were made that allow us to extend the nature of cases that can now be dealt with through CCTV. That reduces the need for individuals to be transported and taken to court, which allows a court time to be used much more efficiently. Benefits such as that, which we are taking forward, are keen to make progress on. That all comes as part of our digital strategy, which again operates in a pan-justice space. There are further areas where there can be improvements, I believe, in the future, where technology could assist us further. For example, I mentioned in the procedure and evidence review, particularly around children's vulnerable witnesses. One of the areas that I said that I believe that there is a very compelling case is about the proposal for pre-recorded evidence, which reduces the trauma for children in particular and for vulnerable witnesses, where that evidence is captured, and it is then agreed and played in court, without the need for individuals to go through a cross-examination in a way in which they would normally be expected to do so. The challenges in taking some of that forward are trying to do that in terms of balancing the rights between the needs of victims and witnesses, alongside that of the accused, to having their rights protected as well. However, other jurisdictions have been able to do so, and I believe that we should be able to do so. An important element of that is about creating a culture change within our justice system to agree that that is the type of approach that we should take that could affect better outcomes for victims and for our justice system. That is using technology in a way. Another area where technology could support and assist us in improving efficiency in the justice system is through the use of body-worn cameras by police officers. There is no doubt that information that could be captured in that way could be, at times, I suspect, once it is being shared with defence agents. It may result in earlier pleas being entered on the basis of information that is being captured by that. It would be evidence that the court could consider much more efficiently and effectively as well. However, it is not just a case of providing our police officers to have body-worn cameras. It is also about making sure that we have the technology at a Crown Office fiscal level, to be able to download that, to be able to then share that with defence agents, and then for that to then be used in courts as well. It is about that whole system approach. If we are going to apply some additional technological developments in our courts or in our police service, it is about making sure that we are all able to interact and to be able to maximise their use. A key part of that is about the culture shift, which is extremely important. The digital strategy that we have set out is very ambitious in looking to take that type of technological advancement forward for the efficiencies that it will generate, but that will be one that we need to take forward in a very systematic fashion, to make sure that we get the best gains from it as we move forward. Cabinet Secretary, you brought the word effectiveness into that answer as well as efficiency. Given that we have now got a couple of classes of witnesses, children and vulnerable witnesses, who are using technology to give their evidence, reducing the stress, making their experience one that is more easily accommodated by them, is that something therefore that tells us that that is a benefit that could reasonably be delivered to all witnesses and make the whole process more effective for them, less stressful, make witnesses more comfortable about coming forward to give evidence, as well as the operational benefits. Perhaps, from all of that that we have been talking about here, are we in a position to give any early indication of perhaps a sequence of things that might happen that will start to address this, or even a timetable? There are a number of different things in there. First of all, I set it very clearly around the children and vulnerable witnesses. This is an area where I want to see early progress. Some of that progress can be taken forward through some changes to court process, however other parts will require legislative change as well. I am keen in this parliamentary session to bring forward legislation that will give effect to that. What we have to do is identify the model best works for us. For example, we know that when it comes to children and vulnerable witnesses and, for example, in Scandinavia they have a particular approach, and then there are other jurisdictions that have taken different approaches to dealing with those issues. What I want to do is to make sure that we get a model that best fits the Scottish justice system and delivers the same type of protections and support to vulnerable and child witnesses. That is an early area where we can make progress on. Once we have taken that forward, I think that there is an opportunity then to look at other areas within our court system for it to be expanded potentially to other groups of witnesses and victims. However, we need to take it forward on an incremental basis to make sure that we manage that type of change effectively. When you asked me about other areas, and our parts are not always necessarily about technology, but about the model that we are using within our justice system. The evidence and procedure review also sets out a very compelling case, particularly around summary cases, about the need to remodel the system to allow us to deal with those cases much more effectively. A key part of that is to reduce some of the churn for witnesses in those cases. That is an area in which the Lord President has set out as an area of priority that he wants to see progress being taken forward on. There is already work through the justice board in looking at taking that work forward. It has already started. We will look to see how we can make further progress in that in the weeks and months ahead. Technology can offer us efficiencies, but there is also about some of the models and processes that we use within the existing system. The procedure and evidence review also sets out an area in which we need to make progress. The Lord President is very clear that that is an area of priority for him as well, which would again help to reduce some of the burden on witnesses in being called to cases. My question is about making the justice system less traumatic for children. The cabinet secretary has answered all the questions that I had, so that is fine. How many jobs do you anticipate being lost in the Crown Office as a result of the Scottish Government's real-term cuts this year? I am not expecting any at the present time to be a matter for the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate has suggested that it will be cuts. Given the figures that he used at his evidence session, which you said you watched, what is your prediction of the numbers that that will equate to in the Crown Office? I said I watched. You said that you had heard his evidence. I read the evidence, yes. Before the Lord Advocate said it, his staffing line will be— I have given the figures that he has got to save. I wonder, as a Scottish Government minister, what your prediction is for the numbers that would equate to the figures that he has to save? Before the Lord Advocate said that out. You are not worried about what those figures are? I am confident that the Lord Advocate has got a budget that he believes that he can deliver an efficient and effective services. In the evidence that you heard from the Lord Advocate, he said that it was very much in line with what they were modelling and planning for. Do you know how much he has got to save in staff? How much he has got to save in staff? It will be for him to determine that. No, but he already said that, so you did not pick that up from the evidence session. I picked up the details that he has got in terms of his budget, but it will be for him to determine what that will be in terms of staffing going forward. He said at our budget to help you out that he had £1.4 million to save because of the real-terms reduction that the Scottish Government has delivered, and 50 per cent of that would come in staffing. I wonder whether the Scottish Government is aware of looking at that figure, roughly how many staff it would expect the Crown Office to reduce by to meet the saving that has been inflicted on it. That will be a matter that will be determined by the Lord Advocate. I think that it would be wrong for me to start determining what the staffing level should be within the Crown Office. Given that the Crown Office is an organisation that is run by the Lord Advocate, it should start setting arbitrary levels that should be the number of staff that he should expect to reduce his staffing complement by. I think that it would be unfair to expect the Lord Advocate to put in that position. That is why that was not my question. I would appreciate if you answered my question, which was in terms of predictions. We have now heard that there is this level of funding that has been cut in real terms by the Scottish Government to the Crown Office. The Crown Office has said that we will have to make savings of x amount, and 50 per cent of that will come from staffing. I would have thought, as Cabinet Secretary for Justice, on how many staff will be reduced in a service that we are hearing from multiple witnesses across the sector that is already under resource. When those figures come back from the Lord Advocate, when he says to Parliament, when he says to you, I am going to reduce it by x, you might think that Y is a more effective number. What the Lord Advocate has and the budget that he has negotiated with the finance secretary is a budget that, in cash terms, is the same as it has in this financial year, both in terms of revenue and in capital. In evidence that you heard from the Lord Advocate, he said that that was very much in line with what they were anticipating and what they were planning for. I am not going to start getting into levels of saying that I expect them to reduce their staffing complement by x, and the reason I will not do that is because the Crown Office is the responsibility of the Lord Advocate. It would be wrong for me to start setting expectations and what the staffing level should be within the Crown Office when that is a matter that is determined by the Lord Advocate. I am going to respect that, because I think that it would be inappropriate for me to then start to say arbitrary levels in which the Lord Advocate then feels he is in some way under pressure in which to deliver. It is a matter for the Lord Advocate to determine that. Will you have concerns if the Lord Advocate of the Crown agent cannot fulfil the other 50 per cent in non-staff savings? It would be a matter for the Lord Advocate to determine how he bested that forward. I am confident from the evidence that you have received from the Lord Advocate and the budget scrutiny process that he believes that he has got a budget that will allow him to deliver the prosecution services that the people of Scotland deserve. He has got a £1.4 million savings—50 per cent from staff, 50 per cent from non-staff costs. We heard in the evidence session that the non-staff there is no timescale for it because the Crown agent is still waiting for an analysis. I did not even ask a question there, so I was not sure what you were going to answer, but the fact that there is no timescale and there has been no analysis done of the options is not a concern for you as Cabinet Secretary for Justice that 50 per cent of the saving is coming from an area where we still do not have analysis or options. Therefore, would that not be a concern if they cannot make that 50 per cent saving, further savings will come from staff reductions? It would be a concern if I thought that the Crown Office were not able to manage their budget or the Lord Advocate was not able to take that forward. I am confident that the Lord Advocate is. Would you guarantee anytime the Lord Advocate comes to you in this next financial year seeking additional resources that that will be granted? The Lord Advocate's budget is negotiated directly with the finance secretary. It does not come from the justice budget. Yes, but he did say that if he is faced with a specific demand, a specific need that requires more funding, he will ask for it. Will that be given by the Scottish Government? Will that be a matter that we would have to take up with the finance secretary? But your Government would be asked. If you will let me finish if you do not mind. If you look at the actions that we have taken, for example, some of the additional demand that has been on our justice system in relation to sexual and domestic violence cases is that we provided an extra £2.4 million over each of the past two financial years and into the third financial year going forward in order to help to meet some of the pressures that the courts or fiscal have faced as a result of increasing demand within that particular area. We will always look to provide support where we can, but if the Lord Advocate is looking to increase his budget within the Crown Office overall, that is a matter that is directly negotiated and, constitutionally, is the case, is directly negotiated between the Lord Advocate and the finance secretary. Again, that was not my question, as I think that you probably know, I am not speaking about the negotiation in the Crown Office budget, I am speaking about additional funding that is required in the year. That is what the Lord Advocate said during his evidence session, that if he requires it, he will ask for it. You are a member of the Scottish Government, will the Scottish Government meet any demands from the Lord Advocate for additional funding in this financial year? I am sure that that will be considered in due course. That is what would happen. It would be rather naive to think that we would be in a situation that, no matter what is asked for, that I, as a member of the Government, would sit here and say, yes, that will be agreed to, it would be considered at a time when it is received. I think that it would be rather foolish to think that a member of the Government was going to give you that commitment here and then not knowing what the request would be. I think that it is rather naive or foolish to suggest that the Lord Advocate, someone whom we all respect very highly, would come to the Government with a request for additional funding that was not fully thought through and absolutely required. And would be considered then? Can I ask, are you concerned about the number of adjournments in solemn and summary trials due to a lack of court time? I think that the issue, you received evidence, I think, in your inquiry from the chief executive of the Scottish court and tribunal service, where he set out that the number of trials that we now have in Scottish courts has increased overall. The percentage of cases where there is inadequate time for them has broadly remained much the same. So effectively the courts are operating more efficiently. Number of cases have increased that are going to trial and the number where there is a lack of court time has broadly remained consistent over the last couple of years. So the number of solemn trials, adjournments due to the lack of court time have increased by 47 per cent since 2011 and summary trials have seen a 69 per cent increase in delays over the same period. But the number of trials has increased. That's fine. That's maybe the question you want to answer, but the question I'm asking, do you think that percentage increase in the adjournments due to a lack of court time has anything to do with your Government's decision to close courts? No, it's not. Nothing at all? No, it's not. An evidence that you received from the Scottish Court Service confirmed that as a case as well. The evidence that we received from the Scottish Coronel Bar Association suggested that the lack of courts is resulting in more and more trials being adjourned due to a lack of court time. The 10 courts, as you heard in your evidence from the Scottish Court Service, the 10 courts which have received additional work as a result of the court closure programme have all increased their efficiency in dealing with court cases. What you're not recognising is that the number of court cases going to trial has increased overall. The percentage where there hasn't been court time for them has broadly remained the same. That means that the courts are operating more efficiently because they're dealing with a greater number of trials. What you're not recognising is that you're taking one witness submission, which is perfectly acceptable. I will take another, for example, the defence solicitors who came from Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow who said that the courts being closed in many of these areas has resulted in a backlog of cases and more adjournments. You don't accept that? I don't accept that. I don't leave the evidence that has been provided to the committee by the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service. What about the other people who have provided evidence to the committee? Keep in mind that the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service is responsible for the management of the services and the data that they can provide demonstrates that that's not the case. So the number of cases that the courts are dealing with have increased. The proportion where there's no court time has broadly remained the same. The number of cases that are being dealt with within the time frame that the courts service has set has been maintained and improved. The facts that are being provided by the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service and how they measure the efficiency and the performance of the courts don't hold to the view that you're putting. I'm disappointed that you're not open to the suggestions from other witnesses to this inquiry and you're only quoting the one that suits your argument. I'm basing it on the hard evidence that's been provided by the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service. I think that that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But you don't think that it's hard evidence coming from defence solicitors across Scotland? No, I understand some of the concerns and issues that they may raise, but having said that, the hard evidence, the facts and figures that are being provided by the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service don't hold to that view. I mean any adjournment is not really something desirable and there's almost coming through this morning. I'm sure that you don't intend it. It's just the same as we were and there might be a slight improvement. Surely we can do better than that. An adjournment is just such pressure on everyone in the court service. They've turned up, they've appeared and the court's been adjourned. They've had days off work. We're talking really about everyone's view of the criminal justice system and this paints probably the worst possible picture. The Court and Tribunal Service, which I have to see always come in with a rather optimistic picture of everything that isn't always borne out when their view is tested in subsequent years, while they may say that they're quite happy with things, it's not just a criminal bar association, it's social work, it's police, it's all the users of the courts, even the judiciary themselves, are talking about this and some are suggesting that the court closure programme has had an impact. In view of that, in order to take a balanced kind of approach to this, isn't this something that you should take some cognisance of? I think that it's important. I don't believe that the court closure programme has led to greater difficulties within the system and I, particularly in relation to court time, if you look at the number of complaints that are called to trial, in 2013-14 it was 40,137. In 2015-16 it was 52,366. The proportion of cases where it was adjourned due to a lack of court time in 2013-14 was 6.3 per cent. We always want to see that figure being reduced as much as we can, in 2015-16 that figure was 5.6. So they're dealing with more trials, more cases going to trial, but there's actually been a reduction in the number of cases which are adjourned due to a lack of court time. What that indicates is that there's greater efficiency in the way in which the courts are actually dealing with cases. However, do we want to see that figure of 5.6 per cent being reduced yet further? Yes, we would like to see that happening and some of the stuff that we discussed with Stuart Stevenson's questions is about trying to help to achieve that, to try to help to make sure that we've got greater efficiency in the way in which the courts are operating, whether it be using technology, whether it be remodeling parts of the system in order to make it a much more effective and efficient system. However, it would be fair to say on the basis of the hard facts that you can see that the progress that the court service is making has allowed there to be improvement, while at the same time dealing with an increasing number of cases that go to trial. Since you have the figures in front of you, what was the greatest cause of adjournment? The greatest cause of adjournment, you see here. It would be in relation to crown office between crown office and comradeship between crown office and defence. So any more details on that? I can't, not from these particular tables here, but that would be principle of the reasons for that. You see the difficulty, cabinet secretary. You're coming today, you're quite relaxed about the Lord Advocate deciding the amount of staff. We're expressing to you the evidence that we've heard about adjournments, which affects everyone in the criminal justice system and reflects very badly on the criminal justice system. We don't know precisely what the defence crown office problem is that causes the maximum number of adjournments. I can get you some more information on that. That would be helpful for the purpose of your inquiry, but I think that it's important that we make judgments on the basis of clear evidence, which is important. When it's being suggested that there are less cases and that the system is getting worse, the hard facts demonstrate that they're dealing with more trials and that the number of adjournments due to a lack of quote time is reducing. It's important that the information that members of the committee are basing their judgments on is based on the hard information that we have from the Scottish Court and Tribunal service on how they're dealing with those matters. Absolutely, but that's why it would have been good today for you to have this information about what caused the maximum number of adjournments, the detail of that, because it's fundamental to this whole inquiry. The biggest overall factor will be around witnesses not being present or available for cases going to trial. I said to you that I can get the Scottish Court and Tribunal service to provide you with a greater detail breakdown of that information if that would assist you in your inquiry, but I do hope that you will take the basis of the information that they have provided as being an accurate reflection of the data and how our court service is managing those matters, because it's based on hard information and how the courts are operating on a daily basis. That's not to say that there are not areas where improvements can be made, that's not to say that some of the concerns that are raised by bar associations don't have a legitimacy to them, but to try and portray as being some sort of deterioration in the situation is factually inaccurate. The data, the extra data and an explanation, a detailed breakdown of that would be very, very useful. I hope that you too, cabinet secretary, will reflect on it. I'm conscious others want to get in, so I'm going to move on. Now Stuart, was yours a supplementary and I'll take in Oliver as a supplementary too? Yes. You can't have point of orders in committee, but I'll take your point anyway. Sorry, I knew Stuart had one earlier then. Could I just check? I said that you don't have point of orders, but what should you do? Well, it's just to make sure that the cabinet secretary has given the correct evidence when he is presenting that. You said, and I wrote it down, the number of adjournments have reduced. You quoted percentage figures, and I just want to be sure that, when you said that the number of adjournments had reduced, that was correct evidence. That is a 5.6 per cent proportion of the 52,366 figure. So what's the numbers of those two percentages? The figure will be 5.6 per cent of 52,366. According to your evidence, that's less than the 6.3 per cent of however many? 40,000. So what is the figures? So the figure there is more cases going to trial, and the number where there is a reduction, where there's not a lack of quote time, has actually proportionally is lower. Yeah, but the actual numbers, that's what you said, the number of adjournments has reduced. So the overall, the actual figure in terms of, the proportion, the figure is higher in terms of hard cases. So it's 26,781. Sorry, 2,000, is it this figure here? Yeah, it was 2,873. And it is 3,218. Proportionally, it is a smaller percentage of cases going to trial. Sorry, I was asking about the number of adjournments. Yes, due to a lack of quote time. So that's it, 3218 is the number of adjournments. It is, yes. As compared to 2873. Yes. So that's an increase in the number of adjournments. Yes, but proportionally, a smaller... No, no, but I think just for clarity, you did say... We've got that, they've gone down. So your reference is now correct, I think that's important. Proportionally is a smaller percentage because of the number of cases that are going to trial, which have increased as long as you've got the accurate information. But the number have gone up. Stuart Stevenson's supplementary, Oliver Mundell's supplementary. Just in highlighting the sources of adjournments, you identified defence as being one of the joint leaders in that. I just wonder what work there is under being undertaken with defence agents and their organisations to try and improve the performance of defence in their contribution. Clearly not the responsibility of the cabinet secretary or indeed, for that matter, the Lord Advocate. But I just wonder what assistance and work there is to reduce them getting down the league of sources of adjournments. So part of this leads into, again, the procedure and evidence review, which has been taken forward as looking at how we can get greater efficiency. And some of the work that's been taken forward as part of that is work that is joint with, for example, the Law Society for Scotland on looking at how we can actually get greater efficiency within the court process so that we can make sure that there's the... Between the crown, sharing of information as early as possible, to allow them for preparation of cases, the modelling of the court process and taking it through as well, all of those aspects about trying to make sure that we help to improve efficiency right through the system. Because back to the point that I was making right at the very start, it's important that we actually look at the whole system approach. The mistake that you can make is thinking that if you deal with one part of the justice system, that will just automatically improve things overall. You have to deal with it on a systemic basis. And some of the work that has been taken forward by the justice board in the subgroups is looking specifically at those measures and that includes looking at how we can help to support defence agents in their preparation in those matters. Oliver Mundell supplementary. Can I just ask why you think the number of cases has gone up? Well, as I mentioned proportionately, for cases that are going to trial, it has reduced overall. I meant overall why do you think the number of cases going through the system has gone up? There's a variety of different reasons. Part of it is around availability of witnesses. Some of it will be around preparation of cases as well. There's a variety of factors in that. But overall, given the number of cases that are going to trial, is that proportionately, the greater number of them are actually going forward on the basis that there has been a drop in the overall proportionate level that there's no court time for. I'm just asking why more cases in general are going to trial, and you're saying that's because there's now more court time. No, in terms of going to trial, an example would be, for example, the increasing number of cases around domestic and sexual violence. Given the very nature of them, more of them ended up going to trial. So, for example, if you look at the change in investigative procedure that the police now have around domestic violence, some of the cases, it's no longer a single case, it's multiple cases that are coming forward, which are more complex, take up more time and court as a result, and in some cases, there are multiple victims. So, by the very nature, these are cases where they're less likely to be an early plea entered, and they're more complex and more challenging cases, which means that there are more going to trial as a result. I welcome that fact, but you'd accept that that's a policy decision that's resulted in an increased number of cases. I think that it's an example of the increasing complexity of those cases. Yes, for example, the change in investigative technique, so the way in which, for example, the Crown Office has staff at a national level in dealing with sexual and domestic violence cases as well. The police have obviously got their own specialist staff now in those areas. I think that it's a reflection, changes and approach in those areas, which alongside the fact that it's now a greater priority for us as a society, has driven some of the demand in the system and the complex nature of those cases. Do you think that demand could have been better anticipated in order to avoid some of the figures that you're talking about, because I accept that, in percentage terms, it's less? Good. But when you look at the witnesses that are coming to this committee, those percentages and the increase in the actual number are giving a perception to people involved at all levels of the criminal justice system, different stakeholders, that things aren't working as efficiently as they could. And if that number continues to increase in real terms, it does undermine justice, does it not? No, I think that that's a reasonable point to make. When you do see changes like this, that it can drive unintended consequences within the system at times, I'm sure that you'll appreciate that it's difficult to anticipate the numbers of cases that will come forward. So, for example, the number of cases that have come forward around historical sex abuse in itself has been very difficult to anticipate. A large part of that has been driven by some of the major issues that have come to the fore through the savel case, etc., which have driven more complaints in the system. So, there's an element where it can be difficult to anticipate that. To try and assist with that, as I made the point to your colleague, Mr Rossi Llyrion, to try and assist with some of that, what we have in yeas provided additional resource to different parts of the justice system to try to help to support, meet some of that demand. And we've done that over the last two years and into the next financial year as well, when helping to support both the Crown Office and our courts, so that it's about court time and also judicial time as well to deal with some of the increasing demand coming from domestic violence and sexual violence cases. So, and as evidence that you've received from Audit Scotland has highlighted, that's allowed us to have greater efficiency in dealing with these cases. So, particularly around domestic violence and meeting the time frame for dealing with these cases. So, it is difficult to anticipate it, but where we can, we will try to do that and work with other parts of the justice agencies to try and achieve that. But equally, we need to make sure that we remain alive to that in the course of any given year and we have responded to that over the last couple of years, particularly given the demand around domestic and sexual violence cases. My own personal concern is that the Crown Office is still going through this period of transformational change. It seems to be constant changes in guidance and policy, reorganisations, doing things differently. It does make some of those things very challenging for staff on the ground, people who are on the coalface, dealing with these cases on a day-to-day basis and they are being stretched and pulled in different directions. I think we've just got to be careful that some of the teething issues around what are intended improvements, where cases are being adjourned for every single person who's involved in that case, they do leave proceedings with a sort of negative impression of how justice is done in Scotland. I think that it needs to be looked at a little bit more closely. I'm confident that the Lord Advocate will be keen to make sure that the Crown Office and the Fiscal Service operate as efficiently, as effectively as possible and that they try to support staff as best they can, as well would no doubt. When he gives evidence to you, he'll be able to explain how they will seek to address some of those issues. However, I don't underestimate the challenges that there are for fiscals, meaning some of the demands in the day-to-day job that they have to do, but also being part of an organisation that's changing. That brings challenges in itself. I don't underestimate that. It's important that, as a service, they are alive to those issues and that they try to address them as best they can. That is a matter for the Lord Advocate who is responsible for the Crown Office and the operation of the Crown Office and for the way in which they deal with the staff within the organisation. By and large, we are very well served by our Crown Office and our Procurator Fiscal Service here in Scotland. We've got some outstanding members of staff. We can see that from the cases that end up going to court and the way in which they deal with them. However, there will always be barriers where it can be improved. There will always be challenges, there will always be pressures in the system at any given time, but, by and large, we are still very well served by our prosecution services here in Scotland, and I'm very confident that the Lord Advocate will continue that in the year ahead. You are mindful of those pressures. I'm flimentary Oliver, so I think that you've really covered things well. I think that the point is that we very much welcome the additional information that you're going to provide Cabinet Secretary. There is no question that the committee, and we are all fully behind the staff in the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service, who we recognise do a magnificent job under real pressure. I think that an analysis of the information that you're going to provide will help to support them further, so we look forward to hearing it. We're waiting very patiently. I just wanted to return to one of the core themes of the inquiry around victims and witnesses. I really welcome the statements earlier about the whole system approach and the support victim services around that. At the end of last year, when we had the Lord Advocate here giving evidence, he warmly welcomed that the justice portfolio will include a significant increase for voluntary organisations working in the criminal justice system in the sector to support victims and witnesses from £4.5 million to £15.8 million. I just wanted to ask Cabinet Secretary whether you could elaborate on where the additional funding for voluntary organisations will be targeted, or is that still being processed? There are some parts of it that are still to be determined. This is in part linked to the additional £20 million that the First Minister gave a commitment to in helping to improve the way in which we deliver services for victims of domestic violence and to assist us in eradicating violence against girls. The £15.8 million, a significant portion of that, is about interpreting to support those services in the way in which we can help to address that issue much more effectively, so that that will include elements beyond that £2.4 million that we provide to help to support the efficiency of our fiscal service and the court service in dealing with those cases as well through to a portion of that funding going to third sector organisations to help them in the support that they provide to victims and witnesses. For example, one of the things that we have been able to do as a result of that additional funding over the last year or so is to be able to extend the range of services that Great Crisis Scotland can provide. For example, in Mr MacArthur's constituency for the first time, we were able to provide the right type of support to women who may suffer sexual violence in the islands, which previously was not available because there was no dedicated service there. It allows us to provide greater national reach in some of those services in a way that was not there previously. Those types of approaches will continue to take forward. A significant portion of it is for the domestic and sexual violence areas, which is helping to improve the management of those cases through the justice system as well and supporting third sector organisations in the services that they provide to victims and witnesses in those areas. Thank you. Through the justice system, one of the themes that has come through through the evidence that we have taken has been at both the trial process during the trial process and, indeed, afterwards, how important victim support is. While the crown agent confirmed to me when he was here before Christmas that the increase will not directly increase via funding, I wondered at this stage if you envisage how the via service will benefit from the increased funding to the third sector organisations. Obviously, if we are providing additional support to some of the third sector organisations that are working with victims of crimes as well, that will be additional support that will be provided directly to them over and above anything that is provided by the via system. That will provide additional capacity in the system overall, although it will not be additional resource for via. It will be additional resource that will be provided to organisations that are working with victims of crimes. It will provide us with additional capacity across the system, which will be of support to the direct support that is also provided by the Crown Office through the via programme. We will be welcomed by the whole committee, because support for victims has been such a key theme that has come through throughout our inquiry. Mary Fee. My original question was the question that Ben had asked, but I just wanted to ask Cabinet Secretary for a bit more information about the victim information and advice service, because one of the things that we heard when we took evidence from witnesses throughout the inquiry was that once they engaged with the service, the service could be very good, but they had to actually be the people that did the engaging. The service was not proactive enough in some cases. While I appreciate that it is the Crown Office that operates that service, will you give a commitment to work with them to ensure that the service does try to become more proactive in how it operates and deals with victims? I am more than happy to work with any aspect within the service that we can help to support and improve. It will obviously be for the Lord Advocate to explain how he intends to take that form within the Crown Office. What additional support we can provide is particularly in supporting those other organisations that work with victims and witnesses and supporting them outwith the court system directly in itself. Part of the challenge can often be that the system is individuals being aware of what is available to them. One of the things that we brought in through the victims and witnesses legislation was the requirement for services to publish the data and the information about what services we are providing to victims and witnesses. As I said, we have for the Lord Advocate to determine how he chooses to change anything within the Crown Office on that. However, I am certainly keen, and that is what I can give you an assurance of, to make sure that the wider work that we are doing around victims and witnesses that it tries to doftail as best possible with the way in which they are delivering those types of support services through the Crown Office. That is fine, thank you. Certainly there was compelling evidence when we heard from witnesses sometimes very traumatic victims, others that the experience with victim support and fear was not what they expected. They weren't informed in time, they weren't told of an enjoyment and I think the most worrying thing of all, at least two of them said, had they known what would happen in their experience through the trial, they wouldn't do it again, basically, and that must be a measure of that concerns us all. Very much so. It goes back to the point that I was making earlier on about the need to, although there have been significant improvements, there is still a lot more to do to improve for victims and witnesses. I am very conscious that there are still systemic challenges within our justice system, particularly for accusers about how some of the justice system currently operates. A very good example will be of that when my view is about child victims. There are certain supports that are there at the present time, there are certain protective measures around being able to give evidence through CCTV, but the ability to create a system that allows evidence to be taken prior to the trial is a much better system in my view in helping to meet some of those challenges for child witnesses. There are still areas in which we need to make significant change and improvement for victims. I am determined to do what we can to help to achieve that, while at the same time making sure that checks and balances that we have within our justice system are appropriately protected and managed as well. I fully accept that there is more to do, although significant progress has been made. I think that you will find the letter that was sent to you on the Moira fund very illuminating, especially the comments about the victims of homicide, the families of the victims and the support that they receive. Fulton, I am in a dilemma because poor Liam has been waiting for forever. Can we leave your question to the committee? Fulton Llywodraeth, if you do not mind, can you come back to it? Are you okay with that, Liam? It is very fine. Okay, carry on. I did have a question on this, but both Ben and Mary have covered it quite well, probably coming from a similar standpoint. I wonder what your view, cabinet secretary, on victims becoming involved. I can see the complications before and accuse the sound guilty, but once somebody is found guilty, what would be your view on victims if they were so wished to be involved in the sort of sentencing options that are available, not to decide a sentencing option, but perhaps at my previous job, I worked in criminal justice social work, perhaps to be involved in the report that evidence is on stage, as it used to be. That is something that went by the wayside. I wonder if you had a view on that. There is obviously the victim impact statement provision that we have at the present moment. If there are issues around how that is operating, be content for that to be looked at, to see there are ways in which we could improve the manner in which it is operating. If there are victims organisations that have views about how the role of victims can be better met within a justice system, I am always open to considering those. The reassurance that I can give the member is that, if there are ways in which we can improve it, I am open to exploring them. I do not have a fixed view on what the best option is. Part of that should be informed by the experience of victims. If there is evidence of some of the provisions that we have at the present moment, not operating as efficiently or effectively as they could be, I am more than happy to look at trying to address those issues. I take you on to the issue of case marking. Obviously, the rationale behind it is not solely about cost reduction and greater efficiency, although that has certainly been cited in defence of the move towards a central system of marking. We have heard from a range of witnesses concerns that will come on to some of that evidence in a moment. Generally, I think that the feeling that there is a loss of local discretion and that, as a result, one of the consequences of that are cases being marked for prosecution that would not otherwise have gone to court. Obviously, that somewhat undermines the argument for making the system more efficient. I am conscious of a mixture of evidence in the issue that you have evidence from the Fiscal Association in challenging some of the assertions that they were putting forward cases where they did not believe there was a sufficiency of evidence to support a prosecution. They have challenged that on the basis that they would not do so. The important principles here are that if a crime has been committed and there is a sufficiency of evidence for a prosecution, in that case it should be considered for prosecution, and it should then be taken forward on that basis. I think that that was more in relation to the guidance around domestic violence that those questions were arising. I think that the issue that I am driving at in terms of central markings is that there is a lack of awareness at a central level about the variety of options that would be open to taking forward that case and identifying an appropriate solution in each and every instance. That is a result of the loss of the local knowledge of the circumstances that arise in any particular case. If there is an issue about guidance that has been issued to Fiscals in marking of cases, that is very much a matter for the Lord Advocate to determine how that can best be achieved. It is clear in an area within his responsibilities. We are all from me to start suggesting how that should be addressed, but I think that it is important that there is a level of flexibility in the system, but there is also a level of consistency in it as well. It is the matter where you are a victim of a crime in Scotland that it is going to be dealt with in a consistent fashion. When you have a national prosecution service, it is difficult to imagine anything other than a national policy approach to how to take forward cases. The guidance that is issued to Fiscals is very much a matter for the Lord Advocate. In a sense, under the previous system, they had marking guidelines, so there was a consistency. However, I think that what has been expressed is a concern that, in moving to a central system, there is a lack of awareness of the circumstances that may arise in any particular case, either through a knowledge of the individual's concerns or possibly through a better understanding of the measures that could be used in order to secure justice in a particular area. If I quote from the Bar Association, it suggests that the central marking of cases results in all of Scotland being dealt with, as if they are Glasgow and Edinburgh and the other cities, despite that not being reflective of the communities that are required to be served and the issues in those local areas that are relevant and arise. They go on to say the removal from the local procurator Fiscal of the right and responsibility to make decisions about the marking of cases in his jurisdiction has led to decisions being made at odds with the issues in the community that matter to the local community that amount to a denial of local justice and accountability. I take your point about consistency. The argument that is being made is that, with marking guidelines, it is perfectly possible to achieve a level of consistency while still taking into account local circumstances, whether that, as I say, is an understanding of the individuals involved, but also an understanding of the measures that are available locally, which will be different in my constituency from your constituency. However, in terms of achieving an outcome in the interests of victims but also local communities themselves, public interests might be more appropriately delivered by a more localised or return to a more localised marking of cases. It sounds like you are looking for consistent flexibility in the approach here in some ways. Any changing approach around that matter is very much a matter for the Lord Advocate in determining how that is taken forward. The policy decision around that is not something that the Scottish Government has an interest in, is that what you are saying? It is a matter for the Lord Advocate in deciding what guidance and the approach that he takes within the fiscal, within the organisation. It is not for me to set out how I believe that that should best be achieved. That is very much a matter for the Lord Advocate. However, I understand the concerns and issues that are being raised in the points that you are making. How the Crown Office should respond to those matters is very much a matter for the Crown Office and Lord Advocate. However, if I can touch on one of the other concerns, as I said, there have been a variety of concerns from a variety of witnesses around this. The Law Society of Scotland, again touching on many of the points made by the Bar Association, raises the concern in relation to custody cases that, on occasion, prosecuted fiscal entities in a local court, do not know when custody papers will be available because they are not in control of them. Their thing can be a delay in custody papers being made available to the court, and accordingly, a delay in custody cases being able to progress through the court. Back to the points that we were discussing earlier on about moving in a direction that is more efficient, that reduces delay, etc., and the costs involved in that, we appeared to be in a situation here where the Law Society of Scotland are firmly of the view that that change to a more centralised marking of custody cases is going against the grain of what new and the Lord Advocate are seeking to achieve. In determining the approach, though, within the organisation, I am sure that the member respect is a matter for the Lord Advocate. That is his policy responsibility and it is within his independent role in determining prosecution policy and how he manages those matters. It is a good illustration, though, where we need to make sure that we are taking a whole system approach in recognising that, if we take a particular policy position in one part of the system, it can have an impact on the rest of the justice system. That is where the justice board provides a role in helping to try to plan and manage those things. By enlarging the Crown Agent would normally be part of the justice board. We would be involved in the discussions and looking at what the impact might be on the police and how it can consider how it may have an impact on the courts and how that can be looked at throughout the whole of the system. Some aspects of that can also be looked at by defence agents, for example, through the Law Society and some of the Bar Association. The Justice Board has some sub-committees, and some of them will engage directly with stakeholders to explore particular matters, to work up some details and then bring those matters to the justice board. The justice board provides a very effective model and system that can support that type of whole-system approach. We are talking here about lads of the criminal justice system. It has the chief executive of the children's reporter service on it, a range of us ourselves. However, it allows senior figures from a whole range of the justice organisations to come together to look at those types of issues, and then for some groups to be set up at looking at some of the specific measures that need to be taken to try to address those. That includes engaging with other stakeholders in trying to find the most appropriate means in which to do that. I mean, hear what you are saying about the responsibility of the Lord Advocate and the role that the justice boards would take in this, and I do not doubt that. Given the extent of the concerns that we have heard through this evidence session about the way that this central marking system is working, perhaps adopting the approach that Mary Fee took earlier on, I invite you to work with the Lord Advocate and those on the justice boards to see how this whole system approach is working, because clearly the evidence that we are getting is that we have moved away from a system that had real benefits in terms of understanding the measures that are available at a local level and ensuring that in terms of the execution of justice that we have the consistency that I think rightly we will not see, but the flexibility that is necessary, given that not all projects and services will be available or alternatives to court prosecution are available in all parts of the country in the same way. I can give the member an assurance that through the justice board setup that we have, it is an opportunity for some of those issues to be considered and to be discussed and to be looked at. I have no doubt that when you take evidence from the Lord Advocate, you will be able to explain the approach that they are attempting to take and how they may seek to address some of those concerns. That again can be part of some of the work that the justice board does, but I am very clear and I am sure that you will hear from the Lord Advocate as well as a recognition about that whole system approach, about making sure that we try to link up the complex parts of our justice system as effectively as possible and that the policy decisions that we take in one area recognise the impact that they can have on our parts of the justice system and we try to plan to manage those things effectively. I am happy to give the member an assurance that we will continue to take an approach that helps us to try and take that whole system approach, including the impact that policy decisions in the Crown Office have on other parts of the justice system. Just on the justice board's cabinet secretary, I understand defence and I am not represented on them at all, yet they have a wealth of knowledge about what goes on in the courts and the criminal justice system. Would it be an idea or a suggestion that perhaps they could be invited to participate? I am not entirely sure if that would be the right thing to do, because senior figures from a range of justice-based organisations and delivery agencies that come together will be fair to say that they engage with a whole range of stakeholders in the justice system, but they are the senior individuals that have got responsibility for the delivery of services, whether it be from a children's hearing service through to the Crown Office, through to our prison service, through to our courts. However, there is an opportunity in the work that they do for defence to be engaged in that process. As far as I am aware, they have been engaged in processes in looking at some of the issues that have come about as a result of discussions at the justice board. However, I am not entirely sure whether being a member of it is the right thing, but being engaged in the process that they have when it is relevant to them is something that already happens, and I would expect to continue to happen. If that could be looked at, because some of the best and constructive evidence that we have had, but it has been constructive and very positive about the Crown and Procurate to Fiscal Service and the defence relationship with them, there are valuable discussions to be had about how the system could be improved to everyone's mutual benefits. I am encouraged that the cabinet secretary does not entirely perhaps rule that out. I do not think that it would be appropriate for him to be a member of it, but I think that he is engaged in its work. Those who are members of it, for example, when there are specific subgroups that are set up to look at a particular policy area where defence agents have a clear interest in it, as well. Keep in mind that defence has its own interests, and those are the leaders of the justice delivery organisations. I do not feel that it would be appropriate for defence to have a direct membership of it, but I am engaged in the parts that are relevant to them through the structures that the board has. However, I am not persuaded that it should be a member of it, given its own distinct interests. Whichever way the evidence and constructive evidence that has been given can be brought into the picture would be helpful. Mary, I am going to take you next, because you have not had a question yet. Thank you. It is about the inspectorate of prosecution. Through the evidence that we received from quite a wide range of organisations and from different people, very few people were aware of the inspectorate, let alone aware of the work that they undertook. It is really just to hear your thoughts on that, and if that concerns you, the general lack of awareness about what the inspectorate does? Given the nature of their role, I can understand that they do not necessarily generate a lot of public interest, because they are very focused on the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service. However, the reports are published publicly available. It would be really down to the inspector to decide if they wish to increase their profile or how they would wish to go about doing that. It is also worth keeping in mind, though, that the inspectorate does not deal with individual complaints. That would go through the Crown Office and the normal process, then go into the ombudsman. If the inspectorate would have the view that they wanted to increase their profile and their role, it would be very much a matter for the inspector to decide how they would want to go about doing that. I would not have any objections to that. However, I think that they provide a very valuable role, and they provide a very important role in looking at our justice system and a part of the justice system in the Crown Office. However, if they want to increase their profile, I would not have any concerns about them seeking to do so. I suppose that it was just a surprise. The nature of the work that they do, their public profile, might not be all that high. However, it is from some of the organisations that we are hearing from that you would almost expect to have heard of the inspectorate, and I think that that was quite surprising in some of the evidence. Really, I would just ask whether they are effective in their role. On the back of that, we had evidence from the Law Society of Scotland in relation to the Inspectorate of Prosecution's effectiveness. In terms of their transparency and their independence, they had suggested that the inspectorate should bring on board people who are not procurator ffiscal or who have no connection to the Crown Office and procurator ffiscal service. It was really just to hear your thoughts around that, and if you think that that would be beneficial. I do think that they are effective in the services that they deliver. Obviously, it has now been in place for several years, and it stems back from the inquiry, which followed, if I recall correctly, the Cholcar case, and the way in which the Crown Office had handled that particular matter, and the report that was produced following Dr Rajd Jando's inquiry into the matter. Using individuals who are not members of the Crown Office or procurator ffiscal service, there is always benefit, and it would be for the inspector to explain more clearly, but it is a bit like the HMICS, is that there is always benefit in actually being able to second people in who have got expertise when you are undertaking a particular area of inquiry, who know how the system operates, have an understanding of the system, and there is value that can be gained from that. That is not to say that bringing someone in from the outside, as in when it is appropriate, should not be done. I suspect that the inspector will do that when the occasion arises, but it is always trying to get that balance between making sure that you have got the right skillset and those undertaken in the inquiry that have the knowledge and skills of the area that you are looking at, while at the same time also making sure that it is very clear that it is an independent investigation and will report independently as well. I think that, by and large, it will get that balance correct, but I suspect that the principal reason that they are probably drawing people from the fiscal services is because of their expertise in a given area when they are conducting an inquiry. That point from Mary, when she fairly outlines the concerns that have been raised in the sense that the make-up of the inspectorate is drawn so heavily from the Procurator Fiscal Service. I take your point about having an understanding of it. I think that the concern, though, is that you have somebody who is seconded in there who will be going back to the Procurator Fiscal Service and therefore does not necessarily have the perceived independence that somebody who may have experience of the Procurator Fiscal Service and therefore is not going up a learning curve but is not due to be going back to the Procurator Fiscal Service immediately after they finish with the inspectorate. Do you not see that as a legitimate concern? I can understand the challenges, the perception that people can have. There will always be a limited pool of individuals that you can draw upon with the right expertise when you are conducting those inquiries, which I suspect will present some of the challenges. If there is a view, particularly from the inspector, about how they could alter the present arrangement in order to try to address any concerns or issues that were raised, then, if that required any legislative change, we would be open to looking at that. It was a piece of legislation at the time when it was taken forward to cross-party support. It was broadly welcomed within Parliament. We are seen as a positive step. I think that it is a positive service. I think that it adds value to our justice system. The legislation is also very clear that the inspectorate is entirely independent in conducting their role and in the issue of their reports and their findings. There are protections on that. I suspect that part of the challenge will be the limited pool of expertise in the country that the inspectorate can draw upon for any given particular inquiry and without being able to draw upon some of that expertise within the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service. That might make that quite challenging. I understand the perception issue. There are safeguards in the legislation. Trying to change it further could make it potentially difficult for the inspector to get the right skillsets for inquiries. However, if there are ways in which that could be achieved and if it requires some form of legislative change from the Government to help to support that, I would be very open to looking at that and exploring that. That is helpful perception as everything, cabinet secretary. At the same time, could it be looked at the fact that the Lord Advocate appoints the head of the inspectorate who reports on the organisation in which the Lord Advocate heads? I think that there could be more transparency and perhaps a strengthening of the independence of that particular issue. That would require legislative change because the legislation requires the Lord Advocate to make that an appointment. However, there is protection within the legislation and once they have been appointed in undertaking their role and they do so on an independent basis, and they publish their reports independently. However, I agree with you that perception is important, but that has also got to be weighed up against reality. Is there anything to suggest that the way in which the inspector is operating at the present moment is not effective in some way or that it is that some of the issues that members have mentioned in some way compromise its role? I am always open to looking to see how we can improve things, but I am conscious that perception plays a part. We have also got a question where the reality is that it is making much of a difference if we say that the Lord Advocate did not appoint the person who was, I do not know, say Parliament appointed the person. Instead, would that practice change anything? Maybe from a perception point of view it would, but by and large the inspector does a fairly robust and effective job just now in inspecting our prosecution services. I am happy that you are open to looking at it. We have now got Douglas Rona and Mary Ann. Can I ask the questions and the answers from now on to be quite concise? I just wanted to follow up on a couple of earlier issues. We spoke about child and vulnerable witnesses and changes for them. Do you have any plans to change the number of police officers called to give evidence the amount of time they spend in the court system? Sometimes they felt wasted because they could be out on the streets and be more overt rather than waiting to give evidence that could be agreed at an earlier stage and also cited and then not used. There have been improvements made over recent years by the system that the police now operate. The witness scheduler helped to manage some of the police time that is involved in having to be witnesses in court cases. There have been significant improvements. I think that there is no doubt that some of the efficiencies and improvements that could be achieved through the recommendations in the procedure and evidence review could help to reduce the churn in witnesses, which would help to address some of the issues that the police have in the time that they find being taken up as witnesses in court. There is certainly more that can be done. I think that some of that will come about more through remodelling of the system to some extent to try and make it more efficient. There have been improvements, but I think that there is more that could be done. Finally, could I ask you to mention in your answer to Stuart Stevenson about police wearing cameras and then that being used by the Crown Office, by the court system, but there is a problem in terms of technology that they do not all match? Can you understand why that is a frustration in 2017? What is the blockage in this day and age to have services that work very closely with each other on a range of different issues not able all the time to view one piece of evidence in three different locations, in three different sectors that could result in evidence being clarified at an early stage, please being agreed at an early stage because they are all able to watch it on the same devices? It just seems strange that we are sat here still speaking about getting computers to work with images. Part of the challenge is trying to make sure that the IT infrastructure between the police, the Crown Office and other parts of the justice system is as integrated as possible to be able to share that information. If you look at, for example, when I was a health minister, there was a big push for us to move much more towards telehealth medicine. In the member's area in Grampian, there was a very good example of some pilots that were tested out in taking telehealth forward. One of the challenges that identified is that the mistake that you can make is that, if you do not get the right investment right through the system, you can end up making investment in one part of the system, but the rest of it is not able to actually get the benefit from it. The example that was given around body worn cameras from the police is that the body worn cameras from the police is not just a case of issuing them. It is making sure that the police then have an IT system that can actually download that stuff, that it can actually then be transmitted to the Procurator Fiscal and the Crown Office, that it is able to then transmit that to defence agents, that it can then be transmitted to the courts, that it can then be displayed in courts. You are right, I share the frustration that many members have, not just in Parliament, but those who work within the justice system out making that type of co-ordinated approach possible. That is part of what the justice digital strategy is about, trying to take that forward. One of the things that we are looking to take forward in the course of the next year is the digital vault. It will allow a shared system between the police and the court service and the Crown Office to be able to use CCTV footage that can be put into that system and it can be shared and it can be utilised on a shared basis. We will hopefully take that forward in the next couple of months over the course of this year. Part of it is about existing systems that are already operating, which are not necessarily compatible. It would require considerable capital investment across all the systems to create a system that will allow it all to be seamlessly linked up. It is about trying to manage it in a way that allows us to get clear areas of improvement within the existing system and to make additional improvements to that system where we can. Part of it is historical, due to systems that parts of the public service have been using previously, which are not compatible with one another. Part of it is also about making the right and necessary capital investment into the right parts of the justice system to make sure that we create a system that is interlinked. That will take time. Just very quickly on the issue of time and resources. If we, as a Justice Committee, see this as a crucial area for improving the Crown Office as a whole and the component parts, how could we scrutinise that? Will we be sat here in a year having similar concerns? What kind of timescales could you put on it and how big are the resource barriers? The resource barriers are significant. The justice strategy is already published, so it is a public-available document that is out there. I remember implementation. For each individual organisation. For example, if it was in policing, it would be around the IT infrastructure that they are planning to take forward. If it was for the Crown, they would be able to set out what their plans are and what the details of those are for the Crown Office to set out those details as well. What we would then do is that the Justice Board would seek to make sure that there is proper collaboration. If the police were to say that we want to move towards having body-worn cameras for all of our police officers, that is an issue that could be explored at the Justice Board to then identify what we need to do in the Crown Office in order to make sure that we can support that technology if we are going to make use of it. For the Scottish Court and Tribunal Service who are on the Justice Board to then say that we need to put the courts in order to help to support and enable that technology so that, where we are making those types of investments, we are getting a whole system approach to it to try and get the biggest benefit out of it that we can. Rather than one part of the justice system saying that we are going to invest in this piece of technology, the real benefits of it cannot be realised because the other parts of the justice system have not been able to adapt or to put in the capital infrastructure that is necessary to be able to utilise or make the best use of it. I want to ask what the implications of the decision to leave the EU might be. I know that it is a matter of conjecture at the moment. It is particularly in regard to co-operation between the Crown Office and partner agencies in Europe and whether you yourself and the Lord Advocate have had any discussions on that. What effect do you think it could have? There is no doubt that it could have a number of very serious and significant effects, not just on our criminal justice system but on our civil justice system as well. I hosted a justice summit that brought together a whole range of different stakeholders. The Crown Agent attended that on behalf of the Lord Advocate. In the past couple of months, he has already given a speech in Brussels about his concerns about some of the real risks of not being a member of the European Union. One of the most obvious is the use of European arrest warrants and the potential risk they are effectively based on an extradition arrangement. If we lost the average timescale for a European arrest warrant from being issued to the person who is actually being apprehended is something in the region of around 40 to 42 days, an extradition can take nine months plus. It is a much more efficient and effective system in being able to repatriate individuals. There is a case where a European arrest warrant has been issued in Scotland and the person has been apprehended within hours in another jurisdiction today, allowing much greater efficiency. If we end up having to go down the route of having extradition treaties instead, given the timeframe that they take up and the court time that they take up as well, that will create and drive greater inefficiency in the system. It will slow the process down and it will take up more court time in having to deal with extradition proceedings in a way that we do not have to deal with at the present moment as well. I welcome the fact that we have opted into Europol, but we will no longer be able to be a full member of Europol once we come out of European Union, which means that when it comes to joint investigation teams that we will not be privy to the same access to information and shared resources as a member of Europol, which when it comes to things like human trafficking are extremely important. Just given the international nature of that type of criminal activity, dealing with serious and organised crime groups across a pan-European basis, Europol play a very important part in supporting that. Police Scotland of the police services in the UK is one of the police services that makes the greatest use of an organisation like Europol. For example, we have got officers embedded there within the UK team, unlike the way that it operates in England and Wales, where they have to go through the home office or to access it. Here, Police Scotland are directly to the organisation, have direct access to their database systems as well. We make very good use of Europol as well, so we will not have the same opportunities that we have at present once we have left Europol, although we can be a Tier 2 member. We do not have the same access to information and support as well. On the civil side, it will potentially have a very significant impact. There are areas around, for example, commercial law and contract law, which again have been agreed. For example, contracts that are agreed between a company here. It is not relevant to the inquiry civil matters, because it is the crime property. The question was just about the impact that you could have on it. In commercial law, contracts between a company here in Scotland and a company in France can be enforced in the courts. If we no longer have access to that, that will create difficulties. From the criminal through to the civil through to commercial law, it will have a significant impact. We have already been doing work around looking at what the impact of that will be and part of that is engagement with stakeholders such as the Justice Summit, which I hosted. We will continue to do that engagement in the weeks and months ahead. Is it reality, not that, whether we are in or out of the EU, it makes sense for Europe and the UK to co-operate on the various issues that you have talked about, which prevent terrorism from trafficking? There is much to be gained by the excellent facilities that we have, not least in Girkosh, which I am sure are recognised by Europe-wide. You have been a member of the European Union. You have been a member of sharing data, information and intelligence. Will it make common sense whether we are in the EU or out of the EU? It certainly makes common sense. Part of the challenge will be that when we are out of the EU, we will not have that hub provided by Europe for the sharing of information. The co-ordination of that sharing of information is well. That is part of the challenge. There is no doubt that, when we come out of Europe, we will still have to try to find mechanisms in order to share and collaborate on given issues and to work as best we can. However, it will be a sub-optimal way of doing it than what we have at the present moment, which is a much more efficient and effective way of dealing with it. It allows issues to be raised automatically and to have direct access to having to request information or not having access to that information automatically where time can be of the essence. It will still be important, but it will certainly be a sub-optimal way, less efficient and less effective than what we have at the present moment. I briefly ask the cabinet secretary about prosecution of health and safety cases, because we heard some concerning evidence about the very low level of prosecutions in health and safety cases. The fact that health and safety cases are treated more like civil cases and there are often quite lengthy and protracted negotiations before the conclusion of a case. Are you content that prosecution of health and safety is robust enough? There was a very effective case that was prosecuted by the Crown Office last week on health and safety, which attracted a significant custodial sentence. That demonstrates the willingness and the ability of the Crown Office to be able to prosecute those matters effectively. There is a unit in the Crown Office that understands that it deals with health and safety matters, so there is a level of expertise there. I suspect that part of the frustration can also come from some of the health and safety cases as a length of time that some of those cases can take in order to get to prosecution, and whether there are ways in which that can be speared up, whether there is greater efficiency that could be achieved in that, and I think that if there are ways in which that could be achieved, that would be certainly welcome. How the Crown Office can go about doing that, I am afraid, is a matter for the Lord Advocate to determine how that and the approach that it takes in order to achieve that. I can understand whether there are frustrations around some of the length of time that it can take for prosecutions in this area as well. The case that I just demonstrated last week demonstrates that the Crown Office is able to prosecute those matters and, as it is appropriate, it will do so. The penalty that was handed down by the court also sends out a very strong message about how the courts view series breaches of health and safety as well. Last week's case was a really good example, as you have said, but health and safety cases can often cause quite significant distress to families that are involved in those cases, and there is no statutory time limit. Is that even something that you think should be reviewed? If there is a way in which we can improve the system, I am open to exploring that and considering that. First of all, it is important that the Crown Office is given an opportunity to explain the approach that it is taking to those matters. Whether it believes that there are any changes that it can make, it could help to improve the way in which it handles those matters. If, following that, there is a view that there are further measures that need to be taken that require legislative change, I am open to considering those issues. I think that, in fairness, it would be only right for the Lord Advocate to be able to explain how it intends to deal with those matters and where there are areas that it believes that it can improve and how it will go about achieving that, first of all. I think that, in particular, there was concern about the lack or very low prosecutions for those feeling to have employer liability insurance. Is that something that you are aware of, cabinet secretary? I am aware of that, and I have been made aware of that. Again, the decisions on prosecuting in those matters is entirely a matter for the Lord Advocate. It would be wrong for Government ministers to start to get into setting out what they think should be happening in those matters. No doubt that the Lord Advocate will be able to explain the reasons and also the approach that the Crown Office is taking in dealing with those issues. In advance of the Lord Advocate coming in next week, there is only one final question—two final questions. Notwithstanding the independent status of the Crown Procurator Fiscal Service, would it be fair to say that the organisation would be failing in its duty if it did not take cognisance of the Government's policies in relation to criminal justice matters? The Lord Advocate will set out the approach that he will take. There is no doubt that there are decisions that are made in a range of policy areas that will have an impact on the Crown Office, and it will have to respond to those issues. For example, the approach that has been taken around tackling domestic and sexual violence has had an impact on the Crown Office, and it has had to respond to that in order to deal with those issues. I have no doubt that the Lord Advocate will want to make sure that, in taking forward the Crown Office, it recognises where priorities have been set by the Parliament and to make sure that, as a Crown Office, it is able to respond to those issues effectively. It is also worth keeping in mind that some of the policy changes that have taken place at times have been driven by the experience of procreator fiscals and the Crown Office. For example, on the domestic abuse bill, which we have said that we will bring forward in this parliamentary session, it came about as a result of work that was carried out by Leslie Thompson, the former slister general, who was very clear that fiscals were having real difficulty in being able to prosecute cases where coercion and psychological abuse was taken forward. In Labour of the View, there needs to be a legislative change in order to help to support fiscals and be able to deal with those issues. I have no doubt that it will recognise the priorities that are set by the Parliament and by the Government in areas, and it will seek to respond to those issues effectively. Equally, as has happened in the past, I suspect that the Crown Office will also want to set out areas where they want to see further changes taking place in our criminal justice system and where they think there are gaps. We will do our very best to try and help to work with them in addressing those issues. Just for the avoidance of doubt, the final question. Has the cabinet secretary had any discussions with the Lord Advocate in relation to wider prosecution policy, or are those matters strictly off-limits? In terms of prosecution policy, that is a matter entirely for the Lord Advocate. It is the constitutional position and it is the position that I will certainly respect, as the cabinet secretary for justice, and it is appropriate that we respect the role that the Lord Advocate has in setting that policy. That concludes the question. Thank you very much for attending today. We now move into private session. The next committee meeting will be on 17 January, when we will hear from the Lord Advocate himself in the final evidence session on the Crown Office inquiry and giving consideration to current petitions.