 Felly, graffau gyrfaeth yn cyfgrifydd a ddiweddol yn dynol siwng yn y grafiau mewn gwirddol mewn gwirddol drws, a newydd o ddamg llwygol am siaradau cyfgrifedd yn iawn ei wneud mewn gwirddol mewn gwirddolach. Mae farnogi, gwirddol yn gyrdd yno, yn ddweud, wedi'n nhw'r prysgol mewn gwirddol yn llywol, ac yn gwirddol yn gwirddol yng nghywgau sydd yn iawn yn cael ei gwirddol i gyrdgau paerfodol i gyrddol, yn ni wef. ar y gweld, wrth ddod. Ymwneud ylltyngrifes ynglynfaeth cerddiau gyda'r rhywbeth ar y presbytyngrifes Cymru yn y ddiolch gyda'r ddyfodol ond i i'r ddiffunio oedd o unu yn dechrau ffysgol yma. Mae'r cyllid ddigwydd gweithio'n iawn ar y gweithwyr ddechrau Rhy unlocku gyda Queen Gwylfyrd Cymru, Lord Advocate, David Harvey, hyn yn ddifentio ar gweithwyr hwnnw i分edigarfa a'r digbyn nhw i'r neill ac i'r nhw i'r collimau digbyn nhw i'r papur. A gy 언제? Fe'i fath o'r ddeddygu i'r ddod o'i ddod o'u cyfrifiadau sydd o'r ddod o'i fath o'r ddod o'u ddod o'i ddod o'r ddod o'u ddod o'u gael. Ar ôl i gael i'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod i'r ddod o'r ddod o'u ddod o'r ddodhaf o ein ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o deilogau. I can make a few observations simply to set the discussion in its context. The first thing that I should say is that, in the past year, the service has continued to prosecute crime effectively, fairly, independently and in the public interest. Day in and day out—throughout the past year—you will have read in the press accounts of cases that the service has brought successfully to a conclusion. The cases that are reported in the press are, of course, only a fraction of the work of the service. That is a tribute to the professionalism and commitment of the prosecutors who prosecute on my behalf across Scotland and all the staff who support them. I am glad, convener, once again to the opportunity publicly to underline my confidence in them. They deserve great credit for the service they provide to the public interest in the Administration of Justice in Scotland. The real-term increase in the services budget this year will allow the service to respond to the release of the cap on public sector pay to do so from April and at the same time to choose to maintain its staffing at or about current levels. The committee will recognise that this budget allocation represents a significant departure from the previous planning assumptions that the service had been working to, which were for flat cash and a reduction in staff levels. Notwithstanding the stability which this budget allocation provides to the service, I certainly do not underestimate the challenges which face it. For example, while there has been a decline in the number of cases reported to the Crown generally, we are witnessing a marked increase in the number of reports of serious sexual offences up some 50% compared with last year. It is clear that much remains to be done across the whole justice system to meet the expectations of victims of crime. The service is responding to the changing case load. It is in discussion with the Scottish Courts and Tribunal service about court programming. The expertise that now exists within the specialist high court sexual offences units will enable the processes for those cases to be streamlined. I have tasked the Crown agent with scoping out the implications of a strategic shift of further resources to deal with serious sexual cases and other complex cases, with a view to informing future decision making. In its financial planning, the service has prioritised non-staff savings. The Crown agent has made good on the commitment that he made to this committee to reduce markedly the number of staff on part-time contracts. This budget settlement gives us stability in relation to staff numbers. The service will continue to bear down on non-staff costs because it recognises rightly that its people are its greatest asset. That belief also underpins the Fair Futures project, which should start to take effect from April next year. In conclusion, although the session is a budget scrutiny session, none of us should lose sight of the fundamental purpose of the system of prosecution of crime, which is to underpin a just and secure society. I welcome the committee's continuing interest in the work of the service, which is a reflection of the importance that rightly attaches to it. I look forward to the discussion that will ensue. During what you pay tribute to the professionalism and commitment of the Crown and Procurator Fisco, I alluded to the fact that people are the service's greatest asset. The committee can curse with that, but it still remains very concerned about reports of the workload and more on low morale. I wonder whether you could comment specifically in your submission, Lord Advocate, on the staff survey results published in November, which confirm that on matters such as paying benefits, resources and work-led and leadership of change, in fact the general direction and future direction of the organisation, the measure of positive outlook fell from 57 per cent to 55 per cent? Yes. I don't deny that I was disappointed to see that on a number of measures, the survey this year fell back from what was a very favourable, in historical terms, survey last year. Perhaps I could make a particular point about the figures for workload and the like. It is perhaps important to see those in context. In this survey, 57 per cent of staff report that they have an acceptable workload, which is up 1 per cent from last year. I don't make anything particular of that, but it is up 16 per cent from the equivalent figure in the 2015 survey, up 11 per cent from the 2014 survey, up 13 per cent from the 2013 survey. Although it has remained, to all intents and purposes, static compared with last year, the figure on acceptable workload is a significant improvement as compared with two years ago or the previous figures. On the work-life balance, 64 per cent of staff report in this survey that they achieve a good work-life balance. That is down 3 per cent from last year, but at the same time it is up 9 per cent from 2015, up 5 per cent from 2014, up 8 per cent from 2013. I don't, for a moment, seek to shy away from disappointment in the survey, but it is perhaps important to see it in a historical, in a context where we saw a very significant improvement on these measures last year. We have fallen back a bit on the work-life balance figure, but it is still better than it has been in the past. I don't, for a moment, shy away from the challenging nature of the work that is demanded of public prosecutors or from the evidence that the committee has reporting individual experience, but it is perhaps important to look at the data and see it in a context and to see a service that is improving, not just in those figures, but we also see the sickness rate is significantly down 8.7 days per person, down from 10.1 days in October 2016. We have the Fair Futures project, which is on-going, which will start to take effect from April of next year. The Crown Agency has made good on its commitment to reduce the number of staff on temporary contracts. That has, with respect to being covered in your opening statement, Lord Advocate. I am really trying to establish 43 per cent. I do not believe that they have an acceptable workload. That is almost half of the workforce. 36 per cent are saying that they do not have a good work-life balance. I am hoping that, from this evidence session, we are getting some specifics about how and what is being done to address these concerns, why it is happening. You have mentioned the increase in sexual offences in the High Court. That has been covered. What specifically is being done to address these two really important issues? Given that you have already said that the workforce is all important for the efficient running of the Crown and Procurate physical services. I absolutely take that point. I think that it is important to put those figures in the context of the civil service norm. Plainly, I would like to see the service do as well as or better than the civil service norm. It is on these two measures four percentage points below the civil service norm. While below the civil service norm, it is not wildly out of step. I would like to see these figures in a better place. Can you perhaps give some specifics of what is being done to do it? We could quote figures at each other all morning, but specifics would be good. Perhaps it is important to, perhaps it would be worth asking the Crown agent to remind the committee about the Fair Futures project, which he is leading forward and which is specifically designed to seek to address, in a broad sense, the wellbeing of staff. Start off with one thing about the changing profile of the work, which may assist in setting a landscape to answer the question beyond simply the Fair Futures work. The first thing is that throughout the course of the last year, the number of outstanding trials in both the GP and the Sheriff Court have dropped dramatically. The number of GP trials outstanding, for example, is down to 4,500 from 7,500. In general, there are exceptions and localities, and I will come on to that where this is not the case. It stands to reason that preparation is easier if the court is smaller. In other words, there are fewer trials in the court. It is very welcome that, over the course of the last year, the number of outstanding trials has generally gone down, including in the Sheriff Court. There are exceptions to that. That is part of the point in relation to what we see in the survey. There are, without doubt, locations where there are difficulties in relation to preparation of trials. There are difficulties in relation to advanced notice trials. I was conscious that that was mentioned in the FDA submission. There are large parts of the country where those difficulties do not arise, but that does not mean to say that there are not these locations where they do and that those need to be addressed. I think that that is reflected in the nuance of the staff survey because what we have noticed this year in particular in contrast and perhaps perhaps to previous years is that there are quite significant differences in responses between localities, even within sheriffdoms. In Grampians Highlands and Islands, for example, the survey results on one half of that sheriffdom went up 7 per cent and the other half went down 7 per cent. Again, that is to do with loadings and preparation times etc. It is a more complex picture than simply the national picture and I suppose that I am saying that in the context to try and explain some of the more targeted work that we will be doing as well. First of all, the response in relation to the staff survey is that each of the sheriffdom procurators' fiscal has not only their own results but also an appreciation of the wider results and why it is that they are perhaps in a different position so that they can look at local solutions. You will recall that that was a significant aspect in the evidence last year about the need to ensure that there were local responses to problems. That is something that is being encouraged this year in relation to that. One of the things that I would say is that, for example, that prompts negotiations with local sheriff's principle in relation to the court loadings over which we have no final say but which are actually quite dramatically different across the country. For example, they are significantly higher in Glasgow than they are in other parts of the country. When you see individual responses from individual members I have absolutely no doubt that that is how they feel but I would caution that those do not necessarily extrapolate the national picture in each of the cases. Again, coming to the fair futures work, part of that, and most significantly from my perspective, was in and around appropriate support for staff welfare. You will have noticed that we are already doing quite significant work in relation to that and making progress. You will recall that that was on average 10.3 days of sickness absence and that that is now on a significant downward trend where it is now I think about 8.7, 8.6. It is still above the average but it is heading in the right direction and continues to head in the right direction and has been achieved in a relatively short period of time in the past 18 months as a result of changes in relation to the occupational health support that is provided in relation to other changes in relation to support for staff. I think that that is a very significant thing that we will continue to progress with. One of the other issues that has impacted on the organisation and which we are seeking to address is development across roles. One of the tensions and specialisation, and again I think that that was touched upon in evidence, is that with specialisation there is a perception of a lack of opportunity and indeed when we visited Hamilton recently, someone characterised it and stuck with me as there was a sense of stuckness was the phrase they used. It was a wonderful characterisation of how some people feel in relation to opportunities. Again, that is something that Fair Future's project is looking at in order to ensure that there is staff development in a far more coherent and structured fashion than has been the case in other two. Similarly, I think that we may touch on pay and grading perhaps in evidence. Since 1996, the service has had the opportunity as have all departments in a delegated fashion to structure its pay and grading structure, aside from tinkering around the edges really in the twenty years since, unlike other departments. There hasn't really been any significant change and if someone from 1996 were to look at our pay and grading structure they would find that it would be something that they would recognise. That's something that we are looking at within the constraints of affordability and in consultation with staff and there is no defined outcome to that. That is very much an open question about what it would be that might work for COPFS as an organisation going forward. Forgive me for the length of the reply but it is demonstrative of what we are trying to achieve across the breadth of issues. It is certainly encouraging that you are looking at local issues and trying to come out with local responses. John Finnie. Morning, pal, thanks for your evidence. Of course, concur with the law and etiquette's view about the good work that is on going there. It might be just to pick up on the issue that Mr Harvey raised about the autonomy that you do have when you figure your staff. Lord Advocate, if I noted you correctly you talked about maintaining the staff at or about our current levels. You'll be familiar with the submission from the Public and Commercial Service Union and in particular, if I can read just for the purposes of the record, paragraph 7, which says, like most departments in agency, COPFS has taken the approach of achieving savings by cutting staff. When posts are vacant, they are not always filled or filled with someone on a lower grade. It is making it redundant whether it is currently filled or not and posts should not be regraded without proper consultation and job evaluation exercises carry it out. Job evaluation exercises is a significant piece of work. Issues around equal player are alluded to there. Can you see what has been done with that and the level of engagement there is with the unions? Clearly, this is a factor, Mr Harvey. Yes, perhaps I can just give a high level response, Mr Finlay, a crown agent to respond on the detail. It's certainly not the case that the service is making savings by cutting staff as opposed to non-staff savings. It's taken a very deliberate decision to seek to prioritise non-staff savings where it can. It has seen a reduction in overall staff levels of about 20 over the past year. The current budget allocation will allow for stability in the year to come. I think the committee has got some evidence about the state's strategy that's ongoing work. It's the savings as a result of the state's strategy currently running it. I'd left over £700,000 a year and it's expected that with further decisions to be made in the future that that can be enhanced. There are savings to be made in relation to pathology and mortuary costs and other costs. The firm priority is to make savings in non-staff costs where the service can. It is perhaps worth noting that the service has been able to make choices with a view to preserving the front line staff. The number of legal staff in the service, if one looks at the past 10 years, there are only two years in which the figure for the number of legal staff was higher than it is at present. Crown agent can perhaps give some more detail on the points that you've raised. I know that this has been mentioned before but I first of all must emphasise that just in terms of the level of commitment in relation to the staff it was a significant issue during the course of the inquiry and rightly so in the last occasion in relation to temporary employment and temporary promotion. 177 have been offered and accepted permanent contracts and 115 have been permanently promoted. In terms of the overall use of funds by COPFS between staffing and non-staffing in 2010 it was 59% of the budget was on staffing and projecting next year it's going to be 72% and projecting the year after it will be higher than that. We are absolutely showing that we are prioritising savings on non-staff over staffing and the proportion of the budget that we spend on staffing is ever increasing. The increase that we've got in the budget this year will enable us to see and also to bring it forward to the start of April whilst maintaining staff numbers. That's not something that we anticipated that we would be able to do when we were discussing the plans on the previous occasion where we anticipated that we would have to drop in numbers. I did say though if the committee recalls on the last occasion that my expectation in light of the savings that we would have to make this year is that notwithstanding the fact of our budget on staffing that we would still need to save about half so it's a disproportionate amount on non-staff we would still have to make staff savings and that's why as Lord Advocate has indicated we are smaller as I said that we would be by about 20 staff this year but what I'm projecting for next year in light of this settlement is that we will have stability and also increased pay and also increased permanence. That's very reassuring on one level, Mr Harvey. However, that doesn't address the issues of unfilled posts or posts being filled by someone of a reduced grade. Is there any plans to have some sort of workload analysis to look at the changing picture that takes place in every workforce? I appreciate that all of these exercise have their costs but I would think that they need to be inextricably linked with the staff satisfaction aspect as well. In terms of downgrading as you characterise it, it is fair to say and I mentioned this on the previous occasion that the one place that there has been a significant shift in the organisation since particularly since 2010 in the senior civil service and so from position where there were 39 and so be it. Across the other grades the numbers are proportionately, approximately as they were. To pick up on your specific point Mr Finnie in relation to the work about the changing profile and the response to that I agree entirely. I think that that fits entirely with the Lord Advocate's opening statement about recognising that we have actually experienced a change in the profile I do not know if members of the inquiry will recall but at the creation of Police Scotland again I think I gave evidence to this effect previously there was a massive spike in the number of reports that came in and I think it went over 300,000 for the one and only time and that meant that there was an increased number of cases particularly in the summary courts what we are now seeing is a change in profile for the case numbers that are being reported or drawed but actually the type of criminality that has been reported has changed and it is very much more criminality where there is a requirement from the services perspective to provide support to vulnerable victims etc etc and so therefore we do need to realign our resource in order to meet that challenge which is a different one from even 13-14 and so that is the work that the Lord Advocate has referred to which has been commissioned and that is something that we are looking at during the course of next year OK, finally if I made full involvement for the trade unions in that exercise? In terms of the trade unions I personally meet with both unions once a month as a minimum all of my deputy crown agents meet with the unions once a month as a minimum across all of the sheriffdoms that we have referred to there are meetings I think I am right in saying four times a year with local representatives absolutely but they are also involved in fair futures, they are involved across the range of issues from my perspective there are no surprises to them on any of the things that we are discussing OK, thank you very much Mary Pee Good morning panel, I too wanted to keep the focus on the issues of staff Your workforce planning strategy suggests a reduction of around 200 full time staff by 2022-23 Is that a figure that you are still content to disable happen? Well that strategy or that projection was of course predicated on a set of assumptions which included an assumption of flat cash and certain other assumptions now the budget allocation this year allows us to depart from those assumptions and the future the future the future strategy will itself have to revise to reflect the change in the budget allocation this year I do not know whether Crown agent wants to add anything The simple answer is yes so basically members will recall that on previous occasion as Lord Advocate said the assumption was that it was flat cash and therefore 50% of savings would have to be secured from staffing as a result of this settlement that does not apply this year for the coming year because we will be in a position where we will have stability in relation to staff numbers and be in a position to make choices in relation to filling posts that become vacant during the course of the next year The procurators fiscal societies have suggested that predicted job cuts will prove to be a conservative estimate Are they wrong down in that view? To be fair to them they put in their submission in the advance of the budget settlement and I think that it's fair to say that they were working in anticipation as per the plans that it would be a flat cash position and I think that from their perspective what they were looking at you'll recall from the financial sustainability plan that we discussed previously we had certain assumptions in our planning so our planning initially was 2.5% inflation it's now 3% our planning was that it was 1% public sector pay that has now been changed and so from their perspective what they were seeing was on the assumption against flat cash that inflation was increasing in public sector pay policy had changed which would increase pressure on our plans and therefore might mean that a sensible position for them to adopt in the absence of the knowledge of what was eventual settlement Can I touch now on the issue of staff morale because I welcome the statement from the Lord Advocate and he's opening remarks about the commitment of staff and no one can doubt how committed staff within the service are and I know you have the fair futures project but reading through the submissions that we got for today it's almost as if there are two comparing and contrasting views when you have the FDA procreator fiscal section saying that current resources are insufficient for the additional demands placed on and increased workloads of the service and it's either time for the commitment to match the resources or those difficult decisions to be made about what aspects of the service and work that they will have to stop doing some of the responses from the survey was adequate preparation time for trials is a rarity taking papers home is essential a manager is reported feeling stressed to death employees are being effectively forced to deal with workloads in which it's nearly impossible to deliver an effective service and another submission has said we want to provide a world class service but we simply have far too much work and not enough people we have staff with no prep time for difficult and sensitive trials in court day after day working at home coming in while on leave and constantly worrying about work now I appreciate you're doing a number of different things but if someone was to read those submissions and not read anything else they would think you had a workforce that were completely demoralised, stressed and felt there was no future or fairness what are you doing to address that? The Crown Agents already described a number of the specific actions that are being taken by the service in order to address the issues Morale is quite a difficult thing to get a handle on and I don't as the Crown Agent in a different moment suggest that those aren't individuals who are accurately reporting their own experience their own their own impression I detect enormous pride in the staff whom I meet in the work that they are doing it's reflected in the commitment that they give to their work and it's and if one's looking for some sense of the broader picture it is worth going back to those two figures in the staff survey of course I would like them to be higher but they are so much better than they were two years ago now that's not for a moment to take away from what's being reported in the FDA in the FDA's evidence all staff should have a one-to-one meeting with their manager once a month in order to discuss workload and other issues and as the Crown Agent has preserved there are regular meetings with the unions to discuss issues of concern to them so there are mechanisms in place to seek to address particular issues Crown Agent's already in his earlier evidence made the point that when you do what I think in the would come to discover what to be described as a deep dive into the staff survey figures the one finds real discrepancies in different parts of the organisation and you know that's something which that the service is looking at very seriously in terms of trying to respond to particular issues that arise in particular parts of the organisation Mr Harvey, did you have any comment? Unless there's anything further I think I covered most of that earlier. If you're having meetings on a regular basis and you have all this work in place why do staff still feel this way? If you're regularly communicating with them you would expect them to feel their morale to rise and to feel better. Is there a gap in the way that's being communicated to staff or staff not aware of what's going on? Communication could always be better that's one of the things I find generally. For example on the Fair Futures programme that's being referred to we've actually got 80 volunteers who are members of staff from across the service self-nominated, self-selecting many of whom frankly have particular issues that they want to get resolved precisely the kinds that are reflected in the survey and that opportunity is being created for them. I would regard them also as champions in the evangelist in relation to precisely the kind of work that we're doing. Partly as members will be all too familiar it's about communication from the centre or top or whatever you like to describe it but actually crucially it's about cross communication as well about activity and about improvement and about exchange of ideas and that is being encouraged under the Fair Futures programme so that people feel as if they have a voice and I think I mentioned previously about for example when we went to Hamilton recently again an innovation which sounds just like a small thing but has been significant is that every second of the executive board meetings is actually not on the Crown Office it was always traditionally in the Crown Office now it goes around the country and there is an open meeting with staff at each of those offices for as long as we like and the meeting in Hamilton ran on to half past three to discuss a whole series of issues from strategic issues affecting the service to the fact that there was investment required on printing and copying facilities that to particular members of staff is actually the most insignificant and important inhibitor about them being able to do the job that they want to be able to do and we've had those individuals then contributing towards the national call off contract in relation to the new printers and copying facilities that they can then see that they are actually making a contribution is that kind of thing that makes a difference of people feeling as if when they say something that they're listening to and actually they have an opportunity to have an impact on that and that has happened so there isn't a single solution to that and we will always endeavour to communicate in relation to what we're doing but also frankly to try and generate a sense of collective and we're on a journey, there's no doubt about that we're on a journey in relation to this Lord Advocate's referred to the where the position as was so we got a 16% rise in relation to the point about the workload being acceptable etc it has now plateaued the good work life balance we got a rise and then that has plateaued I was disappointed by that and that was an incentive for me to kick on again in relation to precisely these ways of communicating with staff so I completely accept the point and we will continue to try and find other ways of bringing that level of engagement okay thank you the next question I was going to ask you've answered Mr Harvey and it was about if someone raises something how effective are you at actually responding and feeding back so you've answered that question trying to get better I would like to follow up on some of these this line of questioning particularly to begin with the workforce strategy it was presumably argued at the time that 200 jobs could be shed without a significant negative increase on the workload on the work life balance and generally this could be absorbed in the organisation now of course it looks like there's some extra money now of course you're saying that as I heard there is not a need to shed 200 posts and these will be looked to retain but doesn't that suggest that these posts are in fact very necessary and that there would have been an impact and that the premise of the workforce strategy was wrong this was a projection of what we would have to do to live within our means if that was where we ended up indicated previously to the inquiry and members that it would become increasingly challenging and that the choices would become increasingly difficult and I think that what we would have found ourselves in a situation where I would have been presenting options to the Lord Advocate about what a service at those levels might look like so is that an acceptance that had the 200 posts had to go that would have had a significant impact on the remaining staff's ability to deliver the service and their own work-life balance for example I think what the Crown agents saying is that and of course it would be subject to other changes both in the caseload and the broader system but that one could foresee one could have foreseen could have foreseen on that scenario the need for a Crown agent puts it him to come to me with options in terms of the various activities service undertakes now we're not in that position because this year the budget allocation has been increased in real terms that's not to say that the position going forward doesn't contain challenges it always contains challenges not least because of the way in which the workload shifts the caseload changes and the services need to respond to that it's a service that's shown a remarkable ability to effect change certainly over my professional lifetime and I'm sure we'll continue to do that the Crown agent as he put it in his evidence to the committees inquiry has been very clear that that planning assumption of flat cash would present an increasingly challenging position I'm pleased that that's not the position that we're in with the allocation that the service has been given this year you're quite clear and quite right to point out that's this year but then that begs a question around the level of consultation that's going on can I ask what what consultation was done back when the original workforce strategy with the 200 posts was happening and now what's going to happen now because of course people on the ground will be listening to this and saying oh hang on we don't need to shed 200 posts but what happens the year after that and the year after that what's going to, what engagement so you referred to the 200 posts it was the the planning assumptions and the logic of the planning assumptions were that if those assumptions were correct and the net outcome would be that even saving 50% on non-staff costs and 50% on staffing costs there might be a net reduction of between 150 and 200 staff over a five year period and I indicated to the inquiry that that would be on average about 30 a year and we've had a year where our staff numbers have reduced and so therefore to the extent in relation to that plan and the assumptions that applied to that the first year of that plan proves the accuracy if you like of the assumptions as they applied at that stage what I'm saying to you is that in relation to this particular year when we have a one year outcome that does not apply and what that enables us to do is particularly in relation to the non-staff costs the non-staff costs savings rather come on stream at different times because some of them involve negotiations with third parties some of them involve opportunities in relation to lease breaks etc etc and so there isn't an even distribution of opportunities if you like on non-staff savings each year so as it happens for next year for example the non-staff savings that are available are sorry the year after next the non-staff savings that are available projected could be double that which are expected next year so that again gives us a bit more of a flexibility in relation to potential staffing costs now it's difficult to look further than that beyond that and as we've indicated already the case load can change as well so even since 1314 from 300 odd thousand cases with a different profile we've now got a different number of cases but frankly a different kind of case load and frankly the welcome increase in reporting of serious sexual offending all was there but we need to respond to that so there's a risk in looking at the workflow plan the financial sustainability plan in each of those in isolation there are a number of variables not only in respect of the opportunities that arise in relation to savings and budgetary changes etc etc but also there are changes in the landscape about the nature of the ask better phrase for the organisation depending on the nature of the criminality that is reported to us and how we must profile our response to that so it's dangerous to look too far ahead and be certain about that perhaps if I may just add one other point that the changing case load significantly declining in numbers but changing in nature is one aspect of the environment within which the service has to operate in which it has to fulfil its essential public function at the same time there is a process of criminal justice reform which presents a set of opportunities to do things more efficiently and in a better way in the past year we've implemented summary as Sheriff and Jury reform I think you've got some figures in the correspondence that we've sent in advance of this meeting which are the early indications that Sheriff and Jury reform is having a producing significant benefits in terms of cases settling or resolving at an earlier stage more often and also a very significant benefit to the public in terms of witnesses not being cited unnecessarily and that's the Sheriff and Jury reform bit of the picture we're in a process of work on summary justice reform which as the committee will appreciate is the volume part of the work of the service and again there are and we discussed this during the inquiry into the work of the service there are real opportunities in relation to summary justice for that part of the caseload of the court and the work of the service to be done in a significantly more efficient and effective way now if we can secure real change in the summary justice system that will have a significant impact on the pressures on the service and one of the challenges is in terms of future strategy is to anticipate when those opportunities and benefits will actually turn into real changes another example of the kind of thing that can make a difference in terms of reducing the workload is the proposition in relation to road traffic act fixed penalty offences and the Crown Agents Correspondence with the committee there we have upwards of 15,000 cases which currently we prosecute in a summary prosecution where in England and Wales the enforcement is dealt with in a different way which does not require a prosecution now whether bringing approaching those cases in a different way is appropriate or not but if that consultation produces a positive answer to that then that reduces the pressures on the service so it's one of the immensely it's one of the challenging features of future planning for the service that the landscape changes we can see real opportunities to do things more effectively efficiently to do them better in terms of serving the public which is ultimately what we want to do but the timescale for those is not always entirely predictable or within our our hands one final point from me then if I may you talk about the case load changing and the differing profile leads to a reduction in the case load potentially the individuals involved the staff involved with dealing with that necessarily require to be retrained then to understand what the new case load that they're dealing with that will come at a cost in financial terms but also in staff time and their ability to deliver a service and be taken off to be retrained what planning is going on around that first of all you're absolutely right that staff need to be appropriately trained particularly when it comes to the dealing with serious sexual offence cases which are those which are on the increase one of the things which we had been doing in advance of this significant change in the trend was looking at ways in which we could simplify our current processes we had historically responded to the change in serious sexual offending by reference to specialist crime council who were appropriately trained and over periods of time the teams who are reporting those cases into crime council have themselves become expert and that has been a real benefit and so one of the helpful parts of the inspectorate report on those matters was to confirm that actually there really is that sense of expertise there's no significant disagreement between crime council and those who are providing the recommendations to them that's testament to the response over a period of time that there is that level of upskilling so there's an opportunity there to say well actually those people now understand and we can rely on those choices and those recommendations and potentially have a different reporting structure in relation to those cases but beyond that there is undoubtedly a requirement to train up additional staff in order to be able to deal with that spike or not spike that trend in relation to the increase in reporting but also and this is an important factor when it comes back to the welfare point we should only expect staff to be involved in that kind of work for periods of time subject to appropriate support so it's not just about training it's making sure that there are opportunities for them to have other roles and then perhaps come back or perhaps not and so one of the key things we need to do is not only make sure that we have the capacity to deal with the casework but we actually have the capacity to deal with staff response to that casework and make sure that their welfare is supported because it can be very challenging to deal with that kind of casework so that I can provide a reassurance as recognised and that's one of the things that will be addressing There's a direct follow up from Ben Macpherson on the training aspect then two supplementaries on the staffing from Liam McArthur and Maurice Corry Ben Thank you convener, good morning I wanted to pick up on something that's related as the convener says which is also something that came up in the inquiry that the committee did based around people being the greatest asset for the service future proofing of service increasing future capacity and adapting to the different demands on the services as has just been touched on and that is the question of trainees and I wondered if you could give the committee an update on the number of trainee places available is that still on the increase and what the anticipated retention of trainees is in the year ahead in order to continue that future proofing Three very quick points in relation to that we are for the first time bringing in a second tranche and so rather than simply bringing in all the trainees in August we're now going to as of February of this year bringing in a small group in February and we will increase that and over the course of the next two years we will have a February tranche and an August tranche I mean actually that the numbers will slightly increase and part of the reason for that is because we found and again this came out in the inquiry and has been accepted for many years that actually it's an excellent way of recruiting future staff I think I mentioned previously that all three deputy crown agents are former trainees many of the previous crown agents are former trainees and very very high quality people and so what we were finding was that because we were bringing people in the August we would wait until towards that period to board for new deputes which meant that classically we would have a dip in the numbers of deputes during the summer so if we bring in two tranches and we have vacancies then we'll be able to advertise them and our trainees coming off in February would then be in a position to apply for those posts and then we'll have more consistency of availability of legal staff throughout the course of the year and as historically if you look we do tend to have a bit of a wave pattern where it dips in the summer which is not helpful because that's when people want to take their holidays which is completely understandable we still need to man the coach so that's the first thing is that we're splitting the tranches and the numbers that will actually slightly increase the second thing is that again for many years we've paid the law society recommended rate this year we've agreed a deal where frankly it might be hest that's being increased so we're paying above that rate for the first time in many years and the third thing is that per the opportunity for there to be a stable workforce as a result of this budget what that means is that as and when opportunities arise in relation to legal vacancies there will be the opportunity to fill those until therefore the trainees will be in a position to compete for those I can't say what the numbers will be but they will certainly be in a position to compete for those and that those vacancies will now be capable of being addressed thank you and that much of that is reassuring if you in due course if you could keep us up to date on trainee numbers and anticipated retention just very briefly the convener if I may one of the strengths I know of the services trainee ship is it's highly regarded throughout the profession and that will be down to a number of factors but I imagine one of them will be that there is adequate mentoring from senior staff within the service for trainees in order to to pass on that knowledge and understanding and expertise to the next generation constraints we've heard around challenges around work-life balance and other challenges within the staffing of the service are there adequate systems in place and hopeful there will be in order to make sure that that mentoring time is protected in order to make sure that the traineeship of the service retains that highly regarded reputation so one of the advantages of the numbers is that during the two year training period there's actually quite a significant commitment for spells out for specific training programs that are provided within the organisation and so it's not a case of you're there for a two year traineeship but actually you're entirely office based working with others for that period there are over the course of the two years quite significant spells where they are out and actually getting specific training during that period and you're quite right there are also opportunities on a daily basis to have mentoring and support from legal staff and I think again that's perhaps one of the benefits of the fact that actually a very substantial number of our current legal staff are themselves former trainees that frankly has created a whole culture of supporting each other people will talk about they were the intake of such and such a year as opposed to that and there is generally that investment in people who are the new trainees precisely because we have quite a higher attention of former trainees okay thank you okay supplementary Liam Carter then Maurice Cork good morning just going back to the line of questioning Liam Kerr was adopting earlier on obviously we're in the fortunate position at the moment of looking at a budget settlement that is more advantageous than I think was anticipated 12 months ago though on the back of cutting real terms to the budget there was a discussion and a recall between whether or not this was as the FDA described absolutely astonishing or a sound settlement as I think both the minister and the Lord Advocate agreed I think my concerns are that while the happy circumstances of looking at the pay increases and no requirement to deliver the reductions that were being considered at that point and I think without the notion that it was entirely incumbent upon you to be scenario planning for different anticipated scenarios I am slightly concerned that in the sense that we were being reassured that these staffing reductions could be accommodated without you having to go to the Lord Advocate with some fairly unpalatable suggestions about what this would mean in terms of service delivery now we don't want to invite those to come before us needlessly scaremongering but nor do we need witnesses coming before us whistling to keep our spirits up and therefore I think my concern would be the assurances we were given 12 months ago I don't seem to me as well-founded as they were being portrayed at the time Perhaps I could just say something on that verse I think I was very clear last year that with the budget settlement that we had last year I could fulfil my public responsibilities I was also very clear as I think any leader of any public service in Scotland would would be that I think I put it this way would I like to have more funding? Can I provide the service that I'm responsible for with the settlement that I had last year and I believe that I could and we have done that over the past year we have prosecuted crime effectively up and down Scotland in the course of the last year so and looking forward we the service was scenario planning on an assumption of flat cash recognising that with justice reform there would be changes in the system and so on and so forth Crown agent I think was very clear that the scope for choice would become increasingly challenging and I think I could put it this way were unable to unlock some of the benefits of justice reform then no doubt he would be coming to me facing me with difficult choices thankfully we're not in that position I appreciate that and I think we all accepted that justice reform proposals were about improving the way in which the system works as well as getting more for the resources that we protect but what we weren't being told was that the staff and reductions we were being presented with were likely to lead to scenarios where services may need to be scaled back or removed entirely and I think as a committee we would have responded very differently have we not simply been told that we would be in other but actually from the county office themselves we would say look we don't entertain the more lurid examples of what this may mean but be under no illusions if as we go through this process we reach this level of staff reduction we are going to have to look at some potentially uncomfortable reductions or scaling back in services For answer if I may forgive me that wasn't my intention the I did say that it would be more challenging and I did say that it would be increasingly more challenging and that the options would become more constrained we did as Lord Advocate has said we will also talk about the potential for other changes in the landscape and so for me I was answering Mr Kerr's question on the basis again of you will recall making mention of the fact that it was dangerous to compare one scenario with another so for example when I did say about the changing case work from 1314 to now and the projections forward about potential changes in case work going forward that would be for example as a result of reform where for example if we had a change in legislation in relation to the number of cases that are reported for road traffic just as one small example then that could potentially change the jp co-programm which would then create the flexibility or perhaps the opportunity for the realisation of the kind of pressure that we're talking about so when I say about options it's at a macro level in relation to system change but if the timings were not appropriate or possible in relation to legislative change or reform etc then it might well have been that it would have been necessary to make other choices but it's a constantly moving picture is what I was trying to convey to Mr Kerr Morris Corry Good morning Lord Advocate and CranAsian. What percentage of management absences on sick leave are classified as long term and are due to stress and what steps are you taking to remedy this and reduce it? CranAsian I don't have a figure for senior management to hand and particularly in relation to long term but we'll undertake to provide that to the committee. I can say the figure that I do have in relation to that is that the sickness absence figure in relation to work related stress is about 8%. That's across the board who are not specific to senior management I don't have that figure but I will give it. Thank you. Gordon MacGregor I was going to ask a bit about the draft budget and impact that it could have on the savings but I think that's really being covered quite extensively. What I would like to ask is one of the things that I had questioned during the inquiry was in relation to the use of diversion schemes. Going forward and given the savings that are required have you then thought how diversion schemes could be used perhaps more economically to free up some of the quarter as it was referred to in the system? I mean I'm I value the option of diversion where that's available. I think that as I said to the committee during the inquiry prosecutors can only decide to go for a diversion rather than some other prosecutorial action if there's an appropriate and good quality diversion scheme available. The use by the service of diversion scheme depends on the availability of diversion schemes across the country. The introduction of Community Justice Scotland provides an opportunity for improving the availability of diversion schemes and also I hope ensuring that opportunities for diversion are available across the whole country because one of the from a prosecutorial perspective one of the things that one observes is that the availability of diversion varies in different parts of the country and that affects the decisions that prosecutors make in relation to particular reports of alleged crimes in different parts of the country. If we can improve the availability of diversion then prosecutors will see that will use those diversion schemes as appropriate. There's perhaps a more general point about the range of options that are available to prosecutors. As the committee is aware prosecutors have a number of options available to them by statute in addition to prosecution and fiscal fines, fiscal work orders and the like. Those are valuable options which prosecutors in appropriate cases use and should use in order to respond appropriately and proportionately to particular reports of offending behaviour. I was actually going to ask that. For reassurance for the committee the numbers are relatively small but from 1112 0.5% of cases went for diversion and it's now gradually creeping up where this year it looks as if it's going to be about 1.2 so it's still relatively small but on one view it has doubled as a proportion over a period of four or five years but there are certainly, as Lord Advocate has said, the potential for more subject to availability. I was actually going to ask about the changes to the justice system and what opportunities that might present for more diversion schemes being used and I wonder if you're able to expand on any thoughts that you've had of how those conversations and discussions might unfold moving forward. From a prosecutorial perspective prosecutors look at the range of options that are available the greater the availability of diversion schemes, the more confidence that we can have in the quality of diversion schemes the more viable that will be as an option in appropriate cases. As I said a moment ago I think the establishment of community justice Scotland is an opportunity for enhancing the availability of diversion schemes, it's not something we are responsible for although we're part of the discussion as you put it with community justice Scotland in terms of what's available. Perhaps specifically it may assist members to know that we meet with each of the partnerships regularly and in particular we are very keen for them to explore consistently available measures in relation to those with mental health issues and that's something that we will continue to push. Perhaps one point I should make is that what we are interested in is making the right decisions in individual cases having options which are appropriate and where it's appropriate to do so in case where it's appropriate for diversion then we welcome the availability of a diversion as an alternative. I think there's no doubt that there's potential for diversion schemes to be more equalised over the countries a whole and more consistent and also local authorities and other stakeholders a big role to play in that but I suppose what I'm asking in terms of today's debate is about because this is about the budget scrutiny in the financial situation and obviously if diversion schemes could be used more and when more available and understand that it's not your issue in terms of the availability then is there any thought how that could possibly impact the budget I would hope positively the financial situation facing the service? I suppose that what occurs to me is that there's always the risk of transferring the burden and so therefore I think we need to understand in context of overall budget that that was something that brought an overall efficiency to the system but if one was looking at it through the budgetary lens but candidly if it's the right thing to do then we should be finding a way. Okay thanks for that I just want a quick supplementary quite a specific area regarding the office is it airdrie so I'm the representative for co-bridge and crisis so obviously airdrie is very nearby I would have an impact to know how busy that particular office is I've read through what the submission says and can I just confirm that it is a change in terms of the size of the unit rather than as opposed to staff reduction on the site? I entered into negotiations with the landlord and it secured a deal that resulted in savings in non-staff costs and it meant that we were able to maintain the same sort of presence in the airdrie area so I think there is one part that more to do with the activity of the individuals of the particular team and it's a very small number I think it might even be three or four which may be better placed in Hamilton but that's not as a result of the change in footprint it's about more to do with where it's best to have a team that are co-located Okay Rona Mackay My questions on financial strategy have largely been answered down a different road and that is victim information and advice A submission from Victims Support Scotland says the impact on victims could be better prioritised and they argue for a single point of contact and that's something we heard echoed a lot during our evidence taking for the enquiry and they also suggest that they may be able to do more to assist in conjunction with your own victim information and advice service so can you tell me if you have any discussions with Victims Support on this and if you favour a single point of contact Well I think we support the direction of travel indicated by in Leslie Thomson's review which is to a single point of contact and we recognise that the service has an important role to play in supporting and providing information to victims supporting them specifically in the context of the criminal justice process but that there is a real limit to what it's either appropriate or possible for prosecutors to do and the needs of victims go well beyond what we can provide It's fair to say as prosecutors we also recognise the value to victims of having a support worker or an advocacy worker who is there to support them through the process we see and I think it's reflected in the inspectorate report the value that victims obtain from that kind of support when it's available there is work in hand I think there's some information in the correspondence about the work that Scottish Government's doing to take forward the Thomson review and that's work with which the service is very closely closely involved I don't know whether Courage is anything you want to add I think the phrase that's used is the one front door model because I think that what we have to acknowledge is that there are a number of very very valuable services available across the country which are able to support individuals who have particular needs and that their role needs to be recognised so I think that that was reflected in the discussion that Scottish Government chaired in September and really what that's looking to explore and as Lord Advocate said we support in terms of the original proposition in the Thomson review is that one front door for victims and witnesses who then are guided through the support that are available rather than necessarily the services being provided by one provider OK that's encouraging because I think from our enquiry report we highlighted the fact that victims often feel confused and not sure which way to go to be different pathways so if that was to come forward I think that would be very welcome thank you Julie, just some questions about IT and the use of IT when you talk about in the digital strategy the improvements in the use of IT must optimise resources and deliver efficiency are you able to tell us what the main areas are where you can see those efficiency savings and what level of those savings will be and when that's anticipated to come through there are a variety of different digital developments I think in the correspondence referred to the case management in court the tablets in court and as one example and we intend to roll that out during the course of the next calendar year the savings from that are quite straightforward and fundamental so we anticipate that there will be savings of paper costs there will be savings in storage costs there will be savings in time all of which add up and the expectation for example in relation to the case management in court project is that in and of itself a couple of years after launch we received about £800,000 worth of savings of that ilk simply as a result of that introduction and overall given the number of different reforms that we have a lot of which are underwritten if you like by digital reform we anticipate that about 1.5 million of the savings over the next period will be as a result of digital reform but there will be things like as a stationary paper storage costs are very significant okay thanks that's really helpful but one thing that was quite interesting recently as a committee we met with our corresponding committee in Westminster we'd also had the opportunity to meet the inspector of the CPS down there and it was actually really interesting to hear about some of the things that they're doing in terms of the use of IT I don't know if much of if some of what they're doing just now is what you're already looking at you look to other examples and things that are in operation elsewhere to see if that's something that could be implemented here so I meet with the DPPs of England Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland twice a year and we discuss and are aware of developments and exchange proposals and ideas at those discussions but beyond that that then leads to frankly technical experts going and visiting and understanding and sharing and so we've had people from CPS coming up to look up for example our disclosure website conversely we've had people going down and looking at the facilities that they have available in the courts so I can provide assurance that there is that mutual exchange and learning okay thank you very much and I just have one final question and it's about some of the evidence that we received from PCS and some of the concerns that they had that there seems to be very little transfer of knowledge from contractors to our IT staff when carrying out major work that means that we are constantly paying a high level of expenditure for contractors at a premium rate we would have hoped that COPFS would have arranged more skills and knowledge transfer in an area where expense can be considerable is that something that's actively being looked at and how would you respond to the concerns that they've expressed it is actively being looked at and has actually it's quite an accurate reflection of what the contractors are expected to do or indeed are currently doing there is a knowledge transfer it's part of what's written in in terms of it and they regularly will not only explain what they're doing but then in some instances take seminars etc what I can however say is that as part of the strategy going forward in relation to the particular types of IT improvements that we have identified that we will need to make over the coming period we will increase our own IT resource and part of that will be as it involves a reduced reliance on contractors but we will still always have a requirement for contractors for very particular specialist skills okay thank you very much I wonder if I could ask what assessment has been done of the impact of the criminal justice Scotland Act 2016 if DA has said introduces a broad range of changes to policing which will directly impact on the work of the COPFS well yes, convener as you observe there are changed processes in the act for around detention and liberation and procedures which will be new procedures to the court I think the answer is that some work has been done I'll let the crime agent explain the detail inevitably there's uncertainty in predicting just how these procedures will be used and also the extent to which there will be as it were savings in other aspects of the act but perhaps the crime agent can give her more details members will recall that this legislation was considered in Parliament some time ago and there was a financial memorandum as always associated with that addressed the anticipated or projected costs from a COPFS perspective in relation to the procedures that I was talking about but as the Lord Advocate has alluded to it is a best guess and it's informed but it is a best guess and so nothing has changed since that financial memorandum in relation to the potential impact I don't have it in front of me but my recollection was that it was something between £200,000 and £300,000 worth described as opportunity costs as a result of the changes that the FDA are alluding to but those weren't the only changes and one of the things that I think will over time assist the COPFS but the justice system more generally is that as a result of the change in legislation and as a result of the use of legislation and in particular the very explicit reference in the legislation to the presumption in favour of liberty there is an expectation that fewer people will be reported from custody and that there will be more who will be on investigative liberation and therefore the quality of the reports will likely improve which will then improve the decision making because one of the remarkable things about the system is the way in which the police are able to on an individual night deal with an individual on the street bring them to the cells and thereafter frankly do the paperwork so that it's ready for the Crown to consider in the morning as a custody case and so my expectation is that there will be a system level change in relation to the number of cases that are reported from custody over a period of time that will have its own benefits to get back to my regional question has any assessment been done of this other than looking at the financial memorandum the financial memorandum remains the position and the projections are that there will be a significant drop in the customs so for the avoidance of doubt no assessment has been done of the impact on the legislation which will have additional work for prosecutors and processes one big change the impact which has not yet been assessed is the introduction of police investigating liberation and the right of views such reviews will be dealt with by the prosecutor what I said was the financial memorandum analysis stands that hasn't changed because we have no better information than then but you have done no assessment on the workload because my problem here is both the Lord Advocate and the Crown Agent have come and said we value our staff we realise that working with our staff and keeping them in the loop is absolutely essential for the smooth running of a service and here's a huge piece of legislation which is going to impact significantly on their workload and if I'm hearing you properly there has been no assessment correctly taken of how that's going to in place on what is already an overburntened workload within the Crown Procurator we're here to talk about budgets I answered from a budgetary perspective there has been significant training exercise conducted there is on-going provision in relation to guidance in relation to this people will be well prepared for it and it has been accommodated as part of the launch and has been led up to internally with a series of communications and training events over a period of time so forgive me for answering it in budgetary terms but it's certainly something that has been subject to led by our policy group a significant piece of work in anticipation of the introduction of the legislation so it has been assessed what impact this will have on their workload well the assessment of the impact in terms of the number of cases that we anticipate getting remains the same I remain less than convinced perhaps a supplementary John Finnie and if the Lord Advocate wants to add anything to it it was specifically in relation to that and just as a lay person my reading of it would be if there's less people appearing for custody there's less of a commotion in the morning to get all these custody's dealt with is there less pressure on you rather than more pressure on your result of this and end of investing? I think that was really the point the crownage you were seeking to make and perhaps it's important to separate out two different things one is has the service carried out an assessment of the the impact in terms of the particular procedures we're talking about an assessment was carried out in order to inform the financial memorandum and that remains the assessment as the Crown Agents made clear there's no update to give to the committee on that separately is the question of preparation for the introduction of these new procedures and as the Crown does with any significant change in procedure of course there's preparation put in place in terms of staff training and so on and so forth and again that the Crown Agents mentioned that precisely how the balance will work out in terms of the benefits of fewer people coming from custody against the new procedures is at this stage difficult to predict that there will be a benefit in terms of fewer people coming from custody is something that I think those in the system can anticipate and we'll just have to see how that unfolds and frankly also a benefit for the individuals concerned because the officers involved will have had more time to prepare the report and the prosecutors will have more time to consider the case than would be the case when they're presented with as we've spoken about during the inquiry the most pressurised time is on receipt of the custody of these classically also on a Monday morning or after a holiday weekend is particularly significant so this should help to address that over time Liam McArthur I want to go back to a question raised by Fulton MacGregor in relation in his instance to what's happening in Airdrie obviously a large part of the cost reduction we were discussing previously is in non-staff costs and in large part through the estate strategy I think there's significant scope to reduce expenditure and that we've set a very ambitious target in that regard I'm just interested to know what waiting is given to issues around local access to justice in those circumstances in a numbers game it's very easy to perhaps see where cost reduction might be achieved but in terms of local access to justice I would hope that there is a significant waiting given to that Perhaps I can it's important right to the outset and then I'll let the Crown agent speak to the specifics to make clear that what we are looking at is the office accommodation arrangements made for Crown office staff the estate strategy is firmly set in a context where local courts prosecuting local cases in local courts all across Scotland and changes in the office accommodation are necessarily therefore have to include a careful assessment to make sure that we can maintain our commitment to serving local courts across Scotland now we've seen in the decisions that have been made this year with the exception of one location what's happened is a shrinkage of the footprint or moved to a different location in order to release savings against a background where I think the committee heard during its inquiry that the role footprint of office space which the service has is significantly greater than the needs for the number of staff so I think it's important not to not to read an estate strategy approach in reducing the office footprint for any want of commitment or loss of commitment to delivering local justice in local courts that will sometimes result in staff may result in staff relocations but the ability to serve the local court will remain an important part of the thinking if you want to add anything there's nothing I want to add to that I suppose it would be helpful to say that the decisions already made in relation to the offices listed to the financial year after next that would already realise £720,000 worth of non-staff savings from the decisions already made to indicate there's a level of progress in relation to those savings but the considerations that Lord Advocate has mentioned are absolutely front and centre and I hope that the committee will take reassurance by the fact that there was a list of offices and locations that were up for consideration the decisions were taken in the majority of those situations to seek to remain in those locations and that resulted in negotiations which resulted in more beneficial rates for the public sector and so that would continue to be our approach to these matters but absolutely front and centre making sure that local justice and local courts remain priority and I think it follows where where the service does close an office in a particular location so in sterling the office which was at the edge of town not in the centre of town that office is closing and staff being relocated the question of staff travel to serve a local court and the arrangements that will be made for that are much part of the analysis before any decision of that sort has taken and indeed engagement with the staff involved has also been an important part of what the service has done in relation to the decisions that have been made in the course of this year with conveners indulgence there is one further matter I would like to highlight which actually and Oben is a good example of this but there are many others in the pipeline of the court service have been very helpful and cooperative in assisting us in ensuring that as we make those plans that they are very heavily involved in ensuring that we maintain that local presence where possible so for example they themselves are looking to their own accommodation to see whether there are not the health existing capacity in certain locations that may be of use in the future just one final point in the inquiry then there was a feeling that perhaps the composition of the service was a little top heavy with senior prosecutors could you clarify where the 20 job losses and staff losses have come from this year so I think from recollection there were let's see the figures I think there's with 534 prosecutors 128 is the current number my recollection is that the PFD and SPFD grade is as of today and bearing in mind that fluctuates I think 5 or 6 down on the point when there was written evidence to the inquiry so I can't recall what the exact number was it was 300 yes I will but I think from recollection it's 5 or 6 down but it's a fluctuating picture it has been higher since then and currently as of today I think it's 6 lower but it's broadly the same sorts of numbers as they were and finally then given that the pressure is at the coface I don't think we're any doubt about that I wonder if you could comment on just one last of the FTA's submission that there was a strength of feeling among members that they're bearing workloads which are such they are increasingly unable to deliver an effective service under fearful of mistakes being made well I've pointed to the to the data in the staff survey in terms of the response on workload and a work-life balance as the Crown Agents has observed the as it were deep dive into that survey suggests that there are local there are differences across the service and that is something which the senior management of the service are actively concerned to explore and seek to seek to address I just wanted your reaction to is that not something that worries you in the slightest are you quite satisfied that that wouldn't be the case or is there a genuine concern that should be looked at and acted upon I think the right response is to do precisely what the service is doing which is to analyse and identify where the specific problems are and to take active steps to address those problems and that's precisely what the service is doing and perhaps if I come back to my initial starting point I think we are under no doubt of the importance of an effective and fair prosecution service it's what the service is there to provide and it is what the service will continue to provide in the year ahead and where there are local challenges to that the service has the service is taking action to seek to address those if I may computer forgive me since I last tried to address it but I found a relevant figure so I think that the relevant time we said it was 3, 5, 4 in relation to procreators fiscal deputy and senior procreators fiscal deputy and that number is currently 3, 4, 9 so I was right it's about 5 down in terms of the position and going back to the point in relation to what we are trying to do is so by reference to the permanence by reference to the stability and also by reference to the vastly increasing proportion of the budget it's precisely to try and address at these points and so going back to the very basic point of if you look back over 10 or 11 years worth of statistics two of those years we've had more than the current number of lawyers and as recently as July of 2015 we had under 500 lawyers so since July of 15 so it's a relatively short period of time we've actually not withstanding all of the constraints and notwithstanding the choices that we've had to make in relation to non staffing and savings etc we have actually managed to increase the legal number since July of 15 so it's an indication of the intent and the effort that's being made but fully appreciating per the evidence and I don't quibble with any of the individual responses that there is more work to be done Okay that concludes our line of questioning and I thank you both for what's been a very worthwhile evidence session and we now move on to agenda item number three which is consideration of four public petitions and our fair members to paper three which is a note by the clerk the committee is asked to consider and agree what action if any it wishes to take in relation to the petitions possible options are outlined in paragraph five of paper three can I remind members if they wish to keep a petition open they should indicate how they would like the committee to take it forward and if they wish to close a petition they should give the reasons if we consider each of the petitions in turn as they appear on in the paper PE1 370 independent inquiry into the McGracky conviction petition the petition is discussed PE2 370 and I invite comments from members Liam McArthur thanks convener I think simply on the basis that previously we agreed to keep the petition open on the basis that the operation standard work had not yet been completed and that still seems to be the case that doesn't seem to me any reason not to just keep the petition open for the time being That was certainly the case in 5th of September Is that the feeling of the committee? Keep on open then pending the completion of operation Sandalwood Moving on to petition PE1510 and PE1511 police and bar control rooms These petitions are discussed on page three of the clerks paper Perhaps I could have some comments from members paragraph 13 of the clerks paper during the committee's last consideration of these petitions at its meeting on 5th of September The committee agreed to keep the petition open to allow a response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to a letter from the petitioner to the petitioner of PE1511 The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the petitioner responded and you're invited to look at the correspondence and come to a view on whether the petitioner's concerns have been addressed I can tell you that there's been no further communication received from the petitioner prior to this meeting Any comments, Liam McArthur? Certainly in relation to the first of those petitions convener, to be fair to the fire and rescue service they've produced a fairly detailed response to which the petitioner has responded in kind. I think the substantive issues would appear to be the reasons for a failure to respond to the FOI requests that have been put in and I think certainly pending that and perhaps any further response that I wish to make on the back of the petitioner's most recent response it would be worth keeping that petition open for the time being I'm less certain about the other one on the basis that we were not appraised of the petitioner's views Any other views from members? Do you concur with that view? Let's do Could you just clarify that you want to keep both open or close the first one then keep the first one open close? Could you clarify please, Liam? As I say, it seems to be less straightforward in relation to the second one because we're not clear on the ongoing concerns that the petitioner has on the back of the most recent responses we've had so as I say I think I'm clear that in relation to 1-5-1-0 we should be keeping that open Keep that open and close to me 1-5-1-1 5-1-1 is the Fire and Rescue Service Sorry, that was that one That's the one you want to keep open and close 1-5-1-0 Any other comments? Committee, happy to keep that open and close the other one Fine, we are all agreed to that I move on to the third petition PE1633 Private Criminal Prosecutions in Scotland This is the committee's first time considering this petition It calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the law to give people of Scotland the same legal rights as the rest of the UK by removing the requirement that the Lord Advocate must first give permission before a private criminal prosecution can be commenced in Scotland Possible options are outlined in paragraph 5 of paper 3 and I I invite comments from members John Finnie and Rona I read this with great interest and a lack of awareness I have to say because it seems to me that the fundamental flaw perhaps isn't the one that the petitioner would identify I think the Lord Advocate should be taking the lead in this regardless I'm also concerned that Riddor, the reporting of injured diseases and dangerous recurrence which is a fundamental component part of workplace health and safety it's alluded to that doesn't apply and that would certainly inform decision making around whether there should or shouldn't be a prosecution so I'd be keen that we maybe look further into this I think there are a number of issues in consideration Rona Mackay Can I declare an interest in this as a petition has been brought by a constituent of mine I think this is a really interesting issue one I hadn't really been aware of before I think it's to do with access to justice as well I think it's could almost be looked as a loophole in the law at the moment where the health and safety executive appear to have autonomy over matters and in some cases would deny people access to justice so I think it's one that we need to we need to take fully on and as for submissions contact the law society faculty of advocates and maybe take some oral evidence from the petitioner Any other views, Liam Kerr? Just purely and simply just what Rona Mackay's just said is exactly where I am on it I think there's merit in what Rona's suggesting there's some worrying aspects raised of this not least that it was noted that the health and safety executive decides that it will not provide a report to the current progress on an accident at work then there's nothing that can be done and also some of the barriers if the Lord Advocate was challenged if he decided not to have a constitution so one possibility the committee if it does want to progress this matter is to write to the law society and the faculty of advocates which means when we return in January we'll have their submissions and on the back of that we could see if we want to what we want to do thereafter I wonder if there can be a benefit in asking the STUC for their comments in relation to this as well Absolutely, that's law society faculty of advocates and the STUC Are we all agreed? Thank you for that It completes consideration of our petitions and we now move into private session the next committee meeting will be on the 9th of January 2018 when we'll consider the draft report in the Scottish Government's 2018-19 draft budget and a draft stage 1 report on the offensive behaviour at football repeal bill so it only remains for me to wish everyone a very happy and merry Christmas Spend now to allow the public gallery to clear I think that should be quite straightforward