Official Report 90KB pdf
We are quorate, so we will begin. Committee members have received a note from the clerk. Executive officials will attend next week's meeting, on 1 May. It would be helpful to know in advance the committees' likely areas of questioning, to ensure that the right people from the Executive attend. A further meeting may take place on 8 May for any additional witnesses, before Jim Wallace and the Lord Advocate attend on 16 May. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to appoint an adviser to the committees. The three people who were identified at our previous meeting as possible candidates were approached, but none was free to take up that highly desirable appointment.
Let us be clear. You are talking about general comments. What do we intend to do today? I am not sure about the purpose of this meeting.
We are trying to find out what areas of questioning we want to pursue during stage 1 scrutiny of the justice budget. As an exercise, it has the potential to grow like Topsy. I think that we should focus on specific areas, but the committees are their own masters on this issue.
We previously discussed the possibility of focusing on the specific areas of justice in which each committee has an interest. That would be a good idea, as it is not possible to scrutinise in detail every item in the justice budget. The Justice 2 Committee would have an interest in considering the budget for the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service, as those agencies fall within the remit of its inquiry. It would also be useful to consider police funding figures, which are a live issue. I am in favour of drawing up a shortlist of three or four specific issues on which to call witnesses and spend a bit of time before we scrutinise the rest of the budget.
The paper lists the details of all the budget areas. It might be sensible for us to go through them and decide which ones we want to examine.
I have a question about the requests that have been made. When will the responses be available to us? Paragraph 5(e) on the paper says that
It would be rash to assume that we will have that information for our next meeting, as I cannot guarantee that.
It is useful to know that we may not have it for our next meeting. However, we may have to make a decision about whom to invite to our meeting on 8 May, and we may have difficulty in slotting people in.
Let us go through the list in paragraph 5 and decide which budget areas we want to investigate. If there are too many, we may have to go through them again and thin them out. Would that be a useful approach to take?
The first budget area is criminal injuries compensation. I invite members to indicate whether this is an area that they would like to examine.
Can we put that area in reserve? The Justice 2 Committee has taken a preliminary look at some issues surrounding criminal injuries compensation, although we have not gone anywhere with it yet. Can we reserve that as a possible area for examination?
That area can be a maybe. The second budget area is criminal justice social work services and offender services.
We might find out how victim support services have developed.
Okay. What about fire services?
I do not think that, in my time on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and then on the Justice 1 Committee, we have ever considered the fire service. Perhaps we are neglecting an area of our responsibility. Although I am not aware of any major issues, we should probably give the fire service some consideration.
At the time of the previous budget, my local fire service approached me with some concerns. It might be worth pursuing the matter.
People in rural areas are concerned about new health and safety legislation which means that, in such areas, the fire person—who is not actually salaried—cannot do anything about a fire except report it, because they are not allowed to go into buildings. There are also concerns about coverage in small, remote communities.
Okay. We will include fire services. What about legal aid?
Yes, especially given the fact that legal aid funding is planned to fall in real terms at a time when demand is rising.
What about the Lockerbie trial?
Are we not expecting a response on that issue?
Yes.
It is difficult to discuss that issue without further information.
We will put a maybe against that heading.
Well, we have only three days.
So that is a no.
As further information has been requested about this matter, it is difficult to know what might be of help.
I am quite interested in the provision of police surgeons. I do not know where that would fit in.
I do not think that we will have the time for that.
I will make a note of Maureen Macmillan's point anyway.
Oh, yes.
I thought so.
Yes.
We are going to have to use a clapometer to decide which issues to cover.
We are still waiting for information about excessive delays.
According to the budget document, the courts group's aim is
What about the heading "Justice Support to Local Authorities"? The aim is
If there turn out to be any deficiencies, could we take evidence on that matter?
By definition, anything contained in the budget documents is important, unless we assume that Government is doing unimportant things. We have to work out which aspects are most important this year.
No.
How about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service?
Yes.
Okay. So far, the issues that we will definitely examine are criminal justice social work, insofar as it relates to victim support; fire services; legal aid; the Scottish Prison Service, the Scottish Courts Service and the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service. That sounds like too many to me. It is difficult to know until we start asking questions. Could we cut out the Scottish Courts Service?
If a subject has to go, there might be other ways of getting answers to those questions.
That is what I was about to suggest. Could we write to the minister for an answer to the queries that are raised in item 5(i) of the paper if we are not going to ask what the various things are? There is no mention of the court review. What has happened to that? We just have a written response. We could throw in the question about the court review when we are dealing with something else.
We certainly could do that. Although we will agree on our areas of interest, there would be nothing to stop members asking the officials any other question. If no official who can answer were present, the answer would just have to come later. That would leave us with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Prison Service, legal aid, the fire service and Victim Support Scotland. Would that be manageable?
That is sensible. Those are really the biggies, are they not?
Are members happy with that?
Yes.
Towards the end of the paper, in paragraph 6, there is a list of organisations due to give evidence on 1 May. The Crown Office will not be coming then; it will come on 8 May.
The paper says that we will hear evidence from the
Yes.
I am conscious that we may get the management line and may not hear those who actually work in the service. We may not get as full a picture of the issues as we need.
It is worth giving some thought to what we want from each subject to determine what witnesses we want. For both committees, the Scottish Prison Service has to be at the top. We have to understand where the management and the Executive are thinking about going in the next year. It is important to have that discussion. I am happy to have the chief executive of the SPS along to speak about that, but it might also be useful to have the minister speak about that. I realise that that means two witnesses for one subject, but we have to give some weight to the subject. I feel strongly that it is important to understand what the SPS is going to do with the budget.
The minister will be here on 16 May, along with the Lord Advocate.
We have the slot on 8 May. If we hear the official position on 1 May, it would be quite useful to slot in the other side of the coin on 8 May: the Scottish Prison Officers Association or any other groups that we want to hear. Then we have the slot on 16 May when we have the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate—and, if necessary, the chief executive of the SPS—and can put back to them what we have heard about the budget.
I agree with Christine Grahame. I also agree with Pauline McNeill that the SPS must be at the top of the agenda. The chief executive of the SPS should be invited to give evidence. We also have to get the flip side of that, so we may have to hear the views of the Scottish Prison Officers Association. I would be concerned about being in a position where I have heard evidence from the chief executive, then taken further evidence and questioned the Minister for Justice. The two of them are intrinsically linked. There is a major party that falls in the middle, which may not have had the opportunity to put its view on the issue.
The only thing that we have to be cautious of is to ensure that we are looking at budgets. We are not resolving a dispute in the Scottish Prison Service. If we talk to Scottish prison officers, it will only be in relation to the budget for the Prison Service.
That is right.
That is what we would do.
Do members wish to do that?
At the heart of this dispute is the budget and the money that is available.
As long as it is explicitly clear, convener, that the focus is the budget.
Obviously, we would need to determine whether we needed something specific from the fire service. Most of the other areas are covered by the names that are in the paper.
Are we moving on to the second diet of evidence on 8 May and putting forward ideas? If we are hearing from officials from the Scottish Legal Aid Board, I would like to hear from the Law Society of Scotland with regard to the difficulty with resources for legal aid and whether they are sufficient. After all, the resources are falling. We could then go back to the Minister for Justice on the budget.
I am conscious that the Justice 1 Committee is in the middle of an inquiry on legal aid. In fact, this morning we heard evidence from the Law Society of Scotland on legal aid, so we are covering part of the issue that you raise.
I suggest that if the Law Society of Scotland decides it has to submit further evidence, it would be sufficient for it do to so in writing, as opposed to orally.
Do we wish to hear from any other external witnesses?
We should determine what the Scottish Sheriff Court Users Group is finding out with regard to funding. I am conscious that we are just examining resources, but you could ask whether it has input to give. It could do so in writing. If there are issues that it wishes to raise with regard to the budget, so be it. Our role is to balance.
I am conscious that we are talking about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Are there any users groups or views that we might obtain?
There is the criminal lawyers association. What is its name again?
The bar association.
Do you mean the Glasgow Bar Association?
I hope that we would have somebody representing the bar association.
Is there a fiscals society? I am sure that there is a fiscals society.
We can write to the organisation and see if it has anything to say. If it does, we can see about getting the organisation along on 8 May.
Convener.
I am sorry, I did not see you there, Lyndsay.
Not at all. You might like to think about the District Courts Association, because the district courts have been under review. It might be worth considering whether the Executive will be prepared to tell us how much further on the review is.
Is that in relation to the budget?
Only from the point of view of what the Executive might have in mind for the DCA, because the district courts are in limbo.
We can talk to the Executive about that. Is there a District Courts Association?
There is a District Courts Association. The secretary is Mrs Phyllis Hands.
Finally, if we are going to hear about the budget for Victim Support Scotland, we should write to the organisation asking whether it wishes to give evidence, or whether it wishes to reserve its position until it hears what the Executive says with regard to funding. We have heard lots of evidence from Victim Support Scotland, but it may have something that it wishes to raise, in the first instance in a letter. Once again, it is about maintaining a balance.
Is there anything else to be added? If not, I close the formal part of the meeting.
Meeting closed at 12:29.