Official Report 305KB pdf
Good morning. I welcome everyone to this joint meeting of the Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee on the budget process. I ask members to do the usual and switch off their phones and so on. That would be helpful. I have received apologies from Maureen Macmillan.
Over the next three years, the Scottish Executive intends to spend a considerably increased amount of resources on the police through the central services fund, grant-aided expenditure and capital allocation. Will that additional resource be sufficient to allow you to do your job effectively?
I am here this morning partly because I chair the ACPOS finance standing committee, which includes representatives not only from every force but from the ASPS and the Scottish Police Federation. As a result, we work collectively with the three staff associations in dealing with financial matters.
On increasing demands, you might be aware that the Justice 2 Committee is taking evidence on the Executive's proposals for vulnerable witnesses. During our evidence taking, we have heard many calls for the police to be the organisation—or one of the organisations—that identifies vulnerable witnesses at an early stage. That would have a resource implication for the police. Have you discussed that with the Executive? What would be the resource implications of that for the police service throughout Scotland?
Vulnerable witnesses have been on our agenda and that of the Procurator Fiscal Service for several years. As I am sure members are aware, huge efforts have been made to improve the service from the police service and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to vulnerable witnesses, victims and others.
I understand why the budget for witnesses who are involved in drugs cases has moved to the SDEA, but vulnerable witnesses—particularly women and children—are often the victims of violent crimes or sexual offences. I would not have thought that they would have to have contact with the SDEA. Will the transfer result in a shortfall in the budget or will you be able to access some of that money?
The SDEA deals with all serious crime; its function is not exclusive to drugs. It is a home for the witness protection unit and it will provide a service throughout Scotland. The devotion of resources to vulnerable witnesses will be dictated not by the nature of the crime but by the identified risk to those individuals.
I cannot pre-empt what the Justice 2 Committee will say about the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, but if, as Karen Whitefield indicated, it is acknowledged that the first point of identification of a vulnerable witness in a criminal case will likely be at police level, would not that involve every operating police officer and his local office? If that recommendation is made, could existing police administrative structures cope, or would more resources be needed?
That depends on what the Justice 2 Committee recommends and how the Executive responds to that. I should make it clear that the witness protection programme is at the upper end of the scale. There are people who feel very vulnerable when they are dealing with routine matters; they feel threatened just by becoming involved in the criminal justice process.
I was not aware that the SDEA deals with all serious crime and not exclusively with drugs crime. Is that commonly known? Why is it called the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency if it does not deal exclusively with drugs-related crime?
The SDEA was born out of the Scottish crime squad, which dealt with cross-border and organised crime in Scotland, as did the individual forces to which it provided support. When the SDEA was born out of an expanded Scottish crime squad, it retained responsibility from day one for addressing not only drugs-related crime but cross-border and serious crime.
It is helpful to know that. Thank you for that information.
There are a couple of aspects to that question—the balance across Scotland and the balance within individual forces. I do not intend to go through the documents that I have submitted to the committee, but I shall use them for reference purposes. I refer members to page 6 of "Financing the Scottish Police Service", which shows the current spending review's increase in grant-aided expenditure for policing. In the first table, there is what looks like a substantial increase in the current year of 8.1 per cent, with 5.6 per cent and 6.3 per cent in subsequent years. However, the table underneath illustrates that a large part of that is taken up by the increasing pension burden, particularly in year 3; the proportion of the percentage increase there is 3 per cent.
Thank you for all that information. I want to return to what you said about pensions. Are you saying that, because the first peak will be in 2005-06, there needs to be an additional resource in the budget to accommodate that?
Although the Executive has provided additional funding in the current three-year spending review to accommodate that growth, members must recognise that the problem will not go away. I know that the committee wishes to look to the longer term. The graph on page 9 of our submission illustrates that another significant peak is coming along. We have to find a means of addressing that now and there are various ways in which we can do so; we cannot wait until that peak comes and washes over us.
So you are satisfied in relation to 2005-06, but you want the committee to note what will happen in the 2009-10 era and to take account of that in future budgets.
Indeed.
I know that there is a commitment to considering common services. Will you tell the committee a bit more about what is planned, whether the budget takes account of that change and what its practical effect will be?
I realise that the term "common services" probably means nothing to members. Since the 1960s, the police service and those responsible for its governance have acknowledged that there are certain services that it does not make sense for a single force to try to run. Instead, we should try to share those services as best we can. The examples that are given on page 11 of our submission include the Scottish Police College, where all our officers go for their core training; the Scottish Criminal Record Office, which is a central repository of criminal records and fingerprint services; the SDEA, which I mentioned earlier; and the Scottish police information strategy, which is developing the national information technology systems that chief constables are committed to procuring in the years ahead.
Do you envisage making savings as a result of sharing those services? What will happen to those savings?
It would be a wise investment for the future if the savings were reinvested in the common police services structures. Clearly, there are always start-up costs. As I said, one of the chief constables' key goals is to bring forensic science under a single management—
May I stop you there? I understand your point, but I am trying to establish whether you believe that there will be savings. I expect that you will say that those savings should be redirected into the police budget.
I think that there will be savings in the long term, but, as I expect you recognise, there may well be a need to spend to save.
I understand.
I want to move on to a specific item in the budget. The draft budget allocates extra spend to the Scottish Prison Service of, I think, £10 million in 2004-05 and £12 million in 2005-06 to allow for contracting out of prison escort services. The reason given for that is that it will free up police time. First, what impact will it have on police work load? Secondly, do you consider any other areas of police spending to be ripe for similar treatment?
The police service has been involved with the Scottish Prison Service in preparing for the contract negotiations on contracting out escort services. Down in England, escort services and court security have already been contracted out. We wanted to learn lessons from that to ensure that our business case was well developed if matters proceeded here. A decision was made recently to provide funding to the Prison Service, but I know that the negotiations have not been concluded, so perhaps we should not discuss the issue in great detail. However, the negotiations are on-going and—assuming that a satisfactory outcome is reached—we estimate that the equivalent of about 300 police officers will be released to move from prison escort duty to operational duties.
I want to follow that up briefly. There has recently been some comment about the possibility of contracting out management of cells in police stations. Is that worth looking at?
Care and custody of prisoners consumes a fair amount of resources. The facilities that are available in our cell complexes present a challenge to all chief constables, so a number of chief constables—including me in Strathclyde—are considering trying to find central holding facilities. Many people who are detained in police offices have problems with drink or drugs or have psychiatric problems, which means that they require additional care that is expensive for us to deal with. We are trying to find a way to rationalise. Undoubtedly, the issue could be considered in the longer term, because private prisons provide services such as those that we are required to deliver. Those matters are not on the horizon for chief constables at the moment, but the issue could undoubtedly be examined in the fullness of time.
I was encouraged by what you said about the movement of abnormal loads and the need to weigh up whether police resources are required for escort duties. Is it in the gift of every divisional commander to make such decisions? Is there a need for a national policy, given that such loads travel throughout the country into different divisional areas and into England?
Such decisions are generally not in the gift of individual divisional commanders; the traffic management services within forces deal with such things. As Margaret Mitchell suggests, many abnormal loads pass through different force areas, so it would seem to be sensible to consider the matter on a national basis—by which I mean a UK basis rather than simply a Scotland-wide basis.
That is helpful.
I want to follow up on contracting out of services. You give the impression that a great deal more has been done in that regard in England and Wales. You spoke about court security officers, and other examples have been mentioned. What savings have been made in England and Wales? To which areas of the service have freed-up officers been sent? Have they all gone on the beat, or have they been absorbed in other areas?
A difficulty in comparing ourselves with the police south of the border is that we operate within a different legal framework, so we are not comparing like with like. Funding arrangements are different, as well. The Home Office generally goes in for more top-slicing of police budgets before dishing out money under various headings to support various initiatives. In Scotland, the Executive and the Justice Department asked chief constables some time ago whether they would prefer such a top-slicing approach. We said, "No, give us as much as you can, if you can." That is the way in which we have operated.
Perhaps at another meeting we can ask you about the differences between civilianisation, contracting out and privatisation.
We are coming to the end of our time, but I know that members have many more questions to ask. Chief Constable, you will not mind our writing to you for clarification of a few points.
I had anticipated that time constraints might preclude our discussing issues that members would want to address. On page 4 of "Financing the Scottish Police Service", members will see the address of the secretariat of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. I will be happy to provide clarification of anything that I have said and any other information that members may wish for.
We are not finished quite yet.
I have a brief question on the peak in pensions in 2009-10. The estimated extra £130 million that is referred to in your document will be on a continuum, will it not? That money will have to come off every year for as long as those police officers survive.
It will have a continuing effect. When officers retire they receive a lump sum and a percentage of their salary as pension. As people are now living longer, we expect that the people in that group will have a longer life span than their predecessors. As a result, the burden will continue. I am sure that we are not the only service that faces difficulties because its pension is paid out of members' contributions and the revenue budget; however, the danger is that that is assuming a larger and larger part of police budgeting. The problem has been recognised, but it is difficult to solve.
The committee needs to understand the potential impact of that issue in considering the budget and projecting future needs. I understand that the peak will come about because police officers who are in their late 40s and early 50s will complete 30 years' service and retire. Is not it foreseeable that those people could survive for 25 or 30 years?
Indeed. However, the pattern is that people who are in the upper end of their 20s have tended to be recruited as police officers. For example, last year, the average age for police recruitment was about 27. We must also address that issue.
On a completely different tack, the committee has to confront the question of how best to use available resources to reduce crime. Stepping outside the police service for a moment, I notice that you have already mentioned the success of partnership agencies such as the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service which, having been given more resources, have been able to do a more efficient and swifter job. That, in turn, has helped the police service. Could any other areas outside the police force be expanded in order to reduce crime? For example, do measures such as the warden scheme or other forms of fixed-penalty officers help?
Chief constables would welcome a reduction in bureaucracy in any guise. Our officers throughout Scotland complain that they are required to fill in a wedge of paperwork for every incident that they deal with. However, that paperwork is essential for keeping people informed about what is happening and in allowing incidents to be tracked. However, the fixed-penalty programme could operate in certain areas, particularly in relation to antisocial behaviour incidents. I know that the committee will debate that issue at another time. Anything that can be done to streamline the general administration of the criminal justice process would be helpful. Police officers are tied up giving evidence in courts and preparing reports for procurators fiscal, but we are all working to ensure that the system is as efficient as possible.
Do wardens or other local authority employees have a role to play? Are they also partners?
Yes. You will accept, of course, that the police would prefer to have more police officers rather than have wardens. In the pilot scheme that is being run in my force area, the relationship between police officers and wardens is solid and the wardens are welcomed in the communities in which they operate. It is a good initiative that, like the Executive's investment in CCTV in recent years, helps to address the need for a sense of well-being in our communities.
My question relates to the portfolio priorities for the police, although I recognise that the document that you have given us contains information on them. How do the priorities on page 28 and 30 of the draft budget document fit into the Executive's cross-cutting initiative relating to closing the opportunity gap? For example, will an even larger amount of police resource be allocated to deprived areas?
Members will be aware that the police service has been working with local authorities and community groups in relation to the use of funding streams—such as the better neighbourhood funding—to enhance policing of deprived areas and to address the matter of exclusion. That is an important area.
I will move on to address improvements in technology. The "Police Central Government" heading contains a reference to the Airwave project. What is the budget increase for that improvement?
Our capital expenditure programme is set out on page 5 of our submission. Some members will have heard the term "Airwave" but will not as yet have a clue about what it is. Essentially, it is a UK-wide project, which involves a spend in the region of £2.5 billion. The aim of the project is to move the police and other emergency services away from a radio band into the terrestrial trunked radio—TETRA—band. I hope that members will not ask me to explain what TETRA is.
You will understand that there is concern about the introduction of Airwave. People are worried about everyone's being dependent on one system and about what will happen if something goes wrong.
I have a couple of questions. Is there tension between the target of having policemen on operational duty—what politicians tend to call "bobbies on the beat"—intelligent, smart policing and the demands that you are being asked to meet in terms of global terrorism, paedophiles on the internet and all of those things. Will you give us your thoughts on the tensions that lie behind decisions on those matters?
Before Chief Constable Rae answers that question, does Mr Bunch want to come in? I am conscious that he has not had a chance to reply.
Yes. If we look at the issue from the local level, it is the chief superintendent and the regional commander who have to manage those demands. I was a divisional commander for the division that covered the two local authority areas of West Dunbartonshire and Argyll and Bute. Part of the daily business of a divisional commander is to assess and meet the demands and expectations of different communities in the area, using the resources that are available. The very nature of policing means that we are always going to have to do that. Our business covers wide areas and we have to constantly assess and reassess what is and is not possible.
You are talking about what is and is not possible. However, if the situation you describe happens all the time in Glasgow and elsewhere—it certainly happens in Edinburgh—is there some structural or operational way in which community police officers could be ring fenced and not pulled into the city centre? Our major cities could have a dedicated city-centre police force. Extra resources have been put into the Scottish Parliament police service, although probably not enough resources. Edinburgh members think that there should be more resources in Edinburgh. Is there an argument for ring fencing community officers?
We try desperately to ring fence community officers. The way that we tackle that in Strathclyde—the same is done elsewhere—is to say to commanders that we expect the community officers to spend 80 per cent of their time on their community beat. That recognises that, as Harry Bunch said, many of the demands that must be met by the police service require the collective might of the organisation. A simple example that I hope the committee will take account of when it looks at the recommendations of the Nicholson committee in relation to licensing is that, in many of our city centres, particularly in Edinburgh and Glasgow, there are thousands of young people on the streets at 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the morning. In Glasgow, we have about 30,000 people on the streets at that time. I know that some members are aware of that and perhaps they make up those numbers on occasion.
Quite possibly.
That creates significant pressure at an awkward time for policing. The way in which we respond to that in Glasgow is that, at those peak times we draw officers into the centre and then, as the groups of people disperse out to the suburbs, we try to ensure that that resource follows them into those areas.
That is an important area for both committees and I wish that we could spend more time on it, but we are running out of time. Nicola Sturgeon has a question; if it is brief and on that theme, she can ask it.
It is a brief question, which develops at a tangent the theme of visible policing versus intelligence-driven policing. Money has been allocated for community wardens for the next two years. I cannot remember how much—I think that it is £20 million. Is that a good use of money, or would it be better spent on the police service?
I realise that there are pressures from people in ACPOS who say that that money should have been spent on policing rather than on wardens. However, as part of the bigger partnership of which ACPOS is a member, we realise that wardens are not employed as low-cost police officers. They will provide a range of services to communities and, if they are properly deployed, they will often improve the quality of life in those communities. The wardens may be able to do that much better than the police service can.
The committees have noted that point.
That last answer dovetails nicely with my question, which is about clear-up rates. Crime statistics show a wide variation in clear-up rates throughout the forces and over different types of crime. I will give you some examples, as we have figures. Strathclyde police's clear-up rate for non-sexual violence is 51 per cent and Northern constabulary's is 93 per cent. I could go on listing them, but there is a fair range of figures. It also appears that general clear-up rates in certain forces are higher than in others. For instance, the clear-up rates of Central Scotland police and Northern constabulary are high, as opposed to those of Grampian police and Strathclyde police, which are at the lower end. Given that circumstances differ in rural and urban settings, do the figures suggest that resources should be distributed differently across the different police forces?
Members will recognise that the clear-up rate depends on the communities in which police officers work. We generally find that it is better in rural areas. That even happens in Strathclyde, which covers 12 local authorities. The clear-up rate in Argyll and Bute and West Dunbartonshire, where Harry Bunch used to be, was much higher than the rate elsewhere in Strathclyde because of the nature of the community in which he was policing. That is true throughout Scotland.
What is the time frame for that change? If the losers—as we are going to call them—do not lose per se but stand still for a short while, that has implications for future budgets.
In the current three-year settlement, we have made adjustments to assist Grampian police, Fife constabulary and Central Scotland police. That was done in recognition of a gap that exists. We intend to have the formula concluded by the end of this fiscal year—by 31 March 2004. To reach that target date, much agreement between stakeholders will be required. The intention is to use that to inform the distribution formula beyond the current spending review period. The formula will be phased in thereafter. We hope to have a formula by the end of this financial year.
I am afraid that the next question must be the last to Chief Constable Rae, because we are about half an hour over time.
I will be brief and stick with the theme of demands that have been placed on police forces throughout Scotland. You will be aware that the partnership agreement contains a range of commitments that politicians have chosen to make for police forces, which include increasing the number of special constables by 500 and continuing to expand the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. Is the draft budget sufficient to meet those extra commitments?
Increasing the number of special constables has been an aim of chief constables for some time. We have given a commitment to increase by 500 the number of special constables and work is being undertaken on that with the Executive.
I am afraid that we have to leave things there. I thank William Rae, Harry Bunch and Carol Forfar for coming along and giving evidence. You gave us useful information on a number of areas, especially the budget process.
Thank you, convener. We feel that we have had a wonderful opportunity to get across the police staff associations' views to the committees. We welcome today's involvement and any future involvement in your deliberations.
It might well be the case that there were questions that we did not get the chance to ask, but we can deal with those through correspondence.
First, I would like to say thanks very much for inviting us along. The federation does not have a specific role in making financial bids, or in setting or spending police budgets, but we have a view on how those things are done. We would not take issue in any way with the evidence that the committees have heard, although some of the points that were raised brought certain issues to mind.
Okay. Who wants to kick off?
I want to follow on from the point that you made about the issue of vulnerable witnesses, which the Justice 2 Committee is considering. The early identification of potentially vulnerable witnesses is an issue that has been raised. The fact that a person has been identified as a vulnerable witness needs to be flagged up with the appropriate people. Would it be reasonably easy for you to do that in the normal course of your duties as a serving police officer? It is not just about taking a statement; it is about recognising that someone is vulnerable. How could that be done effectively and what would be the cost of doing so?
It is extremely difficult to put a cost on that. When a police officer attends any incident, he or she will be thinking about whether that person requires victim support. If additional resources were to be available in Scotland for vulnerable witnesses, we would need quite clear guidelines as to the circumstances in which or the categories of individual to which that would apply.
The bill says that all children under 16 will be considered to be vulnerable witnesses. As Karen Whitefield has indicated, that means that, in any incident investigated by a police officer to which a child of under 16 is a witness, the police could be required to take some steps toward noting that, for the purposes of the investigation, that person was a vulnerable witness. Does that represent a dimension of resource for you?
The vast majority of witnesses of that age will already be treated as vulnerable witnesses, to some extent. The issue relates to what will be required of police. We estimated how much time would be involved in taking an additional vulnerable witness statement, which I understand was the proposal some months ago, and arrived at the figure of which you are aware.
The question of external or additional help for the police arose in previous questions to the chief constable. What does the Scottish Police Federation think about community wardens? The issue relates to the best way of resourcing the reduction of crime in our community.
We share the Executive's desire to have strong and safe communities. However, we would have preferred it if the money that was identified for wardens had been spent on police officers. We have no difficulty with the idea of having civic wardens carrying out civic functions such as reporting on environmental questions, but we think that there is the potential for confusion and that the functions of a warden might stray into the area of dealing with crime and the fear of crime. Further, we think that wardens might be placed in danger if they were to be given any form of enforcement role because that might bring them into conflict with members of the public. If they were to be given such a role, thought would have to be given to equipping them in the same way as the police are equipped. However, it would not be long before we ended up with people who were not much different from police officers. As it is, there is not that much difference in the starting salaries.
I was interested in what you were saying about vulnerable witnesses as the issue illustrates the way in which legislation that we pass and policy objectives that the Government announces can have a direct impact on your members on the coalface. Are you satisfied with the process that the Executive goes through in its attempt to quantify the resource implications of such an initiative before the legislation is passed or the initiative is announced?
Even in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament's establishment, we looked forward to a more open and accessible Parliament for the Scottish Police Federation. It was difficult for us to address committees such as this at Westminster, so we looked forward to having such an experience in Edinburgh. We thought that the pre-legislative scrutiny mechanisms and the requirement to attach a financial memorandum to each bill would be extremely helpful.
I will return to the subject of community wardens. That debate is relevant to the budget process, because funds are allocated to community wardens for the next couple of years. You expressed concerns about community wardens. The proposal that community wardens should have the right to issue fixed-penalty notices is out to consultation. Do you extend your concerns to that?
The community warden proposals that are out for consultation cause us concern, because they would move wardens into potentially confrontational situations. If community wardens are intended to assist the community, report on environmental issues and make everyone's lives better as a result, that is a clear role. If community wardens issued fixed penalties and, in effect, imposed fines on people, members of the public would view them differently. That raises a real question.
Chief Constable Rae alerted us to the pensions time bomb. I imagine that the vast bulk of retirees will be your members, rather than his. How do you and your members feel about that financial time bomb? For example, do you feel that it has something to do with the development of contracted-out services, which it might be fair to say is a cheaper alternative to getting policemen to carry out the relevant duties? What are your anxieties about the pension fund?
Not many people know a lot about police pensions; in fact, not many police officers know a lot about police pensions, other than that they hope that they live long enough to get one.
We have in the past had evidence from the fire service, which I think is in a similar position in that it should perhaps have set up a fund, but its pensions now come directly out of revenue. Chief Constable Rae said that he was satisfied that the budget for 2004-05 took account of the number of retirements. Are you satisfied?
You are right—he did say that. Although I do not have access to that level of detailed information on the budget, I am certain that that is correct.
I have a final question. We are trying to establish whether the Executive's priorities match up with the allocations that it has made. We have had much discussion recently about where to put resources and whether they should they be allocated to bobbies on the beat or to intelligence-led policing. Chief Constable Rae reminded us that clear-up rates are as good as they were before the second world war. Do you have a view on whether there are choices to be made between bobbies on the beat and intelligence-led policing? Do you think that the balance of the budget is right and, if not, how would you change it?
I have to say that I hate that question, because bobbies on the beat are intelligence led. Many moons ago, it might have been the case that a police officer was released on to the street and that he or she wandered about for their eight-hour shift and did whatever they pleased, but I am afraid that those days are long gone. Every beat police officer—whether they are on foot or in a local patrol car—is directed and targeted. In effect, that means that they are intelligence led.
Can I stop you there? I am interested in what you mean by that. If the Scottish Police Federation is concerned about some of the targets, what would it change? If it were down to you to change the balance of the budget, how would you do it?
I am sorry if I have misled you. I have insufficient information to say that X is being spent on one priority when it should be Y. We have concerns about the process of setting targets and what we call the performance culture, which involves the use of much time and effort to ensure that we meet our targets, to the potential exclusion of other important functions.
I understand.
We have heard evidence about common services. What is the federation's view on cross-service facilities? For example, joint control rooms for police and fire services and possibly ambulance services have been the subject of much discussion. I declare an interest, as I worked for the fire service for 10 years before I joined the Parliament. People in the fire service, particularly members of the Fire Brigades Union, are concerned about joint control rooms and other cross-service possibilities, but the theory is that a great saving could be made. Could a saving be made from shared resources? What is your view on the proposal in theory?
The Scottish Police Federation has not discussed the matter in great detail, but the issue has not been drawn to my attention as a concern. Quite a lot of activity continues in the police service on call centres and points of first contact with the public. We have no concerns about any of that. We feel that when a member of the public phones the police, he or she would probably like to speak to a police officer, but provided that that can happen quickly—I am assured that call centres provide a way for that to happen—we have no difficulties with the proposal. No difficulties have been reported to us with the prospect of joint service control rooms.
We noted with interest what you said, particularly on pensions, targets and wardens, which are important subjects to all members. I thank the witnesses for spending time with us this morning. You have given valuable evidence.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our next panel of witnesses. We have with us representatives from Safeguarding Communities—Reducing Offending, otherwise known as SACRO. Sue Matheson is the chief executive, Keith Simpson is the head of service development and Sue Hounsell is the head of support services. I apologise for the delay in taking your evidence. We have had a busy session this morning.
Criminal justice social work is one area in which a significant shortfall in resources has been identified in the past, but it is also one area of the Justice Department budget that has increased over the past couple of years. In light of that, and having taken account of all the various aspects of criminal justice social work, do you think that the funding is adequate for the services?
First, I thank the committee for giving SACRO this opportunity to speak and to address your questions directly.
Thank you. That is helpful.
You will have heard Chief Constable Rae welcome the extra resources for what he considers to be the partnership agencies that he works alongside, which include yours. The latest increases in spending aim to cover a wide range of objectives, including victim support, community disposals and the ones that you have mentioned. Is the extra spending sufficient for that wide range of objectives? Will all the objectives get adequate resources?
I am in danger of repeating myself. We support the budget priorities in the small area that we have examined, which relates to extending the range and quality of community services, dealing with youth crime, drug-related crime and women offenders, supervising prisoners on release and providing support for victims and witnesses. We also support the priorities in one or two other areas, such as reparation, restorative justice and the establishment of a single agency for custodial and non-custodial sentences. We support those budget priorities, except for antisocial behaviour orders for young people.
Concern was expressed in our consideration of the budget last year and in the Justice 1 Committee inquiry into alternatives to custody about funding within criminal justice social work and the way in which resources have been allocated to it. From your experience, what could be done to improve the utilisation of the present resources to make criminal justice social work more effective?
A major contribution would be to ensure that the required services are available wherever and whenever they are needed. Our perception is that those services are fairly stretched. As Sue Matheson said, we are concerned that the provision in the budget for them seems to remain at the present level, with allowances for inflation. There does not seem to be evidence of a strategy to reduce the prison population, for example, and to divert more remand and convicted prisoners to community sentences.
I understand what you say about reallocation towards community disposals in the general justice budget. I will rephrase my original question. I am trying to focus on what changes could take place within criminal justice social work to make better use of the funding that is already provided to it. Are there particular problems with the courts and relationships with the police that cause resources to be wasted because staff are spending more time doing one thing or another? What could change in criminal justice social work to make more efficient use of resources?
One possibility would be a greater involvement of the voluntary sector in the development of strategy and planning in relation to the use of resources. At the moment, the involvement of the voluntary sector in the planning of local services is variable across the country and, in some respects, limited. The possibilities for examining who is best placed to provide what services most effectively and how services dovetail into one another could be better planned with greater involvement of the voluntary sector.
Another problem with the system is that, because the provision of probation programmes such as community service orders is patchier than that of probation programmes such as supervised attendance orders, it is difficult for the courts always to use the statutory powers that are available to them. That is one reason why we want a redistribution of resources, which would enable the provision of programmes and services to be spread more evenly over the country.
You have already indicated that you believe that it would be appropriate for the Executive to reorganise the money that it has provided for community justice services. Putting your personal views to one side, does SACRO believe that the money that the Executive has allocated for community justice services will properly reflect its priorities and allow it to deliver on them as it has outlined, for example, on vulnerable witnesses?
We have not addressed the issue of vulnerable witnesses; that is more an issue for Victim Support Scotland.
Is it your opinion that there is insufficient funding to provide the community sentences that the Executive has outlined in its priorities?
I would like more to be shifted from the Scottish Prison Service to the specific areas that we have mentioned, particularly bail supervision, probation and other services to remove from prison people who are sentenced to less than six months, serve a very small number of days and are more likely to reoffend because they have had such a sentence. Such people should be on programmes in the community so that they address their behaviour and attitudes from an early point and will be more likely to stop reoffending.
What would bring about that change? If the Executive has a policy of moving away from prison to alternatives to custody and it has put in the resources, what is the driving force that would change the culture in the system?
You are right—there has to be a change of culture. We need to approach that in a number of ways. First of all, we must have the investment, so that the programmes are available to the courts. The courts must know what is available in their local area, how effective the programmes are and what they cost. Courts need to get feedback on the outcome. We perhaps also need to consider which crimes are crimes, and which crimes should be subject to a prison sentence. We have to do a lot of work to give the sentencers confidence in alternative-to-custody programmes, to ensure that they are available, that they will be used immediately, and that if they are breached, that will be dealt with immediately. All of that takes resources.
There are two categories of fine defaulters: the small percentage who are wilful fine defaulters and want a prison sentence, and the ones who cannot pay and who are usually quite happy to take advantage of community service. If a community service or supervised attendance order is given to the wilful ones and they default, they end up being in prison for longer. In those circumstances, do you favour considering recovering the debt in another manner, through civil diligence or benefits?
A number of things will be done on fines. We have to remember that about 90 per cent or 95 per cent of people who are fined are on benefits, and they include few of the people who are wilful. We should perhaps consider whether some fines should be a lot bigger. Should the maximum be, say, £10,000 rather than £5,000, so that those who can afford to pay and will not pay are made to pay a reasonable amount? I understand that there will be pilots in two courts, which will not be able to imprison fine defaulters. To enable those pilots to be effective, recent legislation has amended supervised attendance orders so that, although when people default they will still get a prison sentence, it will not be as long as it used to be. I think that it used to be three months; now it will be more or less what the original prison sentence would have been, with something slightly extra because the person who has defaulted also has not paid a fine.
But for the small minority who have the means to pay and who default wilfully, the quick and easy way is to use civil diligence. Such people have the resources; they are just making a point.
Yes.
Is adequate use being made of existing facilities to recover unpaid fines by civil diligence?
I do not know the answer to that.
I do not know the answer either, but I would speculate that it is not. I do not see much evidence of the use of those facilities.
We have heard evidence in the past about the success of drug treatment and testing orders and the drugs courts.
Drug treatment and testing orders have been said by the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice, in a recent report called "Making Sense of Drugs and Crime", to be significantly cheaper than imprisonment. They are very effective in reducing drugs-related crime. It is not clear to us from the budget how much it is proposed to spend on drug users, although they are identified as a target group. It is difficult for us to comment. If we had more specific information it would be easier to do so.
If we were to extend that disposal, women's offending would be of particular interest to me. I know that the investment in the time-out centre will reduce the female prison population because, in my experience, many prostitutes end up in Cornton Vale prison and there is often an underlying drugs issue. I have never been able to get to the bottom of why that group might be directed to a drugs court. Do you think that there is a case for that?
I do not want to pre-empt the findings of the expert panel on prostitution, which will consider all the points that you make. One of the things that we said in our submission is that, no doubt resources will be required to implement whatever recommendations the panel comes up with. I would be surprised if one of the recommendations was not that there must be more drugs treatment facilities throughout the country. The provision of community facilities is patchy and more resources must be fed into that area. It is not clear from the budget whether it is intended that more resources will be fed in.
Although I do not want to take away from the importance of the work on drugs, for most people the drug of choice seems to be alcohol, and statistics demonstrate the involvement of alcohol in crime, particularly in crimes of violence. Do you think that the resources allocated to dealing with that particular drug are sufficient and are they being properly used?
You are right to draw attention to that. We are all guilty of talking about drugs and forgetting that alcohol is as big a problem, especially in relation to violent crime. It is not clear to me from the breakdown of the budget how much is to be spent on alcohol programmes. However, there is a great need for them.
You have covered a lot of what I was going to ask already because you are concentrating on the portfolio priorities. In view of the Executive's cross-cutting initiative of closing the opportunity gap, is there a mechanism to give priority to women and young people in community disposals?
That is a good question. At SACRO we have found that it is difficult to get enough people together for group work. We have had to tailor one of our group work programmes specifically to allow two women to participate at the same time. The situation is not made clear in the budget.
I hope that my remarks will be relevant to the previous two questions. For about 10 or 11 years, SACRO has run an alcohol education probation programme in Edinburgh that is funded through the criminal justice department in Edinburgh and, ultimately, the Scottish Executive. The programme has been effective in reducing reoffending. With the co-operation of the police, we recently tracked the people who have gone through the programme and discovered that more than 71 per cent of them have not subsequently reoffended. The offending of those people was linked to their serious misuse of alcohol. As a result of the programme, they have changed their behaviour considerably.
I thank the witnesses for the submission that we received today, which says:
We certainly share the Executive's concerns about dealing with antisocial behaviour, particularly among young people, and have participated in its consultation by sending in our views on the matter. However, we feel that antisocial behaviour orders are unlikely to be effective in achieving the Executive's objectives and have suggested alternative ways of approaching the problem. In a nutshell, we think that too much is being invested in the hope that court orders will effect the necessary change in behaviour in our communities rather than in finding out what work needs to be undertaken in communities to tackle such problems. Too much reliance on court orders, including ASBOs for the under-16s, will prove to be unfounded.
I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will take note of your submission, particularly your comments about the redistribution of resources and investment in bail supervision, diversionary mediation and reparation, throughcare and so on. All those points will not be lost.
I will ask the witnesses the same question that I posed to SACRO. Although criminal justice social work has been under-resourced for many years, it has had quite a significant uplift in resources in the past couple of years. Given that, is the funding now sufficient to allow you to do your job properly?
First, I thank the committee for the opportunity to give evidence on behalf of the ADSW.
Obviously, we are scrutinising a limited pot of money.
It is important to recognise that, according to the statistics for 2002, the daily prison population is 6,400 and there are approximately 16,000 community supervision orders, the majority of which have been issued as an alternative to custody. That means that two and a half times the number of people who are serving custodial sentences are under supervision in the community.
In last year's budget report, we highlighted concern about the funding of criminal justice social work, as did the Justice 1 Committee in its report on alternatives to custody. What could be done within criminal justice social work to use the budget more effectively? What is happening outwith criminal justice social work that impacts on your day-to-day work and causes a waste of resources?
I would contest any suggestion that the wish of the previous Justice 1 Committee for an increase in the allocation to community-based social work provision has been achieved. That is not obvious within the allocations that we have received. Last year's increase in allocation was accompanied by a range of on-costs associated with inflation and employment, which completely absorbed any growth in the allocation for community services. I contest fundamentally the basis of the first part of the member's question.
I was not saying that the Justice 1 Committee's recommendation had led to an increase in funding of criminal justice social work. I was highlighting the fact that the committee had made such a recommendation.
Absolutely. However, I am not sure that the money has had the necessary impact. It is important to recognise that there has been growth—there is no doubt about that—but, as I have indicated, the growth appears to us not to be focused on what we regard as the essential element of community-based supervision. We see money being spent on the development of drug treatment and testing orders, which are critical, but they are incredibly expensive because of the health component that is integral to such orders. They require clinical personnel and the clinical conditions in which they can be administered. A significantly disproportionate amount has been allocated to DTTOs.
As well as an uplift in funding of what we call non-core or new responsibilities, there has been a significant rise in demand for criminal justice social work services. Besides that general increase, demand for the preparation of reports or for supervised attendance orders, which are an alternative to custody for fine defaulters, has doubled in some authorities in Scotland over the past six or seven years. Funding has not kept pace with that increase. As a result, the effective administration of new initiatives can be compromised by the statutory responsibilities that criminal justice social work has to service orders made by the court. Informing a local sheriff that one is unable to write a report is not an option.
I will follow Michael Matheson's line of questioning and return to your earlier suggestion that there could be better redeployment of resources within the overall package. If I understood you correctly, you were saying that a non-custodial approach, for example, would represent a far better bet in terms of value for money. A cynic might say that it suits you to argue that position. Is that an unfair charge?
It is unfair. The overriding principle of the service that we deliver is to create safer communities. It is demonstrable that sending to prison the majority of people who currently go there makes our communities not safer, but less safe. That can be demonstrated by examining reconviction rates for a range of sentences. For example, there is a 20 to 25 per cent difference in reconviction rates between those people who serve a custodial sentence and those who are given community service. The latter group reoffends 25 per cent less than those who are placed in custody. That demonstrates why we would not make a purely self-serving argument. We are trying to think of the bigger picture, particularly community safety.
About 80 per cent of prison sentences are for six months or less and there is a growing population of remand prisoners. Criminal justice social work could impact on that through a rise in the funding of core services, particularly bail information and bail supervision schemes, in which courts throughout Scotland have confidence. Increasing funding would be a spend-to-save policy, given the respective costs of bail supervision and custodial remands.
I do not doubt that. You said that those who have been in custody have the worst reconviction rates. How is that measured and can you point the committee to the source of your evidence?
Yes, I can, but I would need to refer to my notes. I can do that now or I can supply the information at the end. Certainly, our information is well sourced, but to turn up the appropriate reference at this point would just take up the committee's time.
I would like you to back up what you said. For example, who evaluates schemes such as community service orders?
The figures come from a document called "Reconvictions Of Offenders Discharged From Custody Or Given Noncustodial Sentences In 1997, Scotland", which was published in March 2003. That document shows that the reconviction rate for those serving periods of custody is, as I recall, approximately 60 per cent, whereas the rate for those given community service orders is between 40 and 45 per cent.
I would be grateful for a copy of that document.
Certainly.
The Executive has outlined a number of priorities for delivering effective community justice services, from improving support for vulnerable witnesses and the victims of crime to supporting initiatives that deal with youth crime and women's offending. Does the budget that has been allocated for those services truly reflect the Executive's priorities?
As an association, we recognise the importance of that range of new and necessary initiatives. From the paperwork that was sent to us in preparation for the meeting, I noted an allocation increase of £3.5 million for the range of additional services to which you referred. However, that money is also to be used for the preparation of a single agency and the development of drugs courts. I find it difficult to understand how such a range of objectives can be realistically achieved from £3.5 million. Without knowing the exact costing of proposals item by item, it is difficult to give more than a generalised statement. However, from where I sit, it is difficult to envisage how £3.5 million can pick up all the new priorities.
I have a question that I asked previously. How do the portfolio priorities, as given on page 17 of the draft budget 2004-05, fit into the Executive's cross-cutting initiative of closing the opportunity gap? For example, are there mechanisms to give priority to women and young people in community disposals?
We recognise and are committed to the development of appropriate services for women and young people. Women offenders require a level of specialist and specially-designed resource to which we do not pay sufficient attention at present. The reason for that is the same reason that I gave before: core provision is funded insufficiently.
I asked the SACRO representatives this question. Do you support the belief that there is insufficient funding in alcohol treatment and education programmes?
Although the drug treatment and testing orders are expensive, there are signs that they are going to be effective. I could recite stories of sheriffs in Tayside who are expressing great satisfaction that people who appeared before them regularly have stopped appearing so often as a result of the orders. I return to the main theme of our evidence. A lot of programme-based work with people who abuse alcohol and drugs comes within the core service that we provide. Someone who is subject to a straightforward probation order could receive so much more if core service funding were increased to an appropriate level.
I do not know whether you heard SACRO's comments on ASBOs for young people. I am interested in your opinion of ASBOs and whether you think that they are effective in the community.
We have not prepared a response to that question as we thought that we were addressing financial issues.
The question is to do with whether it is worth while spending money in that area.
This is a general view on which we have not canvassed an association opinion, but we believe—this is similar to SACRO's argument—that a range of mechanisms can be used more effectively within communities. That is more to do with enabling communities to police themselves than it is to do with the establishment of external policing, which is implicit in ASBOs and the development of community wardens. We believe that communities can take on that role and that we should concentrate on enabling communities to provide their own support and manage their own behaviour rather than employ an external policing function.
Do you accept that, to a large extent, many alternatives to custody, such as supervised attendance orders and other community-based disposals, require the person to be willing to undertake them and go through the programme? Do you believe that, if the person is not willing to undertake such a disposal—now and again, we come across a person who has no regard for the justice system generally—prison is the only alternative, as it safeguards the community and gets the problem off the streets?
I do not think that the association would argue that, in the case that you describe, the use of custody would be inappropriate and that custody should not be used to protect the community and promote community safety. However, we would say that the use of custody and the resources that are devoted to it are not in balance at the moment and do not provide value for money or effectiveness.
I would like to clarify what you said about restriction of liberty orders. You said that they do not have an impact on core services. Is that because they are run by Reliance Monitoring?
Yes, just that. A significant allocation is going to that disposal. However, no element of that allocation leads to any benefit for local authorities, in terms of provision for their core services.
Nevertheless, you accept that restriction of liberty orders are an alternative to custody, albeit run by a different organisation. They could be an alternative to community service orders. Judges have wide discretion in sentencing. If they impose a restriction of liberty order—a tagging order—we do not know whether they do so as a substitute for imposing a community sentence order.
Our concern is more with the disproportionate cost of such orders, compared with the cost of the range of other orders that we have described. Out of the total allocation of £80.4 million for this financial year—together with the £3.5 million uplift—the amount that has come to local authorities for the 16,000 to 17,000 orders that we currently provide is £40.5 million. We are concerned that, although there has been an uplift in allocation, year on year, for several years—which we welcome—it has not necessarily made an impact on core services and provision for those 16,000 to 17,000 orders, in comparison with the provision that is being made for a relatively small number of people who are currently under restriction through electronic monitoring.
I understand your point. Were you making a separate point about restriction of liberty orders, which you think are very expensive? Do you think that there should be a redirection of money from restriction of liberty orders to core services? I presume that you acknowledge that restriction of liberty orders show a high level of effectiveness.
Although there certainly have been good completion rates for restriction of liberty orders, we do not yet know what the reoffending rates are following the completion of those orders, using the two-year longitudinal studies that would be applied to any other disposal. However, we would not for a minute seek to undermine electronic monitoring, which is an important tool in the range of tools available. What we question is the level of funding that is required to support such orders. I would argue that, if a similar level of funding were made available for the broader range of community disposals, we could demonstrate the effectiveness of such disposals even more than we can at present.
I thank you for your evidence, which has been very helpful. We will certainly use it when we draw up our final report on the budget process.
We are glad that the past under-resourcing has been acknowledged in the increase in our budget for 2003-04. A difficulty in the Procurator Fiscal Service in the past was the refusal to admit that we needed more resources to do our job properly. We are in the middle of a year in which the budget has increased by £24 million and it is hard for us to evaluate how much progress has been made. We hope that, by the end of this year, and in years to come, we will see progress. However, our problems were huge and it will take a lot of hard work and a lot of resources to solve them. In a submission to the Justice 2 Committee, the Lord Advocate acknowledged that there had been chronic underfunding in the past. This year, steps are being taken to deal with that historical underfunding. We hope that more steps will be taken in future. However, the projected figures for the next two years show that not much additional funding will come our way. This year is crucial for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
Are you concerned that the funding seems to taper off, or are you satisfied that all changes and reforms are accommodated by the increase in the budget?
A lot will depend on what has been achieved by the end of the current budget year. We are in a period of huge transition. Many of the issues that we have raised in the past are being addressed but there is a lot of work to be done. Until we see what we have achieved this year, it will be difficult to predict what will be required in future.
l appreciate that it is difficult to assess things right now, but are you worried about resources for the front-line service? I have a special interest in that subject, which has always been my concern. Although I am pleased to see an increase in the budget, I would like a lot of that resource to be spent on the front line, in an area which, I think, has been under-resourced—the employment of procurator fiscal deputes. Do you share that concern or have any other comment to make?
Before I hand over to Helen Nisbet, I will introduce her. Helen was the Procurators Fiscal Society's secretary until June this year; Val Bremner has taken over that post. As Helen was involved in many of our negotiations with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, she might be able to give you an idea of the need for resources at the sharp end of things, which was highlighted in the Justice 2 Committee's report on its inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
Last year's Justice 2 Committee report highlighted one of our difficulties, which is that, to some extent, we suffer from a lack of information about how the allocation of resources is arrived at. That makes it difficult for us to work out how resources will be deployed in the forthcoming period.
Although it is clear that lawyers have been recruited to the service, many of the lawyers who are coming in are freshly qualified and inexperienced. As Helen Nisbet said, they will have to be trained up to do the job properly, because it involves a considerable amount of expertise.
Does the Law Society of Scotland permit law graduates to do a traineeship with the fiscal service?
Yes. During the past two or three years, the fiscal service has increased considerably the number of trainees. We now have about 30 first-year trainees. The Procurators Fiscal Society welcomes that.
I want to follow on from Pauline McNeill's line of questioning. You mentioned that there has been a substantial increase in the budget in the past year or so. However, there will be a considerable tailing off of that increase in the next two years. For example, the increase in the budget of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is only £0.43 million in 2004-05 and £0.65 million in the following year. That extra funding is for a specific purpose—to provide new IT equipment for the High Court to implement the Bonomy recommendations. You may not be IT experts but, from your experience, will the additional funding be sufficient for the changes required in the High Court?
As I suggested earlier, a difficulty for us is that we are in mid-term in 2003-04, a year in which our budget has increased substantially. The increase is coming through but we are not yet in a position to analyse its success. Until we can do that, it will be difficult for us to predict what the future holds and what our future needs will be. Historical underfunding created major difficulties for us in rising to our challenges. The extra funding this year will be of huge assistance but, until we see its results, it will be difficult to predict our future needs.
If you will pardon the pun, it sounds as if the jury is out on whether the money will lead to the changes in the service that you want. Given that the increase in coming years is so modest, will we have to keep a close watch on whether the changes that were expected because of new funding are actually happening?
It is true that the jury is out. However, on behalf of our members we will keep a close eye on things to see whether the improvements that our members want actually come through.
That may well be your answer to many of our questions but we want to have on record the things that we should be watching out for.
Some of my questions have already been answered—or not answered, as the case may be.
Over the past few years, one manifestation of the functioning of the department—that is, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service—that precipitated many things, not least of which was the Pryce-Dyer review, was the fact that industrial relations between the trade unions and the department were not particularly good. Those relations are slowly but steadily improving. Part of our aim is to continue that process so that we become more engaged with the department in planning and the allocation of resources. Obviously, at the end of the day, it is the department's process and all that we can do is to try to influence it as best we can.
In passing, you touched on how victims are treated, which is an area of the service that you are trying to improve. Can you give more information about that?
The victim information and advice service, which our society welcomes, is now present throughout the justice service. Val Bremner can perhaps bring you up to date on the VIA service because she worked in the Aberdeen office, where the first VIA scheme was introduced.
I certainly can assist with that. It is now three years exactly since the victim liaison office—which became the VIA service—opened in Aberdeen. By the end of the year, the VIA service will have been rolled out to every fiscal area in Scotland. The society welcomes the development of the VIA service, but it does not cover every category of case; it covers victims in all serious cases, domestic abuse cases, asylum seeker cases and cases involving children, who are involved in a large number of cases, both as witnesses and victims.
The draft budget for 2004-05 provides a long list of priorities for the COPFS, which range from delivering better services for victims of crime to ensuring public confidence in the service by dealing efficiently with cases. Will the budget allocation for 2004-05 be sufficient to allow you to deliver on that list?
I do not want to keep returning to the current year's budget, but we are in uncharted territory because of past underfunding and failure to deal with areas such as victim and witness advice and support. Therefore, it is difficult for us to look as far ahead as 2004-05. We appreciate that we face a constant challenge to deliver certain services within budget. That is particularly the case for serious crime, because the investigation and prosecution of such crime has become more complex over the years. More is involved in preparing a case for court now than was the case when I joined the Procurator Fiscal Service the best part of 20 years ago. We have the ECHR and we have improvements in forensic services, along with the introduction of DNA techniques. All those advances create more work for our members in preparing cases, in particular serious cases, for court.
Our members' perception is that the increased budget—welcome though it was—was immediately matched by a refocusing on targets and objectives for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service as a whole, in a way that has not happened in the past.
On the subject of ever-increasing demands, you will know that the Executive has introduced the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, on which the Justice 2 Committee is taking evidence. What is the Procurators Fiscal Society's view of those proposals? Will there be an impact on the resources that are required to deliver the bill's objectives?
As a society, we have not had an opportunity to consider fully the ramifications of the bill. Our experience in recent years has been that while all the initiatives have been extremely welcome—one can see the benefits that are conferred on confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole—they have all come at a cost.
The Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill, as currently structured, will require practitioners in the courts to engage in further procedure where there is a vulnerable witness. Has there been any discussion in the fiscal service about the bill and its foreseeable impact on the service?
That is a matter that should be dealt with by Crown Office staff in our policy unit. The Procurators Fiscal Society has not engaged in any discussion on the general policy issues. As Helen Nisbet said, our members wish to provide the public with the best-quality service that they can. A lot of work has been done over the years with vulnerable and child witnesses. Major issues are involved, and areas that are of professional concern to our members, but as far as policy matters are concerned, that is something for the Crown Office to deal with.
Some of the questions that you have been asked overlap one another. I ask you to look to the forthcoming four-year period and the commitments that the Executive makes in "Building a Better Scotland". In that document, there are commitments to more youth courts and to a review of summary justice and the operation of the High Court. Will your current budget be adequate to deliver those commitments?
A lot of the changes are still to come in and that will affect resources throughout the service. Since the publication of the Justice 2 Committee's report, progress has been made on prosecution in the High Court, where four members of the Procurator Fiscal Service have prosecuted as ad hoc advocates depute. We supported that development for several years, but we recognise that it has a knock-on effect on resources and resilience in the offices from which those people have been taken.
One of the reasons why we have been unable to be precise in answer to some of your questions about future budgets is that, at present, we have not been invited to be party to the way in which resources are sought, or to their subsequent allocation and planned use in the department. In the context of improving industrial relations, we hope to engage the department in that area with a view to being party to the way in which those resources are sought, planned and allocated in the future.
It is helpful to know that. It is no secret that, in the past, Crown Office management has been slow to argue its corner about the resources that are required, but that has changed. It is of great interest to the committee whether the additional resources are hitting the areas that they should be hitting. At some point, we will need to make sense of that and get a feel for what your members are saying about whether the new management structures have made a difference or whether they have been a waste of resources. We need to find a way of quantifying inadequacies in the system if possible.
That is our concern as well. However, we feel that we cannot give evidence on a particular area if we are not confident of our ground. As Val Bremner said, that is where our not being party to the intricacies of the finance creates difficulty for us. I can only repeat what I said earlier: our members certainly still feel the pinch. Staff are coming in, but it is difficult to gauge numbers; what you said about staff figures illustrates the point. Even managers in an office are hard placed to say whether members of staff are replacing staff who have gone elsewhere or whether they are additional.
Are the majority of fiscals members of the Procurators Fiscal Society?
Yes. About 75 per cent are members.
We have healthy levels of membership among the legal members of staff in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Membership tends to be between 75 and 80 per cent.
The draft budget provides a detailed statement of how spending in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service contributes to the Executive's cross-cutting initiatives of closing the opportunity gap, which includes a faster clear-up rate for persistent criminals. Do you know of mechanisms in the Procurator Fiscal Service that facilitate such clear-up rates?
There are mechanisms in place involving our IT. Cases against individuals are not dealt with in isolation and, if individuals are reported to offices, a check can be done to see whether there are outstanding cases. Those cases can be gathered together, but they are only cases that have already been reported by the police. There are local initiatives to find ways of identifying persistent offenders. At present, by using our IT, we have ways and means of gathering together cases, instead of an individual having four or five different cases proceeding separately. That is a concrete way of addressing the issue.
Thank you very much for your time and the evidence that you have given us. We will certainly use it in the course of drawing up our report. I also thank members of the committee; I know that it has been a long meeting, but we have lots of valuable information that we can use to compile our budget report.
Meeting closed at 13:16.