Official Report 166KB pdf
I welcome Colin Boyd, who is the Lord Advocate, and Dr Alastair Brown and Bill McQueen from the Crown Office. They will answer questions on the budget's impact on the Crown Office, the Procurator Fiscal Service and other matters.
I want to ask about the global funding figure for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Funding for prosecution has increased from £53 million to £55 million in the draft budget. How will the extra funding be used?
The strategic plan sets out priorities such as drugs, serious crimes—crimes of violence in particular—and sexual offences. The funds will be used to target those priorities and to recruit staff—indeed, the number of staff has increased steadily.
Do you mean that the funds will be used for more fiscals or more administrative staff?
The funds will be used for both. They will be used for more fiscals and precognition officers, who do much work in precognoscing serious crime. Precognition officers are not legally qualified, but may be termed paralegals and are important. They receive training to do precognition work.
Is there a target for how many more staff you wish to employ?
There is an immediate target of another 10 precognition officers. Recruitment of legal staff is already taking place.
The Crown Office response to the justice committees' stage 1 report on the 2002-03 budget process mentions the future office system network. What does that system do? Does it involve networking between, for example, the police and the fiscal service? When will it be implemented? Is part of it up and running already? On visits to fiscals' offices, I have been aware that something has been going on and that new systems are being tested.
The future office system network will give all legal staff and precognition staff access to a computer terminal. The idea is that a police report can be electronically transmitted to a fiscal's office. There, the report will go into the central system and be allocated by line managers through the computer system.
There will obviously be training implications for that and money will be allocated. Will there be training for the police—because they will be part of the network—if they are going to send their reports online? That presumably does not come out of your budget, but will come out of another budget.
We already have a fairly sophisticated arrangement with the police. We are all part of what is called the ISCJS—if you are going to ask me what the acronym stands for, I cannot immediately remember. At the moment the police e-mail their reports—they are coming in electronically to the fiscal service at the moment. We are taking out the step that involves the printing-off of police reports, the manual allocation and marking of those reports and the typing that goes with that.
I have to tell you that there are still fiscals who print the reports off because that suits them better. They can cope with them better on the page than on the screen. I have a lot of sympathy with that because I do the same.
As far as end-year flexibility is concerned over previous years, it has been part of the planned expenditure or planned system. That may have been explained to you on previous occasions. The Treasury looked for three-year spending plans, and often looked for a flat rate across the three years. That meant that the Treasury was looking to savings being made in one year and carried through for plans in another year. I appreciate that that has not found favour with the committee in the past, but that has been the reason for end-year flexibility.
I move on to talk about the concerns about work load and pressure within the Procurator Fiscal Service. What provisions have been made to direct resources to those offices that may be the most seriously affected? How will you gauge which of the offices are most seriously affected? I have spoken a lot to single-handed fiscals in remote areas and feel that they are perhaps under a different sort of pressure from fiscals in busy offices. How will you decide where to allocate your resources?
You are probably aware that there are a number of budget holders within the service. Budget holding was devolved to the regional fiscals and operational groups many years ago, well before I took office. It is up to the regional fiscal to make whatever bids are required to properly service their region and to allocate resources among offices within their region. They have to make a judgment as to where the pressures arise and what resources are required to combat them.
Two other members want to come in.
Good afternoon, Lord Advocate. On 19 September you announced your intention to hold a high-level management review. You mentioned that in your paper to the justice committees. I have a few questions about that.
In my view, they are complementary. If the committee does not have a copy of the remit—I am not entirely sure that I have produced that—I apologise and will have it sent.
I can confirm that we do not have a copy of the remit.
That is an error on my part, for which I apologise.
I would like to have further discussion with you about that. It would be useful to see the remit.
The review is being undertaken by a senior civil servant who has been seconded from the Scottish Executive, alongside our procurator fiscal, who is very experienced. They will be assisted by Bill McQueen, the new director of resources, and, on a part-time basis, by Elish Angiolini, a regional procurator fiscal from Grampian. There will also be a reference group, which will include representatives of various other agencies in the justice system, such as the Scottish Court Service, police and trade unions.
I understand that, but I put it to you that we are also questioning trade unions and some of the other people to whom you are talking. We will also be considering the issue of skills. It would make sense for us to discuss that further.
No. I went to see Muir Russell and asked for support in setting up and undertaking the exercise. That resulted in the secondment of the civil servant that I mentioned. Jim Wallace is aware of all this but I did not discuss with him beforehand whether I should do it. I take the view that it was necessary and therefore sought the appropriate level of support to carry it out.
Can I just clarify that you are involving the unions? Would that include the Procurators Fiscal Society?
Yes, it will include both the Public and Commercial Services union and the Procurators Fiscal Society.
I am pleased to hear that. During earlier discussions on budget consultations it was made plain that the Procurators Fiscal Society had been highly critical of the fact that the Crown Office had not consulted about financing arrangements. I think that Dr Brown was at that meeting. There was some suggestion that you might consider consulting with the unions more about financing and resources. Is this a step in that direction?
There is a broader question about how we take on board what our staff tell us and how we communicate internally with staff. That is not just about telling them what the law officers and senior management team think, but about how we feed back their opinions. The main trade unions that represent members of the service will be represented on the reference group.
It would have been helpful to have had a note on that.
The convener has asked the question that I was about to ask.
It was not sabotage.
The privilege of the convener is being able to jump the queue.
There is some truth in that observation. However, if members compare the number of staff in the service in November 1998 with the number that are now in the service, they will see that the staff has grown by 25 per cent, which is a phenomenal rate of increase. If members look at the figures for the past 18 months, they will see that the number of lawyers who are employed by the service has grown by 13 per cent.
One of the reasons why the Procurators Fiscal Society highlighted the lack of experienced fiscals as the cause of problems is the perception of the value that is set on procurators fiscal, compared with practising solicitors. A review was undertaken of fiscals' salaries and, when compared with other government solicitors and lawyers in private practice, fiscals were found to be poorly paid. That caused recruitment problems. The PFS suggested that that was also a problem in attracting the right kind of people to the fiscal service. From what the Lord Advocate said, that does not seem to be the case. However, the issues remain.
I do not believe that the numbers that we have been taking on have been at the expense of quality. We are happy with the quality of staff and with retention rates. In the past year, 2 per cent of people left the service. Pay is an issue. The Procurators Fiscal Society's view is that fiscals are underpaid compared with comparable grades elsewhere in the civil service. That is particularly true at depute fiscal level.
I have a question that relates to lesser offences that are still serious in the eyes of the community. Like colleagues, I often hear the police say that it is no use their pursuing subject X because the procurator fiscal will never process the case and prosecute. Do you think that that sort of comment is unfair? If it is fair, is the problem money, people or other bottlenecks in the court system?
I do not think that it is fair, to be honest. We have used diversion from prosecution as a tool to deal with minor offences. There are guidelines to which fiscals must adhere in relation to the way in which they use disposals such as fiscal fines, for example. In comparing rates of diversion from prosecution with prosecution rates I am not aware that there is a marked difference in no-pro rates. Some of those comments might be based on the misapprehension that people who are subject to a fiscal fine are somehow getting away with it. The average level of fine in the district courts last year was £94 or £96; 87 per cent of people were fined. Fiscal fines are £25, £50, £75 and £100. Much of what is prosecuted in district courts can be dealt with by fiscal fines. If we look at other systems, it is fair to say that almost all sophisticated prosecution systems in the world have some administrative way in which to deal with the lower end of prosecution.
The performance output measure for solemn cases in the 1999-2000 financial year was based on issuing indictments and bail cases. That has now been changed to issuing indictments simpliciter. Your previous success rate was only 69 per cent and you are saying that it can now be 100 per cent. What has changed to enable that?
I cannot remember, to be honest. I remember that that was discussed a considerable time ago and I appreciate that the target has been changed. I could speculate, but I think that that speculation might raise more questions and be off target. I will write to the committee with a full explanation.
On summary cases, why was the additional target thought necessary for taking and implementing decisions in relation to those cases?
My recollection is that we had to establish a target that was meaningful to us. Management felt that ensuring that a decision was made in 80 per cent of the cases within seven weeks was a realistic target that would provide us with a way to measure what we were doing. That is probably the answer to the previous question as well. The target was meaningful to us because it measured a set step in the process.
I am not seeking deliberately to be awkward, but I presume that the step was taken on the basis that the previous situation was unsatisfactory.
I recollect that in the discussion that the senior management team had, part of which I attended, we decided to set a target that measured something realistic, which would set a quantitative and qualitative figure that could be reviewed in future and which was meaningful. I was asked to agree to that idea and I take responsibility for it.
I want to ask a question, in answer to which you might want to write to the committee.
I recollect that we were seeking an aim that reflected the fact that we are but one part of a wider system and that we are a lynchpin between the police and the court. I will give a fuller and better explanation by letter, if I may.
The aim appears to be narrower without those words.
If those words have been removed, there will be a reason for it. However, I do not recollect that being discussed.
I want to ask a question about the European convention on human rights. The District Courts Association raised a query on training. I understand that in England the Lord Chancellor's department has provided £10 million additional funding for ECHR-compliance training. In Scotland, however, the responsibility for that fell on local authority budgets. I understand that committees have raised that matter with the Executive but I ask you, Lord Advocate, whether funding could be found centrally for training.
My colleague Jim Wallace is sitting behind me and I am sure that he will not like me passing the buck. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has responsibility for training its staff; we do not have a budget for training the judiciary. It would not be appropriate for us to do that. We have contributed, when appropriate, to training as part of a wider package provided by others. As Lord Advocate, I am happy to continue to support that in any way I can, for example, through making staff available and using some of the expertise that we have built up.
I invite Lord James Douglas-Hamilton to ask that question of the minister when he gives evidence to the committee.
It was suggested that I could make a five-minute introduction.
I am sorry. I was not aware that you wanted to make an introductory statement.
I thought that it had been arranged.
No. My clerk informs me that she is as ignorant as I was of that. I apologise for that.
My statement might clarify some matters and save time in the longer term.
We have received your response.
Yes—you have received a letter.
Will you be speaking to that letter?
No. I was going to draw attention to some of the items in the budget.
I am a bit disgruntled—it is difficult for the committee to follow all the figures and assess their impact when this is the first that we have heard of them.
It is as well that I made the statement.
With respect, minister, that is really not good enough. We sit here having heard an announcement of additional funding that we will have to digest. We will have to find out how that impacts on what we have considered in the budget proposals.
With respect, the additional funding is all in the draft budget. I was just drawing it out.
Where is it in the draft budget?
It is in the changed lines, to which I am sure you have paid close attention.
That funding is not detailed in the manner in which you have just explained it to us.
That is why I did so. I was attempting to be helpful.
I am glad for the attempt, but I will have to ask members whether they feel that that has been successful and whether they have followed all the details of your explanation of the funding and its impact on the budget.
It would have been possible. Perhaps we can do that in future.
We require it.
I should add that I understand from my private office that we were asked whether I wanted to make a five-minute statement. We indicated in the affirmative. I think that Fiona Groves was the clerk concerned. That is what I have been advised by my private office. I say that for clarification.
You will appreciate that I knew nothing about that. That is a clerking matter. On the content of the statement, we are used to ministerial statements that are rather straightforward and general. The statement that you have made has many specifics. The situation is rather different when specifics are involved. I lay no blame on the minister. There is a communication problem. If such a situation were to occur again, we would want to have something with the committee papers that would make it easier for you and the committees to deal with the statement.
I am sure that that could be done.
I know that we are running out of time, so I will be as brief as I can. I realise that you were trying to be helpful by giving us some additional information, but you will appreciate that part of the problem with the Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee is that we get so much information. It is quite important to draw such matters out in advance.
Yes. Perhaps each of the committees could take time to discuss and put to you in a letter any queries for further clarification that arise as a result of your statement. We certainly cannot question you on it today.
That would not pose any difficulty. The committee might find it helpful if I send my statement overnight to the clerks so that it can be circulated to members.
That is a matter for committee members.
I wanted clarification on a figure that I did not quite catch on the justice capital modernisation fund, in which I am quite interested. However, if the minister will send his statement immediately, that is okay.
Now that the preliminaries are over, we move to questions.
I will first ask a preliminary question. On page 40 of "Draft Budget 2002-03" there is a table that shows numbers of judges and sheriffs. Just below the table, the text states:
The are additional. Those sheriffs were created following the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Act 2000.
My next question relates to delays in the sheriff courts, to concerns about those delays and to some targets that you set for dealing with the delays. What are you doing about them and what good news can you tell us about them?
I can tell Mr Gorrie and the committee that the time between a not-guilty plea being entered and the date of a trial was running at 12.2 weeks at the end of June. You will acknowledge that that is close to the target of 12 weeks that was set by the Scottish ministers and it is an indication that in the majority of courts, the delays that resulted from the loss of temporary sheriffs have been overcome.
Do you have information about the final disposal of cases? I know that target of 12.2 weeks is from the first calling to the date of the trial, but the average disposal is much longer because of the failure of the accused to turn up for the trial, because the trial must adjourn, because witnesses are unavailable or whatever. Is that figure available?
I do not think that that figure is readily available.
We do not measure that figure overall, but we have some information that might be helpful, which we could dig out. Bill Aitken is right to say that not all cases are disposed of on the date set for trial, perhaps because the accused does not turn up or because the trial is postponed for some other reason.
There is also a difficulty in that summary trial courts at Glasgow sheriff court are sometimes confronted with having to deal with more than 12 cases a day, which clearly cannot happen. Many of the cases must be adjourned ex proprio motu.
You identify a problem that we are conscious of and considerable efforts are being made to find ways in which it can be addressed. In many cases, solving that problem is beyond any capability that we have as ministers. There are provisions in place for when accused people do not turn up for trial, but it is beyond our power to control whether they turn up.
Have you considered whether readily available bail terms and conditions cause difficulties? For example, should people be allowed bail if they have previously failed to appear on the same complaint?
Those matters are for the judiciary to determine on the merits of individual cases. It would not be proper to give a generalised response. However, one of the factors that would be borne in mind by a sheriff—although it is not necessarily a determining factor—would be whether there had been a previous failure to appear.
The minister mentioned the review of district courts that is about to take place. Perhaps he can say to what extent central funding will be available for training justices. That is the same issue that I raised with the Lord Advocate, but it might more properly come under the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice's jurisdiction.
That is correct. Lord James will recall that in the letter that I sent to the conveners of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee, I wrote that that issue was raised in the committees' budget report in paragraphs 49 and 50. I also stated:
I want to clarify that all members of the committee have the minister's response in front of them.
Yes—Lord James will be able to see that his point is addressed on the second-last page.
We have heard evidence about the electronic technology being utilised by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in the disposal of cases from serving complaint to final disposal. Is that uptake of new technology taken into account in your targets or will it allow the targets to be shrunk or shortened further?
The targets are reviewed annually. If the greater use of information technology allows us to improve timings, so much the better. I add the caveat that we cannot get the targets down to zero. Having been a practising solicitor, convener, you will know that a time for preparation is also required.
I appreciate that, minister.
We are keen to promote the use of technologies to link up different parts of the justice system. On Monday next week, I am going to Aberdeen to look at different components of the technology in the ISCJS—which stands for the integrated systems of criminal justice services.
Good for you, minister.
It is not just about the courts and the Procurator Fiscal Service; it also concerns the police. We hope that the ISCJS will be a useful tool for keeping abreast of progress and providing victims of crime with information.
Disposals are often—or at least sometimes—held up because of a failure to obtain social inquiry reports or psychiatric reports. Will such reports become electronically available and, if so, will that speed things up for the courts? Sheriffs often do not have all the information but are required to make a final decision.
Without being specific and saying that particular sorts of report will be online in the near future, I will make the general commitment that we want to use the advantages offered by information technology to speed up the process and make it more efficient, so that the body of paperwork relating to a particular case is readily available to different people in the system who need access to it.
Do you expect that the Scottish Prison Service's estates review will have a significant effect on the accommodation costs that are projected in the budget? I am referring specifically to table 1.16, if that helps.
Even with the best will in the world, it is unlikely that much of the new build will come on stream in the period covered. However, table 1.19 is relevant in that respect. You will see that the average annual cost per prisoner place is set at £32,600 for the current financial year. There is a footnote to that, which indicates a revenue saving of £12.5 million, which forms part and parcel of the target. I have told the Prison Service that I expect that level of revenue savings, which will be directed into capital investment. Therefore, the estates review will be relevant to that.
For what capital investments is that £12.5 million intended?
There clearly needs to be capital investment in the prison estate, whether it is new build or refurbishment of existing prison sites. There was a recent announcement about Barlinnie and Edinburgh prisons—I think that Mr Matheson asked me questions about that. Refurbishment is taking place and I want to ensure that capital is available to help fund the renewal of the prison estate.
How do you expect the Prison Service to save that money?
I refer to the attendance patterns for prisons that have emerged following the industrial disagreement—although I stress that there was subsequently arbitration and that an agreement followed. The Prison Service expects that to generate savings and the cost per prisoner place reflects that. That should give the SPS a target. If it meets that target, it will realise savings that can be put into capital.
When do you expect to put the estates review out to consultation? The usual responses to that question are "autumn" or "the end of the year", but we are in autumn and close to the end of the year.
We expect the date to be before the end of the year. Cabinet colleagues are still to be consulted and we are receiving the final figures from PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Have you ever thought of using a quicker company? The figures seem to have been with that company for some time.
It is as good a time as any to say what we have not said before. When the Prison Service examined the figures, it did not consider privately built and designed, publicly operated models—if that is a PPP as opposed to a PFI. That was not part of the Prison Service's original work. We thought that that was worth evaluating, so that we could have a comparator. No work had been done on that before, and such work is not the simplest of tasks, which is a main reason why the delay has been longer than any of us had expected or wanted. However, if that work produces information about which we can have a proper and sensible debate, it will have been worth doing.
You talked about privately built, publicly operated models. When were they added to the prison estates review?
They were added earlier this year. I do not remember exactly when, but it was in the first half of the year.
Will the estates review be published before the end of the winter?
Yes.
I understand that slopping out is to be phased out by 2005. Will the Minister for Justice bear it in mind that as that practice is phased out, fewer prison officers will be needed, because prison officers supervise slopping out throughout the night? The saving should be measured. Could the time be brought forward, as 2005 is a long way off?
I suspect that Lord James's point is right, because that task is significant. If it did not require to be done, there would be an impact on staffing levels. However, I clarify that the end date for slopping out will depend on the configuration that emerges from the review of the prison estate. The question is one not only of funding, but of being able to put prisoners elsewhere while work is done. Therefore, the rate of build and other matters have a direct bearing on the date. I have no doubt that that will be an issue that committee members and others in the Parliament and beyond will want to consider when the prison estates review is published.
On page 3 of your letter, you discuss treatment and post-release support. Quite a few members of the justice committees are interested in rehabilitation for prisoners. The letter says that additional funding has been allocated
You are right to highlight the importance of throughcare. I think that we agree that rehabilitation has not been addressed as well as it ought to have been over the years. That is probably particularly true for prisoners on short-term sentences. Prisoners on longer-term sentences who are released, such as life-term prisoners who are released on licence, often have a requirement for drug treatment attached to their release conditions. We want to remedy the problem that we have identified with short-term prisoners. Mr Gallagher has specific information on that matter.
I can give you a little more specific information and would also be happy to give you the full details. Some of the funds that were allocated to prisons for drug treatment have now been used to enter into an arrangement with a voluntary body that will supervise prisoners in, I think, the first twelve weeks after their sentence ends. Prisoners who are released are often at their most vulnerable then, particularly those who were using drugs before they went into prison, who ceased to use drugs while in prison, but who face the temptation of going back on to drugs immediately they come out. They are vulnerable socially and medically then. We have sad examples of young men going back on to drugs and killing themselves.
I am keen to hear a bit more detail about that arrangement, if you can provide it, particularly about such things as how the individual action plans will be drawn up and who will do that. I realise that we are a bit short of time today, so I will pick that one up with you another time.
We can ensure that that is done.
I have another brief question about time-out centres. We previously heard from the Deputy Minister for Justice about women's offending and the planned pilot project. What resources have been allocated for the pilot?
Off the top of my head, I cannot give you an exact figure for the resources, but we can give it to you later. The pilot is an imaginative project. I hope that it proves that something could be more firmly established. Having seen the basics of it, I think that it offers a lot, particularly for young women, so that they will not necessarily have to serve a custodial sentence. I do not want to hazard a guess about the cost of the pilot. I know that I have seen the figure and I will ensure that you get it. When we address the question on throughcare, we will also give the figure for the pilot study.
I would like clarification on that, because we have been advised that the start of the project is only about six months away, which is a short time scale. It is quicker than we had imagined, but we are pleased about that.
That is a good thing.
Yes. It would be useful to get the details so that we can perhaps include that matter in our report.
Just before we move on to legal aid, I have a follow-up question about your earlier mention of young women. In your letter, you said:
We would like to see fewer people in prison generally, but particularly fewer women in prison. As the committee will readily recognise, we cannot tell sheriffs how to dispose of individual cases. Those in prisons are there directly as a result of shrieval or judicial decisions. However, we can ensure that there are alternatives to custody—the diversions from prosecution that the Lord Advocate talked about. Women are one of the groups for whom that would be a particularly appropriate means of dealing with cases. I also hope that when the drug courts are established, they will offer other avenues and opportunities for diverting from custodial sentences.
I will pick up on one of the minister's comments. Many women in Cornton Vale are in prison for minor matters, so public safety is not an issue. An issue that was raised when we went to Cornton Vale was that sheriffs do not have an option—they do not want to send women to Cornton Vale or into custody, but there are no other options. I raise that matter for the minister to think about. He said that the sheriff has discretion, but sometimes the sheriff has nothing at his discretion other than to send women to Cornton Vale.
It is difficult to comment without going into individual cases, but our objective and policy is that there should be a range of alternatives and halfway houses. Time-out centres are a possibility. Work to develop those options is going ahead and I hope that the drug courts will make a contribution to that development. Sadly, many women who are committed to Cornton Vale have serious drug problems. If we can find ways of trying to resolve those problems without the need for a custodial sentence, so much the better.
I have a few brief questions about legal aid. The minister's letter states that the Executive is currently discussing with the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board the case for an increase in fees for civil legal aid work. When are the results of that consultation likely to be announced?
I cannot give you a date. I checked before I came to the meeting and was informed that the negotiations are continuing, but that it is not possible to give a date for their completion.
Perhaps the minister does not want to answer this question, but does the Executive feel that there is a strong case for an increase in fees? Does the draft budget have a provision to take account of an increase?
The Executive recognises that fees for civil and criminal legal aid have not increased for a considerable time.
They have not increased for nine years.
We have noted that the amount paid per case has gone up considerably, albeit that the fee levels have not increased. The discussions with the Law Society of Scotland and SLAB are about those issues.
If the Executive decides that there should be an increase, is there provision in the draft budget to take account of that?
As I explained when I discussed the budget with the committees previously, we must pay for legal aid. If the criteria are met and SLAB awards legal aid, we are obliged to meet the costs.
So the legal aid fund is open ended.
Yes, it is.
A strange equation or correlation has been pointed out to me: the increase in funding for administering the legal aid system is £1.7 million and there has been a decrease of £1.7 million in the legal aid fund, but overall spending remains the same. Is that a straightforward case of money being shifted across from the fund to administration?
Yes. The money was shifted across to meet requests by SLAB for specific action on administration. SLAB argued that the money ought to be written into its baseline, which we did. However, the fund is not at risk from that because it is not cash limited—if demand increases suddenly for a reason that we cannot predict, the money will have to be found.
So the administration costs do not necessarily come out of the legal aid fund.
One of the reasons for putting money into administration was to do with equipment, although I cannot remember exactly what.
A proposal was made for improved administration through the use of technology in civil legal advice and assistance. That investment would have the effect of cutting down on the running costs and, possibly, on unnecessary expenditure.
The money was needed to implement that project.
If the legal aid fund was needed for legal aid, would the money for administration come from elsewhere?
Yes. Demand would be met.
My last question is on the community legal service working group. Is it still on course? It was said to be reporting in October.
Yes. I expect to have the working group's report before the end of the month.
Has account been taken of the probable cost of developing the community legal service scheme?
Not yet. When the working group was set up, it was asked specifically to indicate what the resource implications of the scheme would be. I await the report at the end of the month.
If no one wishes to ask a follow-up question on legal aid, I will ask about the minister's letter of 6 September and the criminal justice forum, which is of interest to me.
I do not think so. Ministers, the Parliament and the justice committees must make judgments about resource allocation, priorities and the budget, whereas the nature of the criminal justice forum is to examine individual topics. For example, the forum will consider a report on short sentencing at its next meeting. Such reports obviously have resource implications—there may be savings in some cases and increased expenditure in others.
I appreciate that, but resource implications might arise, creating overlap between the various arms of the criminal justice system. In those circumstances, it would be important for the forum to consider the sharing of resources, for example. You are saying that the forum is not used for that purpose.
From what I recall, I believe that ways of improving efficiency in the courts, for example, were considered before devolution took place—we are going back to the point raised by Bill Aitken. It is clear that savings and resources could be considered together in respect of such issues. I also think that we should consider the possibility of using videoconferencing for court appearances in the more formal parts of the process, as that would save police and prison service time in transporting prisoners from Barlinnie to Glasgow sheriff court, or, in Maureen Macmillan's case, from Inverness prison to Wick.
This will have to be the last question.
I have a general question. Table 1.13 in the original annual expenditure report shows that spending was to increase to around £27 million. In the draft budget 2002-03, the figure given is £19 million.
Did you say £19 million?
The draft budget report shows that the budget is to increase to £19 million but previously it had been planned to increase to around £27 million. That amount covers a range of smaller topic areas. Was there a typing error or, if the budget is being reduced, which area is being affected?
I mentioned that in my statement. The change relates to the reduction in the ECHR fund. The committee will receive clarification of that when it receives details of what I said earlier.
Is the ECHR fund noted in the draft budget?
No, it falls under the "Other Miscellaneous" heading. Is that the line you are looking at?
Under the heading "Miscellaneous" there are budget headings for the Parole Board for Scotland, the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
We could go into the Lord High Commissioner's garden party—
We know about that one already, though.
I have not had an invite, so I am not really interested.
I have a complete breakdown of the figures here. If the committee thought that it would be of interest, we could distribute it.
I thank the minister, Mr Gallagher and Ms Ritchie. Copies of the statement will be sufficient for us.
A number of specific points were raised, on which we will get back to members.
We will write if we have any questions on the specific allocation of the additional funding. I ask the minister whether we could have a prompt reply. We have a tight timetable to deliver our report to the Finance Committee. We have to consider our report on 24 October. The draft report will have to be dealt with in the recess.
We will respond as quickly as we can.
Thank you.
Meeting closed at 15:03.
Previous
Item in Private