Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 04 Oct 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 4, 2000

Official Report 230KB pdf

---

Budget Process

The next item on our agenda is stage 2 of the budget process. I welcome Jim Wallace, the Minister for Justice, to our meeting. I believe that he would like to say a few words.

It would be appropriate for me to begin by congratulating you, convener, on your elevation to office as convener of the committee. I can say without fear of contradiction from anyone in this room that this is the most hard-worked committee of the Parliament. I am conscious of the amount of legislation and other work with which the committee has already dealt. It is a tribute to your predecessor, Roseanna Cunningham, and to the committee members that they managed to get through so much work before the summer recess. I cannot promise that the pace will let up, but I hope that you will enjoy—if that is the appropriate word—your office. My colleague Angus MacKay and I very much value the constructive relationship that we have had with members of the committee. I am sure that that will continue under your convenership.

Last Wednesday in Parliament, I set out the draft budget for the next financial year and the spending plans for the subsequent two years for Scottish justice. I welcome the opportunity to meet the committee to discuss those plans.

The spending review has brought an additional £488.5 million to justice spending programmes in the period 2001-02 to 2003-04. As I announced last Wednesday, the increases are £87 million in the next financial year, £172 million in 2001-02 and £229.5 million in 2003-04. That will enable further progress towards the Executive's commitment to a safer and fairer Scotland. My statement gave details of the increases for individual services. By now, members should have received copies of the supporting table for justice, which illustrates the new baselines to level II, with cash and real-terms percentages for the departmental expenditure limit and for total managed expenditure.

The coming year brings a number of changes in the way in which Government departments budget and account for their money, moving away from cash accounting to accounting on an accruals basis. Members should have received an explanatory note about the changes, but if they have any further queries, I or—probably more appropriately—my finance officer will deal with them afterwards.

I know members were keen to have the level II figures broken down further. I regret that that is not yet possible. Before finalising the detailed police allocations, both in central Government and local government fields, I need further discussions with local authority representatives. I shall announce the level III details as soon as they become available.

In its invitation to me, the committee asked for information on whether we had accepted any of the recommendations made by the committee at stage 1 of the budget process. Angus MacKay wrote to Roseanna Cunningham in response to the committee's report to the Finance Committee and explained our thinking on the points raised, which included victims issues, prisons, courts and legal aid. I hope that members will find it helpful if I address some of the points that were of concern to the committee.

I know how interested the committee is in victims and witness issues, especially in Victim Support Scotland. As members will be aware, I plan shortly to launch a strategy for victims, which will be supported by increased funding. In this spending review, we have secured continuing funding for the witness support service in the sheriff courts, which is already playing an important role in helping victims and witnesses.

Last week, the Lord Advocate told the committee of his plans for a complementary service for victims, based in procurator fiscal offices. I have announced that we had taken on board the committee's point that the VSS grant offered should match the published baseline provision. I hope that we can work with VSS to develop a plan for improving its services and access to them. Funding will be available to meet the costs of that plan for next year. As part of an overall strategy, funding is also in place to improve overall co-ordination of services for victims of crime.

We are increasing the funding of the Scottish Prison Service by £50 million over the three-year review period—£7 million next year, £14 million the year after that and £29 million in 2003-04. That represents a real-terms increase of 6.2 per cent over the current year's funding. The new provision for the SPS will allow it to continue with programmes that address offending behaviour—for example, sex offending—cognitive skills and anger management. The provision will also allow the implementation of a new raft of initiatives, such as the introduction of a sex offender programme for young offenders, and the setting up of key links with community agencies to work on issues of housing, alcohol abuse, parenting skills, domestic violence, health promotion, and employability of young offenders and women prisoners.

The increases announced last week of £2 million, £4 million and £4 million over the three-year period are earmarked for work with prisoners with a drug problem. That will help the SPS in working to reduce the level of drug misuse in Scotland's prisons. The SPS will also be able to accelerate the modernisation of the prison estate, creating appropriate places to cater for the projected long-term rise in prisoner population and providing access to night sanitation. As all members will know, the SPS is conducting an estates review to develop options for the modernisation of the prisons estate. The outcome of that review will be known by the end of the year.

The additional funding for courts in the spending review, of £2 million next year, £4.5 million the year after and £5.5 million in 2003-04, will meet the continuing cost for the additional judicial posts created by the Executive since July 1999—5 supreme court judges and 19 permanent sheriffs—as well as the costs for part-time sheriffs to assist the permanent sheriffs in meeting the demands of the courts programme. It will also meet the cost of establishing the office of the public guardian, which arose as a result of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 and which entails the recruitment of some 40 staff and the costs of accommodation and essential computer equipment. That should allow the office to become operational from 1 April 2001.

The past 10 years have seen an extensive programme of courts refurbishment and considerable improvement has been made in the facilities available to court users as a result. The major capital project for the future is the redevelopment of the supreme courts at Parliament House, which is long overdue. However, the Scottish Court Service will continue with its investment in the remainder of the court estate to keep it up to standard and maintain its operational effectiveness. In his letter of 14 September to the previous convener of this committee, Angus MacKay told members about the Scottish Court Service's proposed review of its estate during 2001-02. The results of that review will allow us to determine future requirements and to decide whether any additional funding will be necessary to service those requirements.

The legal aid baseline increases to £134.8 million in each of the three review years—that is £2 million more than in the current year. The increase was secured in the comprehensive spending review to enable the Scottish Legal Aid Board to cope with the additional pressures that are expected to arise through increased court activity on matters involving the European convention on human rights. No additional funding was granted in the spending review 2000 for legal aid because, over the past two years, spending has fallen significantly below provision. There was a £3.6 million underspend in 1997-98, an £8.2 million underspend in 1998-99 and a £9.8 million underspend in the past financial year. We are aware that additional pressures for legal aid are likely in the coming period but, given the previous years' underspends and the fact that the baseline is rising, we considered that there was sufficient provision in the baseline to accommodate forecast requirements. However, we shall continue to review the legal aid fund requirements in the light of policy proposals and the latest trends in case numbers and costs. Of course, this is a demand-led area and, if demand increases, provision must match it.

As I said last Wednesday, the spending review 2000 settlement is the best ever spending package for justice. Spending on justice will reach record levels. I believe that that can and will make a real difference to the people of Scotland. I hope that the committee will be able to support the proposals.

I will start by considering that final topic—the legal aid expenditure. In the real-terms figures in "Making a difference for Scotland", the forecast expenditure for legal aid falls by £7.5 million by 2003-04. I understand that there is an underspend in the current year, but given what you say about additional pressures, how can you explain that fall?

As I said, over the past two years, legal aid expenditure has dropped significantly below baseline—the underspend was £8.2 million in 1998-99 and £9.8 million in 1999-2000. We consider that the current baseline provision for legal aid for the spending review period will be adequate for forecast requirements. It is on that basis that the figures in the table are calculated. Actual expenditure has been below the baseline, so a margin for increase is built into the forecasts, which continue to be baseline figures. Given that the expenditure is demand led, we would have to make provision if there were a change in the numbers and the cost.

You reduce the baseline in year 4, so you are assuming that the margin will not be taken up. The figures in real terms are £129.9 million for the current year and £122.4 million for 2003-04.

That is a reduction in real terms. Although there is a baseline reduction, if one were to compare actual current spending with forecast spending, one would see that there is still a margin for spending to increase.

A similar point about how the figures are expressed was raised in the meeting with the Lord Advocate last week. Page 29 of "Making a difference for Scotland" says:

"Central Government Fire spending will increase by £7.6 million over the three year period".

I would say that it is increasing either by £2.6 million or by £14.7 million. Either of those would be accurate. You could have done more service to yourselves had you taken the total expenditure over the three years. If you say that expenditure is increasing over the three years, surely you take the total expenditure over the three years rather than adding up the cumulative increases. That seems a curious and slightly misleading way of presenting the figures.

This is a good opportunity to offer an explanation, because I think that there is sometimes confusion. In my statements to Parliament last week and to the committee today, I have been careful to be specific in my claims. I will not take an example from the figures in the document. For the sake of argument, if for a particular function there were a baseline in the original plan of £10 million over the next three years, the expected expenditure would be £30 million—£10 million in each year. If I increase that by £5 million next year, £10 million in the following year and £15 million in the year after that, by year 3 expenditure would be £25 million. One might call that a £15 million increase. On the other hand, rather than spending £30 million over these three years, we are spending £15 million plus £20 million plus £25 million, which if my arithmetic is correct is—

It is £60 million.

Therefore £30 million more is being spent than what was originally planned, so that is a fair measurement of the additional resources that are being brought into play. If one compares only the figure for the final year of the spending review period with the figure for the current year, one takes no account of the additional expenditure in the intervening years. A qualification to that is that we must be clear, as I have tried to be throughout, about precisely what the claim is that we are making: are we giving the total additional expenditure over three years or giving the increase for a specific year?

I am sure that we will pore over those figures in the Official Report.

I have an explanatory note about this, which I am happy to share with the committee.

It would be helpful if the committee had that.

We will make it available.

In the absence of Phil Gallie, I will ask about prisons. I am sorry, Lyndsay.

That is quite all right.

I am sure that it is encouraging that Mr Wallace said that there would be—however one does the accounting—more money for the Scottish Prison Service in the next few years. He gave us the figures. People have a slight worry because there was huge contention before over money that had gone into the SPS. Apparently, it did not spend the money, which was clawed back—I describe the situation loosely, but there was some unease at the time, as you know. Can we assume that the money now going to the SPS and the increased figures are not likely to suffer the same fate?

The expectation is that the money should not suffer the same fate. It is important to remember that, although we clawed back £13 million of accrued end-year flexibility, I think we still left some money in the Prison Service. In my initial statement to the committee, I listed the items of expected additional prison activity on which the additional expenditure would go. It is impossible to get the figures spot on, but it is certainly our intention that the Prison Service should benefit fully from the additional resources.

The other issue is the ending of slopping out. I know that you share my view on that. Does your budgeting give any further information about a timetable under which we can expect that Dickensian process finally to go? [Interruption.] This time, it is not my phone that is ringing. I turned mine off. Convener, you must realise that we take it in turns to have our phones go off.

I see that. We could have a game of musical chairs.

I think that I have the gist of Mr Jackson's question. I want to bring about an end to slopping out at the earliest possible date. My visit to HM Prison Edinburgh yesterday reinforced that view. As I have said, it will not be possible to set a time scale until more information is available. That information will be forthcoming as part of the estates review, which we hope and expect to have by the end of this year, as I said.

Slopping out ended at HM Prison and Young Offenders Institution Dumfries in the spring of this year. When A hall in Perth prison is completed next spring, there will be an additional 150 places with access to night sanitation. New house blocks that are proposed for Edinburgh and HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont will, during 2002, provide a further 550 places with access to night sanitation. Those projects are already in train, or in the case of Dumfries, completed. They will make a difference. Additional funding is intended to develop the prison estate further and we hope and expect that it will accelerate the provision of night sanitation. However, until we have the outcome of the estates review, I cannot give the committee the details of the expected time scale. Obviously, when we can do that, we will.

As you know, we are delighted by what you are saying, but Barlinnie is the blot on the landscape. It would be nice if we had some idea of when its problems will be solved. Are you saying that we will not get that?

I cannot give that information today. No decision has been taken about Barlinnie. It would be wrong for me even to speculate, because the information will not be available to me until the estates review is completed.

In our previous report, we said that the SPS targets were not available. Do you have any idea when its targets for the coming year will be available? As its expenditure has already been determined, will it have to change its targets to fit in with that?

Angus MacKay addressed that point in a letter to Roseanna Cunningham. The SPS is implementing changes to its strategic planning processes and several targets are set for the service. I recall that, in a written answer to a question that Maureen Macmillan asked—S1W-8536—I set out the outturns for previous years and indicated the targets for the current year.

It would have been helpful if we had had a copy of your statement. You mentioned several figures and I found it hard to keep up. Gordon Jackson raised a point about Barlinnie. Clive Fairweather made it clear that that was a matter of extreme urgency and I am a bit unhappy that we still have no prospect of an end to slopping out in Barlinnie.

"Making a difference for Scotland" says:

"We will provide the Scottish Prison Service with an additional £50m to address the needs of the rising prisoner population and the modernisation of their estate."

Is that additional £50 million not incorporated in the table entitled "Resource in real terms"?

Yes, it is in there.

Right. If that money is intended to

"address the needs of the rising prisoner population and the modernisation of their estate",

is it ring-fenced for that purpose?

That money is available to the Scottish Prison Service, which has made some proposals. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we want the SPS to continue and to develop programmes such as those in cognitive skills and anger management. We look forward to the SPS meeting the targets that have been set in relation to those programmes.

As I said last week, we have provided £10 million extra capital funding—that figure is included in the £50 million—to accelerate the provision of night sanitation across the SPS estate. Any savings that the SPS makes will be allocated to capital. The SPS has a clear commitment to address the capital programme.

I want to be clear. Is that £50 million ring-fenced for the modernisation of the SPS estate?

No. It is not ring-fenced just for the modernisation of the estate. There are several programmes, including those that I have just mentioned, which will take up some of the money.

It is discretionary.

It is discretionary in so far as the SPS makes proposals to ministers. However, as I have mentioned, included in the £50 million is £10 million in extra capital funding. Moreover, any savings that the SPS manages to make will augment the capital programme. If the capital programme is Mrs Grahame's concern, I assure her that the SPS takes its commitment to modernising the estate very seriously. That was the whole point of the estates review.

My concern is Barlinnie. Clive Fairweather's message could not be stronger: this has been delayed long enough. What is the cost of completing the programme to end slopping out in Barlinnie? I understand that one hall is completely closed, which could be reopened. Why is there a delay and what is the cost?

One reason for the delay in the estates review is that a number of costs and options are being considered. I would be misleading the committee if I sat here and gave you figures that had been plucked out of the air. The whole point of conducting the estates review is to be able to come up with the answers to perfectly pertinent questions, and I have said that the results should be available by the end of the year.

Could I also ask—

I must ask you to be quick.

When Roseanna Cunningham was convener, she allowed us to have a second bite at questions, but I shall be as quick as possible. There are lots of things that I want to ask about, but I shall confine myself to legal aid. I am concerned that you say that actual spending has fallen below the target figures. Solicitors are of the view that it is getting more difficult to get legal aid. I am concerned at the drop in the legal aid budget when citizens, quite rightly, are making more and more demands for access to justice. As I understand it, you are undertaking a review to consider extending the forums in which legal aid might be available, yet there is a fall in the budget. How can that be reconciled?

The fall in the budget is fact. There has been an underspend over the past two years. Legal aid is demand led, and you will recall that, when I gave the committee an overview of the justice department programme last month, I indicated that the Scottish Legal Aid Board was about to examine the reasons for the fall in civil legal aid and whether eligibility issues were raised. The committee will be interested in the outcome of that work, as I will be. The underlying causes of the fall in legal aid are being examined and we will share the outcome of the review when it becomes available.

I emphasise that we are dealing with what has been a factual outcome. Therefore, in planning for the future, there is an increase of £2 million for the next year, which is continued through in the baseline. That represents an increase of more than £2 million over the actual outcome for last year but, as I said in my statement, legal aid is demand led. If trends change, the figures must be addressed. If demand rises, we will have to find the appropriate resources.

I accept that we have to await the outcome of the investigation to find out why the levels have fallen. There may be more applications that are not being processed or are not succeeding. If that is one of the reasons for the fall, that will be interesting.

I would like you to address a related point about the extension of legal aid into other forums, such as tribunals, which I believe is under review. I think that you mentioned that before. I would also like to know how many more people may begin to submit applications now that the European convention on human rights has kicked in. Is there a built-in provision in your forecast for the next four years to put more in the pot for that?

Provision has been made for a possible increase as a result of ECHR challenges. The new ECHR bill, which we will publish shortly and which the committee will no doubt have adequate opportunity to examine in detail, also makes provision for the possibility of extending the forums in which legal aid can be made available.

My final question is about your justice support to local government. Does that include justice support to local authorities that are being challenged on ECHR issues?

No. Justice support to local government covers such things as police and fire grant-aided expenditure.

Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.

The biggest real-terms increase is in the miscellaneous column; I assume that that is where the £17.8 million for various consultation exercises and reviews is put. Will that £17.8 million be enough for all the areas that might crop up? Some are not listed in the last paragraph on page 29 of the document; the cost of judicial appointments is one thing that comes to mind.

I have two questions. First, is the £17.8 million included in the miscellaneous heading or does it come under other budget headings? Secondly, is there sufficient contingency to meet a number of demands that will probably arise?

The step change in the miscellaneous line—between what is planned for the current year and the next financial year—is already in the programme, which the committee has examined previously. Contingency is an appropriate word—it could be for challenges through the ECHR and other legislative requirements that come before the Parliament.

As I indicated to Mr Robson in the chamber, in setting our budget we have taken account of the establishment of the office of the Scottish information commissioner, which will flow from our freedom of information proposals. Funding has been secured to allow for expenditure following various consultation exercises, such as the exercise on police complaints, Lord MacLean's report on violent and sexual offenders and the working party commission that is considering the law of charities. I would not envisage the judicial appointments consultation necessarily having any significant cost implication, but if there are any costs associated with it, the contingency is there to meet them.

How expensive will the office of the Scottish information commissioner be?

It is difficult to say at this early stage. We are trying to make comparisons with places such as the Republic of Ireland, which I visited recently. The office will be demand led, so it is not dissimilar to legal aid. A more appropriate comparison might be with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, where the level of demand cannot be anticipated. Demand for the information commissioner might be quite substantial at the outset, then reach a level at which it will plateau.

Will the expenditure on the independent police complaints body come from that budget heading?

That expenditure is earmarked under central police funds—the column heading is "Police Central Government". There is speculation about how much that will be, but we have been conscious of it when putting together plans.

I apologise for missing the beginning of your statement, minister.

My first question is similar to the question from Christine Grahame on criminal injuries compensation. Under previous Governments, that was vulnerable as a target for abolition. Why will it be reduced?

It is demand led. This is an opportunity to clarify what lies behind that. Criminal injuries compensation schemes are administered on a Great Britain basis by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which is funded primarily by the Home Office, to which the Scottish Executive remits the Scottish share of the costs. The Scottish share, in turn, is based on the average of the number of Scottish cases over the previous three years. That gives us some indication of what the likely cost will be. We believe that the baseline is sufficient to cover the estimated cost for the period of the spending plan.

My second question, on legal aid, has been covered partly by Christine Grahame. I heard you say that there will be challenges, especially on fixed fees. The question is whether that may be detrimental to the defence, when the prosecution is not bound by an upper limit. I am concerned about no-win, no-fee schemes—I have heard that people are being exploited by firms of solicitors. I am concerned that the civil legal aid budget is being reduced because people have no faith that they would achieve anything through the system. If the committee, having considered that matter, were to make good suggestions about how access to justice might be increased, would you consider those suggestions, even if they would increase your spending?

I would certainly consider them. I welcome the fact that the committee would pursue that matter. That might complement the Scottish Legal Aid Board's work on identifying reasons for the drop in civil legal aid applications.

I am concerned about access to community legal services in general. I am interested in pursuing ideas about that matter, about which I hope to be able to say more in the near future.

On that point, Angus MacKay indicated in his letter to Roseanna Cunningham that he had asked the Scottish Legal Aid Board to consider pilot schemes for providing legal services in the community.

Has a specific budget been allocated to those pilots? What if they turn out to be successful? I presume that their success would have a knock-on effect in future.

Angus MacKay indicated that we would have discussions with organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland and the Scottish Consumer Council, and that the Scottish Legal Aid Board had been asked

"to devise and introduce pilots".

I hope to be in a position to make further announcements about the pilots in the not-too-distant future.

The fact that this issue is very much in our minds means that we have given some consideration to the cost implications.

I apologise for my late arrival, minister. I am grateful for the copy of your statement, which I have flicked through quickly. I thank Gordon Jackson for asking questions on behalf of Phil Gallie—Phil will be surprised about that.

Can you give us an idea of the current thinking on the review of the Scottish Prison Service estate and new build plans for prisons? I know that prison officers are concerned about that issue, about which statements have been made. What is the latest position?

I indicated in my opening remarks that I expect to have the outcome of the estates review before the end of the year, which will give us a much clearer picture of the options at least. It would be unwise for me to speculate before then.

Mrs McIntosh may not have arrived when I gave an indication of some plans that are already in place, which will help to reduce levels of slopping out at Perth prison by spring of next year, and at Polmont and Edinburgh by the following year.

I heard that much.

Needless to say, the amount of slopping out that goes on at Barlinnie causes concern to most of us, as Christine Grahame stated. You will know that that was the subject of a debate in the Parliament.

I will move on briefly to the Scottish Court Service. I understand that you are also examining district courts, which come under the wing of local government. Is there room in the figures for refurbishment, as some of the district courts are in a shocking state?

No, because that is a local government function and district courts often double up by using council offices. Refurbishment of district courts is not included in the justice provision.

Is it envisaged that such money might come under the Scottish Court Service?

We are in the process of preparing proper consultation on that issue, in which all interested groups will be involved. There will be adequate opportunity for the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to contribute to that consultation and I hope that the committee will take that opportunity. In advance of the publication of a consultation document, I do not want to give any particular steer, although what you suggested is a clear option.

You were asked about new build, which is related to the number of prison places required. Concern about that issue was raised when prisons were being shut down.

We are planning with a view to how many prisoners we will need to look after. As you know, that is an equation into which different factors are entered. Some of us take the view that one answer would be to send fewer people to jail. We should devise methods of cutting the prison population, which should be factored into the debate about how much money is spent on creating prison places. Do you have a comment on that? Are we joining up the two issues of proper planning for cutting places and planning for housing the numbers of prisoners that we might need to house?

We try to take account of those factors as best we can. It is fair to say that it is notoriously difficult to predict prison populations, which are extrapolated from previous figures.

As of last Friday, the total accommodation available was 6,276 places. Because of refurbishment, 495 places were out of use, which left a balance of 5,781. The prisoner population last Friday was 5,811, which meant that there was a shortfall. Some accommodation is due to be returned to use shortly: 50 places at Cornton Vale; 56 at Greenock prison; and 60 at Friarton prison. When the comprehensive spending review that was announced in 1998 was being put together, it was estimated that the prison population in 2000 would be 6,500. It is an inexact science.

I take Mr Jackson's point about reducing the number of people for whom custodial sentences are thought appropriate and I assure him that that is part of our thinking. However, because the science is inexact, some provision must be made for the figures that are projected. I draw the committee's attention to a line of the budget that relates to criminal justice social work provision, which includes the funding that we are earmarking for alternatives to custody. That features prominently in the Executive's thinking on the justice system.

As the committee will be aware, we are continuing our dialogue with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities with the aim of establishing in mainland Scotland—through the amalgamation of local authority services—11 units for the delivery of criminal justice social work services to ensure greater consistency across Scotland and the quality of alternatives to custody that will give the public and the judiciary confidence in the disposals.

I am sure that Mr Jackson would be the first to accept that planning on the basis of what judges might or might not do will not deliver exact results.

I do not entirely accept that, but I accept that we cannot tell what judges will do and we cannot tell who will commit crime.

I want to know that the Executive has a definite strategy—on a broad basis—that is aimed at cutting the prison population. I want to know that it judges that certain steps can or cannot be taken to make political decisions on whether certain categories of people can go to jail. The great bee in my bonnet is the treatment of fine defaulters. Sending fine defaulters to jail is an incredibly stupid waste of money. Do we have any definite strategies to remove certain categories of offender from prison? That would not enable us to arrive at exact numbers, but it would result in far fewer people going to prison.

I cannot go so far as to say that we will withdraw the option of prison sentences in any categories, but the Executive is pursuing a range of options such as diversions from prosecution, the drug treatment and testing orders that have been piloted in Glasgow and Fife, and electronic tagging, on which we are about to launch a consultation. It will not surprise anyone that we want feedback on that. At the moment, electronic monitoring is confined to three sheriff courts as an alternative to custody. We want to know whether electronic tagging could be used as part of bail conditions—that would reduce the number of remand prisoners, which the chief inspector of prisons had something to say about—or whether, as happens south of the border, there is scope for early release of some short-term prisoners if they are being monitored electronically. That range of proposals would lead to a reduction in the prison population. We want to do determined work on that.

I accept that, but should not we treat this matter with real urgency? I am frightened that, if we lag behind, we will end up with an estates review that concludes that 7,000 places are needed. When we start to implement that recommendation, your sensible proposals might kick in, which would mean that we would no longer need those places. The other daft scandal is to build prisons that we no longer actually need. We must marry those two issues urgently.

I accept that point and assure you that we have tried to address the matter. However, the difficulty is that projections for future prison population are very inexact. We would be in even more difficulty if we were cavalier about things and decided not to believe our statisticians' claims that the prison population is liable to reach X and to do nothing about the situation. If the population then reached X, the committee would certainly have something to say to me.

We must strike a balance between the provision that we make, bearing in mind the fact that it is impossible to predict the figure accurately, and the alternatives to custody that are being developed. For example, the spending plans make provision for the increased number of supervision and attendance orders to meet the problem of fine defaulters. I cannot be any more exact—that would be impossible—but I assure Mr Jackson and the committee that we are trying to marry together aspects of the issue as best we can. That said, it would be wrong not to take some cognisance of our statisticians' information.

There is a multi-dimensional question to be answered about the number of places that should be set aside for the prison population. As I said to the Lord Advocate at last week's meeting, I have received several representations from solicitors who say that the prison population is being artificially controlled because fiscal fines have been used for categories of crime such as repeat offending and assaults on the police that would usually carry custodial sentences. I can let you see evidence on such cases. If that allegation proved to be true, you would have to include that in the equation for prison population numbers. I do not expect an answer from you today, but you should know that several of us are worried about that situation.

You have properly addressed that point to the Lord Advocate, who is responsible for prosecution policy. Under the Scotland Act 1998, ministers cannot comment on such policy.

However, you have underlined some of the variables in connection with the issue. We must also take into consideration the increasing number of people who are serving longer sentences. Although that situation is partly historic, it still feeds through and raises the baseline figure. Even if we use alternatives to custody to reduce the number of people with short-term sentences, we still have an increased number of people who are serving longer-term sentences. That simply illustrates the difficulty of trying to plan out the matter. I can only assure the committee that I revisit those issues with officials and, given the inexact nature of the science, we pitch the figures as best we can.

In the "Making a difference for Scotland" document, you have lumped together in the spending plans criminal justice social work services and victim issues. Will there be specific funding for those aspects, or will you merge the funding? If the funding is to be merged, what implications will that have for victim issues?

Those aspects will be separated—I think that they will be one of the line three divisions. However, we must take certain issues into account. For example, Victim Support Scotland has not yet applied for grants under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, so it would not be appropriate to grant the organisation an advance. There will be separate allocations to local authorities for criminal justice social work services.

Presumably the victim issues include the pilot studies in Aberdeen. I was amused when you said that although there was a pilot study in Aberdeen, there should also be a study in an urban area. I have always thought that Aberdeen was an urban area.

Not if you live in Glasgow. [Laughter.]

Aberdeen is not what I think of as rural.

It was the Lord Advocate, not me, who said that.

Perhaps it was the Lord Advocate. I am sorry to impute that to you.

The Lord Advocate went on to talk about the difficulties of victim support in rural areas. I would like a pilot scheme to be set up in a truly rural area to see how the system would work.

I will check that. I do not know whether you count Stonehaven as being properly rural.

Absolutely not.

You said in your statement that you would work with VSS to increase awareness of support services. Will the stage 3 budget show an increase in its allocation of funds to reflect that?

There will be an increase in the allocation for victim services.

As I have explained to the committee in the past, members will be aware that the problem is not only about resources; there is a legal problem in respect of data protection. We continue to try to resolve that, in conjunction with the Home Office. We are anxious to do so. The police have that information; the difficulty lies in them passing it on in a way that would benefit people.

Gordon Jackson raised a valid point, which I do not think you have addressed. He said that too many people are being sent to prison and that you are working with figures that are based on that trend continuing.

Clive Fairweather spoke about the number of women who are in prison and on remand. That figure is increasing, despite what Mr Fairweather said in previous reports. In his view, the women who are imprisoned are mostly very sad and are themselves victims. I hope that that view will be connected up with your projections on prison population and that we will see fewer women being sent to prison. Is that matter being addressed?

I also want to make a point about the depressed budget for legal aid. Before I do so, I will point out that the view out there—by "out there", I mean solicitors and people who are trying to get legal aid—is that there are tighter controls over the viability of a case when it is being submitted. We come back to the low financial eligibility, which has been depressed for years. The Scottish Legal Aid Board is carrying out a review of the fall in the number of successful applications. Is SLAB also consulting the profession and advice bodies, such as citizens advice bureaux and debt advice counselling bodies, or is it simply conducting a review of the SLAB position?

On the last part of that question, I am not sure to what extent SLAB is consulting. I would have thought that it ought to be doing so, but I will clarify that with SLAB and advise the clerk of the scope of the review.

With regard to women in prison, I share many of the concerns that Clive Fairweather expressed in his report. Women who are sent to Cornton Vale are sent there by sheriffs. It would be improper for ministers to intervene; the independence of the judiciary is a principle that I hold strongly. It would be improper for ministers to put pressure on sheriffs. That said, an inter-agency forum has been established, under the chairmanship of Professor McLean, to examine the issue of women offenders. The forum is trying to devise ways in which the number of women who go into custody can be reduced.

Last month, I visited Turning Point Scotland in Glasgow, where I met a number of women for whom the diversion from prosecution had been used. I pay tribute to the valuable service that was being provided, especially in dealing with drug problems. There was an opportunity for women to receive intensive treatment for their drug dependency, rather than to be sent to Cornton Vale. There are also people in Cornton Vale who provide that kind of service. Those are initiatives that could lead to a reduction in the number of women in prison, and we are happy to support them. From within the global totals, we will fund a pilot for a community residential facility for women offenders in Glasgow. We want to address this issue imaginatively.

I thank Jim Wallace for attending the meeting and answering a varied series of questions. We look forward to receiving the further information that he has promised to send us.