Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee (Joint Meeting), 17 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 17, 2002

Official Report 306KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive

I welcome the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice, and thank him for providing us with his statement, which I invite members to peruse. I understand that he would like to begin by addressing us for five minutes or so.

I am grateful for the opportunity to say a brief word or two of introduction. We are now in the final year of the first session of the Scottish Parliament, and it is right that we should look at what the Executive and the Parliament have achieved for the people of Scotland and what lies ahead in the remainder of the session.

Politics apart, we all share the aim of making Scotland safer and fairer, and I think that we can fairly claim to have made progress on both. To make Scotland safer, we have funded a record number of police officers, who are achieving record clear-up rates for crime and have doubled the seizures of class A drugs. I would like to draw particular attention to our commitment to victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. Following the Executive's victim strategy, we now have witness services in all 49 sheriff courts. I am pleased to inform the committee that we will provide a similar service for witnesses in the High Court.

We have worked with the committees on legislation. In particular, I would like to mention the legislation to safeguard rape victims from cross-examination by the accused. We will commence the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002 on 1 November. I draw the committee's attention to our continued funding for front-line policing at the present high level and to our major legislative programme, especially the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, whose main aim is to protect the public.

We want to make Scotland fairer, and we are delivering on our programme for government commitments. Members will have seen the legislation that is being considered by the Social Justice Committee on the replacement of poinding and warrant sales. Our commitment to access to justice will continue to be shown in the development of the community legal service and in legal aid. I am aware that members will want to raise detailed questions, and I shall deal with them as best I can.

There are two major issues that it would be remiss of me not to mention. The first is the prison estates review, on which the Justice 1 Committee reported and on which I made a statement this month. The decisions that I announced are aimed at achieving a prison estate that is fit for purpose, by providing enough prisoner places of suitable quality to meet demand.

For too long, prisoners have been slopping out in overcrowded accommodation. Mostly, we will be replacing substandard accommodation, not providing extra places. There will be the biggest ever investment in existing public sector prisons; more than £110 million will be spent on that over the next three years. Even that will not be enough on its own. We therefore decided on two new prisons. The first will be built and run by the private sector, to get the new places quickly and to address the current overcrowding, especially for remand prisoners. The second new prison is our challenge to the public sector, both management and unions, to produce a robust and credible plan for the new prison that is competitive, offers value for money and delivers on time the places that we need. We listened very carefully to those who called for the prison at Peterhead to be retained. I was impressed by the arguments and we have decided that Peterhead will stay open.

Prisons are not just about bricks and mortar. I have asked the Scottish Prison Service to develop a prisons performance management framework in 2003, including the publication of performance agreements, improvement targets and details of performance by each establishment. I would welcome any thoughts that the committees have on how to do that and how they could be involved in monitoring that.

Finally, my colleague the Minister for Finance and Public Services made several important announcements last week. Those represent very major commitments to the justice system. I will give the committees a few highlights: funding for police pay awards negotiated in the Police Negotiating Board for the UK; a major investment in police technology, especially the national element of the new airwave communications system; resourcing the current record level of judges and sheriffs and growth in provision for legal aid—an area the committees raised in the previous budget scrutiny.

In conclusion, I think that the Parliament can take some satisfaction from what it has done. I would be the first to acknowledge that there is a great deal more to do. I was, as you know, among those who argued strongly for the creation of the Parliament and for the new ways of working that would come with it: an approach that was more consultative and less confrontational, which was focused on achievement and outcome and not on party-political point scoring. I continue to believe in that, and I hope that for the remainder of the session my colleagues and I will be able to work with you on that basis.

Before members ask questions, I remind the committees that the Justice 1 Committee has secured a debate on our response to the prison estates review. That debate will be held on 10 October and will last for two hours. Members should bear in mind the fact that we will have a full debate on the estates review.

Deputy First Minister, you will know that the committee has been very concerned about the provision of legal aid because that is the way in which people can access justice. When we were considering the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill, a question that was raised continually was whether people seeking justice under the bill would have access to legal aid provision. You will be asked some more questions about the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001 later.

What has been the progress of the implementation of the recommendations of the working group on the development of a community legal service? That was highlighted as the solution to everything. I am aware of some things that have happened on the ground. For example, I know that Scottish Women's Aid has been asked if it is willing to take a role and that adverts have appeared in local papers, seeking solicitors to work in citizens advice bureaux. Could you give us some more detail on that?

I am grateful to Maureen Macmillan for that question. I do not think that I have ever gone as far as saying that the provision for improved community legal services is the solution to everything. However, they have an important part to play in ensuring that legal services are accessible in various geographic areas and for all subject matters. In the past, people have not been able to identify where they could go for legal aid. It is important that we put up signposts in clear language indicating where people can get access to the best advice.

In May 2002, at the launch of Glasgow City Council's review of money advice provision, I announced that we would take forward some of the recommendations of the working group that was set up to consider the provision of legal advice and information across the country. The action plan to lay the foundations for the community legal service has been developed by the Scottish Executive with the Scottish Legal Aid Board. It involves the creation of three pilot partnerships—one in a rural area—to examine local advice needs and service provision and to seek to tailor supply to demand. It also involves a national survey of the current provision of legal advice and information, a review of the advice and assistance scheme operated by SLAB and a review of the service delivery mechanisms using information technology in outreach services.

Glasgow City Council launched a very important project and we indicated that the Scottish Executive would enter into partnership with the council to share ideas, information and best practice and to carry out joint work on the needs assessment of the city, including an initiative on debt profiling. We are taking that work forward. It is important that we identify what is already out there. Pockets of advice have been identified, but part of the problem has been steering people in the right direction so that they can access that advice. That is an important part of what we are trying to achieve.

You talk about pockets of advice. How willing are organisations to engage in the process? Are you finding it easy to get them on board? When will the pilot schemes be assessed? What is the time scale for roll-out across the country?

I remind members that the working group involved a wide range of organisations, for example the Scottish Legal Aid Board, Shelter Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Association of Law Centres, the Federation of Independent Advice Centres, HomePoint—which was part of Scottish Homes—the Scottish Employment Rights Network, Citizens Advice Scotland, Money Advice Scotland and the Scottish Consumer Council, as well as the Law Society of Scotland. Off the top of my head, I cannot give Maureen Macmillan an exact answer on when the pilots will be evaluated, but we are looking to do so in 12 to 18 months.

In your opening remarks, you mentioned that the provision of legal aid would increase as a result of the comprehensive spending review. What areas of legal aid will the funding be used to enhance?

As I have indicated to members in the past, legal aid is substantially demand driven. Regardless of what we put in the budget line, we are obliged to meet the legitimate demand that satisfies the tests. The Justice 1 Committee expressed its concern that the budget line had been relatively static for a while. There was a downward drift and demand remained relatively low for some time, but we are beginning to see an upward trend, which is why we have responded by increasing the baseline. I am sure that members will agree that there is no point in tying up money in a baseline if it is not used, but there are signs in the system that demand for legal aid is increasing. As legal aid is demand led, we are obliged to address that increasing demand by ensuring that resources are available to meet it.

The Justice 1 Committee felt that there was a fall in demand because the tests were too stiff. If more money is available for legal aid, are you thinking of making it easier for people on low incomes—as opposed to people on benefit—to access it?

In fairness, in response to the Justice 1 Committee's report on legal aid—I cannot remember whether I responded last year or earlier this year—we made a number of changes to the eligibility criteria. I think I am right in saying that we changed some eligibility rules that had not changed for the best part of 20 years, and we changed others which, although they had not been stuck for quite as long, had been stuck for a fair length of time. When we did that it was acknowledged that we had gone some way to addressing the concern of the Justice 1 Committee that rates had not kept pace with inflation.

We were asked recently—and I wrote to the convener of the Justice 1 Committee on the matter—whether there could be an automatic uplift. Under present statute, we do not have the legal competence to vary the rate automatically each year, so we cannot go down that line.

I want to ask about other time scales, such as time scales for the increase in fees for civil aid work, which was to be linked to quality assurance. What progress are you making with quality assurance?

We are still waiting for proposals from the Law Society of Scotland. I have indicated previously that we will be willing to engage when proposals are produced. I recall that the Justice 1 Committee's view was not just that there should be an increase, but that quality assurance was necessary too.

The Faculty of Advocates has submitted to the justice department a proposal for a significant fee rise in criminal legal aid and, I think, in civil legal aid.

The Faculty of Advocates has given a lesson in not wasting time to the Law Society.

I am prepared to consider a fee rise, but I reiterate that, as the Justice 1 Committee recommended, a quality system must be an important feature of such a rise. I would not wish to impugn in any way the quality of legal services that my brethren in the Faculty of Advocates provide, but its proposals on how that aspect would be addressed were very light, if indeed they existed at all.

Do you have any comments on the research that the Executive is carrying out on the impact of the fixed-fees regime?

We are not aware that the fixed payments are reducing access to justice. It is our clear impression that solicitors have adjusted to the new regime and that some benefits have arisen from speedier payments. There has been less scope for protracted dispute with the Scottish Legal Aid Board. I cannot immediately remember further results of the research.

The Scottish Legal Aid Board keeps a watchful eye on the situation. We made amendments to the Convention Rights Compliance (Scotland) Bill to allow some flexibility in more difficult cases. The perception is that the system is working reasonably well.

I ask you to turn your mind to legislation on dangerous driving and the recent members' business debate on the report "Dangerous Driving and the Law". In the Justice 1 Committee, we recently discussed petitions from Mr and Mrs Dekker, Tricia Donegan and Frank Harvey—petitions PE29, PE55, PE299, PE331 and PE111. We understand that you are setting up a steering group, but we are concerned about how long the issue has been dragging on. It was an aim of devolution to accelerate consideration of such matters. Petitions PE29 and PE55 were first considered in 2000, by the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. The report "Dangerous Driving and the Law" was produced by the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and you decided to set up a steering group. We have sent a letter asking for the time scale in which you anticipate that the steering group will report. We also want to know who is on the steering group.

I cannot inform the committee who is on the steering group or what the time scale will be. I will ensure that you receive that information as soon as possible. I am conscious that most road traffic law is reserved.

We understand that.

Our hands are not entirely free to deal with the matter, but I will ensure that you get the information that you have requested.

I simply seek to underline what has been concerning the Justice 1 Committee.

I am well aware that dangerous driving generates concern—indeed, I have met Mr and Mrs Dekker. I recognise that that is a sensitive position for anyone to find themselves in.

The Justice 1 Committee also made recommendations after it had seen "Dangerous Driving and the Law", which we agreed with. We wrote to you about those recommendations. We would like to know about the time scale and the membership of the steering group.

I want to raise a second point, which the Deputy Minister for Justice addressed during the members' business debate. It concerns specific research in Scotland. I would not wish to attribute the wrong words to the deputy minister, but I received the impression that he was not of a mind to undertake separate Scottish research. The petitioners were of the view that the DTLR research did not adequately cover the Scottish dimension. Do you intend not to undertake separate Scottish research? If not, why not?

The DTLR report dealt with research that was carried out across Great Britain and involved input from a Scottish perspective; the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service gave evidence.

We were not convinced that separate Scottish evidence could add to that bigger body of research. The issues and concerns have been well identified and it is not readily obvious what more we could understand or glean from more specific Scottish research. Examples of Scottish input were in the original DTLR work and I am not clear what would be achieved by doing further research of an exclusively Scottish nature.

This might be a bit of a daft lassie question, but is the research that formed the basis of the report separable? Are there separable Scottish and English statistics in that research? For example, are Scottish drivers more likely to speed than English drivers? Is there anything like that in the background material that you do not need to commission but could be put forward in a different way?

I would be wary of unpicking or unstitching a body of research without careful thought. I would not want to speculate on that although I know where the convener is coming from. I could ask that the research be looked at to see whether Scottish strands could be identified. It is not the sort of thing that I would want to do ad hoc.

No, but it would be helpful. I just do not know whether it is possible.

Some time ago, a proposal was made for a bill to reform family law in relation to separation and divorce and, more particularly, in relation to contact and residence issues for children whose parents have separated. Where are we with that proposal?

The committee might recall that when we announced the legislative programme for the year, the First Minister indicated that we intend to publish a draft family law bill. However, we want to take into account the emerging implications of the adoption review and build those into any draft bill. The bill is not imminent. I would not want to hazard a guess as to whether it will be published before the election. Given that we do not have too many legislative opportunities, it seemed to make sense that we incorporate a review of an important part of family law.

I appreciate that we might want to incorporate updates in the adoption law into any changes that we make to family law. Has the Executive undertaken any contemporary research? When the draft bill was first talked about, I received a number of representations from people who were concerned about the implications of changes in family law, particularly for the rights of unmarried fathers. Has the Executive reflected on the information that it has received on that?

Yes. It was one of the key considerations between one of the earlier proposals and when we issued the white paper. The Executive's prevailing view at the earlier stage was that all fathers should have automatic parental responsibilities and rights. We responded to some representations that we received during the course of the earlier consultation. We said that if the father and mother had reached an agreement—possibly just the status quo—it would be wrong to make those rights retrospective.

There was a lot of concern, particularly—but not exclusively—from women's groups, that when a father has not had that automatic right for many years, it would not be appropriate to change that retrospectively. That is now reflected in the white paper. Scott Barrie has identified one of the key issues that arose. There were arguments on both sides, but I hope that by making the change we have reflected the balance of those arguments.

Will future legislation—with various safeguards, obviously, depending on the circumstances of the conception of the child—make the assumption that unmarried fathers will have full parental rights and responsibilities?

Yes, in future.

Is the Executive minded to make any changes to the rights and responsibilities of grandparents in relation to grandchildren?

I have said in the chamber that we would certainly listen to representations on that issue. However, it is very difficult to establish a formal right for grandparents. How can I put this tactfully? Sometimes the parents do not want the grandparents to be involved. Under existing legislation, grandparents are among those who may have a locus to seek a court order. However, going beyond that and asserting a more express right could be done only with great care and caution.

The minister should not conclude that I am suggesting that he should do that.

Point taken.

The current law—the Children (Scotland) Act 1995—allows for significant adults to apply to the court for contact and, in some cases, residence. Is that a route that grandparents should be encouraged to use if they are being denied contact with their grandchildren?

Very much so. I entirely endorse that view—as, I am sure, would Lord James, who piloted that piece of legislation through what was a very co-operative committee, as he would agree. What Scott Barrie suggests was very much part of the thinking behind that legislation.

Scott Barrie has referred to legislation that gives various interested parties the right to apply to the courts for residence or contact. Will the new bill consolidate existing acts? Family law will now be dispersed over several statutes. If the bill is to be called a family law bill, will it draw in as much as possible, so that the practitioners as well as the public know where it all is?

The bill is not intended to be a consolidation bill; that is a very different creature.

I accept that, but the bill could serve both purposes. It could repeal certain things by absorbing sections of other acts—such as sections relating to contact rights.

I do not think that that is what is intended—except that, when and where necessary, legislation may be repealed. Obviously, we would have to repeal certain provisions in existing divorce law. I usually take guidance from the Scottish Law Commission on consolidation because it is an art in itself. I take your point, in relation not only to family law but to a whole range of laws, about the advantages of legislation being available in one statute. The Parliament has not done very much of that. The legislation on salmon is the only example that comes to mind as having been consolidated. The next Parliament may consider other areas for which consolidation ought to be considered.

I agree with your views so far. The Executive is doing important work on the updating of family law. Do you agree that we have to give proper consideration to civil justice? I agree with Scott Barrie—the law already provides for contact for all sorts of people in a child's life. However, we may have to examine how access rights are provided, rather than who gets access rights.

We have debated the point many times, but I want to be sure that we debate the place of civil justice. Sometimes civil justice takes second place to criminal justice. The cases that we have been talking about should be much further up the agenda than they are. I am thinking of the whole question of legal aid and the issue that we discussed with Richard Simpson in the Justice 2 Committee—the policy on full-cost recovery of fees in the civil courts.

I strongly endorse your general point. We should not lose sight of the civil justice system, which impacts on many aspects of people's lives. The question follows on from Maureen Macmillan's question about securing better access to justice, which includes civil justice. Most people who go to CABx have issues that relate to civil justice.

We should not lose sight of the fact that the Parliament has passed legislation on the feudal system, which many people thought was long overdue, and that the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill is before the Justice 1 Committee. That committee is no doubt grappling with the concepts in that bill.

It is bedtime reading.

A lot of work has gone into that bill. We are addressing the practical problems that many people have found with the worst aspects of the feudal system. It is wrong to ignore the civil justice system or to downplay its importance. Most of us hope that we will avoid contact with the criminal justice system. We certainly hope that we will not be criminals and that we will not be the victims of crime. However, many situations that people encounter in their everyday life raise civil legal issues. I am at one with the general thrust of Pauline McNeill's question.

My next question also relates to civil justice. Petition PE336, on asbestosis, is at present before the Justice 2 Committee. You might be familiar with the committee's work on how the written pleading system in some cases holds back people from getting to court. We want that process to be speeded up. We have had exchanges with the judiciary about why the present written pleading system cannot be substituted for the system that is used in the commercial courts. The difference is that in the commercial courts there is much more judicial intervention and banging of heads together, which brings about a speedier conclusion.

Given the serious nature of some of the cases that we are considering—people have died while waiting in the queue for their case to be heard—the Justice 2 Committee feels that the status quo in the written pleading system cannot be justified. Many good things have happened, but the committee is yet to decide whether that is enough to satisfy our demands. Is the Executive considering changes to the system? I know that the system covers more than simply asbestosis cases; it also covers personal injury cases. Are there any developments on that?

I am aware that the Justice 2 Committee has been considering the petition from Clydeside Action on Asbestos. The committee will readily recognise that ministers must tread carefully, not least with specific cases, and that we do not wish to intrude on anything that is properly a matter for the court or that relates to judicial independence. However, the issue is raised in discussions between ministers and the judiciary. To be fair to the courts, the initiatives that have been taken and the work of Lord Mackay of Drumadoon has helped to move things forward.

The working party that was chaired by Lord Coulsfield proposed changes to speed up the determination of personal injury claims, including those that relate to asbestos. We look sympathetically on some of those proposals. Some of them will need primary legislation and others relate more to court practice. However, no such legislation is proposed for this side of the election. There has been a lot of focus on speeding up the work of the High Court and the criminal law side, but I am interested in what can be done to speed up and streamline the work of the civil courts. The proposals of Lord Coulsfield's working party are a good starting point for that.

The Justice 2 Committee might choose to return to the question of the written pleading system generally. However, there has been some movement on the issue, as you said, with the judiciary recognising that something must change. The High Court, presided over by Lord Mackay, is doing a good job of speeding up the asbestosis cases.

We visited the High Court hearings and saw that it is a slow process to get important information, such as verifying where or in which shipyards a particular person worked, from the national insurance contributions office. I ask for your full co-operation if we need to pursue that issue, albeit that it crosses into a reserved authority. However, the opinion of the Parliament—or the committee—might be that the matter needs to be pushed on.

If that situation is proving to be a bit of a sticking point, or at least a hold-up, I would want to consider what might appropriately be done, such as having a word in the right place or giving any push that we can. If the committee makes its views well-known, they will be picked up by those responsible at Westminster. There is no reason why there should not be co-operation. Members of the Westminster Parliament might want to take that up. I would want us to facilitate something because I recognise that time is not on the side of many of the sufferers.

That would be helpful because I understand that there are delays of up to six months, which hold up the progress of many cases.

I have a point to make, before we pass on to the next question, on the issue of reparation actions involving civil legal aid. We have had evidence from practitioners about policy decisions by the Legal Aid Board on sanctioning experts. The only expert might be in London, for example, and be expensive. A solicitor puts in an application with an estimate of the cost and the application is rejected. However, insurers have almost no such cost limits.

I wonder whether the minister would keep that situation in mind and investigate it, because it seems to come up regularly as a complaint. It certainly came up when I was in practice and it has come up in evidence to the committee. The sanctioning of experts delays reparation actions and an applicant often has difficulty in getting the same level of expertise on his or her side of the case as the insurers have, because there is a cap on what the Legal Aid Board will spend.

I am sure that the committee previously raised that matter.

Yes, it did.

I have a feeling that we responded, but I cannot remember exactly what was said. In the interests of consistency of response I will—

I asked the minister to be mindful of that matter.

I certainly will be.

The issue is still around. It might not be specifically relevant to the asbestosis cases, but many other cases require serious experts, who are costly.

It might not necessarily be just personal injury cases that require experts. They could also be required in other types of case.

Exactly. I referred to personal injury because we are on the track of civil matters.

Will the minister give an updated progress report on proposals for reforming policing structures and the police complaints process?

Substantial work is being done by working groups or task forces, comprising the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and the Scottish Police Federation, looking at common services. That process is covered by Lord James's term "structures", because we have indicated our intention that Scotland's eight police forces should remain.

We are anxious to identify the areas in which we can make progress through common procurement or through different forces coming together, as well as putting on a better footing some of the areas in which there is already a common structure, such as the Scottish Criminal Record Office and the Scottish Police College. Every constabulary is involved in those, but the lines of responsibility are often not as clear as they might be. I can assure Lord James that work is progressing on that. We are anxious to identify as much progress as we can so that we can develop that in the context of a white paper.

Regarding police complaints, the consultation has concluded and I am engaged in announcing our response to it. It identified possible options with greater or lesser degrees of independence for a potential ombudsman. When we publish our response, I want a clear steer as to the direction we want to take. A final decision is yet to be made. I hope we can publish it before the end of the year.

Is the minister satisfied with the progress on DNA testing and all related arrangements?

Yes. Without wanting to sound complacent—certain things can always be done better and further steps can be taken to improve matters—DNA testing has been a milestone in aiding detection, as the police would agree. Any time I have met police forces, they have been keen that we continue to push forward with DNA testing. When I visited the Tayside constabulary, it took a sample of my DNA. [Interruption.]

You were heckled by Maureen Macmillan; she said that that sample would come back to haunt you.

We talk about the fact that we have record clear-up rates, which are attributable in no small way to some of the advances in technology. It is our concern that as well as trying to maintain numbers of front-line police, they are equipped with modern technology to ensure that they do their jobs as best they can.

Are there any proposals to change the way in which crime statistics are recorded, as part of the reform mechanism? Also, there has been recent media attention about the sickness levels of police forces. Are there proposals to consider identifying ways to improve those levels as part of the reform programme?

There are moves afoot to better standardise the collection of statistics in Scotland. There was a high profile announcement about the changes that were made in Lothian, which showed up an increase in numbers that had not been taken into account previously.

Even before that was done, I asked that a working group be set up—to include ACPOS in particular—to ensure that we get a better standardisation in Scotland. That is easier said than done, however, because there are grey areas when examining the statistics of recorded crime. Often, it is not clear whether a crime has been committed. If a window is smashed, nine times out of 10 it might be a crime, but not always. There are other grey areas. It is important to tease that out as best we can to ensure that we are comparing like with like. That is why figures produced by the British crime survey provide a more reliable guide. That not only records crime, it speaks to victims about their experience of crime. There are crimes that some people do not report, so they do not show up in the figures of recorded crime. I am anxious that people have confidence in the figures that we discuss and that, from year to year, we compare like with like as best we can—and indeed, force with force.

I understand that we are awaiting a report from the chief inspector of constabulary on police illness and absenteeism. I do not wish to anticipate that report. I accept that there is a clear issue, which was identified as part of the police negotiating board's pay settlement on a UK basis. I do not pretend to have an easy solution to the problem. It is recognised as a problem that must be addressed.

I apologise to Margaret Smith, because I was treating her attendance as a visit by a constituency MSP. In fact, she is one of those new people called committee substitutes and she is sitting in for Donald Gorrie.

So she is Donald Gorrie in disguise.

Again, I apologise to Margaret.

Are you apologising because I am trying to be Donald Gorrie, or for another reason?

Take your pick.

Minister, you say that you have funded record numbers of police officers and have achieved record clear-up rates for crime—and not simply because you submitted a sample of your DNA. However, police officers in our areas tell us time and again that although they might have record numbers on paper, they are still stretched because of demands on police time. What progress is being made through greater use of civilian staff or, in particular, through the streamlining of court procedure in order to free up police officers and ensure that they are where people want them to be—in the community?

Your comments are reflected in the feedback that I have received from visits to police stations. The First Minister and I have visited the police station at Torphichen Street twice, and indeed, I had my ear bent by Margaret Smith herself when I visited her community.

It is important to acknowledge that we have funded constabularies to ensure that they have a record number of police officers. As Margaret Smith pointed out, the fact that we have a record number of support staff is also worthy of note. There is a case for the use of civilian support staff to free up police officers for so-called front-line duties, where that is appropriate—and I stress the word "appropriate". I know that we all use the phrase "front-line duties"; however, it might be a misnomer in some cases. In these days of intelligence-led policing, police officers are not always in the front line and are very often carrying out very good intelligence work elsewhere to ensure that the right front lines are being covered. It is all very well having more bobbies on the beat, but intelligence-led policing ensures that the most effective beats can be identified. That is part and parcel of modern policing.

We ought to examine ways in which we can free up police time. Some steps have been taken in that direction, not always without controversy; however, the use of single control units and having some civilian staff to process regular calls while police officers deal with emergency calls has released police officers. For example, the new communications centre in Lothian has freed up the equivalent of 89 police officers. Although the total numbers do not change, front-line policing itself can be improved.

The committee will be aware of our proposals for prisoner escorts. When work started in Lothian to get some handle on how effective the idea might be, the working assumption was that it might free up more prison officers. In fact, the studies came to the surprising conclusion that far more police time than had ever been recognised was taken up with such duties. Of course, I should add that a substantial amount of prison officers' time was also taken up with those duties. Obviously, we are moving on that front.

As a result, a range of measures can be introduced to ensure that even though the police officers are there, they can be used for front-line duties. I am always anxious to find better ways of ensuring that police officers spend less time inefficiently sitting around in courts. However, there will always be an element of that, because part of a policeman's duty is to give evidence. After all, that is how convictions are obtained. However, I know from anecdotal evidence and observation that a considerable amount of time is spent in courts. Perhaps Lord Bonomy's review of the High Court and Sheriff Principal McInnes's review of summary justice will make some proposals on how we improve the efficiency of the courts, which will also lead to a more effective use of police time.

Are there plans for a review of the system for allocating grant-aided expenditure to local authorities? The minister may be aware that some police boards believe that, historically, they have been underfunded, even when their component local authorities fully matched the funding for policing from the Scottish Executive. The police boards are losing out because of the way in which grant-aided expenditure is calculated.

A review is in progress. An initial report was produced and is being worked on by a group that involves ACPOS, Executive officials and COSLA. That group's final proposals will be with ministers imminently. Some people boil the matter down to doing everything by crude headage—by head of population. Such a test is too facile and simple. Several other factors are involved, such as the huge geographical areas that are to be covered and the different issues that arise in different places.

It is not easy to arrive at a formula that satisfies everyone, be it for police GAE or other matters, because if there are winners, there will be losers. Until I have the final report, it would be premature of me to speculate on who will win and who will lose. We would not wish police budgets to be cut, so the proposals might have to be implemented over a period rather than in one big bang.

When does the minister expect to announce any proposed changes? If the system is to change, what is the time scale for implementing the change?

Until I have seen the concluded report, it would be premature for me to speculate. However, I have suggested that the change could not be made in one year. If there are to be winners and losers, the change might have to be phased in. I am conscious that an issue exists, but until I have seen the final report, it would be idle to speculate.

I have a question for the minister, to which I do not know the answer. Apparently, no one round here knows the answer either. What has happened to fingerprinting techniques and procedures, given the recent high-profile case? Are they being investigated or queried?

For sub judice reasons, I do not want to go into a particular case. The committee will recall, however, that when we received the initial report from Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary relating to the Shirley McKie case, the Lord Advocate told the Parliament that when fingerprint evidence was used, it would be independently verified. That was done for the best part of a year. In every case, the fingerprint evidence that the Crown was going to lead was independently verified. That no longer happens. The subsequent inspection by Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary acknowledged a considerable step forward in the work of the fingerprint bureau in the Scottish Criminal Record Office.

I do not know, but I take it that a line has been drawn under that and that there are no more concerns.

Obviously, a case is still pending. I do not want to go into that.

I am talking about practice and procedures.

The Crown Office stopped independent verification. Fingerprint evidence continues to be led in cases. Perhaps what should be said about fingerprint evidence is that it is not an exact science, but involves an art form. It is a skill that involves judgment and cannot be boiled down to an exact science. However, having had a string of cases independently tested, the Crown was satisfied that the fingerprint evidence that was being led was credible. Ultimately, that is a matter for the courts and for juries to decide, but the Crown is confident in the evidence that it is leading.

I will move quickly on to a hobby-horse of mine: the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, which was the first committee bill to go through the Parliament. I am concerned that the public does not seem to know about the broad range of circumstances in which the provisions of that act can be used. After all, it can be used by a child who is bullied in the playground or against a neighbour who constantly breaches an interdict. I have never seen advertisements or leaflets about the act. What information has been put out to make the public aware of how the act operates? I am not asking that question for the first time—I have asked many times before—and I know that Stewart Stevenson has also asked that question.

I am sure that I have responded to that question in writing.

We received a strange response that said that, because the act began as a committee bill, the committee would be responsible for the publicity attached to it. The committee has no budget for publicity, so that letter bounced back to your department. Then Margaret Curran told us that the various agencies that are involved, such as lawyers, know about the act, but my point is that the general public does not. The remit of the act is far wider than simply protecting cohabitees. I find it extraordinary that people do not know about the act and I would like to know whether there is a publicity budget for it.

I do not know whether there is a publicity budget for it. I will have to check that. MSPs have notified me of their constituents' complaints or concerns and I am conscious that I have written to suggest that the act might be useful in those circumstances. That underlines your point, convener. The act protects not only partners in cohabiting relationships, but grandmothers and their grandchildren. The example that you gave about neighbours is pertinent—people often raise concerns about harassment from their neighbours. I undertake to investigate what information has been put into the public domain. I am not entirely sure what would be the best way in which to advertise the act.

I am thinking of a small leaflet for citizens advice bureaux, schools, old folks homes and wherever such public information leaflets are distributed.

That is a helpful suggestion. I undertake not to find a budget, but to look into the matter.

We have pursued the matter up hill and down dale.

On the regulation of the legal profession, which is a matter into which the Justice 1 Committee has been inquiring, do you support self-regulation in the legal profession? Do you support the strengthening of the role of the Scottish legal services ombudsman in the complaints procedure?

I hesitate to make any commitment ahead of the publication of the Justice 1 Committee's report. The appropriate chronology—

May I halt you there, minister? I am conscious of the fact that you have not yet had the opportunity of giving evidence to the Justice 1 Committee on the regulation of the legal profession. I advise you that we are writing to offer you an opportunity to respond to those questions more formally, on a date to be confirmed.

On such issues, it is sometimes better to respond to the committee's proposals than to second-guess the committee.

The Executive welcomed the Justice 1 Committee's inquiry. An effective complaints handling procedure is a key part of any profession—not least the legal profession. In fact, such a procedure may be even more important in the case of the legal profession, as I learned during my early days in practice. The trouble is that 50 per cent of the people who become involved in legal situations think that justice was not done: someone wins and someone loses, but everyone believes in the rightness of their own case. The complaints system must be robust enough not only to pick up legitimate concerns and poor practice, but equally to prevent those who have discharged their responsibilities professionally from being hounded unreasonably.

I would not want to cut across your dialogue with the Justice 1 Committee, so I take that as a fair answer.

As a constituency MSP, I would like to offer a view to lay on the table in respect of the complaints procedure. A high percentage of the complaints that I hear from constituents are about their dissatisfaction with the legal profession. I accept that, as you say, that is their perception of how they have been dealt with. However, there is one particular issue that causes me concern; the scope of the ombudsman and the complaints procedure is far too narrow. I am convinced that that must be more robust and that there must be stronger powers if people are to have faith in the system. The system falls down in cases where a solicitor fails to notice that there is a time bar and the client seeks another solicitor to take action against the first one. I have constituents who have been turned away from four or five different solicitors in such cases. There must be strong consideration of various options, for example identifying solicitors who deal only with such work.

I am convinced that the current situation is unsatisfactory and I hope that something different will come out of any review. I will leave that to the Justice 1 Committee.

Any such changes in the powers of the ombudsman would require legislation. That would be a major shift and should not be embarked upon lightly, although that is not to say that it should not happen. It will be interesting to see what conclusions the Justice 1 Committee comes to on the matter. I acknowledge Pauline McNeill's point about the difficulty in getting a solicitor to take up cudgels—sorry, I mean to say, "take legal action"—against another solicitor. As long as no one is obliged to take on a particular client, that is a potential difficulty. If the committee were able to identify ways in which that problem could be addressed, and the sense of grievance—which I fully recognise—eliminated, I would be interested in considering them.

Is the minister confident that the Law Society of Scotland will be able to assume the responsibilities of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board, which is to be abolished by the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc (Scotland) Bill?

I am confident that it can—I would not have proposed that if I were not.

Proposed legislation has a habit of unravelling.

I gave great consideration to that board, which was established to compete with solicitors in relation to conveyancing and executry services; however, the numbers of practitioners coming through were so limited—of the 11 practitioners that were registered at the time of the review, only two were practising independently—that there was a strong argument for putting that quango on the so-called bonfire. There was an on-going cost to the taxpayer and the board was not delivering efficiently what it was set up to do.

The Law Society of Scotland has had long experience of supervising solicitors and I believe that it is well placed to assume the future regulation of conveyancing and executry practitioners. That is very much in line with the kind of work that it was doing anyway.

I am sure that I will not be alone in welcoming the comment in your introductory remarks that you are seeking to encourage the Scottish Prison Service away from simply considering bricks and mortar. Your invitation to the committees—and, I presume, to the members of the committees—to provide input into that will be readily accepted by many of us. You also observed that you want to deliver a prison estate that is fit for purpose. In that regard, you will no doubt recall that the estates review said that Peterhead's buildings were

"reaching the end of their useful life".

I welcome the reprieve for HMP Peterhead and the modest investments that will be necessary to bring it up to the standards that are required legally and morally. However, I am conscious that there will be other changes to standards. In particular, I draw your attention to changes in ventilation standards that are to be made next year. Peterhead does not currently meet those revised standards. Given that the prison building at Peterhead will still be the one that was built in 1888, can you say that Peterhead prison has a long-term future? If, as a result of developments in the short and medium term, conditions at Peterhead become unacceptable legally and morally, what changes might be necessary to give the prison a long-term future?

As I said in my statement of 5 September, Peterhead prison remains open and there are no plans to close it. The building is old, but we have never argued that it is about to fall down and that is almost one of the problems—the building is very sturdy and has stood the test of time. We want to install electric power in cells and to pursue the suggestions that local Prison Officers Association Scotland staff have made for improving prisoners' access to night sanitation. Those are two measures that would lead to significant improvement. SPS will consider other interim measures that can be taken to improve conditions.

I am, for two reasons, not in a position to make a further commitment. First, most of the £110 million in public investment that is earmarked for the existing estate has been allocated to development plans that have been worked up for Edinburgh and Perth prisons, HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont and HMP and YOI Glenochil. The investment will not dry up after three years, but I cannot commit myself beyond that. We are making the biggest-ever public investment in the estate.

Secondly, our decision regarding Peterhead was underpinned partly by the fact that the Spencer report identified the range of rehabilitation work that needed to be done with short-term sex offenders. We see that work as a priority, so we did not think that it made sense to disrupt the work that was being done with long-term sex offenders. During the consultation, it was made clear that long-term sex offenders are well provided for under the STOP 2000 programme at Peterhead.

I welcome the minister's acknowledgement that the Spencer report focuses on the need to address the issue of short-term sex offenders. That is not, and will not become, an issue for Peterhead prison. None the less, because when the Spencer report was prepared it was proposed that Peterhead would close, some of the report's conclusions are based on that premise. I take it that the parts of the Spencer report that refer to Peterhead closing have been disposed of, on the basis that Peterhead will remain the centre for treatment and incarceration of long-term sex offenders.

Peterhead is to remain the centre for treatment and incarceration of long-term sex offenders. Where there are inconsistencies, the policy that I announced on 5 September will prevail.

I referred to the changes in ventilation standards that are to be introduced. I am told that Peterhead prison currently does not meet those revised standards, which will be introduced in the next 12 to 18 months. As you have said that Peterhead will remain the centre for the treatment and incarceration of long-term sex offenders, I take it that the expenditure that is necessary for the prison to meet the new standards will be made available. I have no idea what that expenditure may be, or whether it is possible for Peterhead to meet the new standards.

That would have to be assessed in terms of what the requirements state and the physical attributes of the building. I could not give an immediate response because of the level of detail that is involved.

Since neither Maureen Macmillan nor Richard Lochhead is here at the moment, I will ask a question that one of them would have asked. The report on HMP Aberdeen offers an extraordinary indictment of that institution. It says that the prison

"has greatly deteriorated since the formal inspection of Autumn 1997, and, currently, in our opinion, is an idle, unsafe and failing prison."

In your response to that, you say that the report is "disturbing" and that it

"highlights a range of concerns".

You note that the report "concludes with some recommendations" and you go on to say that there is

"clearly room for improvement in … other areas."

In fact, I believe that the only positive thing that the inspector said was in relation to the cognitive skills programme.

You say, too, that

"the management action plan being implemented by SPS should address these issues",

and that you

"have asked the Chief Executive to keep"

you

"informed of progress that is made."

The report contains extraordinary information, such as prisoners having to use bedding to cover missing panes of glass in their windows. It is one of the worst reports that I have ever read. As we will definitely raise the issue with Clive Fairweather later today, I would like to know what progress has been made since that report was published in July.

As my foreword to the chief inspector's annual report says, since the inspection was undertaken, a review of the staffing complement has resulted in an increase of five in the number of staff. One of the key issues that Clive Fairweather raised related to escort demand; the increase in staffing will have a positive effect on that.

The chief inspector also recommended that the facilities for an adequate health care service should be reviewed and I can confirm that a future layout of those facilities is being considered as part of a comprehensive development plan for the programme. I can also confirm that a business case for a new health centre has been prepared and will be considered at this month's meeting of the estates development group.

Clive Fairweather also recommended that the longer-term accommodation requirement should be urgently reviewed in order to avoid further overcrowding. The response of the SPS was that that recommendation was being addressed and that work on it was in hand. Obviously, however, action cannot be taken immediately.

On remand conditions, the report states:

"Graffiti covered most of the walls and bed linen was improvised to provide curtains for the windows in order to reduce the draft caused by missing windowpanes … Remand prisoners were prevented from wearing their own clothing, which we were told was a local rule … Prisoners also complained that they were not guaranteed a daily change of underwear, though staff in the hall suggested that this was more to do with prisoners failing to exchange their dirty kit than the establishment's ability to provide the service. We suggest both situations are re-examined as a matter of urgency."

The situation would be bad in any case, but is made worse by the fact that these are remand prisoners.

The report says:

"The drug free area situated on the top flat of ‘A' hall was, at the time of inspection, offering no therapeutic enhancement to the prisoners housed there."

We also read:

"The health centre is small and cramped and the lay out does not afford the privacy required for health consultations and treatments."

Such information can be found all through the report. We are told that some support is given to senior management to reinvigorate the regime but we know that the management structure is under stress.

The report contains a litany of evidence of a prison that is in a dreadful state. If you cannot address those gravely concerning points now, I hope that you will contact us to do so as soon as possible.

I will do so. I have undertaken to visit Aberdeen prison in the next two or three weeks to see how it is and to determine what progress has been made since the report was compiled. I have said that some work has already been done in relation to increasing the number of staff. A business case has been made for improving the health facility.

As the convener pointed out, I described the report as very disturbing, and it is my intention that the situation should improve materially and visibly at Aberdeen prison. However, let us not lose sight of the other issues, such as drugs. Aberdeen prison cannot—as a local prison—be isolated from what is going on generally in the Grampian area.

The chief inspector of prisons does not do that. The problem is that no therapeutic enhancement is available to the prisoners in a drug-free area. The chief inspector freely admits the drug background of the prison; however, he also says that the prison itself is crumbling in all manner of ways.

One of the other issues is remand. The convener will remember that, when I announced the prison estates review, I pointed out that the number of remand prisoners has increased by about 28 per cent since last year. We do not understand why, but we are trying to find out. The fact that Aberdeen is a local prison where people are committed on remand by the local sheriff courts undoubtedly adds to the overcrowding. I offer that not as an excuse, but as background. We must try to find out why the number of remand prisoners has increased considerably.

I cannot pursue the matter with you further, given our time limit.

Aberdeen prison is not the only prison where the number of remand prisoners has risen. Inverness is another such prison.

No doubt Clive Fairweather will be asked about that and you will get the chance to ask about it when you visit Aberdeen.

We now move on to female prisoners. My final quote from the chief inspector's report is this:

"More and more women were being admitted to the female unit in Craiginches, many of whom were very damaged individuals."

I put it to you that those issues are of extreme concern. When will you visit that prison?

There is no fixed date, but I hope to visit it in the next two or three weeks.

Local prisons seem to have been ignored entirely in the prison estates review. The convener has talked about Aberdeen prison. Although HMP Inverness at Porterfield does not face the horrendous problems that Aberdeen prison seems to face, it is extremely overcrowded. The latest report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons gives the impression that things are starting to fall apart slightly. One of the problems is staff morale. As you mentioned, officers must often desert what they are doing with prisoners to escort other prisoners to court. I have spoken to you often about the set up in the Highlands and Islands, regarding the small courts and the vast distances that must be travelled. Such issues also impact on the police.

It is time that we got some indication of how you intend to solve the problem. The last time I wrote to you about it, I was told that there were legalised police cells. I know that there are legalised police cells, but they are not adequate for their purpose. There are now so many remand prisoners that the local legalised police cells cannot cope. I want to hear that you are looking into what is happening in local prisons, especially in respect of overcrowding, and that you are seeking solutions.

Maureen Macmillan knows Porterfield prison in Inverness as well as I do—possibly better. There is little that we can do to expand the prison, which is one of the most compact prisons that exist in a city centre. The situation there also reflects the point that I made to the convener on the number of remand prisoners. There has been a significant increase in the number of remand prisoners in Inverness, and I have set in train efforts to find out what is driving that increase. We are told anecdotally—although we have no evidence for this—that the increase is due to people defaulting on bail and being remanded a second time. It is dangerous to rely too much on anecdotal evidence. Nonetheless, some people believe that, if people are sent to prison, they are more likely to try to get their drug problems sorted out than they would be if they were allowed to remain in the community. The further we can roll out drug treatment and testing orders across Scotland, the better, although that in itself demands a considerable level of human resource—it is not just a question of money. We are certainly committed to rolling out DTTOs and I am sure that they have a contribution to make.

I could not agree more with Maureen Macmillan on where our move towards using third parties for prison escorts could be of most benefit, which would be the Highlands and Islands. The previous governor of Inverness prison told me about two prison officers having to take someone to Wick sheriff court and back—a fairly lengthy journey, which takes prison officers away from other things that they could be doing in the prison.

I was made aware recently of a fine default case in Kirkwall sheriff court, which I have drawn to the attention of my officials, because it links with the question of legalised police cells. It involved a person who was given a period in custody because of a fine default. The number of days of the sentence was such that, once automatic remission was taken into account, plus the fact that prisoners are not let out on Saturdays or Sundays, he had to be released on the Friday having been sent down on the Thursday. A police officer had to accompany the prisoner from Kirkwall to Inverness by plane, the prisoner spent one night in Inverness prison and he was let out the next morning. He was not officially accompanied by the police officer on the plane back, but the officer went back with him. To me, that is a complete waste of money and of police time. It also took up a place in Inverness prison for a night. Those are the issues in which prison escorts might provide a solution; legalised police cells might well provide another.

Moreover, further use of supervised attendance orders could be used instead of custodial sentences for fine default. Everything is being done—or is about to be done or is being worked up—to try to address the perfectly proper concerns that Maureen Macmillan expresses.

I have also raised with you the use of video links.

Indeed, and I am keen for them to be used. As members will recall from consideration of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, the pilot will be based at Barlinnie prison. The reason for that choice is that the large volume of cases at Barlinnie means that the things that we would look for in a pilot—finding out what the problems, issues and difficulties are—can more readily be identified. The number of remand cases going from, for example, Kirkwall sheriff court to Inverness prison would not necessarily generate the volume that would enable us to read anything into a pilot there.

I hope that the pilot offers a successful way forward. There is a lot of potential in it and, if we can identify the issues and resolve any problems and difficulties in prisons that have a high volume of remand cases, such as Barlinnie, the Highlands and Islands would then be an area in which it would make sense to roll out the pilot, which would cut down on travel time and use of resources.

I invite Scott Barrie to ask his questions on two different topics together or, at least, to ask them one after the other. We are conscious of the fact that time is running on.

When you made your statement to the Parliament some two weeks ago, you said that there would be two new prisons, including one new privately built and privately operated prison intended to deal in particular with the large increase in the number of remand prisoners. Can you say any more on that proposal? In particular, what is the likely time scale for building the prison and which location is the prison likely to be placed in? When do you think the prison will be in full operation?

Although I said in my statement that the prison would have to be fully flexible for prisoner places in order to get the benefits from the contract, it is our intention that the prison be used wholly for remand prisoners. That being the case, the best geographical location is somewhere in central Scotland, closest to the sheriff courts that people would be most likely to appear in. As far as timing is concerned, I recall that the time from the announcement about HMP Kilmarnock to its opening was less than three years. Planning permission will be a key matter and determining how long that process will take is not in the Executive's power.

One reason why we wanted to go down the private build, private operate road was particularly to deal with the increasing number of remand prisoners. As Clive Fairweather said in a BBC interview on 23 August:

"As far as private prisons are concerned – one of the advantages is that they can be put up quickly."

I take it that an attempt will still be made to identify the reasons for the huge increase in remand prisoners in the past 12 months and that you will be involved in any steps that can be taken to reduce the number.

Yes, very much so. I have tried to give that impression. We are anxious to identify the reasons and we have asked for hard information on what is driving the increase.

In his annual report, the chief inspector of prisons calls for the development and implementation of an integrated national policy for the management of young offenders, who amount to 13 per cent of the overall prison population and to more than 30 per cent of the remand population. Are there any plans to develop such a strategy?

Pauline McNeill and I accompanied Clive Fairweather on his last unannounced inspection of Polmont and discovered that in some halls with remand prisoners, up to 40 per cent of the young men were in their cells during the day and not doing any constructive work. If we are serious about the rehabilitative aspect of prison, it is important—as Clive Fairweather says in his report—that prisoners are constructively engaged during the day and not just lying around in their cells, which seems to be a feature of some of our establishments.

I endorse that. The Administration's policy is that the rehabilitative element of prison is vital, particularly in so far as it tries to minimise the likelihood of reoffending. A working group is examining the overall policy on young offenders. I cannot say when it will report, but if I can find that out I will add it to the list of matters about which I will write to the convener.

The policy document "Intervention and Integration for a Safer Society", which was launched in 2000, dealt with several categories of offenders, including young offenders, so it is not as if the matter has been without policy. That document dealt with policy on young offenders, but as I said, a working group is considering the matter further.

I will return to the helpful statement that the minister made as part of the response to the prison estates review, in which he identified the need to bridge the gap between the private sector's estimated cost of provision and the public sector's—the competitiveness issue.

You said that if the public sector proposes a private build, public operate option or a public build, public operate option, you are willing to consider that, so it is obviously important that the public sector move into a position in which it can meet the competitiveness challenge that you have laid down for it. What steps will the public sector need to take to meet that challenge?

We will have to identify how the sector's present working practices militate against its obtaining the efficiencies that have been achieved elsewhere. In the immediate aftermath of my statement on 5 September, I was encouraged that a joint statement was issued by the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service and by the chairman of the trade union side, David Melrose. Among other things, they acknowledged the £110 million investment in the public prison estate and said:

"We have been presented with a major challenge and for the first time in the UK the possibility of a public/private build and public run prison is being considered. We believe that we can deliver, but we recognise that only by Management and Trade Unions working together in partnership can we rise to that challenge.

We commit ourselves to that partnership working and to ensure that we communicate effectively with you throughout this process."

No one underestimates the scale of the task, but the fact that that was an immediate response by the trade union and management sides together should give us cause for hope.

As I said, all things being equal, I would prefer to see a prison in the public sector than to see one in the private sector. Until now, things have not been equal, but the opportunity exists to make them so.

One of the things to which you and others have referred in respect of the way in which we measure what is delivered by our prisons is the use of key performance indicators at Kilmarnock prison. KPIs are short-term measures of activity within an organisation, which are a surrogate for an indicator of expected long-term benefits. They are used because we cannot wait for the long term to see the benefits. It is important that KPIs are chosen with care so that they measure the activities that must take place in the short term to deliver the long-term outcomes that we desire.

What research-based evidence exists that the KPIs that have been selected for the private prison and those that will be used in any widespread introduction of KPIs in the public sector are linked to the long-term outcomes that we desire, or have KPIs simply been selected because they are convenient, measurable, available and simple to provide numbers for?

I think that Stewart Stevenson was asking whether the KPIs are relevant.

No, convener. I want to see whether there is a linkage between the KPIs, which measure short-term activities, and the knowledge that they will deliver the long-term outcomes that we desire.

First, KPIs are not exclusive to Kilmarnock prison. In fact, KPIs are set annually for the Scottish Prison Service. In turn, each prison is set targets for its contribution to the overall delivery of the KPIs. In the past couple of years, I have adjusted some of the KPIs to put a greater emphasis on education and programmes that promote rehabilitation. I did that specifically to address the point that Stewart Stevenson made about considering the longer-term outcomes that we want to see from a prison service that delivers on correctional excellence.

The Kilmarnock contract performance indicators cover a range of issues including the amount of time that prisoners spend on employment-related activity. I want to pick up on the question that Scott Barrie asked earlier about the experience of prisoners at Polmont, where a lot of time is spent doing not very much. It is fair to say that Kilmarnock is at the opposite end; more time is spent out of cell in Kilmarnock than in any other prison. That is because of a belief at Kilmarnock that employment-related activity and the nature of the work will benefit the longer-term employability of the prisoners and lead to less likelihood of reoffending.

It is also important to point out that Kilmarnock has its own rehabilitation programmes. In his written evidence to the Justice 1 Committee, the chairman of the Parole Board for Scotland set out:

"HM Chief Inspector's recent report on Kilmarnock shows that Kilmarnock put proportionately at least as many prisoners through programmes as any SPS establishment – and these programmes were led by professionally qualified staff rather than by trained prison officers."

It would be wrong to say that such programmes, which look to the long term and to the needs of people who will be released into the community, are not measured. In Clive Fairweather's first report on Kilmarnock, he indicated that one of the prison's strengths was its series of performance indicators. The public sector could well learn from that.

On 5 September, I announced that, for management and performance review and for greater accountability and transparency in each prison, the public sector should consider a much wider range of indicators. Those exist at Kilmarnock but have not been so prevalent in the public sector. We have a joint role in ensuring that we are satisfied with the criteria and the indicators that we are considering and in monitoring how performance matches up against the criteria that we have set.

Convener, I would—

I am sorry, Stewart, but we have only another 10 minutes and I would like to let Pauline McNeill ask about Cornton Vale. I know that James Douglas-Hamilton and Margaret Smith would also like to ask about alternatives to custody.

I realise that we will not have enough time today to examine all the issues surrounding the overcrowding at Cornton Vale, but I would like to put down a marker about our concerns and the issues that we would like to discuss with the minister in future.

I welcome the Scottish Prison Service's decision to move 50 inmates from Cornton Vale to Greenock to relieve overcrowding, but I want to make a couple of points. First, we must be notified of exactly what the arrangements are, so that we know where offenders now are. Secondly, the justice committees have both made lengthy visits to Cornton Vale, where we saw the medical centre and learned of the welcome improvements in the medical attention received by inmates, particularly in relation to the spate of suicides. There have recently been two further suicides, so we want to be reassured that women who are moved to other prisons will have access to the same kind of medical attention. I realise that the minister may not be able to give us that assurance today, and I shall put the same question to Clive Fairweather, but I would welcome a reassurance that the minister shares our concerns and that proper dialogue will be conducted in future.

It is important that the conditions at Darroch hall in Greenock are of a high standard. The SPS assures me that the women will be held in a separate hall in Greenock and that every effort will be made to provide a regime similar to that in Cornton Vale. I am also advised that more nursing staff must be employed to meet the health care needs of the female prisoners and that the time scale for moving the prisoners will be contingent on those staff being available. We are right to focus our attention on Cornton Vale. If there is a further opportunity for one of the committees to take a more in-depth look at the prison, I would welcome that.

The acting chair of the visiting committee sent an interesting letter to The Herald, pointing out that a range of alternatives to custody is available but that Cornton Vale, like other parts of the Scottish Prison Service, is obliged to take the people whom the courts send there. Tragically, many of the young women who are sent to Cornton Vale have great problems.

I think that we know that, but Pauline McNeill is referring to a specific issue.

I agree with all that the minister says, but I am trying to get him to address a specific point. There is no time for a committee to consider the issue. We are looking for a commitment now, as the conditions in which women who leave Cornton Vale for other prisons will be housed must be examined urgently, particularly as regards medical care.

As I have indicated, I am assured by the SPS that every effort will be made to provide a regime similar to that in Cornton Vale. The engagement of more nursing staff at Greenock is an important part of ensuring that the health care needs of the female prisoners who are transferred there are addressed.

It seemed to take the prison visiting committee's report for the chief executive of the SPS to act to address the overwhelming prisoner numbers in Cornton Vale. Action was taken shortly after that report was made public and put into the press. Is that the case?

The timing is probably coincidental.

It followed the publication of that report.

During the summer, I received a number of reports from the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service identifying the increasing numbers at Cornton Vale. Knowing the level of attention that was being paid to the numbers there, I do not think that it really needed a report to provoke action.

Was it a coincidence that 50 women were moved only a week after that report?

It is not a coincidence in as much as there is clearly an issue with Cornton Vale.

The numbers have been rising for years.

It is not surprising that the visiting committee highlighted that, but it would be wrong to suggest that that was the catalyst for the proposed move. I can assure the committee that the numbers at Cornton Vale have been of concern as they have increased throughout the summer. The numbers have been watched closely.

We will now move on to consider alternatives to custody.

I will ask my question in three parts. First, will the minister indicate the alternatives to custody that are currently available and what his future plans are? Secondly, we understand that he is considering extending the use of supervised attendance orders and ending the use of imprisonment for fine default. Does he propose to end imprisonment for fine default altogether? What consequences will that have? Thirdly, is there a need for more robust sanctions for breaches of alternatives-to-custody sentences, especially if such sentences are to avoid being categorised as a soft option?

There are a considerable number of alternatives to custody: probation, community service, supervised attendance orders, and drug treatment and testing orders. Specific programmes can also be attached to probation and community service. As Lord James will be aware, from May this year, restriction of liberty orders have been extended to cover the whole of Scotland. The first few months have shown that the courts are taking those up. There is a wide range of alternatives to custody.

The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which the Parliament will debate tomorrow, will develop a number of those alternatives. The bill proposes changes to the supervised attendance order, which is currently available to the criminal courts. The supervised attendance order requires an offender who has failed to pay a fine to undertake a programme of designated activities. The order substitutes a time penalty and provides for some constructive activity. Among the changes that are proposed in the bill is the proposal to allow a pilot scheme in which imprisonment would not be an option and a supervised attendance order would take the place of imprisonment.

I believe that it is worth piloting that. Earlier, I gave the example of people who often find themselves in prison for a handful of days. That probably does little to help the individual or to encourage their rehabilitation, but people might calculate that it is better to go to prison for two or three days than to pay the fine. I am not sure that we want to encourage that sort of attitude. That is why the supervised attendance order makes more sense.

To answer the latter part of Lord James's question, it is important that we find ways of speeding up the time taken to bring people to court if they are in breach of an alternative to custody. We are actively considering ways in which the bureaucracy can be minimised so that people can come to court. In such cases, justice speedily dispensed is more likely to be effective.

Things will obviously vary from case to case, depending on the circumstances of the breach. For example, I think that breaches of restriction of liberty orders are taken very seriously by the courts because such orders are intended at the outset to be a genuine alternative to custody and are not imposed as a community sentence.

As Lord James will be aware, drug treatment and testing orders are intensive and involve a degree of judicial oversight. Every encouragement is given to try to get the person through. A technical breach may not result in everything going back to square one, but one would expect the courts to respond to a serious breach—particularly when a person dismisses a great opportunity that they have been given and to which they have consented.

What robust sanctions do you envisage for breaches of sentences involving alternatives to custody? Will the ending of imprisonment for fine defaulting include the ending of imprisonment for non-payment of compensation orders?

The non-imprisonment of fine defaulters and the use of supervised attendance orders in such circumstances are being piloted. It would be wrong to jump the gun and to speculate on whether the pilot will be a success.

There is a widespread feeling that many people are in prison for very short periods, which does nothing to advance the rehabilitation agenda. The penalty for breaches of sentences involving alternatives to custody need not be a custodial sentence. The requirements of community service can be very demanding. Community service is also more likely to have a beneficial outcome and to make people less susceptible to reoffending. It is a fallacy that a term of imprisonment—especially very short-term imprisonment—is the best course for ending reoffending. I am not talking about people who have committed serious offences and for whom prison is appropriate, but at the lower end of the scale, the evidence suggests that non-custodial sentences are more likely to lead to positive outcomes and to make people less liable to reoffend.

Police officers have told me that a spectrum of sentences, including the alternatives to custody that you have outlined, is needed. However, they feel that best practice is not always taken on board. Pilots come and go without the information that is gleaned from them being passed on. How is best practice on alternatives to custody being developed? How is that being co-ordinated at national level?

I agree with the general premise of the question. Experience of good outcomes should be shared. In the Freagarrach project, the overall rate of offending by young people decreased by between 20 and 50 per cent compared with the previous year. Under the new directions scheme that Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council are pursuing, likely offending behaviour has been reduced threefold. The project has contributed to a dramatic reduction in the number of children in secure accommodation. It is right that we disseminate as best we can such examples of best practice.

We have brigaded—if that is the right word—criminal justice social work on the Scottish mainland into 11 groups. That should allow criminal justice social work to be seen as more of a priority than was the case when it was tagged on to individual local authorities. There are national standards for all 100-per-cent-funded disposals. The Scottish Executive provides 100 per cent of the funding for most criminal justice social work projects.

We are setting up an accreditation panel, chaired by Alan Finlayson, to ensure that projects are properly accredited. The criminal justice social work development centre at the University of Edinburgh has been extended to allow it to act as a national resource for the dissemination of best practice, the commissioning of research and the accreditation of programmes. Local authorities have been given £25.5 million over four years to invest in community-based programmes for persistent offenders.

Resources are being invested and work is being done to ensure that best practice is identified and disseminated. The reorganisation of criminal justice social work and the accreditation that is about to take place are key components of our strategy for ensuring quality. No single approach will achieve it, but the committee can perhaps appreciate that a number of strands are coming together to ensure that we address the problem that Margaret Smith raised.

Thank you, minister. You have finished almost on the half hour.

We will suspend for a short break, if members agree. Please be back in five minutes to hear Clive Fairweather's evidence.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—