Justice 2 Committee, 26 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 26, 2001

Official Report 214KB pdf

---

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Inquiry

Item 6 is the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service inquiry. Members have before them a paper summarising the written evidence that we have received so far and outlining the next steps that the committee might want to take. If members would like to comment on how we should proceed, the clerks can consider the matter over the summer. That will give us a head start when we return after the recess.

Our visit to the Crown Office the week before last was very helpful. Unfortunately, we did not have enough time to see everything that we wanted to see. However, the visit made the way in which things operate there much clearer—certainly to me. We have an open invitation to make a second visit, if members would like to take that up. I certainly would. It would be better if we all went at the same time, but if members would like to visit in groups that, too, will be possible.

Following on from the written evidence that we have received, I invite members to identify any specific organisations from which they would like to take oral evidence and to make any further suggestions relevant to the inquiry.

I was sorry to miss the visit to the Crown Office. If another could be arranged for the near future, that would be extremely beneficial.

I have not kept a particularly close eye on this matter, but in his submission David Hingston refers to

"prosecutions and complaints being made by members of the public about the quality of the service".

I have had to deal with two or three cases in my constituency where that has been an issue. How much has the committee looked into that? Is that an issue that we should investigate?

My other point relates to the police complaints procedure, which is currently the responsibility of the fiscal service. I know that the Executive intends to make proposals in that area—sooner rather than later, I hope. Does the committee consider that to be an important issue? How much do we intend to focus on the police complaints procedure? I accept that there is separation of responsibilities, but the two or three constituency cases with which I have had to deal raise profound questions about the transparency of the current system and the pressure that it puts on the fiscal service. It would be interesting to look into that.

Those are helpful comments. The draft terms of reference for the inquiry list a number of issues that we said we wanted to consider. That is why we have set aside up to a year for the inquiry—we know that the more we look into this matter, the more we will discover. Quality of service is not mentioned specifically on the list. However, in the light of the evidence that we receive we may want to consider including it.

The Justice 1 Committee is conducting an inquiry into the procedure for dealing with complaints against the police. However, Tavish Scott makes the important point that we cannot examine services in isolation. Throughout the budget process, this committee has said that it believes in working towards a more joined-up justice system. We cannot carry out an inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service without considering its liaison with other agencies. I have expressed a particular interest in examining its liaison with the police. There is probably scope for considering the question that Tavish Scott raises.

Other MSPs will have had experiences similar to those of Tavish Scott. I have not yet spoken to an MSP who has not received correspondence by the tonne about constituents' experiences with the fiscal service. We have asked the general public not to discuss specific cases in their evidence to us, so we should not make an exception for MSPs in that respect. However, we could ask MSPs to comment generally. They know that the inquiry is under way, but they may need to be encouraged to provide us with information.

David Hingston suggested that we should include small rural offices in our programme of visits. We had considered doing that, but it is not on our agenda at the moment.

I do not rule that out. Once we have made the visits that are arranged and discussed them, it may be appropriate for one or two of us to visit a small rural office by way of comparison. That is preferable to saying simply that we will visit more and more offices. If we find that the issues raised by the four visits that we have already agreed are identical, what would be the point of further visits? However, if the issues raised are different, it may be worth visiting a small rural office as well.

I recall that it was representatives of the Crown Office who said that we should not visit small rural offices. That made me extremely suspicious. Scott Barrie is right to say that it would be best to visit the larger offices before visiting a smaller one for the purpose of comparison. I suspect that we will find that in such offices work load is the main issue, rather than points of law.

The committee agrees that it would like to visit a small rural office. Once we have completed our planned visits and have a sense of how matters are proceeding, we can schedule a visit to a small office.

Although we are not planning specifically to visit a rural office, at least one of the offices that we are planning to visit covers a large rural area—I was going to say hinterland, but that is rather pejorative—even though it is based in a medium-sized town. The issues raised by our visit to the Stirling office may be different from those raised by our visit to Aberdeen, for example.

What we mean by a small rural office is a one-person operation. However, we can draw up a list of options and ask members to express a preference.

Do we need any more information from the Crown Office? Do we need to know more about how it measures work load increases? We have asked questions about how it calculates the number of staff that it requires. Another issue is the roles of legal and non-legal staff. We have received a submission from the union that represents non-legal staff. We may also want to seek details on recruitment, experience and retention of staff. We have received written evidence on the training of advocates depute and of legal staff. If members require further information, we should seek to obtain that over the summer. Do members agree that it would be useful to secure more information on how staffing requirements and work load are measured?

Members indicated agreement.

Members will have seen in the press that a memo has been circulated in the Crown Office saying that no one is to speak to the committee unless they have been cleared to do so by the Crown Agent. That is probably not unusual and I do not really mind it, because the employees of the Crown Office are civil servants. However, we would like to think that, if we wanted to speak to a particular individual, we would be able to approach them and they would not be debarred from giving evidence. We are currently considering whom we would like to call to give evidence. We thought that we should establish whether someone wanted to give evidence before making a formal request that they do so. In my view, we should invite some regional fiscals to appear before the committee so that we can ask them about the situation in their areas.

Annexe B to the paper, which lists organisations from which we may want to take further written evidence, is fairly comprehensive. That evidence may help us decide which individuals or groups we wish to invite to give oral evidence. I will not rule anyone out at this stage but, once we have seen the written evidence, we can decide what points we want to pursue in oral evidence.

From whom would members like to hear during the months following the recess? Would you like to hear from the police, from fiscals or from someone else on the list?

It would be useful to invite the police quite early, as there are a number of issues that concern the police in relation to the Procurator Fiscal Service. It is not just about procurators fiscal filing the reports and liaising with the police on possible prosecutions; it is also about the police time that is taken up giving evidence. There are many different aspects to that relationship. Additionally, we should take evidence from different levels within the police force; as we have heard, the view of one level in the force may be slightly different view from that of another. It will also be useful to take evidence from consumers of the court service, through organisations that represent victims and work with offenders and to ask about their experiences of the court process and the PF system. Those are the two groups that we should invite early on.

I agree with Scott Barrie. It is important that we take a range of views from throughout the police force and from different geographical areas.

We could invite the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation.

The inquiry will be quite detailed and we may risk losing our way—if we have not done so already. Using the terms of reference, we could draw up a couple of pages of common questions that we could ask every witness in addition to any specific questions. That would allow us to track all the evidence and plough our way through it. We could keep the answers for the record when we draw up our report.

Are there any other points?

I have a final point, concerning

"the perspective of victims, witnesses and next of kin",

which is mentioned in annexe B. In my constituency, citizens advice bureaux play a huge role in helping those groups, not only through giving advice. I expect that their national organisation will have a perspective to give on the Procurator Fiscal Service; local bureaux certainly do, as they have to deal with the system day in, day out. It is therefore worth asking them for evidence too.

That is a good suggestion. We will add the citizens advice bureaux to the list of possible witnesses, as they have to deal with people asking about victim support.

That brings us to a logical conclusion on the inquiry. We will be working through the summer, so I ask members to keep in touch about any ideas that they have. We would like to be ready in September to step up a gear on the inquiry.

On the issue that Mary Mulligan raised at the beginning of the meeting, do we have any proposed dates for visits to the PFs' offices?

We need to contact members, which we will do this week, and to confirm dates for the various visits at some point during the recess. It will depend on what suits the particular groups.

As five members are here, perhaps we could find out immediately after the meeting when members will be available during the recess.

Yes.

Item 7 also relates to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service inquiry. Members have a paper setting out the role that an adviser might fulfil and suggesting potential candidates. Members are reminded that individuals' names should not be discussed in public. I invite the committee to agree in principle that we discuss the appointment of advisers.

Members indicated agreement.

Do members have any comment on the role and qualifications—the CV, in other words—of the person whom they would like to appoint?

Members indicated disagreement.

My only comment is that the adviser should be someone with experience of being in the Procurator Fiscal Service or dealing with the service. Other than that, they should have a legal background.

Members indicated agreement.

As agreed, we now move into private session to discuss the details of the appointment of advisers.

Meeting continued in private until 11:30.