Plenary, 13 Feb 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, February 13, 2003

Official Report 703KB pdf

---

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

Before we start this morning, I inform members that there are problems with the automated cameras; therefore, I have exceptionally authorised two manned cameras to be situated on the floor.

The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3893, in the name of Pauline McNeill, on the Justice 2 Committee's report on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service inquiry. I call Pauline McNeill to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Justice 2 Committee.

The committee's inquiry seems to have been the longest inquiry in the history of the Parliament—it probably is. The seven-member Justice 2 Committee changed its membership a few times during the course of the inquiry, and we even had a change of clerks. I cannot give enough thanks to the committee members for their perseverance and sheer hard work in compiling the report in between scrutinising legislation, petitions and Scottish statutory instruments. I thank Stewart Stevenson, Duncan Hamilton, George Lyon, Alasdair Morrison, Scott Barrie and Bill Aitken for the hard work that they have done on the report.

I speak for all committee members when I put on record my utter admiration and thanks for the work of our clerks, Gillian Baxendine, Irene Fleming and, formerly, Fiona Groves. No task was too big and no member's comment was too garbled for Gillian to translate it into English to produce the report, which has, so far, been well received.

One and a half years on from when we first started, it seems that there might not be much controversy; nonetheless, I am relying on Bill Aitken to introduce some, because I know that he likes to do so. I thank Bill for assisting me and for putting in extra time to meet the report's deadline, for which I am very grateful.

The report has been quietly accepted and not widely reported, but I am not at all disappointed about that. I truly believe that the report achieved its purpose long before it was published and that much has changed already. Our decision to report on the state of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service was a dynamic decision and it became unstoppable when it was matched by the will of the Crown Office team to make changes. Most of my comments this morning will be positive, but I shall also highlight some concerns that I still have.

For me, it all began when my local police station explained to me how difficult it was to speak to a procurator fiscal. The police officers had just completed a local campaign of charging young offenders who were committing crimes against the elderly community and committing crimes in Anderston, in my constituency. The officers were all concerned that the charges would be dropped as a matter of policy, but they had great difficulty in establishing contact with a fiscal who could advise them whether the proceedings would go ahead. In the view of many policemen and policewomen in the service, the days were long gone when they had the kind of relationship with the local procurator fiscal in which they could simply phone the fiscal up and find things out. There were not enough fiscals, they were overworked and the relationships were not as strong as they used to be.

It was that situation that first made me want to know why the system had changed and how it could become more joined up and better resourced. Many MSPs have shared that interest and have written to the committee about their experiences, including among others Shona Robison, Duncan McNeil and Cathy Jamieson, and we are grateful for their input. The terms of the remit that we announced on 8 May 2001 were:

"To investigate whether the resources available to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, including numbers of staff and the experience levels of senior prosecutors, are sufficient to meet its stated aim of thorough, critical and accurate investigation, preparation and presentation of cases, while having sensitivity to the needs of victims and witnesses."

We agreed to examine a range of specific issues. Among those were trends in the number and types of cases, including the increasing complexity of serious crime; the effectiveness of liaison with the police; staff morale; and the trends in the use of fiscal fines and plea bargaining. We thought that the inquiry would give some indication as to whether the system was under-resourced.

The committee suspected that the system was under tremendous pressure because of a lack of resources, and we expected to find that there was overuse of the fiscal fines system and a tendency for soft pleas to be submitted prior to trials. However, what we found was a highly dedicated service that was under severe pressure because of the lack of resources and its having too few fiscals, but which rarely complained, so we believed that the quality of justice was at stake. In addition, the culture in the Crown Office was such that its staff did not regard it as their job to argue for more resources. However, that has changed.

Professor Duff presented the committee with evidence on the use of fiscal fines. He said that there was no evidence that they were being used more than they had been in the past. However, he also said:

"Experienced defence solicitors know that if everything is left to the last minute the poor fiscal depute will be so hard pressed that the defence solicitor might be able to negotiate a better deal on behalf of their client."

There might not be hard evidence, but there certainly was a view around that the quality of justice could be suffering because of a lack of resources.

In Glasgow sheriff court, fiscals conducting the Monday morning custody courts can be there until late into the evening. Sheriffs and clerks also work late, but the fiscal is the only person who has no administrative assistance. Anthony Campbell, giving evidence on his Chhokar report, remarked that a precognition officer in the Hamilton office was starting work at 5 am before going to court on a serious child-protection case.

The committee's view is that the prosecutor's role is a special one because in the marking of cases determining crime, decisions are constantly being made in an instant. For example, a decision can be taken in an instant as to whether a particular offender is to be charged with careless driving or with dangerous driving. I know that that matters to people. No case is ever straightforward, and I believe strongly that the delivery of high-quality justice depends on prosecutors—although not on them alone—and that a strong prosecutor can make a real difference in both the marking of cases and the prosecution of crime in our courts.

That is why I am pleased that the interview boards for new fiscals have acknowledged that recruiting from a wide and varied range of people whose backgrounds include a variety of experiences can add something to the system. The morale of the service has been lower than in any public sector service in recent times. Dealing with crime has become more complex and the introduction of the European convention on human rights has made its mark on the service, which is probably more accountable that it has ever been. The committee feels strongly that the Crown Office should, in the future, conduct another stress audit to ensure that that particular issue in the service has been tackled.

It is arguable that the Crown Office has been the most scrutinised department of Government. Prior to devolution, the law officers spent a large percentage of their time out of Scotland and did not receive many parliamentary questions. However, figures show that there has been about a 63 per cent increase in questions to them. There is certainly more work for our Lord Advocate and Solicitor General and times have changed for the better. However, I would like to put on record my thanks to the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General and Alistair Brown for their co-operation with, and assistance to, the committee during its inquiries.

Staff numbers were a particular concern for the committee. We felt that it was important to consider that issue, which would indicate to us whether resources were adequate. We note the increase of 95 in the number of legal staff between 1997 and 2002, which is a 33 per cent increase. However, I must emphasise that the committee had difficulty in assessing the value that that added to the service. We wanted an establishment figure for every office, including information on the office's vacancies and any increase—or otherwise—in staff, so that we could assess where the additional staff were in Scotland, but I am not satisfied that we received the figures that would have allowed us to do that.

We chose to visit the Hamilton office—for obvious reasons—and were surprised to find that, 10 months on from the Jandoo report on the Chhokar case, there were still staff shortages. My visit with Bill Aitken to the Hamilton office yesterday has still to be reported on, but it is fair to say that we are beginning to see important changes for the better.

During its work, the committee felt strongly about victims; how victims are treated in the system was of major concern to the committee, so we chose to examine two case studies to elaborate our views. I am grateful to Ken Macintosh and to the Cawley family, who are his constituents. They described their experiences, which can only be called horrendous, to the committee. There was no one to greet them at the High Court when they arrived and there was no one to advise them why the second accused was sitting next to them in the public gallery following his acquittal the night before for lack of evidence. I am grateful to the Cawley family for highlighting a situation that I believe other families might have gone through. I know that, if it is anything to do with the Scottish Parliament, that will not be allowed to happen again.

Alan Kerr is an example of a father trying to support his son. He travelled from Ayrshire to Glasgow many times only to see the trial cancelled each time and was given no support or explanation for what was happening. I am grateful to him for giving the committee evidence. There has been a lot of progress in how victims are treated and I do not believe that we will go back to such days as Alan Kerr described—there should certainly be no repeat of that kind of treatment.

One or two things are worth considering in relation to the kind of system that we want to support victims. It is important that victims get information at every stage of the process, from the starting point at which a charge is made to the point at which the case goes to trial. Support during the trial to enable victims and their families to understand what is going on is vital, but I would not want that to interfere with the important work of the police and the procurators fiscal in the execution of their duties. We must ensure that we get that balance right.

I started by saying that my interest in the report relates to liaison with the police; I believe that it is essential that we ensure that that relationship does not break down in the future. The committee has recommended that the Solicitor General should have specific responsibility to ensure, at all levels of relationships between the Crown Office and the police, that liaison is functioning properly and that the police can speak to a procurator fiscal when they need to.

We have been careful to point out that other agencies expect there to be prosecutions, such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and local authorities, which commented that they believed that the system could be better resourced to ensure that cases are prosecuted in relation to the crimes with which they are concerned. The Parliament will know that the Pryce-Dyer review, which was the Crown Office's internal inquiry, is a weighty report, the vast majority of which represents added value to our inquiry. The new management structure is already in place as a result of that review and seems, by all accounts, to have been much welcomed.

I have previously expressed some concern about the speed of the management changes. I know from the phone calls and correspondence that I receive from procurators fiscal on the front line that there is great concern that the resources are attached to the change in the management structure, as opposed to ensuring that those front-line fiscals are resourced. The committee is adamant that the conditions of service and the working conditions of procurators fiscal should be improved. We commented in the report about the need to have quiet space in the phenomenon of open-space planning. Procurators fiscal have written to us to say that that is an important development.

I am pleased that there is a prospect that the pay issue will be settled. That has calmed the fears of many front-line procurators fiscal who perceived that the priority was changes in management. I think that a progressive pay structure will attract the kind of people we want to have in our procurator fiscal system, so there will be positive change in that regard.

Although I agree with much of what the Pryce-Dyer review had to say, I profoundly reject the parts that compare the service to the board of ICI. I am pleased that the Lord Advocate has rejected some of that and has ensured that the legal board at the top has a balance of legally qualified people.

We have done our best to report on what we have seen, on the many changes that have taken place and on what we have been told by the many people who have written to us. We have said that the report should be regarded as an interim report because it is important that the successor committee to the Justice 2 Committee assess the impact of some of the changes at a later date.

I put on record my thanks to everyone—procurators fiscal, agencies and others—who wrote to the committee detailing their experiences and encouraging us to do the work. I look forward to hearing the debate.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the 4th Report 2003 of the Justice 2 Committee, Report on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Inquiry (SP Paper 747), and agrees that progress in implementing the committee's recommendations and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service's programme of change should be kept under close review.

I begin by thanking the Justice 2 Committee for its report and for the constructive and diligent way in which its members have conducted the inquiry.

The report is one of a number that have been done in recent years into aspects of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The service has never before been subjected to the scrutiny that the Scottish Parliament has brought to bear on its activities. It has been a healthy experience and a catalyst for much-needed change in the service.

Today, I have the opportunity to acknowledge the work of the Justice 2 Committee and its importance in helping to drive and shape our programme of modernisation and reform. I also pay tribute to the convener, Pauline McNeill, and to Bill Aitken who assisted her in the work on the report.

As the report acknowledges, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service makes significant achievements every day. Complex cases are prosecuted successfully, sudden deaths are handled appropriately and sensitively, and the proceeds of crime are recovered.

Recently, however, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has had to respond to increasing pressures, which has exposed the lack of investment and demonstrated a clear need for reform. That is why, following an internal management review, we set about putting in that investment and making those reforms by embarking on a comprehensive programme of reform and modernisation. I note the committee's concern about the speed of change, but I believe that we owed it to the Scottish public to respond quickly and effectively. It is worth noting what has been achieved over the past year.

There has been significant new investment—this year's budget was increased from £63 million to £78 million, rising to £92 million by 2005-06. Some might say that that is not enough, but when I became Solicitor General in 1997, the budget was £46 million. We will have doubled that budget in eight years; I do not believe that there is any other agency in the criminal justice system that has had that level of investment.

In 2002, 159 new full-time equivalent staff were recruited, 113 of them since March. There has been major restructuring of the service, bringing our areas into line with police force boundaries and allowing closer co-operation between the police and the prosecution service.

There has been strengthening of corporate support and investment in human resources, training, information technology and management information systems. We have reviewed the preparation and prosecution of High Court cases and made significant changes to the role and appointment of advocate deputes. We have widened the pool of people who are eligible to prosecute and we have made changes to the way in which the most serious crimes are prosecuted. We have created eight pathfinder offices to test new ways of working and we have produced standard task instructions that will become the templates for the whole organisation.

The programme is not a programme of short-term fixes; its scope is long term and is aimed at creating a Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that wins the confidence of the people of Scotland; that is committed to professional excellence; that pursues cases independently, fairly and consistently and in the public interest; that is responsive to the public's needs; that provides a full, satisfying and rewarding career for staff; and that communicates openly and effectively.

However, the programme means more than that. It means that there will be a prosecution service that is efficient, professional, open and accountable. Accountability means being prepared to explain how we go about our work and how we manage our service. That accountability is fully consistent with the independent status of the Lord Advocate in his prosecution role, and with that of the procurators fiscal as my representatives. That independence is fully recognised in the Scotland Act 1998 and is founded on the vital need for decision making in public prosecutions to be taken without fear, favour or influence. The programme is also a vision of a service that respects and promotes the roles of victims and witnesses of crime, and which recognises that prosecution is about more than just the prosecutor and the accused, and the court and the lawyers. How do we achieve that?

I know that I am on shaky ground here.

I go along totally with the Lord Advocate's comment that politics should be kept out of the courts, but politicians in a Parliament such as this express concerns about, for example, drug dealing and other major crimes, and they express the attitude that such crimes should at times be dealt with more harshly than perhaps the courts deal with them. How can we get that across to sheriffs and judges without being seen to apply political pressure?

Of course, the sentencing of crime is for the courts, and rightly so, and it is done independently. So far as my function is concerned, I will listen to the concerns that are expressed about the prosecution policy. I did that recently on the prosecution of section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

How do we get the basics right? We value our staff. We have taken steps to relieve pressure and stress, we have settled the pay dispute and we have created more promoted posts and opportunities to prosecute in the High Court. We have had a thorough review of our levels of customer service. We will build on the establishment of victim information and advice, which is currently available in seven areas, but which is soon to be established in all areas. An office was established in Paisley last month. One will open in Airdrie this month and Inverness, Dumfries and Stirling will follow.

We work better with our criminal justice partners, such as the police and the Scottish Court Service. That is all part of a programme to improve the criminal justice system as a whole, which includes Lord Bonomy's report into the High Court, Sheriff Principal McInnes's report on summary justice and Andrew Normand's report on criminal justice objectives. That is a comprehensive examination of the Scottish criminal justice system. We work with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the courts and others to develop protocols on how we work together, so that the kind of problems that Pauline McNeill referred to in her speech—which are picked up in the report—about police officers not being able to speak to fiscals and vice versa are overcome.

We are also making improvements to our processes and systems; those improvements will have wider benefits. One example of that is the project to send by post witness citations in summary cases. Not only will that make our processes more efficient; it will free the police from delivering those citations personally in every case. That project should go live from April.

I agree with a great deal of what the Lord Advocate says, but will he come round to addressing the recommendations in the report in his remaining two minutes? Does he agree that the report, excellent though it is, would have been far better if the Justice 2 Committee's recommendation that all staff in the service should have the opportunity to participate by setting out their views in an anonymous questionnaire had been implemented? Why was that suggestion by the committee rejected by the Lord Advocate? Does not it smack of the sort of secrecy of which we want to rid Scotland's justice system?

The same civil service rules apply to procurators fiscal as apply to all other civil servants. So far as questionnaires are concerned, the Justice 2 Committee had the opportunity to speak to members of the Procurator Fiscal Service, and to take evidence from fiscals' elected representatives from the Procurators Fiscal Society. That is the proper way to conduct inquiries into any part of the civil service.

So far as the recommendations are concerned, Mr Ewing will be aware that we have submitted, and no doubt he has seen, our detailed response to the recommendations of the report. In the 10 minutes that I have for my speech, I cannot cover all the recommendations. I wanted to highlight the main points.

I have set out what we have achieved so far and where that is taking Scotland's prosecution service. I have also given examples of how we will reach our destination. I can safely say that I have faced some challenging times in my time as Lord Advocate, but modernisation and reform are the most important and enduring of the challenges. I am fortunate to have the support of people who are committed to change and who understand the importance of reaching that destination.

I am also fortunate to have in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service highly dedicated, hard-working and professional staff who do their duty to prosecute in the public interest day in, day out. The Parliament does not often have the opportunity to acknowledge and thank them, so I hope that all members join me in saluting their work.

I am not sure whether I am required to say it, but I had better say that I continue to be an advocate. That means that, from time to time in the past, I was on the prosecution side of the bench, rather than the defence side.

It cannot be denied that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has been seriously under-resourced for years. That has meant that aspects of our justice system have been failing. The current shake-up in practices is long overdue and the recommendations in the Justice 2 Committee's report are important in that process. I commend the committee for its work. At long last, those of us who have called for such changes are starting to see progress. I welcome the progress that has been made, but much more could and should be done. I am sure that disagreement on that score is unlikely.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has been so under-resourced that it has been a factor in the slowing of the whole justice process over the years. It is not the only problem, but it is a key difficulty. It is difficult to see what other conclusion can be drawn from the figures that the Executive published in December. Since 1997, the number of crimes and offences has soared to 945,716, yet the number of prosecutions has plummeted to 139,596. The figures are diverging markedly, instead of following each other. The Solicitor General shakes her head, but those figures were produced by the Executive in response to questions.

While crime is increasing and police clear-up rates increase proportionally, the number of prosecutions is falling, which means that the number of convictions falls, because that number is bound to follow proportionally the number of prosecutions. When our constituents tell us that they do not feel that crime is being taken seriously enough, they are almost subconsciously aware of what those statistics reveal.

In January, I revealed an analysis of the statistics that showed that, since 1997, prosecutors have prosecuted fewer of the crimes of indecency and sexual assault that the police have cleared up and fewer convictions have been obtained. That picture prevails for many offences, including vandalism and fire raising. The divergence is stark. The police have been doing their job and their clear-up rates have increased with the increase in the number of crimes and offences, but the prosecution system has failed to keep pace. Why should that be? There must be a reason for such a marked divergence in the rate of prosecutions as compared with the number of crimes and offences.

In a parliamentary answer to me, the Solicitor General admitted that the number of court cases that have been dropped because of delays in the justice system has doubled in the past four years. According to the figures, the number of cases marked "no proceedings" rose from 4,214 in 1998-99 to 8,409 in 2001-02. According to newspaper reports, officials said that cases had been dropped because of delays by the police or other reporting agencies, delays by the procurator fiscal or because the time limit on bringing cases to court had been breached, which is basically the same as a delay, although it is a separate category. That is the reality of what people are experiencing and complaining about. Our justice system is creaking at the seams and the figures show that the situation has been worsening. Between 1998-99 and 2001-02, the number of cases that were dropped because of delays by the police or another reporting agency rose by 112 per cent and the number of cases that were dropped by the procurator fiscal went up by 123 per cent.

Another major problem with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is the inability to get any sort of information from it about the reasoning behind its decisions. This is not the first time that we have acknowledged that in the Parliament. I know that I am not alone in being incredibly frustrated by the number of times that I have to pass on to constituents the stock answer from the Crown Office, which is in effect that it does not have to explain its actions, which equally often means its inactions.

That leaves members of the public who have been victims of crime utterly bemused by the workings of the system and its inability, in their eyes, to deliver anything even approaching justice. That is a real problem. Both of the law officers know that it is one thing to announce from the top that things will change, but quite another thing to ensure that a harassed and overworked member of staff at the end of a phone call to a victim does not respond to a request for information with, "What do you want to know for?" I have had to deal with that experience in my constituency.

I believe that some of the sentiments and detail that are contained in paragraphs 20, 22 and 23 of the report are key to the problem. Those paragraphs make it clear that long-term under-resourcing has been, and continues to be, a major factor in inhibiting the staff in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service from functioning at their best.

I was particularly struck—for personal reasons—by the report of the committee's visit to Hamilton sheriff court last year. When the committee paid its visit, up to four ad hoc fiscals were operating at the court each day. In my early years as an advocate, I practised as an ad hoc fiscal—the practice was very common at that time. Let me tell members what that meant in reality: I turned up at 9 am, got handed a stack of cases for trial—easily up to 12 or so. By 10 am, I had to be in a position to confront the long line of defence agents—referred to by my colleague Fergus Ewing—who were offering pleas, giving reasons for not being able to proceed and asking for agreements about this, that or the other—all on cases with which I had no familiarity. All that I knew was that not all of the cases could go to trial.

Courts operate on the basis that the majority of cases will not, for whatever reason, go ahead. As an ad hoc fiscal, I had to make snap judgments about which plea it was okay to accept, which case was to be assigned to another day and which trials could—perhaps—go ahead that day. All of that had to be decided on cases that I had seen for the first time an hour previously.

Then, and only then, could I go about releasing the various witnesses in all of the cases that were not going to trial that day. They included police witnesses, some of whom would have to wait on the chance that some of the cases that were purportedly going to trial would go ahead when, as members also know, that does not always happen.

I have been assured in a separate discussion that the process of ad hoc fiscalling has fallen away. I am prepared to accept that it is not as extensive as it once was, but in the report, I read that it was being used extensively in Hamilton sheriff court only last year. I note in passing, from subsequent assurances that are contained in the report, that its routine use was eventually eliminated. However, the fact remains that the service is still having to fall back on that practice to get itself out of local difficulties.

The problem that I have with that is that I suspect the experience of ad-hoc fiscalling was not much at variance with the experience of the regular fiscals then and now—except, of course, for the fact that regular fiscals would also have had to undertake all of the work that led up to getting the cases to court. The 10 am line-up would certainly be the same. Speak to any defence agents and they will say that it can be difficult to get hold of a fiscal to make a decision in advance of the date of trial. Pauline McNeill was absolutely right when she said that defence agents often do not even attempt to do that. That is not always for the cynical reason that defence agents are trying to operate the system, but because they have been unable to get hold of the fiscal in advance of the court date.

There is cynicism about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. There is a serious culture problem within the service that needs to be dealt with, which involves management and staff. If we expect staff to change, management's attitude to them has to change. Given that we expect them to make some of the changes that we are demanding of them, it would be unfair to do otherwise.

I commend the report to the Executive. It should not simply be put on a shelf. An SNP Government would take the recommendations seriously and I hope that the current Executive will also take them seriously.

In speaking to the Justice 2 Committee's Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service inquiry report, I have to mention an interest as a former interim procurator fiscal depute and as a non-practising Queen's counsel.

I warmly support the Lord Advocate's recognition of the selfless service and dedicated devotion to duty shown by Scotland's prosecutors. However, it is very much our conviction that for too long Scotland's prosecution service has received less than adequate resources to carry out its vital responsibilities.

As the Parliament will recall, the Chhokar inquiry revealed that more support was necessary for prosecutors. Indeed, there is little value in having dedicated police officers detecting and solving crime and carrying out arrests if it takes an unacceptably long time for cases to come to court.

I am particularly impressed that the Justice 2 Committee has had the moral courage to highlight obvious deficiencies in the current arrangements. Paragraph 114 of the report states:

"The Committee concluded that, given the importance and responsibility of the procurator fiscal's role, it is in the interests of justice for the service to be held in high public regard and have high morale. This is not presently the case".

The Conservative party's view is that Scotland's justice system is cracking at the seams. There have been longer delays, which can on occasion help offenders to evade justice—Roseanna Cunningham referred to that theme. We believe that an overhaul of the whole process is long overdue.

I am glad that the evidence given to the Justice 2 Committee supports our view. At paragraph 115, the assertions are strong and forthright. The committee concludes:

"We heard evidence of a service under extraordinary pressure …We welcome the fact that there is no longer complacency about the scale of underfunding that has existed … Although surprisingly few cases have come to light as having gone badly wrong, we consider there to be an unacceptable level of risk in the system."

That leads me to the vital issue of whether sufficient resources are being provided. In my view, they are not. In this year's budget, the increase for the justice department—only 1.3 per cent—is significantly lower than that received by other Government spending departments. It is clear that law and order, the rule of law and justice issues do not receive top priority on the Scottish Government's agenda. That is a matter of fact. It is interesting to read what the Justice 2 Committee concluded on that issue. It expresses concern that

"neither the Committee, nor the Department, have the necessary information to say whether these increases are enough … We remain concerned about the real impact of the staff increases being made and how these translate into staff resource for frontline duties".

I welcome the recognition that what matters is that those prosecutors in the front line should be given the maximum support and back-up and should not be submerged by overwork and a terrific backlog of cases.

The Conservatives have called not only for an increase in the number of procurators fiscal, but for help to alleviate the backlogs in our courts, especially in the sheriff courts. We have therefore also called for weekend and evening sittings in courts. In addition, we think that increasing the summary sentencing power to 12 months would ease the backlog of cases before hard-pressed sheriff courts.

Our justice system is rightly founded on the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. An important cornerstone of the system of justice is the 110-day rule. An accused person must be brought to trial as quickly as possible, leaving enough time for the prosecution and defence to prepare, but no more. For justice to mean what it implies, it should be speedy. In this country, it would be unthinkable to have an accused person sitting on death row for literally years. We are proud that our system of justice has traditionally been fast moving—it is that quality that has made Scotland's system of criminal justice the envy of the world. It is therefore extremely important that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service should receive the necessary resources to ensure that deadlines are not missed. Of course, if there is a case of particular complexity, an application can be made to the High Court for an extension. I believe that that works well.

The crux of the matter was summed up extremely well, and frankly, in the Lord Advocate's evidence to the committee on 6 March. Before I quote his words, I should say that I very much hope that the Administration will take great heed of them. He said:

"The service has been almost a cinderella organisation for many years. It has been chronically underfunded for a long time … there is no doubt that the ECHR has increased pressure, while the growth of serious crime continues to be worrying, and there has been an increase in the efficiency of the police. Those factors have come together and produced severe strains."

He concluded:

"for many years, the organisation has not been given the resources that it should have been given."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 6 March 2002; c 1114.]

Given that the Lord Advocate said that in committee, we can be certain that the Executive needs to do a great deal more on the issue.

I noted with concern paragraph 24 in the report, which contains an important revelation. It says:

"In the course of the inquiry we also received anonymous letters and phone calls from fiscals. While we treat these with appropriate caution, they reinforced the picture of a service where morale is low and where it is perceived that senior management discourage people from drawing attention to difficulties arising from lack of resources."

In this Parliament, we believe in greater transparency, openness and accountability, and I recognise the assertion in paragraph 43 that there are issues to be addressed over and above that of resources. That paragraph states:

"Our perception is of a hierarchical system which suffers from the fact that most senior managers have been legal experts not selected as or trained to be expert managers."

I hope that the Executive and the Crown Office will consider with great care all the recommendations that have been made in that regard and that they will examine the fact that too many police officers have been tied up for long periods at court waiting to be called as witnesses in cases.

The Conservatives regard justice and the pursuit of justice according to the highest standards and principles as absolute requirements and we want the Procurator Fiscal Service to be much more strongly resourced with more fiscals. I warmly congratulate the members of the Justice 2 Committee, its convener, Pauline McNeill, and the deputy convener, Bill Aitken, on contributing a considerable service by focusing our attention on actions that need to be taken in the public interest.

Before I begin, I should note that I will not be able to stay until the end of the debate. I apologise and seek the Parliament's indulgence to leave early.

I echo Pauline McNeill's sentiments and pay tribute to the committee clerks, who have worked so diligently over the past 18 months. This has been the longest committee inquiry in the Parliament and we must pay tribute to all committee staff, whose work ensured that we delivered the report.

In some ways, our inquiry has been overtaken by events. However, it has ensured that the coalition Executive has tackled the issues that were revealed in evidence to the committee and it has certainly helped to focus attention on real concerns about the Procurator Fiscal Service.

There have been six reviews of the criminal justice system in the past few years. As a result of the Chhokar case, there were inquiries by Sir Anthony Campbell and Dr Raj Jandoo. We have also had inquiries by Lord Bonomy and Sheriff Principal McInnes, as well as the Pryce-Dyer review. Last but not least, we have had the Justice 2 Committee's inquiry and now its report. The service must be the most reviewed organisation in Scotland since devolution, which only goes to show how much of a spotlight is on the justice system to ensure that it improves and delivers the service that we all expect. The service has moved from being what was, in the Lord Advocate's words, "a cinderella organisation" before 1999 to one that is now firmly centre stage and in the spotlight.

During our investigations, we found that the service was under extraordinary pressure because of various factors, some of which have been mentioned: first, the increase in the number of petition cases from 4,638 in 1996-97 to 5,217 in 2000-01; secondly, the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into Scots law; thirdly, the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive; and, lastly and just as important, the greater expectation among the public of openness, accountability and the better treatment of victims and witnesses. All those factors have brought added pressures to bear on the system.

There was a range of evidence on how well the service was coping with the challenges that arose because of those factors. The internal pressure audit showed levels of stress and dissatisfaction many times higher than in an average, similarly sized organisation. It also revealed a hierarchical and rigid culture of blame, secrecy and mistrust in the organisation.

The Pryce-Dyer report identified a catalogue of issues that could be put down to poor communication between the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and its main criminal justice partners—the police and the courts. In her speech, Pauline McNeill highlighted her experience of that issue. The Pryce-Dyer report also identified a catalogue of management issues, including poorly focused management information, inconsistencies in budgeting, a lack of resilience in the staffing of the organisation and the lack of a corporate and united approach to standards and processes in the service. The report also found major cultural barriers between the legal and administrative staff—there seemed to be a genuine division between the two sides. Resourcing was identified in a number of key areas as one of the crucial problems facing the service, as the Executive has acknowledged.

In view of those findings, one might have expected a big churn rate of staff as well as high long-term sickness rates and recruiting difficulties. Surprisingly, however, none of those problems was revealed in evidence to the committee. That is a tribute to the dedication and commitment of the staff. Despite the pressures that they were under and the many problems that were identified in the various reviews, staff still turned up and delivered a service. There were no long-term sickness problems and the staff seemed to remain dedicated and willing to commit to the service. The committee was surprised that there was not a great churn rate of staff leaving and new staff being taken on. However, the new chief executive, Robert Gordon, said in his evidence to the committee:

"Even if people are not leaving us, it is not a sustainable way to run a business if they are staying with us while feeling undervalued and under huge pressure."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 24 April 2002; c 1226.]

That is a sentiment with which we would all agree.

I am thankful that action is now being taken to address the concerns arising from the various reviews. An extra £24 million is being invested this coming year—that is a 10.7 per cent increase in real terms. In his speech, the Lord Advocate highlighted the huge increase in resources that there has been since he became involved in the service as Solicitor General.

Ninety-five new legal staff have been recruited—that is a 33 per cent increase from 1997. However, that in itself brings problems, because it means that a whole cohort of new legal staff is coming in. Those people need training and supervision, which puts added pressure on the service in the short term.

From evidence to the committee, we learned that an extra 94 administrative staff have been recruited, which is a 12 per cent increase. That is important, too. It is all very well having front-line legal staff, but, if they are not backed up and properly supported by administrative staff, they cannot deliver daily in court. Moreover, a new management regime has been put in place to try to address the major failings identified in the Pryce-Dyer report.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is no longer the cinderella organisation that it was before devolution. The Executive is investing heavily to improve the service, but it will take time to measure whether the changes that have been made are the right ones. Judgment cannot yet be made on whether the new arrangements are working, because they are only just being implemented.

I hope and expect that, as the committee recommended, the subject will be revisited by a subsequent justice committee in the new parliamentary session. We may have to wait two to three years before the evaluation can be made. I hope that, when that evaluation is completed, we will see a dramatically improved service that will guarantee to the public the delivery of a service fit for the 21st century.

There have been a number of last-minute requests to speak in the open debate. I will try to get everybody in, but the last two or three speakers may not get more than a couple of minutes each. At this point, we will start with speeches of four minutes.

A number of reasons have been given this morning for why the committee chose to investigate the subject. The Lord Advocate said that, since devolution, there has been an unprecedented questioning of the Scottish criminal justice system. Although the system had trundled along relatively satisfactorily for many years, we found that things were not working in quite the way that we had anticipated. It was a bit like lifting the proverbial stone to see what is going on underneath. The pressures that people were working under to keep the system going were certainly too great.

Like many people in Scotland, I was relatively unclear about the complex role of the procurator fiscal before I undertook the inquiry. The term is commonly used in Scotland—people have heard of procurators fiscal, but most do not know what they actually do. I first met the Solicitor General—in her previous role—in the summer of 2001, when we undertook our first visit to a fiscal office in Aberdeen. What struck Tavish Scott and me on that day was the sheer complexity of what was expected of a fiscal working in a busy office. Never mind all the other issues that people have highlighted, including the extra work load and staff vacancies—just doing the basic job is an incredibly complex task. I do not think that people fully understood what the job is about.

The committee inquiry seems to have been a bit of a catalyst for change in the system. The change might have happened anyway but, irrespective of why it happened, there has been considerable movement in the service over the past few months, which is incredibly welcome. As I have visited my local office over the past four years, it has been quite incredible to see the changes that have taken place, especially during the inquiry, as people began to see the evidence that the committee was taking, and now that the report has been produced. At the same time, there has been unprecedented change in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service itself. Those two things together have begun to improve the service that is being offered to people. That should not be ignored.

The committee recommends a number of tests that might be applied in the future to determine whether the changes that are currently being made have led to improved services. We all want a service in which staff are valued, where morale is higher, where there is an end to routine evening working and where fiscals have more time to spend on front-line legal duties. The changes that have been put in place, which other members have highlighted, may well achieve that.

As the committee's convener said, one of the factors that prompted the inquiry was concern from the police. We hope that there will be improved communication and access to fiscals and better understanding of the prosecution decisions. It is important that all the players in the criminal justice system are signed up and joined up. We must all sing from the same song sheet. We should not get into a situation in which one part of the criminal justice system blames another part for its failings, as has happened too often in the past. If the changes that we have seen can get us a more effective system, the committee's inquiry will have played its part. We should also acknowledge the changes that the Crown Office has made in the intervening time.

When the convener of the Justice 2 Committee said that she had been doing extra time, I was somewhat alarmed, but I think that I know what she meant. Members of the committee did indeed do extra time.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is truly at the heart of the Scottish criminal justice system. If that system is to reach its full potential—as all members and people throughout the country want—that heart must be healthy. Our communities need faith that those who commit crime will be brought to book soon and in an appropriate way.

The Lord Advocate described the Procurator Fiscal Service as a "cinderalla organisation" that had been

"chronically underfunded for a long time."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 6 March 2002; c 1114.]

That is lamentably true. However, we must and should praise the dedication of Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service staff, who are chronically overloaded with work and use weekends and evenings to keep up with cases. That is not good enough for staff, the public or the police.

The committee heard distressing evidence from victims of crimes and their families, who felt let down by the system and revictimised. However, I recognise the progress that has been made in that area.

A number of unfortunate cases have been brought to my attention and I would like to speak about one of them. A former constituent of mine, who now lives near Inverness, was the victim of a brutal assault. The initial investigation went well and the perpetrator was caught and charged. However, when the case went to court, the accused received a minimal fine rather than the imprisonment that had been expected, as vital evidence was not produced on the day. Why? An inadequately supervised junior policeman and a fiscal who had never met the victim and therefore knew nothing of the severity of the victim's injuries were involved. In that case, a lapse in detail impacted on an individual.

Another constituent had a much better experience, but, unfortunately, that was in the Netherlands. Her son was involved in a car accident. He had pulled over, as his car had broken down, and another car had barrelled up the outside lane and run him over. He spent a year in hospital. The Dutch took the victim's mother across to the Netherlands and she stayed in hospital with her son at the expense of the Dutch for six months. When the case came to court, the mother sat with the prosecutors in the well of the court. She was paid to fly over to the Netherlands and the presiding officer invited her to give her view of the impact of the accident on her family. She could not praise the prosecution service in the Netherlands more highly. That is the standard to which we aspire and towards which we are beginning to move.

On another serious note, the committee had only anecdotal evidence about departmental performance. Statistics are in short supply. A key management theory nowadays is that what cannot be measured cannot be managed. It is not right for members to interfere with the administration of justice, but the Lord Advocate must realise that we will take a close and continuing interest in the administration of the justice system—in other words, in the processes of justice.

New people have been added to the system, but we must not expect too much too soon. In his book "The Mythical Man-Month", Fred P Brookes poses the question:

"How do you make a late project later?"

The answer is by adding staff, as existing staff must train the new staff. All the failings in our system need to be put right to ensure credibility. Only a system that treats victims humanely and with compassion can truly dispense justice. We must deliver.

I make no bones about the fact that, when I entered the Parliament, I was not seen as a major advocate of the institution—indeed, I queried the whole basis on which it was structured and its necessity. However, perhaps one of the advantages that has resulted from its creation has been the Justice 2 Committee's report. During the election, perhaps all of us had concerns about the standard of our justice system.

I recall that, in committee debates on the budget some years ago, I took to task the then Lord Advocate and Solicitor General, as well as the Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace, pointing out to them the inadequacies that we thought existed in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I have to say that I was particularly disappointed by the responses. I pay tribute to the current Lord Advocate and Solicitor General, because they seem to have listened. That links into the Justice 2 Committee's inquiry. Masses of evidence suggested that the perception that members elected to the Parliament had of the justice system was based on a strong foundation.

George Lyon said that, to some extent, events overtook the report. I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that changes have taken place because of the evidence that the committee took. I pay tribute to all committee members, including my colleague Bill Aitken and Pauline McNeill, with whom I served on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. I do not believe that events overtook the report. The Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General and the Executive have recognised the shortcomings in the system. Having heard the Lord Advocate's comments about the increase in staff and the reorganisation, I find it obvious that the issues raised in the inquiry have been dealt with as we have gone along. That is what should happen wherever possible—when concerns are raised, they should be addressed immediately. On that basis, I compliment the individuals to whom I referred.

However, we cannot be complacent. Roseanna Cunningham's comments and the statistics that she cited were of great interest to all members. She demonstrated that problems still exist and that the general public still have certain perceptions and concerns, particularly about the way in which our court procedures operate and about some of the findings of the courts.

I said in an intervention earlier that political perceptions and requirements cannot be seen to be weights around the necks of sheriffs and judges. However, if the courts do not somewhere along the line recognise the concerns of ordinary people, the justice system will ultimately break down. That must not happen in our society.

The additional funding that has been mentioned is welcome, but the issue is not wholly about funding. We have looked across the board. Members have focused on the need for an increase in police resources, but it is pointless for the police to increase their detection rate, using those additional resources to considerable effect, if the courts and the justice system cannot keep up and let them down. Nonetheless, I welcome the extra funding and the changes that have been made to date.

I congratulate the Justice 2 Committee on its report, which is the result of intensive scrutiny of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service over a long 18 months. As George Lyon said, the committee's inquiry has played a considerable part in progressing change.

I will talk about the fiscal service in the Highlands and Islands. During the summer recess about two years ago, I visited as many of the Highlands and Islands sheriff courts as I could, not only in the Highland Council area but in the northern isles, the Western Isles, Moray and Argyll. I visited Skye, Lochaber, Wick, Tain and Dingwall. I spoke to sheriff clerks and fiscals. I examined arrangements for witness support, in particular for child witnesses, and for disabled access.

I visited Inverness sheriff court, which is more like a city sheriff court because of the volume of business. There is a tremendous contrast between Inverness and the outlying courts. I shadowed a fiscal depute in Inverness sheriff court for a day. I noted the intense pressure that she was under in a relentless, time-constrained process to mark cases and speak to them before the sheriff in a tiny, overflowing courtroom.

When I was in Stornoway, the sole fiscal had to deal with a serious stabbing incident on a foreign ship out in the Atlantic. It was an unusual and time-consuming case. Such a case might mean that everyday work had to be set aside, yet he was the only fiscal.

In Shetland, I met the fiscal who is responsible for Lerwick and Kirkwall sheriff courts, who spoke about the problems of travelling between Orkney and Shetland in the extreme weather conditions that prevail there for a considerable part of the year. If the fiscal is stormbound on one island, work piles up on the other.

Fiscals are independent, self-contained and responsible for their work load. Some enjoy the independence, but it has its drawbacks, especially in relation to holiday cover, illness or work overload. The problems of rural procurators fiscal who work alone are different from the problems that fiscals in the city experience—the work load issues and the stresses are different.

Another factor was that, for administration purposes, the Highlands and Islands were lumped with Grampian, an area that covers two police forces. I will not talk about Argyll, which covers another police force and which has never been part of Grampian and the Highlands for administration purposes. I do not want to be even more of a sook than Phil Gallie, but Elish Angiolini was the regional fiscal at the time of my visit and I have no doubt that the new structure that has been put in place is a result of her appreciation of the problems on the ground. I remember talking to her in Inverness about the situation in Orkney and Shetland.

The changes that were announced last autumn are having an effect already. The Highlands and Islands is now an autonomous area and its boundaries are coterminous with those of Northern constabulary. The new area fiscal, Graeme Napier, is based in Inverness, as is the new area business manager, Gordon Ellis.

Although the area team is new, there have been significant developments in support for fiscals. First, a request to the Lord Advocate for a depute fiscal for Orkney and Shetland has been granted, which will have a significant impact on the work load and logistical problems in the northern isles. Secondly, as a result of the new information technology systems that have been in place since November, any fiscal's office can access another's work. For example, when the Tain fiscal needs a bit of help, other fiscals in the network can provide it. Thirdly, within the past week, approval has been given to buy a digital dictation system, the product of which can be downloaded to a computer and e-mailed, which will allow clerical staff in offices throughout the network to access it. That system will help to smooth out the peaks and troughs in individual offices. The first and third of those initiatives came directly from the area office.

Northern constabulary has said that there is now more consistency in the fiscal policy in the Highlands, which is to be welcomed. However, more work needs to be done, particularly in relation to Inverness sheriff court. I would like the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General to keep an eye on the work load there.

In my 20 years of practising as a solicitor, I found, through the day-to-day experience of working in the courts, that Scotland is fortunate in having the highest quality personnel working in our justice system. We can rightly be proud of that. Until 1999, Scotland was the only country in the world that had her own legal system but lacked a legislature. I am delighted that Phil Gallie is now a full convert to the merits of the Parliament.

Since I became an MSP, I have seen matters from constituents' point of view. What happens when the system goes wrong? Although I found through working with fiscals and others that, in most cases, the system does not go wrong, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General must focus on the situations in which matters go wrong to ensure that victims are dealt with properly.

Like Stewart Stevenson, I could mention constituents who simply have not been given information. For example, I know of a case in which the victim of a serious assault was not informed when the assailant was let out of jail and went back to live beside the victim. When a complaint is made about such matters, the response is often truculent or arrogant, which is wholly wrong. However, I get the impression from the written response to the report to which the Lord Advocate referred that matters are changing and that there is a will to change, which I acknowledge and welcome.

In intervening on the Lord Advocate, I referred to paragraphs 14 and 18 of the report. The committee's unanimous request that every member of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland should be given the chance to set out their views—good and bad—of how the system operates in an anonymous questionnaire was sensible. That is part of a new system of openness and democracy. It is to be regretted that the Lord Advocate rejected that approach. Had that approach been followed, the experiences of those working at the chalk face could more accurately have been taken into account.

The committee has done a great job.

I do not have time to give way, as I am in my last minute.

Of necessity, the committee's excellent work only scratches the surface of a huge system that involves a great many people. I know, for example, that intermediate diets have not worked properly because fiscals do not have time enough to study the papers and discuss cases before an intermediate diet. That clogs up the system, takes more time and is a waste. A few more fiscals in the busiest sheriff courts would address that problem, and action is being taken to deal with that.

I handled a serious case in which the son of constituents of mine died in a road accident and the police approach to the case was called into question. I was struck by the constituents' approach to the matter, which was rational and sensible despite the trauma of their loss. They paid particular tribute to the Solicitor General, who was working in Aberdeen at that time, for her sensitive response. I do not want to mention the couple's name, but I think that the Solicitor General will know who they were.

In that case and others where the justice system fails, it does not yet respond properly to victims' and others' concerns about their dealings with it. However, now that we have our Parliament and perhaps a bit more openness, there is a willingness to tackle those concerns. I welcome that approach.

I thank the Justice 2 Committee for its work in producing the report on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. A great deal of effort went into the inquiry, and that shows in the substance of the committee's findings.

A picture clearly emerges of a public prosecution service that is overworked and understaffed. The service has far too often had to rely on the dedication and commitment of individuals who have struggled to cope without the necessary support structure in place.

I also thank the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd, and the Solicitor General, Elish Angiolini, for their reforms, which have taken place in parallel with the committee's inquiry. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General have recognised the problems that face the service and have begun to tackle them.

I will focus not so much on the needs of the Procurator Fiscal Service as on those of the victims of crime and their families. There cannot be a member present who has not heard of the vicious and unprovoked murder of Christopher Cawley in a Glasgow bar some two and a half years ago or who is unaware of his family's concern and anger at the failure of the prosecution to convict Louis McDonald and Gary Sanders for the crime.

The lack of information that was available to Christopher Cawley's family throughout the case is deeply disturbing. That extended to the family even missing the beginning of the trial because no one took the time or took on the responsibility to let them know that court proceedings were starting. Neither the volunteers from Victim Support Scotland nor the police's family liaison officer were able to offer the support that the family needed. A simple explanation of the roles of the police and the Procurator Fiscal Service was never forthcoming.

The lack of transparency of the court proceedings and, equally, the prosecution team's decision-making process added to the family's frustration and anxiety. There was no attempt to take the family's views into account, but neither was there an explanation of why that should be so. When charges against one of the accused were dropped, there was no explanation. In fact, as Pauline McNeill said, the family found out about it only when the former co-accused walked into the court alongside them.

My outstanding concern is the lack of an independent investigation or complaints procedure to handle public worries about the prosecution of crime. Following the Jandoo and Campbell reports on the Chhokar case, the Lord Advocate has committed himself to an independent inspectorate but has also said that it will not consider individual cases.

Given the mechanisms that now exist to tackle miscarriages of justice, we need a satisfactory system to address the situation in which the miscarriage is a failure to secure a conviction. I am not arguing that verdicts should be challenged. That the prosecution of crime, like justice itself, should be impartial is often argued and is, indeed, an accepted principle. However, I hope that the Lord Advocate will acknowledge that impartiality has sometimes been used as a smokescreen for not answering questions at all. Coupled with a lack of transparency in the prosecution service, that has given rise to a suspicion of a self-serving system that protects prosecutors from scrutiny and that is unaccountable to the public.

I end with an appeal to the Minister for Justice—although he is not here—to meet the Cawley family and the Lord Advocate to discuss the family's outstanding concerns. The Justice 2 Committee has played a major part in redressing the Cawleys' sense of grievance, through listening to their evidence. I hope that the committee's recommendations will now be acted on.

Of all the skills that I thought I would have to develop as an MSP, cramming a year's study of the Procurator Fiscal Service into two and a half or three minutes was not one of them. Nonetheless, if colleagues will excuse me, I will not use this limited time to go over the ground that we all share on the positive work that the Justice 2 Committee has done and on the areas of the report on which we agree. We all accept that the Pryce-Dyer report was significant, that there has been an increase in resources and that more work remains to be done.

I will highlight a number of areas of concern, and I hope that this will be taken in a constructive spirit. The Lord Advocate mentioned the publication of proposals for the appointment of advocate deputes, which will form a part of the whole restructuring. I wish to focus on that, because there are some real concerns about those proposals. The problem lies in the increase in High Court business, with an increase of 29.4 per cent in the number of cases between 1998 and 2002. Additionally, there are the problems with getting people to do Crown junioring and legal aid. There is a real stress point in the High Court.

The response from the Executive and the Lord Advocate is understandable in a sense—they favour a reclassification and seek to allow procurators fiscal, from ad hoc deputes all the way to trial deputes, to mark or prosecute cases.

There are a number of real issues to be addressed, the first of which is independence. It is nice for an SNP politician to be able to talk about independence and get support for it from around the chamber. Its importance cannot be overstressed. The written submission of the Faculty of Advocates states that the

"entitlement on the part of the prosecution authorities to bring criminal charges against a person before the courts upon their decision alone means that it is important that the operation of that entitlement is, and is seen to be, as independent as possible."

Let us contrast that with the description of fiscals as, in the Lord Advocate's own words, career civil servants. That raises the question how that independence and the perception of that independence are to be regarded. If the Government were to announce a crackdown on crime, would that mean that, as career civil servants, fiscals could be seen to be marking on an independent basis? The committee received evidence from fiscals themselves that they had come under pressure from various Government bodies. Perhaps such pressure is understandable, but should we really be trusting individuals to show independence under such circumstances, and not have something built into the system?

What about situations where there are obvious conflicts of interest for solicitors who are in partnership? What arrangements are going to be made to preserve the independence of the service? If people are to have confidence in the system and in the prosecution of crime, they have to believe that decisions are made on the basis of what is fair and just, and not according to any other priority.

We move to winding-up speeches, starting with Donald Gorrie for the Liberal Democrats. I ask for these speeches to be kept tight, please.

The Justice 2 Committee has carried out a very good inquiry, which has been a good example of how Scottish parliamentary committees can do very good work. I welcome the investment that the Executive has put into the court system. Starting from a very low base as it does, that increase in investment might have to continue for quite a few years. We want to ensure that the money is well directed and achieves what we want it to achieve.

We should look at justice as a whole. It is not just a question of procurators fiscal. There is a whole team of people involved in trying to reduce offending and reoffending, crime and the fear of crime. All sorts of people are involved in that—in some ways, every citizen. The police, procurators fiscal, the court system, judges, advocates and solicitors are all involved, but so are social workers, voluntary organisations that provide arrangements to help to turn people in trouble round, community organisations and indeed the whole community.

For example, if we sorted out our football structure so that far more boys, girls, young men and young women were playing football, we would not only have a decent football team in a few years' time, but reduce crime considerably. We are all involved in that task. The Parliament and the Executive must learn to examine the issue of crime as a whole. We are good at having committees highlight particular issues, but we must now diffuse our light over a wider area, while keeping it as bright. I am not sure how to do that.

We cannot ignore bottlenecks in the system. There is no point in having a very good police system if the court system is not good. I return to my analogy of a football team—there is no point in investing in better forwards if our defenders continue to let in goals. We must invest throughout the system.

I have not yet heard anyone use the cliché that justice must be seen to be done, so I will. Like most clichés, that one is extremely true. The public view of justice is very important. The public have problems with the system. They see endless delays in cases coming to court and view the criminal justice system as a game with very obscure rules that they do not understand. The public view politics in the same way—that is another problem that we must straighten out.

We must challenge the professionals' innate conservatism and defensiveness. Such conservatism is a characteristic of all professions. We must ensure that the professionals are not preventing progress from being made in the system as a whole. We have made good advances and I have great confidence in the team that is running the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. However, we have much further to go. This inquiry is a good step forward. We can all co-operate to produce a justice system that will be at the heart of our democracy and of which we can be really proud.

I have said everything that I wish to say. I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for his frank, full and honest contribution.

The chamber is most grateful to the member.

I welcome this morning's debate, which has been extremely constructive.

As the Lord Advocate has acknowledged, the work of the Justice 2 Committee and its report have been invaluable in helping to shape the major reforms that we are putting in place. The committee's work is also helping to achieve a greater understanding of what the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service does. It has helped to engage the Parliament's support for an organisation whose work the committee recognises as having generally been undervalued and misunderstood. Often the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is seen as isolated from the community that it serves.

Rightly, the Parliament has challenged the way in which the department has worked historically—its management, resources and culture, as well as its visibility, responsiveness and accountability. The Lord Advocate and I have set about securing fundamental and wide-ranging change in each of those areas, so there are few issues in dispute. Although we are doing much to ensure that we shape a prosecution service for the long term, which can meet the increasing demands of the new millennium, I am grateful to the convener and the committee. I am greatly encouraged that they have taken the opportunity to recognise the huge asset that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service represents for Scotland.

The service employs 1,300 or so staff throughout Scotland and in Europe. Their skills and commitment to securing justice day after day result in high-quality prosecutions and deaths investigations. They work under the most disciplined time scales for prosecution in the world and the most vigorous evidential requirements of any criminal justice system. They are called out night after night to horrific murder scenes, to deal with fatalities and post-mortems and to meet distraught and bereaved next of kin, as well as victims and witnesses of crime. They work in the unforgiving environment of the court, in the full glare of the public and the media. They are indeed champions of justice, and I do not say that in an apple-pie sense.

I am grateful for the Justice 2 Committee's acknowledgement of the front-line but complex nature of the work and of the growing pressures that are faced by prosecutors in Scotland and worldwide. During the debate, the difficulties that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service faces have been highlighted. The debate has also highlighted the modernisation, investment and reform that the Lord Advocate began last March.

I am in the unusual position of being part of a ministerial team that manages a department in which I have spent all my working life. The benefit of that is that I have a first-hand understanding of the department and the pressures and challenges that it faces. I know its strengths and weaknesses. I also know that the programme of modernisation and reform on which we have embarked is a promising and exciting opportunity to ensure real change in the way in which we set about our business.

We have had record investment and we have a fresh management approach and new staff to add to the skilled staff who are already there. We have achieved those things over a very short period. I have to say that, 21 years ago, victims were not on the agenda for the Procurator Fiscal Service because the concept of independence was perceived as requiring a lack of communication with victims and, to some extent, a lack of responsiveness. Twenty years ago, there was no recognition of the role of victims in the system, but now they have become central to it. We have undertaken to ensure that the work that we are doing in establishing the victim information and advice system throughout Scotland—which is now being rolled out—will change the experience of victims. There is a long road in that process, but it is one that has been embarked on with great energy and commitment by the victim information officers who are now part and parcel of the prosecution service.

In the future, when a prosecution against an individual is dropped, will the victim be given information concerning why the case has been dropped?

As the Lord Advocate has indicated, we have attempted to engage in a much more open process, which includes giving reasons when that is possible. However, it is not always possible to do that. For example, when a witness gives confidential information that may place him in a position of extreme danger but which alters the nature of the case, it will not always be possible to inform another person why the prosecution has been dropped. In such circumstances, the Parliament and the Scottish public will have to trust the integrity and impartiality of the prosecution service, which the Lord Advocate and I intend to uphold.

We will ensure that the process is not encroached on by any aspect of political whim or media construction regarding what should take place in a case. Cases in Scotland are considered on the basis of analysis of the evidence and the public interest. That is the formula that all prosecutors will follow, following the publication of the prosecution code, and it is not based on any factor other than the public interest. I hope that the prosecution will be trusted to get on with that process, giving reasons when that is possible but on the understanding that there will be circumstances in which reasons cannot be given—not to protect the prosecutor, but to uphold the system of justice that we treasure.

Will the Solicitor General take an intervention?

I have limited time and I would like to press on.

Roseanna Cunningham, quite rightly, mentioned delays. However, the cases that are delayed make up only 0.1 per cent of the cases in the system, which is otherwise still under pressure. Day in, day out, cases are being successfully prosecuted throughout Scotland to a high level of quality.

Reference has also been made to access to solicitors and the police. That is exactly what we have been putting in place over the past 12 months. We have established protocols of expected standards of service to the police, to defence agents and to our other partners in the criminal justice system. We also recognise the need for information from victims.

The natural tension between the accountability of the public prosecutor and their vital independence, to which Duncan Hamilton referred, is something with which we have no difficulty whatever. However, the idea that the procurator fiscal is not capable of the same level or quality of independence as members of the Faculty of Advocates is simply misplaced.

Will the Solicitor General take an intervention?

Not at this stage.

Will the Solicitor General take an intervention?

Not at this point.

The essence and raison d'être of procurators fiscal is the independence of the prosecution process from the police and any other factor. The Faculty of Advocates and those who come in as Crown counsel enhance the independence and the collegiate approach and are, therefore, a welcome and integral part of the prosecution process. However, that is not to suggest for a minute that every procurator fiscal around the country does not value greatly the quality of independence that is demonstrated in what they do. The ability to resist political whim, pressure groups or the transient media construction of what should be prosecuted is vital to the system. Prosecution must truly reflect the public interest in a considered and independent fashion.

I make it clear that I am not impugning the integrity of fiscals. I am asking whether the Solicitor General sees a difference between the institutional independence of the Faculty of Advocates and the position of the people specifically described by the Lord Advocate as career civil servants, who are not independent institutionally. Does the Solicitor General see that that might create in the public mind a perception that the prosecution service's independence is diluted?

The perception that procurators fiscal and civil servants, who are subject to the civil service code, are not capable of institutional independence is not accurate. However, the role of the Faculty of Advocates enhances and strengthens the role of Crown counsel and we support that.

Prosecution to please might be a quick fix and might gain superficial popularity, but it would surrender the foundations that support a sound system of justice. Safeguarding that independence is a duty that we accept without hesitation. However, independence is not an excuse for isolation, impenetrability or arrogance. We prosecutors have a duty to ensure that those whom we serve understand what we do and its nature. They must also understand that a prosecution decision is often not one that is unanimously acclaimed.

I am grateful to the Justice 2 Committee for the time that it has taken to produce the report for today's constructive debate. I trust that the Parliament will acknowledge, respect and support the approach that the Lord Advocate and I are taking to the future of the prosecution system in Scotland.

The fact that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton withdrew did not mean that Mr Matheson was doing the same thing. I call him now, but he is out of sequence. If he makes any points to which the Solicitor General wants to reply, I will allow a few minutes for that.

I congratulate the members of the Justice 2 Committee on the report. I am aware that when carrying out a committee inquiry over a year and half it is difficult to remain focused while having several pieces of heavy legislation on the agenda as well—as the Justice 1 Committee also experienced. All credit should go to the Justice 2 Committee for completing its thorough inquiry.

One of the constant themes of the report is the dedication of the prosecution service staff, who are prepared to work late into the evening and over the weekend to fulfil their duties. A heavy responsibility is placed on their shoulders because they make crucial decisions that affect individuals' lives. Several members have referred to particular constituency cases in which such decisions have had an impact on individuals' lives. The service is under considerable pressure, but it has many dedicated staff. However, for several reasons, they clearly enjoy only limited public esteem.

We should expect the staff of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to be dedicated, but we must also be prepared to provide them with the necessary resourcing and management to deliver the required service. I cannot help but feel that the report highlights the fact that the service has been running on the good will of its staff for far too long.

Resourcing is an important issue. The Lord Advocate said that the prosecution service has often been a cinderella public service. However, the service not only requires additional financial resources; the way in which it operates must be reformed and modernised. Additional financial resources are welcome, but the report highlights that there is a need to ensure that staff are provided with the training and support that will allow them to do their job properly.

If we provide extra resources to our Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, we must be prepared to ensure that there is effective monitoring of how the service is operating to ensure that the resources are being targeted to the right areas to deliver the necessary change.

The report highlights the management culture that exists in the service. It says that there is a lack of trust and support in the current management system, and that there are managers who have a great deal of legal expertise but limited management expertise. As Roseanna Cunningham said, if we are to create the change that is necessary in the service, we must be prepared to tackle the management culture. As Lord James Douglas-Hamilton noted, there are elements of secrecy in the system—the Lord Advocate will be aware of my particular interest in matters relating to secrecy.

Paragraph 30 of the report states:

"We also noted that, although there was a category of ‘PF staff shortage' as a reason for ‘no proceedings' this was virtually never used. This appears very odd and it has since been suggested to us informally that staff are discouraged from using this category."

To say that a case cannot be proceeded with because of staff shortage is not to admit to a weakness on the part of a member of staff but to draw attention to a weakness in the system. The culture must change in order to address the problems that exist.

We have identified a number of problems in the service, but the real challenge is to deal with them effectively to ensure that we have a Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service of which we can be proud. The report is the start of that process. I commend it to the Parliament and I urge the Executive to take forward the recommendations that it contains.

I am probably the last person who would want to wallow in mutual congratulation, but it is appropriate that I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Justice 2 Committee for their efforts and commitment, and for the production of a thoroughly worthwhile report. I associate myself with the committee convener's comments about the clerking service, which has provided immense assistance. Further, I pay tribute to the convener for the considerable drive and commitment that she showed in pushing through the process. Not at all grudgingly, I say that the law officers deserve considerable credit as well. While the Lord Advocate would not have required a crystal ball to predict a number of the committee's recommendations, the fact that the Crown Office has anticipated and recognised many of the committee's concerns has been highly beneficial to the proper administration of the prosecution system in Scotland.

However, there are still problems. George Lyon quite properly highlighted some of them. While it seems that the question of salaries payable to procurators fiscal, for example, has been largely resolved, there is still lingering doubt about the adequacy of the budget. In a classic case of making oneself a hostage to fortune, the Lord Advocate defined the prosecution service as the cinderella department of the Scottish Government. I might be tempted to identify other departments as the ugly sisters, but I will not do so, and will say simply that there could be difficulty in implementing many of the committee's recommendations if the budget is inadequate.

If procurators fiscal and Crown counsel are overburdened, the impact is felt throughout the criminal justice system. The committee inquiry revealed a number of points of concern and Roseanna Cunningham's illustrations of what happens in many summary courts were quite correct.

We found that morale was low. There was little hope of opportunities for advancement or career satisfaction, although the Solicitor General pointed out that considerable career satisfaction can be derived from service as a procurator fiscal. Staff who are already overloaded have less time to liaise effectively with other agencies such as the police and to progress the outcome of cases. In particular, staff were unable to give adequate time and information to victims or their families, or to speak to defence agents to agree evidence or negotiate pleas.

The Solicitor General referred to the fiscals' work load, which routinely spills over into evenings and weekends. As such, fiscals' pay should be comparable to that of people working at similar levels in other public organisations, such as the police and other sections of the civil service. To facilitate the direly needed fiscal recruitment drives that are currently being undertaken, fiscals must also receive comparable pay to that offered by the private firms that are alternative employers for potential and current fiscals.

There can be no doubt that there are lots more bodies in the service, but the committee was concerned that the management structure might be top-heavy. The problems identified in the report are at the front end of the service. In crude terms, we really must seek to have more people with gowns on their backs prosecuting in Scotland's courts than managers number crunching in their offices. Although there must always be a professional and hands-on approach to management, it cannot be at the expense of the operational side of the prosecution service.

I am extremely pleased that the Lord Advocate has taken the appropriate approach to granting fiscals rights of audience in the High Court. That will be greatly encouraging to those who seek to reach the top echelon of the profession and who are not members of the Faculty of Advocates. I accept Duncan Hamilton's caveat about independence, but I am confident that those who have served long and hard as fiscals in the prosecution service will maintain the independence that is necessary for the public perception of the department to be as it should be.

When Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, the then Lord Advocate, launched a pilot, we thought that it would be successful. I have little doubt that, in future, we will see other success stories. The Lord Advocate's responses will have to be linked to the recommendations contained in Lord Bonomy's recently published report. Many of his lordship's recommendations make sound sense and others might tempt the Lord Advocate down the route of departing from some sound principles of Scots law. That issue might have to be left for another day, but I flag up that I could not consider any departure from the 110-day rule as being justified. Although our report confirmed that the existence of the rule caused pressure, that pressure must be managed and lived with.

I am disappointed that the satellite Crown Office at Glasgow High Court is not being further developed. It gives me no pleasure to record that the Glasgow area provides the High Court with the bulk of its business. That makes it all the more important that the business be dealt with in the most efficient and expeditious manner, particularly for the victims of crime and for the relatives of those who have died in homicides.

I would prefer more resources to be put into the Glasgow side of the operation. I have no wish to increase Edinburgh-Glasgow rivalries, but the system seems to be geared towards Edinburgh. Although I fully understand the historical and administrative reasons for that, I would like the necessity of having a full-time and well-staffed unit at the High Court in Glasgow to be recognised. I do not believe that the purpose of such a satellite office has been properly thought through. I accept that many advocates depute live in Edinburgh and require frequent access to the Crown Office, but my view is that there should be a unit in Glasgow. It would save a lot of time and effort and considerable wear and tear on individuals.

Earlier, Kenny Macintosh—quite appropriately—mentioned the situation of the relatives of crime victims. During our inquiry, we took evidence about two unfortunate cases. Again, it is appropriate to point out that additional resources have been put in and that positive steps have been taken on how witnesses are dealt with. That has been highly beneficial and indicates that a degree of sensitivity that was not present has now been put in place. Again, the Crown Office is to be congratulated on taking such radical steps on the basis of the committee's report. Undoubted progress has been made.

The report has achieved things that few of us could have expected at the start, but fears remain. Law and order is one of the Executive's many priorities, but it is doubtful whether being a priority in such circumstances has much merit at all. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is much admired throughout the world. The Lockerbie prosecution was a classic example of how, when it works effectively, it is probably without peer among modern judicial set-ups. The fact that there was such international recognition of the Lockerbie exercise indicates the inherent strength of the prosecution service.

Mention has been made of the dedication of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service staff. For my colleagues on the committee and me, it has been a matter of considerable surprise, and of great appreciation, to see the dedication on the ground of people who are prepared to work long hours, in some cases for scant reward and even less public recognition. If the report does something, it puts on record a parliamentary committee's appreciation of the work that is done.

If there is to be continued improvement, and if we are to provide the service that we all want and which the people of Scotland need, resources must be adequate, and the commitment of Scottish ministers must measure up to the tremendous commitment that has been demonstrated by the Lord Advocate and his staff. Arguably, the Crown Office—and the justice system in general—might no longer be the cinderella of the Scottish block, but it is still the poor relation. If we are to achieve the aim of a safer Scotland, which I know we all share, that needs to change, and Jim Wallace needs to fight his corner more effectively.

That said, I believe that the report is a success story. It has been a significant catalyst for change. The report and the reaction of the law officers to it reflect well on all concerned. I commend the report to the chamber in the strongest possible terms.