Justice
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1958, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on justice, and one amendment to that motion.
Members may remember that, on 1 May, we had a debate on crime. At that point, I made a number of criticisms of the Executive's continual attempts to debate feel-good motions in the face of mounting public concern about the state of Scotland's criminal justice system. I complained about the feeling of déjà vu on that day, given that we had debated the subject only a few weeks prior to that. It was clear that the minister was desperate to somehow get a good-news story out of something that people were resolutely refusing to believe was such good news. I make no apology for returning to the subject today. Members will note that, despite recent well-publicised problems in the criminal justice system, the Executive has shown some reticence on the subject. I wonder why.
Last week, the decision was taken to make this one of the subjects for today's business because the Scottish National Party had obtained figures about the current situation in Scotland's courts. Early last year, there were some much-publicised problems in the courts because of the ruling on temporary sheriffs resulting from the application of the principles of the European convention on human rights. Information that we had at that time indicated that seriously long periods of time were elapsing before criminal and civil cases could be brought to court. Waiting periods in some courts were high: for instance, in January 2000, in Perth the waiting time was 22 weeks; in Stirling, 26 weeks; in Dundee, 19 weeks. That was the result of a particular decision and arose out of a particular problem, which was to be addressed by the appointment of part-time sheriffs, whose creation was the principal reason for the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Act 2000.
As would be expected, the situation has become a little better, but recent figures suggest that there continues to be a major problem. The Scottish Court Service target for summary criminal trial waiting times for 2000-01 is 12 weeks. We should remember that summary criminal trials comprise the largest number of criminal trials that take place in our courts. Of the 49 sheriff courts in Scotland, 16 are failing to meet that target. Failures include Perth, with 21 weeks and Hamilton, with 16 weeks. That figure of 16 out of 49 courts means that, effectively, one third of Scotland's courts are failing to meet the targets that have been set. The number of failures has increased from four in 1997-98 to five in 1998-99 to nine in 1999-2000. The fact that the number of failures has hit 16 this year shows us that the trend is steadily upwards, even allowing for the problems of last year.
The Executive's programme for government for 1999-2000 promised to
"speed up the operation of the courts system"
but, the programme for government for 2000-01 says merely that that aim is "on-going".
In The Scotsman of 11 September 2000, the minister said of the criminal justice system:
"The Executive will continue to identify areas where improvements are needed, to make changes where necessary and to deliver a fair, open system for the people of Scotland."
Does the minister seriously think that those recent figures on court waiting times can give either this chamber or the people of Scotland any confidence in the Executive's ability to identify problems? Why, when the Executive is presiding over such a situation, do ministers not want to come to this chamber to discuss the issues and present us with their solutions?
This debate seems to have been quickly overtaken by subsequent events. Having last week made a decision to have this debate based on the information that was then available, we were confronted on Monday with a story of a highly sensitive case being dropped because of a lack of time. That might have been treated as a one-off—although the number of such one-offs appears to be rising—had it not been immediately followed by the resignation of a senior procurator fiscal, David Hingston. He wrote an article for a daily newspaper, in which he said:
"The Procurator Fiscal service is not working anymore. There are too few people trying to do too much work and the victims are justice and the Scottish public … The entire service is totally depressed and extremely stressed … There are not enough fiscals to do the work and as a result mistakes are made. And with every mistake made by a fiscal, justice suffers."
I know that the Justice 2 Committee is undertaking a review of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is clear from the Executive's amendment that it would like to wash its hands of all responsibility until the committee reports. However, that is not good enough. I also know that, when representations were made to that committee by the Procurators Fiscal Society, the Solicitor General described them as "posturing". Is it to be claimed that David Hingston is posturing? Surely the fiscals who contacted me privately—in fear of reprisals should it be discovered that they have approached an MSP—are not all posturing. The figures suggest that something is going seriously wrong in our courts.
Lest the problems are put down as being something for the courts alone to deal with rather that the Procurator Fiscal Service, I draw the minister's attention to the more than 1,000 cases that were dropped in 2000-01 because of a lack of time. The set target for that was zero.
How does the Scottish Executive intend to deal with the problem? Is it true that fiscals have effectively been gagged, as I have heard, and told that, as civil servants, any comments would have to be cleared through the Crown Office first? Will the minister give a categorical assurance that no fiscal will suffer as a result of speaking out? If he does not give that assurance, we can assume only that the fears of individuals are well founded, which does not reflect well on the Executive. In anticipation of the minister's reply, I am well aware of the intention to recruit another 30 procurators fiscal, but I point out that what cannot be replaced and is sorely missed is the experience that is being lost.
The minister cannot afford to brush off coverage such as that which appeared on the front page of Glasgow's Evening Times:
"Cops are ordered to stop court's arrests".
That is the kind of thing that destroys public confidence in our justice system. It is not enough to allow this issue to be parked in the Justice 2 Committee until some indeterminate date in the future. The Executive is in charge right now, it is responsible right now, the problems are being experienced right now and the Executive has a duty to deal with them right now.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with concern the developing crisis in the administration of Scotland's justice system; recognises that public confidence in the criminal justice system is being eroded by the system's inability to deal with the current level of prosecutions, and asserts that urgent action must now be taken to ensure that resourcing levels are assessed and addressed if this crisis is not to deepen.
I admit that, when I first saw the SNP's choice of topic for today's debate, I was a little surprised because, as Roseanna Cunningham admitted, the last time that we debated issues relating to justice, she complained bitterly of the "Groundhog Day" feeling. Of course, one of the themes of that movie was that, by changing slightly the way in which one approaches the recurring day, one will eventually move forward into the next day. I see that the SNP has entered into that spirit as today's debate features a change of emphasis. However, many of the criticisms that Ms Cunningham has made today were made in previous debates. Her speech did not say anything particularly different, so we are unlikely to break through into the new tomorrow.
Nonetheless, we are happy to take the opportunity to debate our justice system for the same reason as we were happy to do so before. Working to make Scotland a place where people are safer and feel safer is a priority for us. To deliver that priority, we have to build public confidence in the justice system.
The public view the system of justice as a whole and judge it based on how they feel it serves to protect them. There are some encouraging indicators. The Scottish crime survey shows that, since 1992, the proportion of people feeling unsafe walking alone in their area after dark has fallen from 39 per cent to 28 per cent. Between 1996 and 2000, the public's level of concern about crime fell across all the survey measures. The resources that the Scottish Executive continues to put into the whole justice system are bringing results in helping to increase that confidence in the system.
I appreciate that neither our amendment nor Roseanna Cunningham's motion refers to the number of police. Of course, the police are the front line of the criminal justice system. In any case, I can hardly believe that Phil Gallie will be able to resist using the rewind and replay buttons on his own ludicrous spin on police cuts. In order to get in first, I will point out that police funding is 35 per cent higher in real terms than it was 10 years ago. The number of police officers in Scotland has reached an all-time high of 15,149. The figure in March 1997 was 14,872. There are no police cuts, and we have the first indication of resources being used to bolster confidence in the justice system.
Not only the police have more resources. The number of permanent sheriffs has increased from 100 in 1995 to 129 at the end of 2000. That is another record, and that number will increase again to 136 once we have the recommendations of the recent selection board. We have also created a new statutory office of part-time sheriff to replace the temporary sheriffs, and 31 part-time sheriffs are already making a contribution to tackling delays. We have increased the number of judges from 27 to 32. It is true that the courts are under pressure. In particular, solemn business is increasing; for example, the number of indictments in the High Court increased from 1,151 to 1,478 in the single year between 1998-99 and 1999-2000, an increase of 28 per cent.
More police and clear-up rates the like of which have not been seen since the second world war mean that more criminals are being caught. That has obvious consequences for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which is already coping with the consequences of historical underfunding through the 1980s and 1990s. New initiatives also put pressure on courts, which is why, for example, in introducing a drug court to Scotland, we are careful to provide the additional resources to Glasgow sheriff court in order to allow that to happen. We want to ensure that the historical underfunding that has afflicted the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service remains entirely historical.
A general process of strengthening Crown Office resources is under way, and will continue. The provision for 2001-02 is £55 million, which is 17.8 per cent higher than that for 1997. Recent claims in the press that there have been repeated cuts are simply untrue. In real terms, there will be an increase of around 11 per cent between now and 2003-04.
Roseanna Cunningham acknowledged that more staff are being recruited and trained, including 20 additional lawyers this year and a further 10 next year. That is on top of the fact that the Crown Office now employs 369 lawyers, as of today, compared with 250 in January 1997. The service is also introducing improved technology, which will give it a powerful tool for dealing with an ever more complex work load. That new technology will allow information to be transmitted and exchanged more efficiently in the criminal justice system.
Public confidence in the criminal justice system is influenced by the way in which the system treats not just the accused but, above all, the victims. That is why the Scottish strategy for victims has been allocated resources to initiate action on the ground. Among its early achievements has been the completion of a major phase of the witness service in sheriff courts. That service provides general advice and support to people attending court, and has now been rolled out to courts in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow. This year, £860,000 has been provided through Victim Support Scotland.
The Crown Office is running pilots of its own victim liaison service, which is designed to make improvements in the flow of information to victims. That service will be operating in all regions by 2002.
The Justice 2 Committee intends to undertake a proper review of those matters, which will take something like a year. We welcome that, and think that it is quite right and proper to wait and see what the committee's recommendations are.
It seems that the real purpose of today's hour-and-a-quarter debate is not to address those issues seriously. The truth is that we have to finish this debate early, because Roseanna Cunningham has a bus to catch to get to a press conference, for which today's debate is just the opener. That is not a proper use of this Parliament; it is no way to treat a Parliament, but that is not a surprise.
I move amendment S1M-1958.1, to leave out from "with concern" to end and insert:
"the increased resources going into the justice system as a whole; further notes the decision of the Justice 2 Committee to hold an inquiry into the operation of the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service, and looks forward to their report."
I congratulate Roseanna Cunningham on at last delivering on an SNP promise: today, she has satisfied her own "Groundhog Day" weather forecast in securing this debate. We welcome today's debate. I will not waste time going through the many figures that she has presented to the Parliament which, as far as we are concerned, are not disputable. I will not concentrate on them, as I had intended to do.
I am pleased that Roseanna Cunningham and her colleagues have recognised the message that we in the Conservatives have been consistently putting out throughout this parliamentary session, despite the fact that Roseanna herself has at times described our comments as bizarre. I welcome her aboard. We will take our message forward with Roseanna Cunningham and will give her motion support, provided that it is not amended in the way that the Deputy Minister for Justice intends. I find the amendment in his name takes a head-in-the-sand approach. Quite honestly, I wish that Mr Gray would get real and identify with the problems out there and with the crisis of confidence that there appears to be in the justice system.
I want to address the justice system as a whole. It is one thing to concentrate on the courts, but we must recognise those who prepare cases for the courts and the way in which the courts operate. I will start with the police. I am delighted that the Executive has, at long last, attempted to restore the level of policing to somewhere near what is required, following the reductions that there have been. It is a well-timed commitment, given the fact that we are now in an election campaign.
It is one thing for the minister to tell us how well the Executive has done on the number of police. However, as Mr Jim Wallace could inform Mr Gray, the Scottish Police Federation certainly laid it on the line that the ridiculous words of Phil Gallie, as Mr Gray described them, were not entirely unbelievable when it came to those at the sharp end. It was interesting to note that Jack Straw got exactly the same response when he faced the Police Federation of England and Wales.
It is one thing to have the number of police; it is another thing to ensure that issues are followed up. The current situation with regard to sentencing is of no help to the police, nor are the level of repeat offending and the level of return of criminals to prisons having had early releases—there is evidence of that. That is no comfort to victims either, when the sentences that they hear being passed down in court are not the sentences that are served and individuals appear back on the streets far too early.
That is no deterrent to the hardliners who are determined to commit crime. Deterrence is the one thing that, somewhere along the line, might stop them. They laugh at the current lengths of sentences and at automatic remission. Nor is it of benefit to prison staff and those others who work to rehabilitate such individuals, to make them see the error of their ways and change the course of their lives. Not enough time is spent with those individuals, because no sooner are they imprisoned than they are out again, not having served their proper sentences.
Conservatives will deliver, given the opportunity, but—
That is unlikely.
—before the minister says that it is unlikely that we will have that opportunity, although I have just heard that being said, we will attempt to persuade the Parliament next week, when we consider the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, that there is a means of stepping back and making sentences mean what they say. That attempt was defeated in committee, but I like to think that members will reflect on the error of their ways and support us on that bill.
We have to ensure that there are sufficient procurators fiscal and Crown Office staff in the courts. We should look back at what has happened recently: the Chhokar case; the Collie case; the 16-year-old alleged rapist who got away without a trial; and the boys from Paisley who escaped a rape trial because the case was timed out due to the lack of service by procurators. Those few but much-publicised incidents are but the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that that is the reason for the announcement that the Dingwall prosecutor made when he stepped aside.
There are other problems. In considering our justice system, the minister has to address the not proven verdict at some time. It is meaningless. Procurators and police officers describe it as the teatime verdict: bring out a verdict and give us a judgment. Such a verdict means nothing to the persons who have been charged and, even more important, nothing to the victim.
I realise that I am on my time, but I would like to mention a very important issue: people who drive with drugs in their bloodstream. We have to do something about that. Currently, we protect society against drunk drivers but not against people who drive with drugs in their bloodstream. By addressing that issue, the Executive would do something for justice.
At the same time, the Executive could consider how people who have already received long driving bans very often seem to escape the wrath of the court. They have their bans extended laughably. There was such a case in Perth a week or two ago. The Executive has to bring home the message to those who administer justice that it is not right that the public should have to face such people driving around—without insurance, as they are not allowed to drive. The minister would do well to address that issue, if indeed he is serious about justice issues.
Although I do not argue that the topic of this debate is not worthy of our attention, I wonder how much the SNP's timing in raising it this morning was influenced by Tuesday's news reports. In some ways, the debate is premature. We could have had a better-informed and more constructive debate after the publication of the Justice 2 Committee's report on its inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is unfair to suggest that the committee might brush over the concerns of procurators fiscal, as I am sure that it will take seriously all the evidence and do a thorough job.
Be that as it may, there are concerns about the pressures on the criminal justice system and its ability to cope. The issues raised by Mr David Hingston, the retired procurator fiscal whose comments were reported on Tuesday, tie in with at least two recent cases in which delays by the fiscal service resulted in the cases being time barred. Those concerns have been recognised and measures are being taken to address them.
More resources and the better use of resources help, and both are in the pipeline, with the recruitment of 30 new fiscal staff and funding to improve and develop the department's information technology to assist the organisation and administration of their work. However, there is more than one factor in any equation. There is a balance to be struck in how each of the factors in this complex equation are tackled. How do we change and strengthen the system? How do we relieve the pressures? What are the pressures? What will enable the system to work better?
Improving the operation of the courts and giving the police the support that they need are long-standing Liberal Democrat commitments, which figured in our 1999 manifesto. The police service's net grant-aided expenditure is at its highest level—it is 33 per cent more in real terms now than it was a decade ago. Police numbers also offer good news: we now have 15,149 police officers in Scotland, which is 99 more than the previous peak.
Is the member aware of people clamouring and queuing up to congratulate her and her colleagues in the Executive parties on there being more policemen on the street? I rather suspect that that is not the case. In fact, there are fewer bobbies on the beat—that is certainly the view that is held by the police.
I think that my next point will illustrate what has been done to address that. It cannot be denied that there are 99 more policemen than the previous peak and that there are now 15,149 policemen. I cannot resist the observation that the recruitment of one more officer would make the numbers nice and round.
Perhaps Nora Radcliffe will note that the Scottish Police Federation was at the front of the queue to congratulate us on the increase in the number of police officers. Although it went on to criticise the way in which those officers are deployed, it welcomed the record number of police officers in Scotland, a fact that is ignored by the SNP and the Conservatives.
Even I congratulated the Executive on that.
In this atmosphere of congratulation, I will continue. Nobody denies that, ideally, police officers should spend their time policing. The number of staff to take over some of the burden of clerical and administrative work from front-line policemen has also risen by almost 10 per cent in the past three years. That helps to get more policemen back out on the beat and on the front line.
The Scottish crime survey 2000 showed that the crime that we know about is at its lowest since such surveys began: down 29 per cent since 1981. The caveat to that is that violent crime has increased by a third, so there is no room for complacency. The survey pointed out that part of the increase was attributable to a new screening question on domestic violence, which increased the estimate of violent crime by approximately 10 per cent. I say in passing that there is significance in the fact that the question was asked as well as in the data it produces, as its inclusion in the survey highlights the change that there has been in attitudes to domestic violence.
There is an unacceptable culture of violence in Scotland, which is often linked to alcohol and drugs. If we change that culture, we will go a long way to relieving the pressure on the system. Culture change is a long-term job, but much work has been done on it, for example by police schools liaison officers in our schools and youth clubs, and by outreach work in the streets by community policemen and policewomen and others. There will be a payback from such work in due course.
Honesty compels us to admit that we have not cracked the alcohol and drugs abuse that underlies so much criminal activity. It is a multifaceted problem, which requires a multifaceted approach. It is true that we have to crack down on dealers and get at the major players, who should be behind bars and unable to benefit from their evil profits and ill-gotten gains, but shutting people up in prison is not the only answer and often it is not the right answer, especially for the small-time dealers who are addicts themselves and are just as much victims as their customers are. Those small-time dealers need help to deal with their addiction and get back into mainstream society. Putting some people into prison is like enrolling them in an academy for crime—it is an expensive mistake.
On the point about helping drug addicts to cure their addiction, will the member join me in lamenting the fact that the Government chose not to set up a drug court in the north-east of Scotland, which has the fastest-growing drugs problem in Scotland?
Answer and wind up, please.
I think that the Executive has set up a drug court in Glasgow. It takes time to roll out such measures. We are making a start. No one denies that there is much more to be done, but we cannot do everything at once.
It costs a lot to put people in prison and it costs a lot to keep them there. Non-custodial sentences or diversion from prosecution are far more humane and sensible ways for society to deal with many transgressors. However, for those options to be effective, there must be much more provision of rehabilitation and support outwith the criminal justice system. It would also be helpful if, in reporting on crime, the media could accept that sometimes criminals should not be put behind bars. There should be fewer shock-horror headlines about people being let off because they have not been imprisoned and more informative reporting about rehabilitation or sentencing options that involve wrongdoers doing something constructive, which can be a life-changing experience.
The criminal justice system exists to pick up the pieces where we fail as a society. If we can sort out underlying failures in social provision, the pressure on an overloaded system will ease.
Nora Radcliffe said that there are concerns about the criminal justice system—that is the first understatement that we have heard today.
The SNP motion refers to "crisis" and "resourcing", which are both key to the debate. The Executive's response to a crisis is to ask, "Crisis? What crisis?" According to the Crown Office representatives who gave evidence to the joint meeting of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee, there may be a wee problem out there, but nothing to frighten the horses and nothing to frighten the law-abiding public. In what one could call a very relaxed response to questions at the joint meeting of 16 May, the Solicitor General for Scotland said:
"The other day, as I was considering various observations that have been made of the way in which prosecution is obtained in Scotland, it seemed to me that the notion that the system is cracking up has been advanced as an argument for the past 10 years at least. It is a perennial feature of the system that people make that complaint."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee (Joint Meeting), 16 May 2001; c 96.]
There we have it—there is no problem out there, and the Solicitor General is quite happy.
So, where is the evidence that the system is cracking up? I take members back to the evidence of some of the front-line people, such as Richard Stott, who is the president of the Procurators Fiscal Society, which represents 85 per cent of procurators fiscal. At the joint meeting of 8 May, Mr Stott was asked about discussions with the Crown Office on staffing. He replied:
"Very little discussion about staffing levels took place between our society and the Crown Office. We expressed the general view that we are under-resourced and understaffed, but we were not asked to have specific input to the preparation of the bid for the budget."
He went on to say:
"The Crown Office management side was well aware of our views on under-resourcing. We know not what account was taken of those views."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee (Joint Meeting), 8 May 2001; c 40.]
I acknowledge Christine Grahame's comments—what she read from the Official Report is true—but does she think that it would be more appropriate to consider the remarks in the context of the inquiry that the Justice 2 Committee is to conduct, rather than in this morning's debate? After all, that is the role of the committee.
I suspected that that point might be raised. Those comments are on public record and it is appropriate to raise them today. The evidence that I quoted is not part of our inquiry—it was part of our joint consideration of the budget with the Justice 1 Committee. We have not yet started our inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. As that evidence is a matter of public record, I am perfectly free—as are other members and the public—to read it and refer to it.
On 16 May, we took evidence from the District Courts Association. Members may ask, "Who are these people?"—the witnesses from the District Courts Association included a lady who has spent 25 years in the district court service. She said:
"The fiscals are not given sufficient time to train before they are put into court. I do not think that that is the situation only in the district courts. The fiscals are also being shoved into sheriff courts because of pressures of business there."
She went on to speak of her concern that
"The level of service that we receive from the procurator fiscal's office is declining."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee (Joint Meeting), 16 May 2001; c 67-68.]
I want to listen to those witnesses and I think that the chamber should listen to them.
It appears that there is a huge breakdown between the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service, which is not helped by the Solicitor General's remarks. At the joint meeting on 16 May, the Solicitor General referred to Richard Stott, who is a senior fiscal, saying:
"He is negotiating for his society: a posture of happiness might not immediately fit in with his particular role."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee (Joint Meeting), 16 May 2001; c 87.]
The members of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee were not supposed to accept Richard Stott's evidence as bona fide—the Solicitor General put an angle on Mr Stott's evidence by suggesting that he was adopting a negotiating position.
I am pleased to say that Gordon Jackson picked up that point and clarified it with the Solicitor General, although I thought that the Solicitor General's evidence was an outrageous way of dealing with a senior fiscal's evidence to the committee. Mr Stott's evidence did not come out of the blue—what happens in the courts appears in the newspapers every day.
To me, the situation looks like a crisis, sounds like a crisis, feels like a crisis and reads like a crisis, but it is not a crisis to members of the Executive parties, to the Executive's justice team or to the Crown Office. Apparently, the crisis is in our heads or has been sensationalised by the press. A smugness based on spin prevails. It is time for a reality check.
I referred to the sensationalised reporting of wrongdoers not being sent to prison when they are given non-custodial sentences.
I am referring to a much wider point. The Chhokar and Collie cases failed, fines are time-barred and cases are set down and not followed through or are postponed. The system is clogging up—everyone in the chamber knows that.
The system will continue to fail unless the Executive gives us what we need. The Executive is failing—not the Parliament—and must address the situation.
Once again, we are here to talk about justice. Thanks to the SNP's motion, the debate has no proper focus. Yet again, we are going round the houses, talking about every part of the justice system rather than focusing on the detail. Phil Gallie gets the prize for mentioning the greatest number of subjects under the heading of the justice system.
Where does that take us—[Interruption.] Roseanna Cunningham talks about "Déjà vu". I agree with her; I have déjà vu, because I was one of the people who stood up and said, "Yes, let's have a debate about the court system, about resources for the Procurator Fiscal Service and about the Scottish Prison Service." However, we should deal with one subject at a time or else we will get nowhere.
I thank the SNP for at least drawing attention to the fact that the Justice 2 Committee is to undertake an inquiry. It is fair to say that we have been building up to that inquiry over a lengthy period. We have asked questions, not only during the budget process but by lodging written parliamentary questions, because we have always known that the Procurator Fiscal Service is under pressure, for reasons that I will go on to detail.
We should welcome some of the progress that has been made. During evidence-taking sessions on the budget process, members of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee heard that there will be 30 new procurators fiscal. Members should welcome that news. We also heard that additional precognition officers are to be appointed.
Does Pauline McNeill accept the evidence of the procurators fiscal that, while the appointment of those 30 new procurators fiscal is welcome, the problem is that they will be inexperienced? The great problem in the service is the inexperience of new staff. Fiscals who are not senior enough are dealing with cases.
I will deal with that point.
I am slightly angered by the fact that, although we have taken the trouble to set the terms of an inquiry under our so-called powerful committee system, the Opposition has chosen to hold a debate today—much like it did over Sutherland. The SNP either believes that the committee system is important or that it is not. If it thinks that the committee system is important, it must give the system its place.
I will not accept that the Executive's role is to come along to the chamber—[Interruption.] I would be angry if Iain Gray were to tell me today that the Executive would take over our inquiry and investigate the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I know that he will not do that—[Interruption.]
Order.
May I say—[Interruption.]
Order.
Will the member give way?
Yes.
I find Pauline McNeill's comments shocking. Committee sessions are held in public. The evidence quoted by Christine Grahame is public information—that evidence is a matter of public knowledge, as the press sat in on those meetings, as did members of the public. Why should not that information be used in the chamber?
I thank Phil Gallie—
Order. The point has been well laboured. I ask Pauline McNeill to address the motion.
May I spend a second or two on the inquiry, Presiding Officer?
A second or two only.
The Justice 2 Committee wants to take its time over its inquiry. We do not want to examine the resources of the Procurator Fiscal Service alone. As Christine Grahame said, we want also to examine staff relations. The Lord Advocate admitted, on the record, to low morale and that there is a problem recruiting experienced fiscals. The Parliament must address that issue.
If we believe in a joined-up criminal justice system, we must get into the detail. I urge all the Opposition parties to consider that.
It is easy for members to indulge in rhetoric and exaggeration during "Groundhog Day" debates, but it is not an exaggeration to say that the prosecution system is in crisis. That crisis manifests itself in a number of ways.
Roseanna Cunningham dealt with delays. Many of Scotland's sheriff courts fail to reach their summary trial targets. Given her advantage, she might have pointed out that the courts that meet their targets are found mostly in smaller, rural jurisdictions. The courts with large backlogs tend to be courts in urban areas, such as Glasgow.
I am more concerned about the delays that occur in the service of indictments after an accused person has appeared on petition and the investigation of the crime has been completed. It is completely contrary to the interests of justice that it should take eight to 10 months in places such as Glasgow to serve an indictment after appearance on petition. That cannot be good for witnesses, it is certainly not in the interests of the accused and it is totally contrary to the interests of justice and wider society.
We have heard about errors. People are working under pressure and there will inevitably be mistakes—time bars will be missed and documentation will be inaccurate. It has come out—Christine Grahame was right to stress this—that the Scottish criminal justice system is the ladies and gentlemen v the players: inexperienced deputes have to go into solemn sheriff courts and compete against a Scottish bar whose expertise is probably at its highest level, largely as a result of the introduction of the solicitor advocate system.
At the other end of the scale, we see inappropriate pleas being taken, largely for expediency. There is clear evidence that pleas are accepted in cases that should go to trial. If a harassed and overworked depute can accept, on a multicharge complaint, pleas to six, as opposed to 12, of the charges, he will do so on the ground of pure expediency. That is wrong.
Perhaps the most damning indictment of the casual approach that the Government has taken is the increased use of the diversion system, whereby cases do not go to court at all. Of course there are, as Nora Radcliffe said, cases in which diversion is appropriate, but I suggest that there is clear evidence that many cases that are being diverted should, in fact, go to court.
Lots of us think that too many cases are prosecuted rather than too few. Can Bill Aitken tell us specifically which cases that should go to court are being diverted and give us examples of what he says is wrong?
I am delighted to do so. When the system of diversion was introduced, it was supposed to be used for first offenders with one offence—Gordon Jackson will be able to confirm that. There are now cases in Glasgow of people with previous convictions who have previously been offered a diversion being offered further diversions. That cannot be gainsaid; there is clear evidence that it happens. It is totally inappropriate.
Everybody is entitled to a chance, but how many chances are people now getting? They are getting warning letters from fiscals, conditional offers and they are being diverted. The system is not working.
The fact is that there is considerable public concern about how crime is dealt with. Police numbers may be increasing, but to increase police numbers and the number of cases that are reported is an exercise in futility if no action or inappropriate action is taken on the reports.
There is much to commend Roseanna Cunningham's motion to the Parliament—the Conservatives will certainly support it—but we must look to the Executive to come up with some answers in the near future. Otherwise, the whole system of administration of justice will become a matter of even greater public concern.
I support Pauline McNeill's point that such a debate is the wrong way for the Parliament to deal with an issue such as justice. A short, soundbitish, electioneering debate is not the way to advance. We need a full morning for a debate on the whole justice system during which all members who are interested can make constructive remarks instead of trying to boot hell out of the other parties. There are a lot of good ideas around. The subject needs to be considered as a whole rather than in short and nasty debates such as we are having.
I am not a great admirer of the wording of Executive amendments. They tend to be a bit bland and complacent. I hope that the Executive amendment to the motion is not complacent. It is reasonable to support it because it stresses that more resources are going into the justice system and that a committee is considering the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service.
I am keen that the Executive should really push justice. There is a big opportunity for Jim Wallace—whose heart, I know, is in the subject—to make the greatest reform to how we deal with justice since Sir Robert Peel started the police.
We must consider the justice system as a whole. To start with, we have to reform the courts. The courts exist for the convenience of judges, sheriffs, advocates and solicitors. They do not exist for the benefit of the community as a whole. Who plays golf at Muirfield links at what time is more important to the people who are involved in the courts than how they get on with the real work in hand. The whole system has to be tackled. I know that Jim Wallace is a brave man and I am sure that he will tackle it. I will certainly support him in that.
The idea that all the troubles have arisen in the past two years is rubbish. Early in the previous Parliament at Westminster, I raised questions about the long delays in sheriff courts. They have been going on for a long time and have a serious impact on justice. They deter witnesses from coming forward and they must harm the value of the testimony that is given. I often wonder what would happen if I were called as a witness to a road accident or a street fracas and had to remember what happened a year ago. The chances of my getting it right are slim. The delays and the way in which the whole justice system is operated are just no good. We have to get a real grip on the system.
I welcome the start that the Executive is making, but we have to do more. That includes having more procurators fiscal and raising the quality of procurators fiscal, so that they are as good as the clever advocates who are often in court against them. We could make more use of specialist courts, so that time would be better spent and sheriffs and others would acquire expertise in a particular subject.
As Nora Radcliffe said, we have to get a grip on the prison system. Short sentences need to be examined, as Phil Gallie said. I wish him the best of luck in the election—he will be well placed at Westminster; not here. Training in prisons—resourcing prisons better so that they have a better educational system—needs to be considered. Diversion from custody needs to be considered, so that people do not go into the prison system at all, are not regurgitated endlessly around it and do not foul up the courts.
There are a lot of matters that need to be considered. I beg that we have a grown-up debate about justice, instead of the piffling, second-rate politics that we get at the moment.
I welcome the debate. One of the reasons why the SNP chose to debate justice is that it is of enormous concern the length and breadth of Scotland. There is no escaping the fact that, during the current general election campaign, justice has been one of the biggest issues on the doorsteps, despite the fact that the election is for the United Kingdom Parliament and that justice is devolved to this Parliament. That is why we should speak about it this morning.
At door after door in Aberdeen, where I am campaigning in the general election, people raise the issue of crime in the city, which has the highest rate of recorded crime in Scotland. Two days ago, I spoke to a woman whose home had been broken into five times—three times in the past few months alone. Her neighbour's house had also been broken into three times in the past few months. Yet the culprits are still out there. Those neighbours have given up completely on Scotland's justice system because it is not delivering for them and they do not feel safe in their homes any more.
I challenge Jim Wallace, the Minister for Justice, to go to Aberdeen and have a public meeting. Justice is one of the biggest issues in the city. He should hear directly from people what their concerns are. Perhaps then he will do something about them.
People in Aberdeen are not just saying that we need more police on the streets; they are turning their attention to the justice system. They are not blaming the police anymore; they are blaming the procurator fiscal's office and the courts for letting them down.
No wonder people are concerned when they read headlines such as:
"Fiscal claims stress caused by cutbacks made him quit".
That headline, to which Roseanna Cunningham referred, appeared in The Press and Journal a few days ago in relation to the resignation of David Hingston from the fiscal office in the north of Scotland. He is quoted as saying:
"The fiscal service is under immense stress, largely because of Labour and Tory governments' insistence on cutting costs. It hasn't the resources to do the job."
That is the reality throughout the country and the reason why we are debating justice today.
I have previously raised in the Parliament the 110-day rule, which puts a lot of pressure on fiscal offices throughout the country. They find it almost impossible to meet and are having to drop other cases so that they can divert their resources to dealing with the serious cases that come under the rule. We have almost the strictest timetable in the world for dealing with serious cases.
No wonder people are losing faith if they look at some of the information that comes out of the Parliament. I refer to an answer I received to a parliamentary question on cases marked "No proceedings" over the past few years. Between 1997-98 and 1999-2000, there was a 56 per cent increase in the number of cases marked "No proceedings" in the city of Aberdeen. That was the fifth worst figure in the country. The national figure was 20 per cent. In other words, over a couple of years, there was a 20 per cent increase in the number of cases marked "No proceedings". There are 49 fiscal offices. Of all the increases, three out of the top five were in fiscal office areas in the north-east of Scotland. That is hard evidence of a serious problem with resources in the fiscal service in that part of the country.
Not only the public are tearing their hair out with the justice system; the police are, too. Several times in past debates I have referred to a letter that I received from the chief constable of Tayside police on 26 March. The one section that I have not yet read out in the chamber is the one that relates to young offenders. The police are demoralised because they feel that the justice system is not delivering for the police. In the letter, the chief constable says:
"young offenders potentially present the police service with the biggest problems. The majority of crime committed by juveniles tends to be by a minority of recidivist offenders. When a repeat offender is identified there would appear to be an inability within the current system for them to be dealt with at an early stage and thereby balance the provision of support for the individual and reassurance for the public."
The chief constable gives one example of a 15-year-old in the city of Dundee who is now in a secure establishment. During his three-month placement, the individual failed to return after his first unescorted home visit. During the two-week period during which he was untraced, crime in the area rose considerably. The individual currently has 24 pending cases involving 40 charges. He has been involved in 32 previous cases. The chief constable gives some examples of what has happened in some of those cases: three times there was a disposal of supervision; 16 times no action was taken; twice there were no proceedings; seven times the referral was discharged; and four times the case was abandoned. The chief constable concludes:
"I have no need to outline the hours spent in investigation of the crimes, and the effect on the victims and impact on the morale of the investigating officers."
We have not begun even to touch on the impact of human rights legislation on the justice system. The Executive must address now many issues that are of huge concern the length and breadth of Scotland. I look for a positive response in the minister's summing-up.
I will not stand here and pretend that no questions need to be asked about the prosecution system—that would be complacent. Frankly, I do not think that anyone in the justice department or in the Crown Office would either. Iain Gray's amendment does not suggest that we should not examine the system. However, I say to Roseanna Cunningham that I have a degree of quarrel with the motion, for two reasons.
First, I rather dislike the use of the word "crisis" in this context. Politicians—especially Opposition politicians at election time—are inclined to overuse the word; they use it almost at the drop of a hat. I do not accept that its use is justified every time there is a problem or a less than perfect situation, or every time that we could do better—we could do better. That is the sort of meltdown scenario of Phil Gallie. He has departed—no doubt he has other work to do while he should be here and has gone off to do something else.
In Aberdeen, house break-ins have gone through the roof—the statistics are by far the highest in the whole of Scotland. The chances are that someone who breaks into a house in Aberdeen will not be put behind bars. Is that or is that not a crisis?
It is a matter of great importance for the citizens of Aberdeen and any police officer would want to tackle it. When the people responsible are apprehended, the prosecution system should prosecute them, but to suggest that the whole structure of the system is in crisis and is in meltdown is to misuse the statistics.
The truth is that the system is under strain, but it still functions day to day. In a debate such as this, we need a bit of balance. We should recognise that there is a problem to be tackled, but it does no good to suggest that the problem is greater than it is.
My second objection to Roseanna Cunningham's motion is that the Justice 2 Committee, of which Pauline McNeill is the convener, is about to have an inquiry into the Crown Office and the whole system of prosecution. That is good; it is important for a number of reasons. SNP members make fair points: there has been a huge increase in the volume of work involving serious crime and the courts are aware of that. The High Court and the courts of appeal know that we should be looking at the system. I have no difficulty with Pauline McNeill's committee examining what is happening.
I was interested in the evidence that the Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee heard on the budget. Although the Crown Agent and the Solicitor General for Scotland were not in any way complacent, they were perhaps a little dismissive of the Procurators Fiscal Society. The society told us that there is a very real problem. I accept fully that the representatives of the Procurators Fiscal Society were not junior members of the service; they are senior people and their views need to be respected and taken into account. I agree that someone such as Richard Stott cannot be dismissed—he is a man of substance and stature in the system.
An inquiry is important and that is why I like Iain Gray's amendment: it suggests that we should await the results of the inquiry with interest. These are complex matters. I do not always agree with Donald Gorrie, but I agree with him this time—there will not be a simple, one-line solution; the issue has to be considered in the round. I suspect that when we consider the matter properly, we will discover that it involves a range of overlapping issues; the solution will not simply be a matter of throwing in money or saying that we need more resources. That is why I say to the Opposition that, like Pauline McNeill, I do not think that it is helpful to talk all the time about crisis and to demand a solution. We need to analyse the problem properly. When we have done that, we can carefully consider what needs to be done.
We move now to wrap-up speeches. I will have to keep members to their allotted time.
I want to build on what Gordon Jackson said about balance. Crime is an important issue; it is especially important to those who suffer as a result of it. It will always attract lurid headlines in the popular press and cries of "Scandal", "Crisis" and "Outrage".
Today's debate is the wrong debate at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. As Pauline McNeill rightly said, it has not focused on anything in particular. The debate would benefit from waiting until we have before us the outcome of the Justice 2 Committee's inquiry. Today's motion is an electioneering motion. It bears all the hallmarks of a populist approach and it has been trotted out for that reason. It is not a serious attempt to analyse the issue. In fact, it is fair to say that, on this issue, the SNP is Phil Gallie in tartan—as he acknowledged himself in welcoming the motion.
Let us consider the facts and the record of the Liberal Democrat and Labour Executive. It is not always appropriate to go through the statistics on this, that or the other, but it is important to mention them. In the quarter to March 2001, police numbers, which have been the subject of considerable criticism, stood at 15,149—the highest number on record. The number of support staff, as mentioned by Nora Radcliffe, stood at 4,712—10 per cent more than when the Conservatives left office. The support staff's job is to deal with more of the paperwork and the red tape, leaving more time for officers on front-line duty. The Executive has provided the resources to do the job.
Court time and resources were matters for complaint as long ago as 25 years ago, when I was a depute procurator fiscal. The Executive has allocated £22 million over three years. That money is being used to phase in new officers and staff and to improve information technology resources. Once again, the Executive has provided resources.
Police officers and court staff are only one side of the problem. The Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive is getting stuck into the longer-term strategy that is the real answer to crime—supporting victims, rehabilitating offenders and tackling the drug addiction that fuels a considerable part of the property crime in Scotland. The Scottish Executive is doing the things that make the difference; it is acting on the real problems. What we are getting today is something of a masochistic exercise to see who can come down, and sound, hardest on crime.
Results are coming through: there is a drop in overall recorded crime; there is an increase in clear-up rates—29 per cent in 1992 under the Tories and 43 per cent now; and the Scottish crime report suggests that only half as many people are seriously worried about crime. Those points are significant and rather belie talk of a crisis.
Governments do not have full control over crime rates: they result from broad trends in society that Governments can influence. With that caveat, the Scottish Executive is doing the job: it has the right strategy, it is tackling crime at source and it is providing resources. That is why the SNP motion is misconceived fluff. There is a problem—one or two issues with the court scene have been talked about in passing. Those will never be fully resolved. There will always be difficulties, because of the balance that has to be struck between police officers doing the job on the streets and police officers giving evidence in court. The balance is the issue. I urge the chamber to reject the motion for the electioneering nonsense that it is.
I heeded what Robert Brown said, but whether the motion is election fluff or not, the system is in crisis. That is a fact and unless it is addressed, the crisis will deepen.
Much of this morning's debate has centred on the resignation of Mr Hingston. All right, we are having a debate, and we plan to have an inquiry about what is happening in the Procurator Fiscal Service, and I defend Pauline McNeill's right to defend that inquiry, but many of the comments that have been made are already public knowledge. Mr Hingston merely highlighted the issue and brought it well to the fore.
Iain Gray described what the Executive has been doing to produce a justice system that will be fair to all. He commented on drug courts and I applaud the effort that is being made, albeit that that effort is too late—as Roseanna Cunningham identified, the SNP included drug courts in its manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections, as did we. Welcome to the debate, minister.
It was not in the Conservative manifesto.
It certainly was, and the SNP claimed that it was its idea.
The improvement in the number of fiscals was mentioned. I applaud that too, but we must take into account the fact that the improvements that have happened simply do not go far enough. From evidence that was given to the Justice 2 Committee, we know that the Procurator Fiscal Service is under a great deal of pressure. The 30 new fiscals will not address the problem, given the additional work load and the various highlights, spotlights and campaigns that are increasing the work for fiscals and putting more strain on the service, far beyond the resources that are being put in. Nora Radcliffe also commented on that, and on the fact that we have 15,149 police officers. I appreciate that, but it would be nice if there were 15,150.
Christine Grahame commented on the evidence on the budget that we heard at the joint meeting of the justice committees. Richard Stott is not a man of insignificant experience, but a man who comes to us with a wealth of experience and a history of knowing exactly what the Procurator Fiscal Service is doing. His evidence at the joint meeting was compelling. Undoubtedly, the comments of Phyllis Hands were also compelling. I hate to correct Christine Grahame on this, but Phyllis Hands would give me galluses if I did not point out that she is a lady with 21—not 25—years' experience, and she knows what she is talking about.
Bill Aitken commented on errors and inexperience and the Justice 2 Committee also heard of inexperience in the service. Fiscals do not grow on trees; they have to be trained and to gain experience slowly but surely. One of the difficulties, which Richard Lochhead pointed out, is the number of cases that are marked for no proceedings. I went to great lengths to inquire exactly what happens when fiscals are trained. What they do cannot be book-learned. Every time that a case is marked, it has to be studied in depth. It actually takes two people to do the job. When someone is being trained, they have to sit beside an experienced fiscal and that takes someone away from doing the job. To bring in new people, even more fiscals have to be provided, so that the trainees get the training that they need.
Richard Lochhead spoke about young offenders. We often hear about mini crime waves that are down to one person and, naturally, we have to consider how to deal with young offenders.
Gordon Jackson said that there is no crisis. If the situation is not a crisis, it is one step away from it.
We support Roseanna Cunningham's motion. That is not a cosy alliance by any means; it is merely recognition of the reality.
It is quite astonishing for the Executive to be accused of putting its head in the sand, simply because it is giving one of the committees of this Parliament its proper place. If we did not do that, we would—quite properly—be criticised. Acknowledging that the Justice 2 Committee is investigating the issues that we have debated this morning does not mean that nothing can happen in the meantime. I have pointed to the increases in staffing and resources for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. We are also investing in the witness support scheme and victim liaison offices. That is central, because—as can be seen from the title of the consultation paper that we published on the sexual evidence (Scotland) bill—we must redress the balance in our justice system between offender and victim. That is proper, and we are moving forward with it.
We are looking not just at human resources, but at the technological resources that we can deploy in our justice system to improve the way in which it works and the way in which different parts of the justice system communicate with each other. All those things can happen, and will happen, without pre-empting the results of the Justice 2 Committee inquiry.
I am grateful to hear about technological interventions, but can the minister explain why we cannot contact our local police by e-mail?
That matter has been raised before. It is unacceptable that the police cannot be contacted by e-mail. That is why we are investing in and rolling out the Scottish police management information network, which will ensure that every police officer has an e-mail address.
Christine Grahame quoted at some length from evidence that was given to the justice committees and I acknowledge that that evidence was given in relation to the budget process, rather than the Justice 2 Committee inquiry. Of course, that information is in the public domain and Christine Grahame is at liberty to quote from it, but the issue, first and foremost, is in the domain of the justice committees and their decision, having heard the evidence, was to take the issue seriously enough for the Justice 2 Committee to launch an inquiry, which it believes will last for up to a year. Nonetheless, I repeat that more resources are being invested. In particular, more staff are being taken on in the Procurator Fiscal Service. In 1997, 250 lawyers were employed in the service. Today, there are 369 and 20 more posts are being filled.
I am genuinely puzzled by Christine Grahame's point that the new staff will be new to the job. I cannot conceive how we could meet the demand, which has been made repeatedly this morning, to increase staffing in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service without taking on new staff who will, in essence, be new to the job.
May I suggest a way round that? The Executive could examine remuneration levels and try to attract back some of the experience that has left the service.
The Justice 2 Committee will probably examine, and take evidence on, the structure of the service. Mr Gallie made a similar point about police numbers. Even when he acknowledges that we have record numbers of police officers, he criticises us because they are recruits and we are training them. How we could increase the number of police officers without recruiting new recruits and training them is inconceivable to me. I am glad that Mr Gallie acknowledged this morning—albeit from a seated position—that we have record numbers of police officers. I cannot help feeling anxious that he may fail to do that in other circumstances in the coming two weeks, but I hope that I am wrong.
Phil Gallie talked about drug driving, which I want to address because it is a serious issue. For clarity's sake, driving under the influence of drugs is illegal, although the legal position is reserved to Westminster. The problem with drug driving, as Mr Gallie probably knows, is the lack of a reliable roadside test, but we are investing in a pilot of a potential roadside test so that we can treat this crime with the seriousness that it deserves. That is the most important thing.
Mr Gallie also made the point that he often makes about sentencing meaning what it says. I was surprised that he talked about that in the context of the forthcoming debate on the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Bill. Mr Gallie acknowledged in previous debates that the bill will introduce punishment parts that the judiciary will set, which are, in essence, sentences that mean what they say. However, he repeated this morning that the Conservatives would continue to oppose the bill.
Richard Lochhead spoke, as he has done before, of the north-east's potential as a site for a pilot drug court. We have discussed the reasons for Glasgow being our first-line pilot, but I reassure Mr Lochhead that I was with the drugs action team in Aberdeen earlier this week and that we discussed at some length the possibilities for using Aberdeen for a further pilot. That is not to say that we will be able to use it, but Mr Lochhead can be assured that the arguments were put at some length in Aberdeen.
Gordon Jackson made what was perhaps the most important point of a short debate when he said that we should not, and cannot, be complacent about our prosecution service and the operation of our courts. If we are serious about finding answers to make improvements, those answers are likely to be complex. I will give two quick examples. Members have talked about cases that are marked for no proceedings on a time-expiry basis. Most cases that fail on that basis stem from the problem of late reporting of case to the procurator fiscal and the overwhelming majority of such cases are reported by agencies other than the police or the Executive. We must address that issue, which does not relate to staffing or resources in the Procurator Fiscal Service.
Members have mentioned cases that are lost through delays. Such cases form a small proportion of the cases in which challenges have been made. That delay follows a change in the law. We must address that in different ways. The Scottish criminal justice system works with the most demanding time scales of any criminal justice system in Europe and perhaps the world. It is a tribute to the effectiveness of the system that we meet those time scales in all but a small minority of cases. The Executive's amendment is neither hand-washing nor complacent. It is simply good sense on a serious matter.
I cannot help but feel that when the minister made his opening speech, he had come prepared for another debate on police figures. When Phil Gallie made his speech, I formed the impression that he was just listing the Tory manifesto commitments, rather than addressing the issue that the motion raises. Robert Brown and several other members complained that some speeches were nothing more than political posturing during an election campaign. However, the motion concerns the problems in the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service. The intention behind the debate was to highlight the extent of those problems.
We should consider the facts. Fact one: a third of Scottish courts–sheriff courts—are not meeting their waiting times. In the six months up to the end of January 2001, 1,113 cases fell because they were time-barred. The minister, in his closing speech, said that responsibility for that did not always lie with the Crown Office or the Procurator Fiscal Service and that often, the responsibility lies further down the line. However, the overall responsibility lies with the justice department, for which the minister must be accountable. He cannot dismiss the problem as the responsibility of other agencies.
Mr Matheson makes a fair point, but he fails to acknowledge that I was saying not that the issue did not need to be addressed, but that perhaps resources in the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service were not the problem, and that therefore we needed a better answer that might take more than one hour and a quarter to find.
The question for the minister is—what action is he taking to address the problem? The reality is that nothing appears to be getting done. The criminal justice system is under increasing pressure. The staff problems show that. The procurators fiscal have considered taking industrial action, and I formed the impression from the evidence that the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee took that quite a bit of the work of our Procurator Fiscal Service depends on the good will of its staff. That situation is unacceptable.
Not only those who work in the service realise that a problem exists. We took evidence from Gerard MacMillan, president of the Glasgow Bar Association, which is the largest bar association in Scotland. He summed up the situation when he said:
"There are too few fiscals."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee and Justice 2 Committee, 16 May 2001; c 63.]
I take on board the fact that 30 new fiscals are being provided, but that statement links with the evidence that we received from Phyllis Hands and the District Courts Association, that too many inexperienced fiscals are prosecuting cases. Phyllis Hands said that fiscals seem to be recruited one day, spend a day in the court watching what is happening, and are then up in the court prosecuting a case the next day. We must ensure that those who join the fiscal service have adequate training. It was clear from several members' comments about David Hingston that the problems are long-term and deep-rooted. We need to tackle them properly and fundamentally.
Resources are at the heart of the issue. It is interesting that the Executive's amendment tries to trumpet the resources that will be spent on the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service. The Executive tells us that £22 million will go into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in the next three years. However, the Executive's Scottish budget shows that the Crown Office budget from last year to the end of March this year was just over £51 million. At the end of the three-year spending plan, the budget will increase to £61 million. We do not need a mathematician to work out that only an extra £10 million is in the pot, even though the Executive tried to spin that the figure is £22 million. That is spin over the substance of the problem that lies at the heart of our criminal justice system. That is the Executive's responsibility.
I understand that Pauline McNeill, as convener of the Justice 2 Committee, has every right to defend what her committee is doing. However, I do not think that she needs to work herself up to the point at which she suggests that we should not debate in the chamber any issue on which the Justice 1 Committee, the Justice 2 Committee or any other committee holds an inquiry.
When the facts make it clear that our criminal justice system has a fundamental problem, we have a responsibility to debate that. It is interesting that the Executive has held two debates on justice in the past month. Both were extended press releases on police figures. If the Executive were serious about the justice system, it would have held a debate on the system's fundamental problems and detailed what it intended to do to address those problems.
Order.
I am winding up, although I am conscious that the minister ran over his time and ate into mine.
I am not asking you to wind up, Mr Matheson. I am just asking you to stay with the motion and not to labour the point. I made that point to Pauline McNeill.
The situation makes it clear that our criminal justice system is under extreme pressure and is struggling to cope. As several members said, the Solicitor General's dismissal of the views of the Procurator Fiscal Society is not helpful. That highlights the division between senior management and the procurators fiscal. That is unhealthy and should be addressed.
Morale among our Procurator Fiscal Service staff is at rock bottom. The evidence from the service makes that clear. Procurators fiscal have even threatened industrial action. Cases are being dropped because they are time-barred. Inexperienced staff are dealing with cases without the necessary training. It is clear that a problem exists. The Executive has failed our justice system, and by default, failed the people of Scotland by not ensuring that they are served with proper justice.