I call on Margaret Mitchell to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Justice Committee. I am pleased to open the debate on the Justice Committee's inquiry and report into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which is the bulwark of our criminal justice system, prosecuting hundreds of cases each day in our courts. The only other committee inquiry into the service concluded in 2003, since then reform of the criminal law and procedure has preceded a pace. The committee therefore agreed that an inquiry into the service was long overdue and agreed to make this our first major inquiry, focusing on the role of the COPFS as a prosecutor. The services' other key role, investigating deaths and carrying out fatal accident inquiries, have been looked at by the previous Justice Committee. The committee took evidence over four months and made visits to Inverness, Hamilton and Edinburgh Sheriff Court, hearing from prosecutors and defence agents, the judiciary, trade unions, the police, victim support services and victims themselves. The committee extends its grateful thanks to all those who contributed to the inquiry and is conscious that, in certain instances, it took some courage to do so. I thank my colleagues on the committee for their hard work during the inquiry and the clerks for painstakingly collating the evidence gathered for the report. My thanks, too, goes to the Crown Office itself for its willingness to co-operate with the committee during the inquiry. The report covers five main themes. In the limited time, I will merely introduce each theme. Others will focus on particular issues. The resourcing of the COPFS is the first theme. Here, members heard directly from those working at the co-face, not just prosecutors and admin staff but also defence agents. The picture that emerged was one of a long-hours culture with junior staff being used as court fodder and prosecutors frequently facing totally inadequate preparation time. That was reflected in above-average sickness rates and returns from staff surveys indicating low morale, a clearly worrying situation aggravated by the large number of temporary and short-term contracts and temporary promotions. That in turn contributed to a reluctance to speak out. In response, the Lord Advocate and the Crown agents stated that staff had been consulted about the changes required and that the latest staff surveys indicated that the organisation may be turning the corner. First encouraging is still early days, and no amount of listening exercises can address fundamental concerns about the adequacy of resources. The fact is that the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service budget has seen a marked decline in real terms for a decade, while at the same time both the demand and the number of complex sonam cases is increasing. This year, the COPFS's budget has declined further in real terms, and the committee heard with growing concern that the Crown agent estimated that around 30 staff may have to be shed to make ends meet. Quite simply, while the committee notes the Lord Advocate's remarks that this year's financial allocation is a sound settlement, it considers that the staff's resilience has been tested almost beyond endurance in recent years. It should not be tested to breaking point. The second major theme is efficiency of the prosecution system. The committee report stated that changes necessary before the risks that are undoubtedly embedded in the prosecution system as presently constituted begin to crystallise. This change must reflect inherent inefficiencies in the prosecution system, including the prevalence of churn, which is the postponement or delay of court hearings. This wastes court time and lowers overall confidence in the criminal justice system. Statistics show that the most common cause of churn is a crown motion to adjourn because a key witness is not present. There are various reasons for this non-appearance, and, although the service cannot always be held responsible if a witness fails to attend court, it could do more. If the NHS now routinely updates individuals by text, then surely the prosecution service can use this communication to inform witnesses whether their appearance is required or not. Secondly, trial dates should not be scheduled when there is little prospect of them proceeding because the crown will not be ready. Finally, a rethink is required on how trial evidence is gathered and presented. There is a recognition of that with the Lord President describing our criminal system as Victorian in many of its practices. Members heard more use could be made of modern technology to capture and crystallise evidence in the advance of a trial, and that that will require cultural change in the way practitioners, including defence practitioners, deal with court business. It is clear that the Lord Advocate understands that and is personally committed to reform. Furthermore, members welcome the on-going work of the evidence and procedure review and the justice digital strategy, both of which are intended to deliver many of the changes that are needed. Crucially, however, the committee expressed concern about both projects seemingly being open-ended in nature and the fact that some milestones set out in the digital strategy appear to have already been missed. The responses from the Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Government to the committee's conclusions in this area essentially advise the committee to watch this space, indicating promising developments to come. In response, I give notice that the committee will maintain a watching brief on this issue, which is much too important to be allowed to slip, especially given the experience with nearly every other public sector technology project. The third theme that is covered is the effectiveness of the prosecution service. The bulk of evidence that is heard gives an impression of the COPFS as just about managing and doing its best to prosecute against a backdrop of decreasing resources. Although the committee has stressed that the public should have confidence in the COPFS as, on the whole, a robust, fair and rigorous public prosecutor, it nonetheless issues a stark warning that the strains are already showing. Summary cases, including antisocial behaviour, dishonesty or less serious violent crimes that should be the prosecution service core work, are being under prioritised. The root cause being the COPFS spreading itself too thinly, especially with increased priority given to domestic abuse and historic child abuse. Whilst justifiable, evidence revealed that other cases were suffering. Meanwhile, the prosecution of certain types of cases, such as wildlife crime and health and safety issue cases, indicate some failings. There was mixed evidence about the centralisation of case marking. The COPFS management stated that this had increased the efficiency of the prosecution process. However, there have been adverse unintended consequences, including a loss of local fiscal autonomy, which has resulted in the best disposal not always being deployed. The response from COPFS was disappointing in that the Crown Agent appears not to have acknowledged that this loss of local autonomy, perceived or otherwise, can have an adverse impact. The first round focused on victims and lay witnesses. The committee was deeply concerned by evidence that the current process leaves victims and witnesses feeling marginalised, with individuals speaking about a lack of contact with prosecutors before a trial and errors in communication. Some stated that the experience of taking part in the trial process had left them feeling re-traumatised and that, frankly, they would not come forward in future. As a result of the evidence heard, the committee questioned whether the COPFS was fully meeting its legal and moral duty of care towards victims. Although the service's formal responsibilities towards victims have greatly increased in recent years, its overall budget has fallen. Absolutely no criticism is made in the victim information and advice service and the staff who are employed there, who are coping under extremely difficult circumstances. Dr Leslie Thompson published her review of victims in the criminal justice system close to the conclusion of our inquiry, and members agree with many of her conclusions. However, the responses of the Scottish Government and the COPFS fail to respond to or give any of the following information requested by the committee, namely, which recommendations from the Thompson report they propose to accept, what legislative reforms may be necessary and what is the timetable for implementing recommendations from A, the Thompson review and B, the evidence and procedure review. I hope that those questions will be answered in the course of this debate. The last strand of the report covered the inspectorate of prosecution, an organisation intended to provide an independent check on the COPFS. However, it is evident that there is little awareness of the inspectorate's output, which is gravely concerning, given that it is intended to cover matters of public interest. In particular, the committee heard concerns about the inspectorate drawing so many of its staff from the COPFS. Perceptions matter, and the current arrangements contribute to the perception about the independence of the inspectorate. Here I am disappointed with the lack of acknowledgement of the issue from both the COPFS and the inspectorate. This is a substantial report on a matter of public interest. I look forward to hearing the Lord Advocate's response and other contributions to the challenge that the committee has set out in our report, which is to ensure that Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal is robust, flexible and fit for the challenges of the 21st century. I move the motion in my name. I say to all members that we have plenty of time in hand this afternoon for extended speeches or interventions or interruptions, should you choose to make or accept them. It is a pleasure now to introduce the Lord Advocate, James Wolff, to open on behalf of the Government. Normally, in these situations, there is a convention here that we allow members who are given their maiden speech to speak uninterrupted. However, I hope that the Lord Advocate will understand that, in this case, the convention probably won't apply to him as a Government minister. Having said that, Lord Advocate. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It's a great privilege and a pleasure to speak in this debate as head of the system of prosecution in Scotland. When I was an advocate deput prosecuting crime in the High Court, I came to appreciate that, for a lawyer, there is no job more demanding and no job more important than the prosecution of crime in the public interest. I am grateful to the convener for her remarks this morning, and I thank her and all the members of the committee for the care and work that they have put into the inquiry that they have undertaken. I also thank the members who have taken the view that this is a debate that they should attend. I would like to add my own gratitude to the convener's gratitude expressed to all those who gave evidence to the inquiry. I thank the convener for her acknowledgement that, in general, Scotland is fundamentally well served by the Crown Office and Procurate Fiscal Service in its core role as public prosecutor. I believe that she and the committee were right to reach that conclusion. Day in and day out, across Scotland, prosecutors prosecute cases securing justice for the victims of crime and vindicating the public interest in the fair trial of accused persons and the punishment of those who are convicted. No one in this Parliament will doubt the importance of that work. The effective, rigorous, fair and independent prosecution of crime in the public interest underpins our freedom and security, and it helps to keep our people and communities safe from crime. The effectiveness of the service in fulfilling that core responsibility reflects the skill and commitment of its staff. I was pleased, but not surprised, to read and hear the consistent evidence that reflects my own experience about the quality of Scotland's public prosecutors and the staff who support them. The service's staff is its greatest asset, and I am glad to have the opportunity here in this Parliament to pay public tribute to their dedication, professionalism and integrity. I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for giving way. He will understand the discussions that we had during our evidence session on the Scottish Government's budget in relation to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Although he rightly says how important the staff are to the COPFS, is he worried that continued cuts to his budget result in losses in staff, vital staff, to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service? Thank you, Mr Ross. Perhaps I will deal with the point immediately in this way. The convener referred to the anticipated shedding of 30 staff in this financial year. It is important to put the question of staff numbers in context because the service has sought to protect staff numbers, notwithstanding real reductions in resource over a number of years. Indeed, the service will continue to seek to release resources by making non-staff savings where it can. That anticipated loss of 30 staff should be put in context in this way. In April 2017, the staff complement of COPFS was £1,599, which compares with the figure of £1,537 in March 2012. If one looks at the legal staff, the equivalent figures in April this year were full-time equivalent £520, as compared with £485 in March 2012. While the service recognises the challenges that come with the reduction in real resources over time, it has been able to make choices that protect the front line services. Perhaps I should make this more general point that, like other public services, Scotland's prosecution service has to respond to a changing environment. It has to seek to meet public expectations and it has to do that against a background of public sector funding restraint. I recognise that the committee's report has highlighted some of the challenges that the service faces, challenges that I take seriously and that I know that the leadership of the service takes seriously. Although there can be no room for complacency, I am confident that the service will rise to those challenges. It is an organisation that, over time, has shown a remarkable capacity to absorb and effect change and which has the confidence to learn from experience. At this stage of the debate, I would like to comment on three of the matters that the committee has raised. First of all—and it really picks up on Mr Ross's question—the service values its staff. I listened to the evidence to the committee about the pressures that the staff of the service are under and the service understands those pressures, which is precisely why, over time, it is sought to protect staff numbers. I can say in response to two particular points to which the convener referred that, since the committee took evidence, the service has taken steps to reduce significantly the number of staff on temporary promotion and fixed-term contracts. The sickness rate has already reduced since the date of the committee's report. As the committee reports, the service has developed and is implementing a fair futures project, which aims to promote the wellbeing and working lives of all its staff. Since my first day in office, as Lord Advocate, I have emphasised the trust that I place in those who prosecute crime in Scotland. The service values its staff, it champions their commitment and professionalism, and it wants them to be confident that they will have rewarding careers serving the interests of justice in Scotland. At the second point, I would like to make at this stage of the debate, is that the service is committed to improvement and reform, not just in its own practices but across the criminal justice system. I am pleased that the committee has endorsed the need for systemic reform. Liam McArthur I am very grateful to the Lord Advocate for taking that intervention and warmly welcoming the steps that have been taken to address the concerns that were raised with us about the number of temporary promotions and fixed-term contracts. As a flipside to that, and in no means trying to argue the counter, does he envisage that there are some issues around providing opportunities for newly qualified personnel to come into the Crown Office to benefit from the training and the experience that others have benefited from up until now as a result of the changes that he is quite rightly taking forward with the Crown Aging. Lord Advocate Yes, thank you and I am grateful to Mr McArthur for raising the point of training. Crown Office traineeships are highly sought after. They provide a high-quality experience, particularly for individuals who are interested in court work. I certainly envisage that the service will continue to take trainees. Picking up on the point that the convener made in the context of reform, she spoke of charn. There are many reasons for charn in the criminal justice system. We know that the vast majority of crown motions to adjourn cases in the summary courts are due to the non-attendance of a critical witness. That perhaps illustrates the challenge of reforming the justice system. We have a justice system that requires all the necessary people to be in the same room at the same time. Inefficiencies in the system not only impose costs on the Crown and other criminal justice agencies, but place demands on members of the public who attend court as witnesses or otherwise. I am committed to working with others to change the system for the better. Reforms to solemn criminal business in the sheriff court commenced last week, and the Crown Office is working with the Scottish Court Service and others through the evidence and procedure review on the reform of summary justice, as well as on the justice digital strategy. The service will continue to work, both internally and with others, to make changes that may not sound exciting but make a real practical difference, such as the police witness scheduler, which seeks to manage effectively the demands that the system places on our police officers. The third point that I would like to touch on at this stage is the services support for victims and witnesses. As prosecutors, we cannot do our job unless victims and witnesses come forward and speak up. The service led the way in Scotland in acknowledging the need to support victims of crime, and we have, as a society, come a long way in a short time in recognising that need, but we must continue to improve. The committee reports the current process sometimes leads victims and witnesses feeling marginalised. The evidence that the committee heard demonstrated that, in some cases, the service to victims has not met the standard that the service normally achieves and which it expects of staff. The Crown Office's VIA service, which provides advice and information to vulnerable victims and witnesses, has a significant workload that has substantially increased over time and which has increased again as a result of the Victims and Witnesses Scotland Act 2014. The services responded by undertaking a review of the VIA service. It has implemented most of the recommendations of that review, and the indications are that the immediate challenges posed by the increased referrals to VIA have to a significant degree been met. However, the service will continue to build on that work and on the work of the committee to analyse the impact of the changes and the extent of any remaining unmet need that falls within its remit. The service is also considering how it can better obtain feedback from victims so that it can learn from their experience. The committee's report signals that we should collectively think more broadly about the position of victims. First of all, as prosecutors, we understand that vulnerable witnesses and victims of crime, particularly children, sometimes find the experience of giving evidence traumatic and difficult. That is why we are working with others to consider whether we can and should change the way that we take evidence from children and other vulnerable witnesses. That is why I have supported the courts recent initiative in relation to taking evidence on commission. Second, the committee recognises that the needs of victims go beyond what the prosecution service on its own can or should provide. That is why the previous list of general Leslie Thomson undertook a review of the provision for supporting victims of crime. That is why building on that review and the recommendations of the committee, the service will consider with partners through the justice board what can be done in that regard. I will give way to the convener, of course. If there is now a time table for implementation of the Thomson review recommendations and the digital strategy to which he has already referred. The convener will appreciate that, in particular, the Thomson review raises a very wide-ranging set of questions that really need to be taken forward through the justice board. I am conscious of my time and perhaps I can finish by saying that the Crown Office and Procreate Fiscal Service is an organisation that has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to absorb and effect change. It recognises the need for change, its planning for change and it seeks to be a leader of change in the wider criminal justice system. It is a robust and flexible organisation. In addressing the challenges before it, I know that the service will remain committed to its core responsibility to the people of Scotland, which is to be an effective, rigorous, fair and independent prosecutor of crime in the public interest. I thank the committee for its work and I look forward to working with the committee as together we seek to effect change in the justice system. I look forward to the debate. I congratulate the Lord Advocate on his first speech in the chamber. From the very beginning, on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives and I am sure all members, I want to reiterate the points that have been made by the Lord Advocate and the convener. Points that were made by almost every witness when they came before the committee about the staff of the Crown Office. Everyone praised the staff of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. They praised their professionalism and their dedication. However, we also heard of the difficulties they face. Many people accustomed to working at the front line of the system argued that a lack of resources was impacting on the COPFS's performance. The Edinburgh Bar Association's overall impression of the Crown Office was an organisation struggling manfully in difficult circumstances. The problem that displays itself in every department is under staffing. We must ask, then, why do we have the situation where the Scottish Government, the SNP, is aware of those pressures, aware of those comments from witnesses, with SNP members on the committee hearing those concerns, still decided to put through a real-terms cut in the Crown Office budget? Paragraph 47 and 48 of our report outlined the COPFS budget for 2017-18 financial year, having a real-terms reduction of £1.5 million. Does the member share my disappointment that the cabinet secretary has now left the debate, even though one of the key issues raised by the committee's report is the funding of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service? I am sometimes on a bit of thin ice to complain about other people not being in this chamber, but I recognise the comments that were made by Ms Baker. As Margaret Mitchell mentioned in her remarks, the Crown Agent told the committee that approximately half of that £1.5 million reduction will be met through savings in the staff budget. The Government ignored the evidence from Fiona Eadie of the FDA, who told the committee, and I quote, "...I fully expect our senior manager to give evidence to the Parliament and say that he can probably just about manage to deliver the same service again with the same money next year." However, if the committee wants to see the sorts of improvements that we have spoken about today and the standard of service that we all want to deliver and that the people of Scotland expect additional resources are required, what we got was not a budget for the Crown Office with the same money as last year or a budget with the increase that staff at the front line said was essential to deliver the standard of service that people in the Crown Office want to provide and the public should expect, no. Instead, we got a cut from this SMP Government. It shut its eyes and covered its ears to ignore the testimonies that we received as a committee and a Parliament, a cut that will not deliver the changes and improvements that we all want to see in the service and a cut that I believe the staff will rightly feel let down by by this Scottish Government because of it. Other issues that came up in our four-month inquiry included much-needed discussion over digital investment in our court system. I have listened to what the Lord Advocate has said and I think that we must be looking forward to the digital strategy that is being implemented. However, it seems absolutely incredulous that, in 2017, we can have cases in Scotland delayed because the system used to view evidence by the police is different from that used to view by defence solicitors. The incompatibility of those systems lead to delays, inconvenience of witnesses and manifest a general perception that our court system remains not fit for purpose when it comes to technology. Clearly, that has an impact on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I will give way. Without rebutting the point that has just been made, I wonder whether the member might care to consider whether there have always been challenges with technology for decades and that perhaps they are being opened up to the public gaze and engaged with something that we should welcome, albeit that we should continue to hold the Government and, indeed, the fiscal service to account for delivering effective change. I fully agree with Mr Stevenson's remarks and I think that it was encouraging that, as a committee of all parties, MSPs on the Justice Committee recognised the opportunities but also the difficulties in achieving some of the outcomes that we hope to see from a digital improvement within our court system. The committee also heard from the Bar associations about court closures and the impact that the amount of scheduled cases that end up not being heard are, as a result of the number of courts that have been closed across Scotland. Witnesses get cited. They give up their time to attend court, only to be told that the case is not proceeding. Again, that portrays a very poor image of our system. It was given as a reason by many witnesses why they have turned up for one court case and then to be turned away. They may even in the future be deterred from reporting a crime given the experiences that they face giving evidence in an earlier crime. Communication, or a lack of it, was highlighted by witnesses and solicitors. Defence solicitors came to the committee and told us how they were unable to speak to prosecutors before a case due to a centralised call system that seemed to work for no one. I welcome the assurances that that was being improved, but it is worrying that that issue had to be raised at committee having previously been highlighted regularly by both defence solicitors and staff in the Crown Office, but at least we are now starting to see possible improvements with it. Witnesses and victims told us of their disappointment in the lack of communication that they received before, during and after court appearances. Again, that problem seemed rooted in the fact that there were too few staff under too much pressure. Margaret Mitchell has already mentioned centralised marking and churn in our court system, and I know that other members will want to discuss that more fully as we go along, but in a large report there are only a few issues that I can concentrate on. However, I want to finally look at the area that the committee asked each witness about, and that was the inspectorate of prosecution in Scotland. The most common response that we received from witnesses, people intrinsically involved in the area, was that they had never heard of the IPS or were unaware of its work. This is an inspectorate that oversees the work of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, yet they are seen as almost anonymous. We had quotes from the Scottish Borders Rape Crisis Centre. It said, I have no awareness of IPS. The Scottish Police Federation said that the SPF is not aware of the IPS and cannot comment on its resources or its effectiveness. An individual witness in his committee submission said that I have never heard of the inspectorate of prosecution, and even more worryingly, the Sheriff's Association said, we do not receive information about the IPS or its practices. While I accept and welcome the comment by the current chief inspector of prosecution in Scotland that they are aware of their need to improve their profile, it is surely a very poor reflection on a body that was established in 2003 that it has such a poor profile of the vital work it is doing. To conclude, I want to thank Margaret Mitchell for her stewardship of the inquiry and to all the witnesses who gave evidence. The committee concluded that Scotland is fundamentally well-served by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service as a public prosecutor. However, there is more to do, and those of us on those benches will monitor how the Crown Office and the Scottish Government fully respond to the inquiry to get the very best outcome for everyone who works within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service or use this vital service. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I start by thanking the Justice Committee for their inquiry report and today's debate. Over the course of the afternoon, it is important to remember the following quote from the executive summary of the report. During almost five months of evidence-taking, the Justice Committee heard praise for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, its professionalism and its dedicated, hard-working staff. On the whole, the public should have confidence that it is a rigorous and fair prosecutor. Nobody today can be in any doubt about the dedication of the staff working at the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service. As a committee substitute, I was able to attend the session of evidence at the Crown Office where we received valuable evidence ranging from discussions around cybercrime to around victim support and to domestic abuse. I think that we all had the opportunity to see how hard the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service work. We all acknowledge and appreciate the roles that they do in ensuring justice that serves throughout Scotland. However, we must also remember the lines in the report that followed, which said that the service remains under considerable pressure. There can be no room for complacency. That is why today's debate, the inquiry and the report is important. By the end of the afternoon, we must be confident that the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland have the support and the resources that it needs. We need to seek commitments from the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government, which give us this confidence. According to the Prosecutor's Union, the FDA, we know that the COPFS funding has decreased by over a fifth in real terms and that posts will be reduced. Court closures have taken place, more complex and historical cases have been brought forward and the law is ever-evolving and reforming. All of that has consequences. At the start of the year, I released statistics from the Scottish Courts and Tribunial Service, which highlights the impact that those changes are having. The number of trials being adjourned due to a lack of court time has increased by 66 per cent. Following the recent court closures, there has been a 2.2 per cent decrease in the number of days of court sittings in Scotland. At the same time, there has been a 59 per cent increase in jury trials and a 30 per cent increase in summary trials called. At the same time, we have seen a real-terms cut to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The rationalisation of courts was inevitably going to lead to more pressure on those who are still operating. That was concerns raised by the Edinburgh and Aberdeen bar associations as well as others during the course of the evidence-taking. I appreciate that a degree of charn is inevitable, and other members have spoken about that. However, the numbers of adjournments and delays are going in the wrong direction. That is a problem that is increasing at the moment, not getting better. That is an issue not just for the court services or the Crown Office, but for the Government as well. We must see co-ordinated action from all to address that. I recognise the recent and planned changes that the Crown Office has said that it will improve the situation in response to the committee's report. The committee's report did make a number of recommendations directly related to the efficiency of the prosecution service, from dealing with charn to witnesses not attending to better case management. There is a need for improvements to all of that in the interests of victims and the public purse. As Margaret Mitchell highlighted, the increased pressure on the Crown Office has led to debate around priorities and decision making. I know that the chamber and the Government take the issue of domestic abuse seriously. I welcome the positive work that has been undertaken by Police Scotland and the Prox Crater Fiscal Service in recent years to tackle such crime, and I look forward to working with the justice secretary as he brings his domestic abuse bill through Parliament. However, one thing that struck me throughout this committee inquiry was the profile given to domestic abuse, partly by the committee and also by the media coverage of the inquiry, some of which it has to be said was unhelpful. For example, during the inquiry, we heard court cases described as a rigmarole and a charade and that the police would hoover up everything in the hope that we miss nothing. I appreciate that this is an emotive issue. Therefore, I urge all of us, politicians and those in senior positions and relevant organisations, to discuss this matter sensitively. I am not opposed to witnesses asking difficult questions to challenge the way that things are done, but we must ensure that it is robust evidence. Anecdoto evidence was routinely used that risks at times undermine in the progress that has been made in tackling this crime. With a conviction rate for domestic abuse that is upwards of 80 per cent and knowing that in the past five years the number of people convicted has increased, we can be confident that the work undertaken by our police and by the Prox Crater Fiscal Service is changing and that significant progress is being made in recognising domestic abuse as a crime. However, it is clear that there are other areas that still need to demand our focus and attention. That only 12 per cent of reported and attempted rapes make it to court in Scotland is a statistic that indicates that the system is not working and that 8 per cent of reported rapes fail to make it to court. We have seen from a recent landmark case that serious questions can be raised towards the Crown Office regarding their decision not to proceed with some of those cases. Given recent rulings, there is a concern that more rape victims may now take their action to a civil court as they feel let down by the criminal court system, yet by doing so they are giving up key protections such as anonymity. Rape should always be treated as a criminal matter and the Crown Office and the Scottish Government must make this clear that they believe this to be the case as well. The committee report makes several recommendations and I hope that the Crown Office and the Government will take them seriously. I appreciate that, while the Lord Advocate viewed the budget for the year ahead as a sound settlement, much of the evidence received by the inquiry seems to indicate that this is a minority view. The committee heard that staff are expected to work under increasingly difficult financial circumstances. I appreciate the Lord Advocate's statement this afternoon about the value that the Crown Office places on the staff, but we anticipate that job losses are coming down the line. We know from the inquiry that we have staff on short-term contracts, on long-term temporary promotions and on sick leave. I share the committee's concern that a lack of preparation time means that the time limits and solemn trials have been routinely exceeded, and that must be addressed. I recognise from the Crown Office's response to the committee's report that they also recognise that the situation is unsustainable. I hope that the measures that they have indicated to address some of those issues move forward quickly. I also want to further stress the committee's view that the serious failings brought forward by victims of crime is unacceptable. As the convener has already stated in her opening remarks, that includes a lack of communication, misinformation, delays and adjournments. However, any special measures that were requested were inadequate, and that victims did not always feel secure outside of the courtroom. Those experiences have led to some to reflect that they would never have reported the crime in the first place if they understood what they were going to have to experience as a serious failing, and we need to see action to ensure that there is not the case going forward. I would also like to see greater progress in the provision of measures to meet the needs of children and young people. I recognise the cabinet secretary's commitment to that area, but I share the committee's view that clarity over a publication date for the evidence and procedure review is important in moving that work forward in an informed and cooperative manner. That is a very wide-ranging report, and although today's debate is important, there is much in the report to reflect on and take forward in this Parliament. The Crown Office and the Procrater Fiscal Service have a difficult job, and it is one that they perform well. We must be watchful that the pressures and challenges that the report has identified do not weaken the Crown Office and Procrater Fiscal Service, and that we must ensure that confidence can be maintained for this crucial service in Scotland. Thank you very much, Ms Baker. I move to the open debate, and, as you are aware, we can be generous with time. I call Ben Macpherson. We have all about Oliver Mundell. Mr MacPherson, please. Like others, I would like to thank all those who came to the committee to give evidence, fellow committee members and the clerks for their assistance during the inquiry. The convener and others have spoken through many of the substantial issues in the report, but I would like to highlight a few things of particular significance to myself. Let me also begin by saying that this inquiry into the Crown Procrater Fiscal Service was timely and important. It has highlighted numerous areas where change and improvement can and should be made. At the same time, it has shown that the public can and should have confidence that the Crown and Procrater Fiscal Service is a rigorous and fair prosecutor and that we are fundamentally well served by all those involved in our criminal justice system. Currently, in Scotland, we are in a situation in which crime and the fear of crime have fallen. Recroded crime is at its lowest level for 42 years, and the reconviction rate is now at its lowest for 18 years. However, of course, progress is still required. We need to make all of our communities safer. Therefore, I support the Scottish Government's agenda for a strategic approach to justice, one that tackles offending and one that is effective at both preventing crime and reducing re-offending. The remit of the inquiry that the committee undertook within the remit of the inquiry—a key focus—was the effectiveness and efficiency of the Crown and Procrater Fiscal Service and how well it works with other stakeholders in the criminal justice system and beyond. That is an aspect of the COPFCC's work that I have seen in practice and have been involved with at a local level in the constituency that I represent. Working to tackle pertinent issues of youth crime in north Edinburgh, the Crown and Procrater Fiscal Service has recently collaborated and engaged effectively and purposefully with the local community, including constructive engagement and partnership working with the local authority, local police and third sector organisations, predominantly those engaged in youth work. The proactive action by the COPFS has created a collective understanding between all parties about shared objectives to tackle crime in the community and divert young people from engaging in crime. During our inquiry, the committee heard that the COPFS should embody an approach of striving to provide a joined-up and complementary service that helps to meet the ends of justice. In my experience, the COPFS is doing this meaningfully and effectively. Creating links with communities and multi-agency work is part of achieving our shared ambition of safer communities. Although there is still much work to do, I am grateful for the difference that the COPFS has made in that regard towards reducing crime in north Edinburgh. In my direct experience as a constituency MSP, the evidence that we took as a committee and throughout the evidence that we took as a committee is clear that the COPFS is well-served by a dedicated, highly professional, hard-working staff doing an excellent job in sometimes challenging circumstances. However, some who gave evidence rightly and powerfully highlighted recent challenges that services have faced throughout the years following the financial crisis in 2008, for example, over work and over reliance on short-term contracts and loss of some experienced staff. However, I believe that we must use the report to consider how we move forward. Recent feedback from COPFS staff shows improvements are taking place for those working within the service. The most recent staff feedback from 2016 shows evidence of improvement, which reflects the significant efforts that have been made over the past two years to consult colleagues during a period of organisational change. For example, 60 per cent of staff reported that they wanted to stay with the COPFS for at least the next three years, which is up 6 per cent and is 17 per cent above the civil service average. 92 per cent of those surveyed reported that they are interested in their work, and there were many other figures that are available in the evidence that we took. What is more, Presiding Officer, it was encouraging to note that, in the process of taking evidence, there were reports that the COPFS staff numbers have increased since 2012. For example, as of 31 October 2016, COPFS has 1,601 members of staff and modest increased on the staffing complement of 1,537 on 31 March 2012. Again, there are more figures available around those details. For example, there has been an increase recently in senior deputes, and that brings me to a point that Liam McArthur rightly raised in an intervention, which is one around trainee solicitors, which was something that I pursued in the evidence that we took. As the Lord Advocate stated in an answer to me during the evidence that we took, we cannot knit deputes. Therefore, it is important for the COPFS to endeavour to retain top young talent as it comes through and a determination to recruit those and bring them into the service. In the early days of the recession, there was undoubtedly a period of very difficult choices for the COPFS in terms of retention, but I was reassured that the Crown Agent and the Lord Advocate made commitments that they are committed to recruit the best trainees possible and the brightest and the best into the service, and that they will seek to ensure that there are retention opportunities for those trainees to be the deputes of the future. We also heard compelling evidence around greater use of harnessing digital technology, and I am glad that there was an enthusiasm on behalf of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Agent that, for greater use of video technology, whether that in the context of a live link or for pre-recorded evidence, has capacity to avoid unnecessary costs and inconvenience as part of a process of transformational change. In particular, I welcome that with regard to specialist witnesses who we want to encourage to give evidence on their expertise and for which changing of court dates and travel costs can have a significant impact. In closing, as I stated at the beginning, this inquiry was important. It has shown us that the COPFS is well served by dedicated hard-working staff, that improvements are on-going and that, as feedback has shown, progress is being made. I have highlighted how the Crown and Procate of Frisco service can work collaboratively, particularly with communities, and how this type of joined-up approach can enhance the Government's agenda and all our ambition for a strategic approach to justice that is more effective at tackling, preventing and reducing crime. Just as joined-up work in the community can help us to make our communities safer, so too can collaborative effort in this Parliament. I therefore welcome the generally collaborative spirit—although, unfortunately, Douglas Ross made a few political points, but I appreciate that there is an election coming up that he may have an interest in.  However, the general collaborative spirit of today's debate—I hope that that will be the tone going forward—and I look forward to working with fellow MSPs, the Scottish Government and the Crown and Procate of Frisco service to make greater progress on the issues that are raised in the report and to improve our justice system for the benefit of all. Thank you, Mr MacPherson. I call Oliver Mundell to be followed by John Finnie. Mr Mundell, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Although I am not involved in any elections this week individually, I will make a number of political points. The report has highlighted a number of questions for the Scottish Government and the Crown Office. I think that not to focus in on some of the more negative aspects that the report brought forward would be to do an injustice to the many witnesses who came forward. I thank them at this point because what has become apparent to me through the first major report of the Justice Committee is that it would be impossible to do this kind of work without hearing from the people who face these issues day in, day out. That is also why, with sadness, I want to place on the record my disappointment that we did not get to hear from any of the local proculator fiscals and that even those who had recently left the service were only willing to give evidence under the condition of anonymity. Although it might not, in fact, be the case, it does create a worrying perception that some staff felt that they had been gagged and they certainly were not comfortable in speaking out because they feared that it would bring about this favour. That would seem to substantiate some of the other concerns that we heard expressed about a top-down culture at the Crown Office and Proculator Fiscals Service. Although I recognise that we have a new Lord Advocate and Crown Agent and that new directives have been issued, I think that there is still some cause for concern that staff feel that way. Indeed, I certainly will. John Finnie Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful to the member for taking intervention. I accept that that was a perception that you heard. Would the member accept that, by speaking with the staff association and the trade unions, we were offered the opportunity to hear some of those concerns raised directly with us? Oliver Mundell I fully accept the point that John Finnie makes. It was very helpful to hear from those associations. Given some of the issues that I will come on to cover around the loss of autonomy that a number of Fiscals themselves feel has occurred in recent years because of other changes, I think that it would have been helpful to hear from them directly and from the public to be able to watch those evidence sessions and make their own judgments of them. I think that some of the issues that people have in that area come round a greater move towards centralisation. The justice system has indeed been transformed, but I am struggling to see how the justice system has been transformed for the better in some areas. When we are talking about improving the service, it is impossible to say that closing courts across the country, for example, would contribute towards that. I think that it is true that, for some stakeholders, increased centralisation has been well received. The creation of the national sexual crimes unit in 2009 is a case in point. I noted how both Scottish Women's Aid and rape crisis felt that this new unit had led to cases being handled better and in a more strategic way and joined up at a policy level with the views and interests of victims being better taken into account. However, there is also a less positive side to centralisation. It was concerning to hear that the centralised case marking system had eroded the autonomy of local Fiscals. The loss of local decision making has led to many decisions being passed up the chain to senior management and further away. I, for one of my great believers, that justice should be done and seemed to be done locally. There are clear disadvantages to moving away from that. Above all, it means that senior management is now being overworked and it hampers the ability to make effective judgments on cases. The skills, expertise and professional judgment of the proculator Fiscals is being underutilised, which does not seem to marry up with the confidence that we have heard that the Lord Advocate has in his staff. That is set a very worrying precedent. As Derek Ogg QC of the Faculty of Advocates put it, whilst referring to some specific types of cases, it is a bit like an arrow leaving a bow. Once someone has made a decision somewhere, no one wants to interfere with the decision and it just rattles on down the track, sometimes ending up in court by accident rather than by design. It is worrying that there are QCs in our justice system who have significant concerns like that. The move towards centralisation has also created a risk adverse culture where local Fiscals feel that they cannot challenge decisions being made from above. As it states in the report, some local Fiscals have felt the need to run cases against their own professional judgment. That is a sad state of affairs, and if it persists there is potential for public confidence in the justice system to be undermined. Arguably the work of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscals service has not been made any easier by new legislation and directives from the Scottish Government. The Victims and Witnesses Act was a landmark for victims and witnesses rights. It is a piece of legislation that I am very much welcome and has been welcomed by a wide range of stakeholders. However, we cannot deny that the reform has brought about unintended consequences that have caused additional strain on parts of the justice system. What is most disappointing of all is that it was quite predictable that some of those strains and pressures would come about. It is not clear from some of the evidence that we heard that all the necessary resources were put in place to allow for the smooth introduction of some of those measures. In particular, the Victims Information and Advice service found its resources being overstretched and limited in the wake of new legislation. In the last seven years, referrals have risen sharply by around 45 per cent, and the Thompson review estimated that there will be an additional 4,000 referrals due to new legislation. I am concerned that there is a perception that the VIA service will struggle to carry out its full range of responsibilities. Indeed, as Victims Support Scotland stated in its evidence, the time and resources of VIA seem to be taken up with the additional administrative work that has resulted from the automatic entitlement to special measure for specific categories of witnesses. The result is that many witnesses are not being provided with the measures that they need to support and protect them from the trauma of giving evidence. It is clear that lessons need to be learned, and new legislation can only function effectively if it is properly resourced. Going forward, the Scottish Government and indeed this Parliament must be more mindful of what new legislation means in practice and what additional strains it will put on service delivery for a service that is seeing cuts in its budget. In my closing remarks, I wish to urge some caution against another round of wide-ranging transformational change. The justice system is still in the process of adapting to centralisation, and we are still struggling to take many of the key stakeholders along in that process. It is still adjusting to the added pressures of new legislation and directives. To call for more transformational change on top of that would seem unwise, and I am afraid that sometimes, for me, it seems like we hide from the challenges that are faced at the present by promising that they will change in the future. In this day and age, we are taught that change is constant and must always be embraced, but there is a danger that hiding behind the message of transformational change rather than facing up to the strange resources and negative perceptions that some stakeholders now hold is holding back the delivery of justice in Scotland. We must remember that this change is easily promoted but not necessarily easily delivered, and transformational change does not always transform the fortunes of institutions. Whilst the Crown Office is very good at managing change and embracing change, there was a sense for me throughout this process that change fatigue is starting to kick in. Where changes have happened recently, we must allow more time for them to bed in. Otherwise, how will we know what changes have worked and where changes are required in the future? We must put more foresight into how new legislation will be applied and resourced. Otherwise, how will we anticipate the unintended consequences of change and the additional workload associated with legislation? I thank those who contributed to our report and I am pleased that we have the Lord Advocate with us present today to thank him for his response. The Justice Committee met this morning, and we took evidence from the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service on a domestic abuse legislation that is a law-making building. Should the Scottish Parliament decide to pass it, there is another load of work that we are sending in the direction of the Lord Advocate and his colleagues. However, I took reassurance if I noted and corrected what the Lord Advocate said and talked about the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal's service ability to absorb and affect change. Everything that we heard certainly supported that point of view. I want to talk about the route to that workload and some of the workload, because our report talks about the 225,500 reports that are sent to the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service. We know that those reports are allocated for marking. There was discussion about central marking, and I will touch on that. It is to look at the option and what some of the consequences of those options are. Of course, they could be marked for no proceedings, so that is if there is no crime or an insufficient evidence or not in the public interest to proceed. We know that there is the opportunity to challenge a decision not to proceed. One of the more interesting discussions from my point of view is the discussion that we had around that particular aspect on the role and responsibilities of the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service. In particular, the term victim and the term complainer. As a former police officer, I was very familiar with the term complainer. As a politician, I am conscious that all our colleagues from across the parties want to talk quite rightly so about the support for victims. However, that has become a feature. At paragraph 214 of our report, we say that the issue is not there for one merely of terminology but gets to the heart of the CPOFS's relationship with victim and witnesses. We heard from the Scottish Criminal Bar Association that the service is not the complainer's lawyer and the need that the pendulum had swung too far, to the extent that the COPFS is being seen as the victim's lawyer. However, we know in our report and our rates that the CPOFS does not give legal advice to victims, it does not accept instructions from victims and does not prosecute on their behalf. The role of the Crown Office is to act in the public interest. The Lord Advocate's prosecution policy in domestic abuse was indeed one area where the victim's lawyer was seen to be played out in practice, as our report says. That said, victims say to me that I did not have a lawyer in court, so there clearly is an issue there. As our report says, at paragraph 216, on the other hand, in any effective prosecution system, victims and witnesses must feel valued and involved. I would like to quote something else from our report, and that is a comment from the Scottish Women's Aid, which said that the CPOFS's role encompasses not only its human rights obligations but all those imposed on them and the state by the EU directive on the rights of victims and criminal proceedings intended to ensure participation of victims and witnesses, which is incorporated in Scots law. That is done so by the Victims and Witnesses Scotland Act. I think that there is a complex set of relationships that have to be satisfied. Of course, when a case is marked for prosecution and we know that in 2015-16 proceedings were taken against over 116,000 people, then there is a decision to be taken as to whether that is a solemn and summary procedure. Again, there have been changes with court reform connected with that. We know that there is an opportunity, and not all was taken for an accused to plead guilty at an early stage, and that can very much shape workload and proceedings. There are other things such as pretrial hearings to determine the state of preparedness of both sides. We were aware in the course of an inquiry of a lot of those well-meaning proposals, which were not always bearing fruit, but they are to be commended. The trial itself can take place over several days. Choreography was a term that the crown agent used in relation to all those things coming together. I want to talk about what is required—this was touched on, of course, why the Lord had to get to make the system effective—as the role of the citizen. Clearly, it is to assist the police in the prevention and detection of crime and to cooperate with the fiscal service and, indeed, defence lawyers, and to participate when required in this process. That means simply turning up. I have to say that there is nothing new in the non-appearance of accused and witnesses, but we must have clarity around the citations of witnesses. That has changed over the years, and I certainly sat through one trial where there were individuals who have been cited at all. As someone who does not take a fairly light approach to crime and punishment when it comes to sentences, I have to say that salary sentences need to be put in place for those who fail to attend. That disturbs or disrupts our entire criminal justice system and brings about this churn. I took some reassurance from the witness scheduler, again, if I noted that correctly, from the Lord Advocate. What I want to do now is to reaffirm something that many colleagues have said. That is about the level of praise that we have heard for the service and, indeed, the professionalism, the dedication to hard working. We did not hear that once and did not hear it twice. We heard that a number of occasions, and I think that that is consistent with my personal experience of dealing as a parliamentarian. We quote that, on the whole, the public should have confidence that it is a rigorous and fair prosecutor. That is what you want. In any liberal democracy, I think that that is a real endorsement. Of course, we heard that there remains under considerable pressure, and I have to say that the public sector remains under considerable pressure. As I said, there is a growing workload. The phrase access to justice is very much used. Some colleagues have already talked about the term local justice, and that ties in with understanding communities and priorities in communities. I have to say that I have not just heard that in relation to the COPFS. I have also heard that in relation to police, where they will say that what is maybe not a big issue in the central belt is a significant issue in our rural community, particularly if it takes something like drug use. I think that there needs to be awareness of that, and I am sure that, in the back of our report, that will have been picked up. I am also keen that we have touched on alternatives to and diversions from prosecution, where that is appropriate. We know that we need to have a situation in which there are adequate alternatives. Those alternatives are understood by those dispensing justice or making decisions and that they have confidence in them. There is a list of issues that we talk about in the report that have the potential to disrupt proceedings that are outwith the COPFS's control. A suspect intimidating witness is pre-tile. That is something clearly where we read robust police intervention and the question of whether it is appropriate for them to be liberated or not. As someone who is in favour of people's presumption and favour of liberation, we need to understand the implications sometimes of that. We have also heard about the court facilities discouraging witnesses. That is the case. We have a lot of very old buildings that were not designed where the consideration of the wellbeing of witnesses was not at the forefront of people's minds. I think that there are new facilities. For instance, there is to be a new court facility in Inverness, and I know that the consideration has been given to that in the multi-agency involvement in that. We also heard about delays and key evidences from other agencies, and that is particularly the case with forensic reports. It is to understand that a case can be held up because of challenges with funding or specialisms in other areas. The question of legal aid is something that has also been mentioned. We welcome the fact to the committee that there is to be an independent review of legal aid, and I think that that will address some of the concerns. The question of agreeing evidence in advance is something else that we looked at, minutes of joint agreement, and non-contentious evidence. Then, of course, we find out that one person thinks that it is uncontentious and someone else thinks that it is contentious, so it is perhaps getting some clarity around that. Case management is clearly very important, and our court talks about a pilot project running under the authority of the Lord Justice General to streamline solemn procedure. We are advised that that led to more cases being either settled or proceeding to trial earlier. Clearly, if there are opportunities to do that, then that is very much what we would like to see. I want to touch very briefly—I am assuming that you will tell me to stop at the appropriate time, Presiding Officer—the issues of domestic abuse, sexual crimes and child abuse. I think that those are examples where we have seen the very best in the COPFS, where a specialism has developed its co-operation with, particularly the police on those matters, and some of the historic cases. I think that that has been extremely positive. I have to briefly talk about my own dealings. Invariably, contact is about things that have gone wrong, or gone wrong in our constituents' point of view. I have to say that the engagement has always been positive. It has not always brought the outcome that our constituents have wanted, but it has always been very professionally dealt with. The question of plea bargaining is, again, another issue that sometimes comes up in dealing with constituents. However, what we also say in the report is that a degree of churn is unavoidable fact of life, and that is the reality of the situation. Ben Macpherson talked about the training for ffiscals, and we did hear from two ffiscals who had left the service, who could not speak highly enough about the level of training that they had got. I think that that is very reassuring. We also heard about the justice board and the collaborative working that takes place there. I think that if we see the role for the Scottish Court in tribunal service and issues around witness support for witnesses, I think that there is a lot of good information that came out. I, for one, always want to be positive about things. We have heard about a professional and dedicated organisation, and that is how I would like to finish it. I am noting that when I intend people who have got spare time, there is no difficulty with politicians feeling the space. The challenge now, Mr MacArthur, is yours. I call Liam MacArthur, befall by Stuart Stevenson. We know that Stuart Stevenson can talk for Scotland, and that is not an insult. I am not sure how much of your generosity is left, but I will try not to abuse it. Deputy Presiding Officer, can I start with an apology to you, to MSP colleagues and to the Lord Advocate, who I congratulate on his debut speech? I have a flight that I need to catch back to Orkney this evening, so I will not be able to stay until the very end of the debate. On a positive note, let me join others in thanking all those who assisted the Justice Committee in the completion of our inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurate Fiscal Service. It has taken the best part of a year. It has involved a vast amount of written and oral evidence and covered the ground, I think, pretty thoroughly. Everyone we have heard from Help contribute, but I am particularly grateful to the victims who shared with us their experience of the justice system. Their testimony, along with other evidence presented to us, suggested that, while improvements have been made and are being made in the support provided for victims and witnesses, gaps do still remain. Provision of support for children and vulnerable witnesses is not yet as consistent as we would like to see it. Communication and updates on cases can be patchy, absent and, as we heard, even incorrect at times. That is an area that will require, I think, on-going attention, not least through the digital strategy, which I will return to later. Since our report was published, some stakeholders have expressed to me some surprise that the committee was not more critical in our findings. I think that we fairly identified areas where improvement is needed, and many colleagues have rightly touched on that, where the performance of the court and wider justice system still fall short of meeting the needs of victims, witnesses and others. At the same time, the committee was right to acknowledge the steps that have and are being taken to address some of the concerns that were being raised with us. An example of where the work of a parliamentary committee, its ability to shine a light on an issue, can facilitate and at times accelerate action being taken. For that, I think that the Lord Advocate and indeed the Crown Agent, who I know is in the chamber this afternoon, deserve credit. They certainly have their work cut out over the coming years to deliver greater efficiency and effectiveness, but they have already shown a willingness to respond. On staffing, for example, at the outset of our inquiry, there were, frankly, horror stories about endless temporary promotions and fixed-term contracts. An apparent revolving door through which skilled and capable staff were being lost to the service and moral and sickness levels that would have had alarm bells ringing to his credit. When confronted with that, the Crown Agent did not seek to duck the criticism of what, by any measure, was a flawed and short-termist approach. In the response from the COPFS to the committee's report, we have seen confirmation of a move towards permanent contracts for existing and new recruits, and I certainly warmly welcome that change of heart. Given the challenges that lie ahead, not least around tightening budgets, ensuring that staff are valued and looked after appropriately will be all the more important. Similarly, the concerns that many of us had about the centralised marking of cases appear to have registered, at least in part, there is still work here to be done, local expertise and insight, whether about the individuals or circumstances involved in particular cases, or the alternative to custody that are locally available need to be fully factored in if justice is to be properly and consistently served across the country. A more regionalised approach to marking does appear to now have been adopted, and I hope that the Lord Advocate and his colleagues will keep this under review over the coming months and years. The final example of where I think we have seen movement over a recent month relates to domestic abuse. Differing views were expressed about the impact of the joint protocol, and while all of us agree that a zero-tolerance approach to domestic abuse is essential, there were concerns heard again in the committee meeting earlier today that this may have led to effectively zero discretion being available to attending police officers. In his response to our report, the Crown Agent restates quite properly the determination of the service to ensure domestic abuse is quote, prosecuted robustly, but confirms that a revised fourth protocol was launched in March, that underscores that police should only charge and report where there is a sufficiency of evidence. Hopefully, that can help to address the concerns that we have heard without giving any sucker whatsoever to those who carry out such heinous crimes. Before concluding with some observations about churn that, again, a number of colleagues have referred to, let me make a couple of more general comments. In the Government's response to our report, the Cabinet Secretary again refers to plummeting crime levels and rates of re-offending. However, as I said in a debate last week, we do not know what the true levels are, for example, of cybercrime, and it may well be that we are seeing a displacement effect with many crimes simply moving online. In terms of re-offending rates, Scottish Liberal Democrats strongly support grace or use of community payback orders and other robust community-based measures, often less costly and more effective than prison sentences. I urge the Cabinet Secretary who is hopefully watching from some distant part of the building to stop prevaricating an act now to introduce a presumption against prison sentences of less than a year. In line with the evidence, in line with independent experts and in line with the Government's own consultation on the issue. Brief aside, let me urge the Crown Office to look more seriously at the issue of wildlife crime. Post-prosecution briefings with third-party stakeholders recommended in the Government's 2008 natural justice report are not being fulfilled. The recently dropped prosecution on a raptor poisoning in the Newlands estate bears that out. That is simply not good enough. On-chern, as it remains a serious problem for the service and the operation of justice in this country, the reasons for it are many and varied, the solution to it is neither simple nor straightforward. However, much does rest on delivery of the Government's justice digital strategy, which appears to be somewhat delayed. Given the problems that we have seen recently in a variety of different projects from farm payments to police, an argument can be made for a cautious approach, perhaps under-promising and over-delivering. The evidence and procedure review also aligns with the heart of creating a summary criminal justice system that fit for the 21st century. With effective digital case management involving all relevant agencies, we should be able to ensure that cases focus on the areas of dispute, although I take Joan Finnie's point about whether or not that can be achieved in all instances and the citation of witnesses on that basis. However, that is delivered, and we must move away from a process that at present affords too much time, money and emotional energy being wasted, adversely impacting on the experience of victims, of witnesses that are accused and, indeed, of course, of taxpayers. In conclusion, there is real strength in our prosecuting service. Time and again, the committee heard, that the quality of staff employed across the service is second to none. However, the challenges that lie ahead cannot and should not be underestimated. We have seen welcome changes already, but much more is needed in the committee as a role in keeping feet to the fire. I am grateful to the convener for confirming that in her opening remarks. I very much look forward to working with her and with committee colleagues in ensuring that we do just that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr MacArthur. I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Alexander Stewart. Presiding Officer, in many ways our prosecuting service works in ways similar to those that have worked for centuries, but society and the crimes committed by some in it have changed. I am currently studying in my spare time the life of John McPheete, who was found guilty of housebreaking on the theft of a coat on a bottle of whiskey on the night of 22 August 1830. The court papers show that this 17-year-old young man had left home after falling out with his father, a chair-maker at 36 Leith Walk, after he had refused to give him money for clothes. McPheete stayed in lodgings with some other young people for about a week. The precognitions, 17 of them, show a young man obviously at a loose end and perhaps egged on by his peers. He broke into his father's neighbour's house to obtain a drink and stole a coat opportunistically. He and his friends appeared to be in Larking about on Calton Hill, and then retired to their lodgings to consume the whiskey. His trial on 11 November 1830 saw 41 jurors summoned. His guilt was quickly determined, perhaps more rapidly than justice today might demand, and he was transported to New South Wales for seven years. He had never returned to Scotland, so that is one Scottish crime wave dealt with. The story, of course, could represent similar activities by similarly bored young people today and the response involving police, fiscal, prosecutor, court, witnesses, and the method of prosecution has changed surprisingly little, but today there is scrutiny of a different order and properly so. The focus is more on reform of the criminal, not merely on punishment and supporting all affected by the crime. For the Crown Office and the Fiscal Service, there are complexities that were not present in the 1830s. The arrangements for the accusative access to legal advice are also much wider. As far as I can see, Mr McPheete had no such advice. How do we do? A number of crimes have fallen to the lowest level in 40 years, and our prosecutors make a substantial contribution to that, alongside police, societal change, prisons and many others. At a time of change, the staff in the system feel under pressure. Cases are becoming more complex, and there is closer attention to process to deliver efficiency, inevitably removing what might be thought of as slack time. Such changes are not always welcome, but let me address the subject of change. Oliver Mundell argued at some length against change. Let me point to what is now known as the Hawthorne effect. In an extended period of time, changes were made in one part of a western electric factory in Cicero, Illinois, in the 1920s and 1930s. The other part of the factory remained unchanged. After every single change that was made, productivity rose and absenteeism dropped. At the end of the trials, the factory was returned to its previous state while the researchers considered their findings and productivity rose again. It was concluded that the process of change, rather than the nature of the change itself, was the source of benefit to the employee and the company. It is now also described as the observer effect and derives simply from people being taken and interested in. Well-managed change is good. The convener referred to court delays, unhelpfully perhaps. She failed to develop all the sources of those in particular that defence counsel can also come to the court unable to proceed. Like the prosecution, difficulties can lie with reluctant witnesses. Some parts of the system are startlingly efficient. As a member of a previous Justice Committee, I visited Glasgow Sheriff Court on a Monday. We saw an astonishing 50-plus cases moved on in the course of an hour. Efficient, very effective, rather less obviously. There seem to be no novice offenders, and engaging the whole panoply of the Sheriff Court seemed overkill. The reform of which we heard during the inquiry was, among other things, focused on making better use of time. I welcome that. That, in turn, should create more space for preparation by all involved. I welcome, of course, in particular a planned reduction in use of temporary staff. Professor Fred P. Brooks posed the question in his book, The Mystical Man Month, how do you make a late project later? The answer is add staff. The reason is that when new staff arise, there is a cost to the existing staff to integrate them into the team, provide them with knowledge of the local operational methods and push them forward to be fully productive members of the team. It is not simply external training that the existing team members carry that burden, so a reduction in staff churn takes two burdens off the system. Less wasted time and integration and a larger proportion of the time staff spend in the service becomes productive. A further benefit that can be derived can come from staff seeing a task through to its completion. Time taken picking up and putting down items of work is wasted time. The convener is correct when she points to frustration in delivering improved computer support across the public sector. The London Ambulance Service failure under the Tories in the early 1990s, the SQA computer failures under the Labour and Liberal Democrat administration in the 2000s, and we have had our failures on those benches, too. However, the private sector can and do find it difficult to make computer changes, too. Douglas Ross raised court closures as a source of difficulty, and yet, after the closures, the system appears to be more efficient. I have through boots without a corresponding increase in resource being required to achieve them. While we heard from some deputies that they felt constrained by the existence of a central unit for marking, others pointed out that it was not a new process and that they did not feel constrained. My apologies, I have moved to another point. Douglas Ross said that I was quoting evidence from the Bar Associations, who were highlighting the impact that they are seeing in courts around the north-east of Scotland in the central belt, that they believe that court closures are having a direct impact on the service that we are providing in Scotland. That is probably a useful clarification, and I accept what the member says. However, we did have balancing views, as well. Moving on to talking about the central unit, I want to highlight Rear Admiral Grace Hopper of the US Navy. She retired at the age of 80 as the oldest ever regular member of the Navy. She said that the act first apologised later, and she meant that she assumed that she had the power and that she would be held to account as to how she used it until she was told that she did not. Mr Ross also rightly spoke of witnesses' frustrations about delays. For my part, I welcome the programme of reform, and one of whose outcomes must be to serve the interests of all those who contribute to the delivery of justice. I served as a juror in the early 1980s in a two-day trial in anlythgo sheriff court of two accused, each facing seven charges. A relatively simple case compared to child abuse, domestic abuse and financial crime, I genuinely wonder how we can help juries to make decisions that they will feel more comfortable about in more complex cases. We have, of course, took new evidence from jurors because what goes on behind the jury room door is secret. However, for the solemn cases, the most serious is the most important part of the system. In 1830, George Sutherland, painter Glacier, John MacDonald and Innkeeper, John Astley, a chemist were jurors in John McFeet's trial, and a similar diversity prevails today. We saw that support for witnesses today far exceeds that given even 20 years ago, because without witnesses there can really be no trial. Where, once victims could be invisible, we now have support for them. The inquiry has been of value in throwing light on a vital part of our criminal justice system and enabling us in the justice committee to hold all responsible for making the system work to account in future. For my part, I suspect, too, for others. My understanding has been extended and my preparation for my committee role enhanced. Thank you for my part, as others have said, to all who are involved in delivering justice in Scotland. While the optimist in me hopes for an end to the need for any criminal justice system, the realist in me knows that we shall continue to depend on it for time immemorial. Liam McArthur made a plea for no sentences to be under a year. In 1830, no sentences were over a year. If you were guilty of something worthy of incarceration over a year, you were either taken out and hung or you were sent to Australia. I welcome this report. I hope that it is a useful contribution to debate. I was listening. I do not know whether you were advocating that change in penal policy. I call Alexander Stewart to be followed by Mary Evans, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is indeed a pleasure to be able to take part today, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this debate. Although I am not a member of the Justice Committee, I am a substitute and, as such, I have had the pleasure of sitting with the committee on a number of occasions. After months of evidence-taking, I was delighted to see the final committee report after it was published in April 17. I have listened to many valid points by speakers from many facets of the legal profession, and it has soon become clear that, although the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are an excellent, rigorous and fair system, in essence, it is beginning to take some strain and cracks are beginning to show. Although I agree with the inquiry that, on the whole, the public should have confidence in the COPAS, being a rigorous and fair prosecutor, I have serious concerns about the direction that the service is going and the future, as we have already heard from the convener Margaret Mitchell in her opening. The review was long overdue. Much evidence has been received, evidence from the cold face that showed low morale, short-term contracts were too much in evidence, and staff resilience was that breaking point. Those are not a good position for any service to find themselves in. My colleague Douglas Ross, opening for the Conservatives, talked about the professionalism of the staff and also about supporting victims in a key way of moving forward. However, those victims must have confidence in the system, and it has to be acknowledged that the SNP Government decided to cut the budget for the services. However, if standards are to improve, extra resources and extra training are required to ensure that we can all benefit going forward. Past evidence of the committee has led the inquiry to focus on a number of very valid concerns, the centralisation of the service, the efficiency and effectiveness of the service, the role of the inspectorate and the treatment of victims, witnesses and the accused. Serious concerns were raised about the resources of the CPOS as well. Deputy Presiding Officer, although it is difficult to benchmark the CPOS against anyone else, because we only have the one prosecution service here, it can be directly compared. It is clear that we have already seen with Police Scotland and also the concerns about proposed changes to transport policing. Although it is very welcome by some, the centralisation of the CPOS has produced considerable financial and operational strains, and many consider that this process has gone too far. I would allay myself with some of those comments. As the committee has found, staff are overworked, funding has declined and demands on the service continue to grow. The service is just about managing. Its communications has been classified as poor under prioritising standards of summary cases, and it seems to be ill-equipped to deal with specialist prosecutions. We must recognise all those facts at the present time, because if we are to see improvements, they must be challenged and they must be progressed. The last major report of the CPOS was back in 2003, where concerns were raised then about underfunding. In the coming year, 1718, the real term of the CPOS budget has been cut. Indeed, the Crown agent said that 750,000 of efficiency savings would have to be met by staff budget, which equates to about 30 jobs. The loss of that talent and experience may never be replaced. However, in order to deliver the real-term savings that is expected to be required over the next five years, the forecast may be that it is closer to 200 that may be required to lose a role in the organisation. The Lord Advocate asked the committee to consider the need to widen transformation change, while stating that cutting resources was not the only way to solve the problem. That may, however, be the committee's case, but when we look at the over-resilience on digital solutions and delivering of that, we cannot rely on digital solutions to deliver an effective service. That may be taking it too far. It is a difficult situation, but it is clear that the service is already struggling and can ill afford to suffer further financial restrictions. The committee has accepted that delays in infrastructure and efficiencies cannot be solved by the CPOS itself. There have to be others who play their part. The Government has to take a role. The judiciary has to take a role. The whole organisation must look at it. Audit Scotland has estimated that the adjournment of delays of cases has cost around £10 million. We see from today that there is a consensus about the professionalism and the way that the system has worked. It is working, but there needs to be serious thought about how it can be managed. Victims have to feel secure and confident in the system. The judiciary has to feel that they have the rights and the responsibilities to manage effectively. We, as parliamentarians, have a role to play in that whole process, if there is to be scrutiny and governance of the whole process going forward. It is vitally important that we all play our part, that we make the picture complete, and that we ensure that we put all our efforts into managing the process for the people of Scotland who deserve the service to be efficient and effective. In concluding, I say today that there are real concerns about the centralisation and decision making and that poor job satisfaction and staff morale must be thought about, must be managed and must be understood. A more risk averse culture is growing and local officers are having to run cases against their own professional judgment. That can no longer be continued or allowed to continue. The service must become effective, must become efficient and must become reorganised. We understand that, but protecting the service from further cuts, further resources, funding, headcount and infrastructure are vitally important to ensure that we get the best that we can and that we can have the confidence in the service moving forward. I commend the committee on the work so far and the report. It is a real pleasure to speak about the report into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in the debate today, the culmination of five months of work of the Justice Committee. Being new to the committee, it was an absolutely fascinating piece of work and it gave a real insight into the criminal justice system in Scotland. I would like to add my thanks to those who are expressed by others in the chamber today, to all those who provided both oral and written evidence to the committee, as well as to all the clerks for the absolute power of work that they put in. I also have to give some recognition to the members in the chamber today who perhaps did not sit on the Justice Committee but have taken part in the debate and had to plough through that report and all the evidence, because that is by no means an easy task. However, one thing was clear in the evidence that we heard and that is that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is regarded as a hardworking, professional, rigorous and fair prosecutor of crimes in Scotland. However, although the overall impression was that it did a good job within its resources, there were also areas that could still be developed, particularly in relation to the service that it provides for victims and it is that area that I would like to focus on today. Central to the COPFS strategy for victims and witnesses has been the creation of the Victim Information and Advice Service, which we have heard touched on by other members today. Since it was piloted in 2001, the service has been rolled out across Scotland and today its remit has grown to serve victims in a variety of serious cases, including domestic abuse, racial aggravation, cases involving children and victims of sexual offences. However, as its remit has grown, so too have the demands on the VIA service. As Oliver Mundell mentioned earlier, from 2006 to 2015, there was an increase in referrals of 45 per cent to the service, from 27,500 referrals in 2006 to 40,000 referrals of people seeking information and advice. However, there is a disconnect between prosecution and victims. While it is recognised that the COPFS is not the victim's lawyer, the COPFS itself accepts that there is a gap between the service that can be provided and the service that they would like to see victims receive from the system as a whole. We can recognise how far the system has evolved since its inception. The review of victim care in the justice sector in Scotland by Dr Leslie Thompson QSE, which we have also heard about today, states that we should be in no doubt that the experience for many victims can be of a system that does not recognise or accommodate their needs. The Thompson review is a vitally important review that we heard much of in our evidence. Throughout the evidence-gathering stage, we heard from victims who had the impression that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service staff were working under extreme pressure and that there was a lack of personal attention. However, the most powerful evidence that we heard was from victims of domestic abuse themselves, who told us directly of the victim that I spoke to personally and that the members in my group heard from. She told us directly of the harrowing experience that she had been through from the crimes committed against her through to the prosecution of those crimes. She told us of how the experience of going through the justice system had re-traumatised her and left her questioning whether it had been worth going through it at all. One of the worst things about it was when she told us that she would have rather taken another beating than go through the process again. I think that if that is the experience of the people going through our justice system, then more has to be done. Communication was raised as a key issue between the prosecution service and victims and witnesses. The Thompson review stated that there is a strong desire amongst victims for a single source of support and information, eliminating or reducing the need to approach numerous agencies at different stages. The evidence that we heard bore that out. Victims often have to approach multiple agencies for assistance and the amount of information provided by those agencies concerned, such as the Crown Office and the VAEA, particularly at the outset of a case, can be overwhelming. Victims have access to the victims' code for Scotland, they are working together for victims and witnesses protocol and access to information protocol. However, although all of those are packed with information, you can only imagine how confusing that is for someone at a time if you are a victim, that you are trying to deal with the trauma of what you have been through, let alone take in all that information and process it. At the conclusion of a case, victims are approached by multiple agencies again, sometimes being contacted by three separate organisations on the same day, each essentially providing the same information, albeit for different purposes. That includes being contacted again by VAEA, by Police Scotland, as well as other support agencies. An approach that can confuse, inconvenience and again overwhelm a victim who then has to relive that incident however many times in one day. The Thompson review examined other approaches from different countries, which we might look to learn from here. New York, for instance, has the witness aid services unit, which combines four services under one roof, which supports victims by lazing with the criminal justice system, the notification department, which keeps the victim up to date on the progress of the case, and the social services department and a counselling service for the victim. Another example that we can look to learn from is the victim information counter at The Hague, where there is co-operation between the public prosecution service, victim support, the police and the criminal injuries compensation fund. Both of those systems allow a single point of entry to seek information and assistance on the issues that a victim might face. From our evidence, that became clear. We need that one-stop shop approach to give victims that one direct contact for the information and the advice that they need. Now, there were so many other important elements that were raised during our inquiry, and probably far too many for all of us to go into detail today. But another area that I just want to touch on briefly before I close today, and one that I feel is vitally important, is that of wildlife crime, which I was glad to hear Liam McArthur raise earlier. Prosecution rates for reported wildlife crime are very low, around 10 to 15 per cent of reported cases. While I know that cases of wildlife crime can be hard to prosecute because of the lack of evidence in some cases, there was a frustration and disappointment expressed by the Scottish Environment Link and the evidence that it gave to the committee. A recommendation from the Natural Justice Report in 2008, which asked that, following the completion of any significant criminal case concerning environmental wildlife crime, there should be a full debrief involving the police, the crime office and other relevant bodies, including third sector organisations such as the RSPB, and that recommendations like that were still waiting to be implemented. So I hope that that will be taken on board today and that we will get a response to that. Now, we have seen recently some very high-profile instances of wildlife crime going on prosecuted, most notably the shooting of a hen harrier in the Cabrich estate in Murray, a case that was recently dropped after prolonged investigation, and the setting of an illegal pole trap in the Angus Glen, cases that have ignited huge public interest. I am the species champion for the hen harrier, a species that has been in severe decline in Scotland. Those crimes are serious, and I welcome the outcome of the review of intel-satellite tagged eagles that were commissioned by the Scottish Government and published last week, because we need to be doing more to protect our wildlife and ensure that those who commit crimes against wildlife and against our native species do not escape the punishment that they deserve. To conclude the current system that we have, it is complicated and it can be overwhelming for victims and witnesses alike. There is a need for simplification and a co-ordination of the provision of information relating to individual cases, providing that one-stop shop for those affected. There are working models out there that we can learn from, such as those that I mentioned in New York and the Netherlands, but we owe it to the victims and witnesses to give them a system that does recognise and accommodate their needs wherever they are in Scotland. Deputy Presiding Officer, let me begin by referring members to my entry in the register of interests as a self-employed advocate and member of the Faculty of Advocates. Indeed, in that capacity, prior to being elected as an MSP, I have prosecuted both in the High Court and in the Sheriff Court, and I have defended cases in both of those cases. It goes of course without saying that in doing that, I did have contact and worked with both the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Services. The recommendations of the Justice Committee report are of particular interest to me and I do appreciate the stresses and strains that people work under that do such excellent work in the prosecution services. As an MSP, of course, I have the opportunity to see things from a slightly different angle. I have had constituent contact from constituents regarding their experiences of the court system since becoming an MSP, and some of those experiences certainly seem to be reflected well in the recommendations made by the report, which details improvements that need to be made. It is vital that members of the public have every confidence in the justice system in Scotland. They need to know that, if they ever need to report a matter, they will be treated appropriately and professionally. That is of course not to cloud the role that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Services plays. As was said in evidence on behalf of the Faculty of Advocates, the prosecutor is not there to represent the victim to get the case limping into court under any circumstances. The committee recognised that often this can lead to difficult decisions being made and that victims can sometimes find painful. However, as the report of the committee found, that is a necessary element to protect the independence and integrity of the prosecution service. Nevertheless, it is important that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Services treats all involved in cases presented to it, both victims and witnesses, properly and appropriately, and that these people receive the information that they need. However, the service decides to treat the case that it is presented with. That applies especially to young people. The Victims and Witnesses Scotland Act 2014 is meant to ensure the implementation of this, establishing a victims code and victim information and advice service that we have heard about in other speeches already. As we know, some elements of that are still being brought into force and it may be some time before its full usefulness can be demonstrated. Certainly, that is an issue that I have come across as an MSP, where vulnerable victims of crime, who should have been referred to the BIA service, have apparently not been leaving them without any knowledge of the progress of a case, perhaps until it was too late for any meaningful input by them. That resonates with the evidence given in committee that there are some or have been some serious failings involving the service, including a lack of communication and indeed information that might be called misinformation in a general sense. Experiences like those can damage trust with the public, and it is vital that the principles and rights set out in the 2014 act are met and adhered to for the sake of victims. They should not be left in a position where they regret having reported a crime in the first place. My colleague Oliver Mundell very eloquently outlined a whole number of his very real concerns about a wide number of matters, and I am not going to repeat those here. However, one matter that has been raised by others is the question of the internal stresses within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Those must be addressed because, at the same time as the rights and services that victims and witnesses can expect from the justice system having been stepped up, the services budget has been cut, as we have already heard, by £4 million in this financial year to £109.5 million. If we add to that the fact that other demands on the service are changing, including changing profile of crimes, the pace and degree of legal reform, and technological changes, it is clear to see that the services staff are under some significant pressure. The committee report, for example, told us that communications and relationship building with victims and witnesses is not always working as a tawd. The Edinburgh Bar Association summed up the situation and described the situation as being one of the organisations struggling manfully in difficult circumstances and referring to understaffing as a consequence of some of the cuts. Indeed, Scottish Conservative research from earlier this year also showed a rise in sick days for Crown Office staff of something like 20 per cent over the past six years. That is a worrying trend that may reflect some of the pressures that staff are facing and having to deal with. It is difficult to see how further job losses can be sustainable if the current level of service delivery is to be maintained and in some areas that we know needs to be improved. Deputy Presiding Officer, I will conclude by saying that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service faces a challenging time ahead. Whilst I have pointed to victim and witness communication, pressures also impact on decision making and relationships between criminal justice stakeholders, and I would hope that the Government takes into account the concerns that have been expressed through this report and indeed in this debate and realises the impact that further cuts in funding could have for and in some areas already struggling service. The last of the open debate speeches is Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on the Justice Committee inquiry. As others have said, it was a large and ambitious inquiry that involved commitment from all members. Given that I have decided to return from eternity leave just half a day early today to be involved in this debate, given the time commitment that all members put into it, I apologise to the convener for not being here for an opening remarks. There is absolutely no reflection on her leadership of the committee. In fact, I think that she has led it very well through this inquiry. Like others, I thank all those who gave evidence. I found the evidence sessions and site visits to be very interesting and informative. I would also like to thank everyone who gave their time to provide the information that we have required in coming to the conclusions set out in the report. Clearly, the continued austerity from Westminster has had a massive effect on the budget and spending decisions of the Scottish Government, and any Government-funded organisation is going to be impacted by those decisions. I welcome Alexander Stewart's comments and passion that he spoke about protecting the service, and I hope that, if his party gets the result that is widely predicted on Thursday, he will speak to his colleagues in London about doing just that in terms of the austerity agenda. The prosecution service, I totally agree, is a vital public service, and I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has protected its budget in cash terms, and it is also important to note that the Lord Advocate, as others have said, has destroyed the budget as a settlement that enables me, in his words, in the forthcoming financial year to fulfil my public responsibilities. As some members know, before my election, I worked as a social worker in the latter four years was in the criminal justice sector preparing reports for court and supervising community payback orders. I might have played a small part in that small corner of Lanarkshire in helping to reduce the re-offending that others have talked about, and the recorded crime levels in Scotland. On a serious note, the vast amount that is covered by the inquiry, I would like to spend my time talking about areas of specific interest to me from my previous employment. One such area is that of domestic violence, and this Government has committed to bringing in new legislation to tackle this issue head on. I know that most people across the chamber and across all the various parties are in agreement with this and pleased with the steps taken. The committee did hear differing evidence with some witnesses suggesting that such cases were pursued as a priority without considering the public interest. However, I was pleased to hear evidence from Rachael Weir, for example, who said that no case would be prosecuted unless there was evidence to do so, and I felt that that was reassuring for the committee. The Lord Advocate himself also backed it up when he informed committee that conviction rates for domestic abuse cases were around 80 per cent, therefore suggesting that prosecutions were on steady ground. Perhaps the most important issue around that area, where I wholeheartedly agree with Clare Baker, when she spoke very eloquently on that earlier, is that we need to take on the behaviour that is plaited of society and has been hidden in silence for so long. I am pleased that the committee has recognised that in its conclusions. We heard evidence from victims, as Mary Evans spoke about, and her experience of criminal proceedings was very powerful for us all to hear. I hope that the Lord Advocate will be able to reflect on some of the information that came back from those information sessions about how witnesses and victims of domestic violence felt that their experience of the court and criminal proceedings went from there on in. Another area that I was interested to hear more about through the inquiry was the advancement of some aspects of the digital strategy. I believe that that will be an important tool going forward for the courts. It will or should reduce the time and resources required at various stages. If, for instance, an individual on remand or already serving a sentence in custody is able to appear by video link rather than being transported to the court held in the whole area for a period of time before appearing briefly, then to be transported back to the prison. In terms of witnesses, it could also be very much assistance in a variety of situations, including those of a domestic nature. As I mentioned just a couple of minutes ago, some of the witnesses that we spoke to might have been able to benefit from video link being in place had that been around at that time. Of course, when dealing with vulnerable young people, I would like to make mention of the part of the report around children giving evidence in court. There is no doubt in my mind that that is a long-term negative effect on my child, the whole experience of doing that. I was pleased to hear from the cabinet secretary that there was compelling evidence to keep children away from courtrooms and that developing a new way of capturing evidence from children and vulnerable people is a priority for this Government. I look forward to that being introduced in due course. There is also the issue of bail and remand, and evidence was heard that decisions can often be made without full evidence being available. Families outside, for example, said that they did not believe that sufficient consideration was often given to children who do not necessarily differentiate between remand and custody, for them that their parents are in jail and all the stigma and consequences that come with that are there for them to deal with. That is perhaps something else that the Lord Advocate in the prosecution service could look at. That brings me to my final point. I would like to touch on the issue of the committee that has heard about the centralisation of case marking. As a former worker in the field, as I mentioned, it feels to me personally that we have lost something in that area. The ability to pick up the phone and talk to someone about local resources such as diversion schemes that might be appropriate in certain situations. We have heard some witnesses say that to the committee, but I wonder myself whether that is just antidotal, because we also heard evidence that the centralisation has led to a more efficient system. I think that concluding on that, I was very interested in the inquiry that was on-going. I think that it might be too early to say, and I welcome the committee recommendation asking for the COPFS to continue to monitor that as appropriate, which I am sure will happen. I thank all those who have done work on their justice system from the police to the prosecutors, sheriffs and judges. To keep up the good work, ensuring every minute in Scotland can be continued to be proud of our independent justice system. I thank all members of the committee, the convener and the clerks for helping to ensure a very thorough inquiry. We now move to the closing speeches and I call Mary Fee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Justice Committee, I thank everyone who has contributed to this very important inquiry. From the witnesses who came to the committee, those who provided written evidence or gave private testimony and those who we met on our committee visits, your very valuable input has helped to shape the report that we have debated today in the chamber. I also take this opportunity to thank the clerking team that supports the committee, the support and help that they have given us that cannot be underestimated. Presiding Officer, in its first major inquiry this parliamentary session, the Justice Committee has delved into an area of our criminal justice system that has been long overdue a parliamentary assessment. The report, the inquiry into the role and purpose of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, should serve as a guide to the Cabinet Secretary, the Scottish Government, the Crown Agent and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The very detailed recommendations that have been made by the committee have been made in the sincere wish that we can provide a criminal justice service that meets the needs of victims and witnesses while balancing the rights of the accused in order to deliver a criminal justice system that works for Scotland. A recurring theme that appears throughout the report is the disconnect of the experiences, the expectations and the realities of those at the strategic level of the COPFS and those on the front line. Speeches from across the chamber this afternoon have reflected that as well as staffing and resourcing pressures and the experiences of vulnerable witnesses, churn and witness citations have also featured in a number of speeches today. I was particularly pleased to hear the Lord Advocate in his remarks earlier today, acknowledging many of the concerns and recommendations that are in the report and his commitment to deliver change in the COPFS and build on not only our recommendations but also the very strong recommendations in the Thomson review. In my closing remarks, I would like to pick up on two key aspects of the report. The first covers staffing and resources. The COPFS has not escaped budget cuts in the past 10 years. Evidence provided during the inquiry shows that, while the budget has remained static, the real terms cut of 21.5 per cent have had a real impact on the delivery of the COPFS. Despite the general trend of reported crime falling over the past 20 years, cases ending in court have increased. Coupled with the loss of staff and resources to the COPFS, evidence shows that it is an organisation struggling manfully in difficult circumstances. Those are not my words but those of the Edinburgh Bar Association, who further added, that the problem that displays itself in every department is under staffing. We heard from unions representing the COPFS staff that targets are being met, but at a high cost to those working within the crime office. The workload increases, while preparation time decreases. That is not good for staff and, above all else, it is not beneficial to the accused, to the victim or to the witnesses. The evidence tells us that the effectiveness and efficiency of the COPFS has been hampered by cuts to staffing and resources. With an increase in cases, many are involved in complex and demanding needs due to a variety of different factors. It is essential that the Crown Office protects the workforce from further cuts. In his response to the committee report, David Harvey, the Crown agent, informs us that the organisation has made significant progress in strengthening our staffing position and that its sickness absence is reducing. However, Mr Harvey adds that we anticipate that we will not be able to deliver all the savings required through non-staff costs and that any staff who leave voluntarily will not be replaced. Those contradictory statements made by Mr Harvey raise a concern that there could be an impact in the future for the effectiveness, the efficiency and the image of the COPFS. The second key area that I wish to cover is support for victims and witnesses, in particular vulnerable witnesses. We heard during the evidence sessions a lot of praise for the staff of the Victim Information and Advice Service and their willingness to go the extra mile. The staff, as my colleague Claire Baker pointed out in her opening remarks, are dedicated professionals and they deserve our support and our financial backing. However, the duty of carers to victims and witnesses often fell short, according to some evidence. We heard of one charity representing victims of domestic crime. We said that those they asked said that they were traumatised by the experience. Ensuring that protections that have been offered to witnesses are indeed delivered should be a priority for the COPFS and for the wider criminal justice system. The third sector plays a vital role in supporting victims and witnesses during and after the court process. We must continue to strengthen the collaborative approach between the COPFS, the VIA service and the third sector. Finally, it is clear from the inquiry that the COPFS has a problem in communicating with witnesses, victims and other criminal justice stakeholders. It is also clear that many of the problems that cause backlogs and churn and the overall perception of an organisation's struggling are linked to its communication. The Scottish Government must ensure that everyone involved in the criminal justice process, whether it is Police Scotland, the COPFS, the Scottish Court and Tribunal service and other stakeholders, work in a much more collaborative way to achieve the outcomes that are desired for victims and for witnesses and for the COPFS staff while balancing the rights of the accused. Finally, can I end my contribution today by thanking the staff of the COPFS for the hard work and dedication that they show when a daily basis is often under difficult and stressful circumstances? I would like to begin by referring to my register of interests as a practicing member of the Faculty of Advocates. I would like to start by picking up a point made by Claire Baker. Despite the fact that this is a committee debate and despite the fact that the Lord Advocate is, of course, responsible for the prosecution service, it seems a great shame that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is not here. While the Lord Advocate is a cabinet member, he is a minister, he is a member of this Parliament, there are political points that require to be addressed, and the Lord Advocate is, of course, politically non-aligned. We have had debates about budget and members have also spoken about much wider criminal justice issues. I am pleased to be able to close this debate for the Scottish Conservatives today, and I would like to begin, like others, by paying tribute to the staff who work not only for the Crown Office but also those who work across Scotland's many procurator fiscal offices. Staff who work in this service dedicate long hours, and unlike other public sector staff, often do not get thanked for their effort and commitment. The nature of their work is sensitive and decisions taken by the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service can plainly have life-changing consequences for many people. Notwithstanding all that, it is important that even bodies such as this undergo regular review to ensure that they are fit to deal with the challenges of both the present and the future. As the report notes, it has been almost 15 years since the last major review into the COPFS, and it is fair to say that much has changed in the legal and political landscape since then. My own professional experience of the Crown Office is limited and some time ago now, but one of the first instructions that a newly qualified advocate could get would be a stint as the Crown Junior. That is junior counsel for the prosecution in cases in the High Court, and it was an excellent experience for me watching and learning from practitioners of criminal law as they applied their trade, including acting as a junior to the Lord Advocate himself. However, it also gave me an insight into the pressures facing the service, and even 10 years ago, I can well remember the Crown Agent's room in the High Court in Glasgow with a small number of staff trying to administer a large number of cases. This was so even in the wake of the bonomy reforms that were meant to streamline and rationalise the courtside of the criminal process. I have to say that I have an abiding sense of the Crown Office firefighting with all the attendant pressures of time of public scrutiny and of limited available staff. That is perhaps an unfair anecdotal reflection on how things were 10 years or so ago, but it is striking that the committee hints at similar problems still facing the service today. The report has identified various issues that point to pressure. The projected 30 job losses this year with an estimated 200 job losses over the next five years. It also talks about the general trend towards a more centralised prosecution service, which is perceived as having led to a luring of morale and job satisfaction in local fiscal offices. As Oliver Mundell pointed out, there are pros and cons to this particular centralisation, but it is particularly pertinent to me representing a large rural area such as the Highlands and Islands. We are all concerned across the chamber that it would be hugely detrimental if local knowledge and expertise suffered at the expense of a centralised system. Given the sheer geography of Scotland and the fact that effective local fiscal offices often serve local sheriff courts, they are key to the smooth running of the system on the ground. The report refers to the fact that the burden of cases on staff has significantly increased and that there is a perception that it has become close to impossible for ffiscals to adequately prepare all their allocated cases within their contracted hours. That tallies with anecdotal evidence that I have heard in relation to advocate deputes in the High Court when preparing for trial, because it seems that the pre-trial period is where the real pressure lies. An advocate depute can have 10 to 12 preliminary hearing cases to prepare, occasioning approximately two weeks' preparation and then two weeks of the hearings themselves to get through all those cases. Those cases can be weighty, they can involve social work, education and medical records that have to be considered. As the Lord Advocate will know, the court expects the case to be ready for trial for the trial to start at any stage after the preliminary hearing, so the preparation has to be front-loaded. If an advocate depute gets held up in a trial, the prep time disappears and that is when the real stress happens. The fact that the overall perception from witnesses is that the service is just about managing and that is concerning and there are questions over the adequacy of resources or all that should shake us into action. There have been many interesting observations in the chamber this afternoon. I want to highlight some of them. Margaret Mitchell, the convener, spoke about how she wants to keep a watching brief on this. I cannot imagine that it will be another 15 years before we return to this subject. Ben Macpherson made various comments and I was struck by his remarks about the significance of local justice and the prosecution of crime in his constituency here in Edinburgh. Justice Gordon Lindhurst spoke of cases coming to him as an MSP where the person had been a victim coming through the system. Douglas Ross made criticism but constructive and not overtly political. There are problems that ultimately the Scottish Government has to address and the budget is plainly one of them. Oliver Mundell, in a typically measured contribution, spoke about not rushing into another bout of radical change and take issue with Stuart Stevenson. He did not argue against change per se, what he said was more subtle. He said that change for change's sake is unwarranted. John Finnie drew on his long experience in policing and involvement as a parliamentarian in justice issues. He noted that the evidence repeatedly before the committee was concentrated on staff commitment and the fact that the system in principle is a rigorous one. Marie Evans and Mary Fee spoke very powerfully about the effect of being a victim and a witness in the system and the demands that are rising on the VIA service and the still existing disconnect between prosecutor and victim. Going back to my own experience, I recall very awkward conversations after a trial going to meet a witness. The prosecutor having to act as a hybrid support worker, a lawyer, a guide to a victim who may have been distraught following the result of a trial, be that an acquittal or a conviction. In closing, the issue should not be seen as a single party issue, but it is plainly a cross-party effort to ensure that the service is fit for present and future challenges. Overall, the report provides us with a lot of positive feedback that we should be mindful of. However, it also lays out recommendations that need to be taken further in order to improve the effectiveness of the service so that, when Parliament next reports, the COPFS gets a clean bill of health. I call on James Wills. I thank all the members who have contributed to the debate today. They have made a variety of important points. Like the inquiry process and the committee's report, they provide a great deal of material for myself and for the leadership of the service to reflect on as we take the service forward to the next period of its history. I thank the members who have praised the work of the prosecutors who, up and down Scotland, prosecute in the public interest on my behalf. I would like to touch, if I may, on one or two of the matters that have been raised in the course of the debate. I will try to focus on areas that I did not deal with in my opening remarks. Let me first deal with the issue of centralisation, specialisation and prosecutorial judgment. I would like to separate out a number of different issues. The first is the question of prosecutorial judgment. I have made clear from the outset the trust and confidence that I have in those who prosecute crime in Scotland. That is not to say that they can exercise some sort of free-floating discretion. They have a responsibility to apply the law and to apply my prosecution policy to the cases that come before them. That is part of making sure that we treat like cases alike. However, I rely on the judgment and professional expertise of individual prosecutors to apply the law and to apply prosecution policy to the individual cases that come before them. I have made clear in the past and made clear again the confidence that I have in their professional skill and judgment. It is not just me saying that. The service through the prosecution policy review, which is being undertaken, and through steps taken to change the approval levels within the service, is taking concrete steps to return decision-making to front-line prosecutors. I should make clear that I do not detect, as I speak to prosecutors, any loss of morale. In my experience, prosecutors have an enormous sense of professional pride in the work that they do and in the service of which they form part. Ben Macpherson referred to the civil service survey from last year. It was heartening to see in that a number of favourable figures. To the question, I have the skills that I need to do my job effectively, 92 per cent positive, up 4 per cent from the previous year. I have the tools that I need to do my job effectively, 70 per cent and up 9 per cent from the previous year. I have an acceptable workload, 56 per cent and up 15 per cent from the previous year. I achieve a good balance between my work life and my private life, 67 per cent and up 11 per cent from the previous year. So without, for a moment, being complacent and without, for a moment, failing to recognise the challenges to which the committee has alluded, I am confident in the staff and in the expertise and skill of the staff of the fiscal service. There is a separate point about centralisation and specialisation. Because the service is a national service, it can establish specialist units so that we can respond effectively and consistently to particular categories of criminality. We have heard the creation and the work of the specialist units of crown office, for example in the area of sexual crime, being welcomed both in the committee's report and in the chamber today. That does not mean—and perhaps I should include in the specialist units—the national initial case marking centres. I will, certainly. One of the specific concerns that was raised in relation to central marking was the loss of local knowledge when it came to marking up c