§ Queen's recommendation having been signified—
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make further provision as regards criminal justice in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under or by virtue of—
the Sheriff Courts and Legals Officers (Scotland) Act 1927;
the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933;
the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971;
the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967;
the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or
the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 in so far as any such increase is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present session which relate to—
§ 10 pm
§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth) rose——
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We had a disgracefully inadequate answer to the last debate. I wonder whether Yorkshire hon. Members are entitled to a better and more complete answer at some stage. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment did not even deign to inform the House whether, if he was unable to answer questions, which he failed to do in a singularly pathetic fashion, he would write to hon. Members. It is a convention for Ministers to do that. The hon. Gentleman failed to cover any of the points raised. Therefore, I should like——
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)These are debating points which hon. Members could and should have raised in the previous debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "How could we?"] Answers given from the Dispatch Box are not a matter for the Chair.
§ Mr. EwingI rise to ask the Minister to give us, in his reply to this short debate, one or two answers on the money resolution.
First, it is very unusual for a money resolution to be moved a whole week after the Second Reading of the Bill. The debate on the Bill took place last Monday, when the Secretary of State for Scotland said that there was some difficulty in preparing the money resolution, but that it would be presented "in good time" before the clauses were discussed. The Bill begins its Committee stage tomorrow morning. If 10 o'clock on the night before the Committee stage is due to start is considered by the Secretary of State to be plenty of time, I can tell the Under-Secretary that in the Opposition's view a period of 12. hours before the Committee stage is due to begin is not considered to be plenty of time before the Committee is to consider very important clauses. We shall have to take this matter into consideration in Committee.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us much more specific information than the resolution contains. For example, what increase in expenditure will there be as a result of any changes that may take place in the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927? What increased expenditure do the Government expect in terms of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933? The money resolution docs not tell us.
If there are to be changes in the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971, what is the estimated increase in expenditure for which the Government are budgeting? So far we have not been told.
We are aware that under the provisions in the Bill, which is not yet an Act and so is subject to debate and decision by the House at a later date, the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 will have to make provision for legal aid for accused persons who demand identification parades where they have been refused at an earlier stage in the allegations that have been laid against them. As a result of this new innovation in the Scottish legal position whereby an accused person who has been refused an identification parade or where an identification parade has not taken place and one is insisted upon, I should be interested to know exactly what 167 increase in the legal aid scheme is expected.
Turning to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, it is not sufficient to put a motion of this type on the Order Paper without a Minister explaining the exact effect that the new Bill, which is still not an Act, will have on those two measures. What is the expected increase in public expenditure as a result of the changes that might take place in both those Acts?
I turn now to what I consider to be the more important details of the motion—namely, the second part, beginning with
the care of drunken persons".I understand that the Government have retained to themselves discretion whether to give grants to local authorities for the establishment of what have become known as detoxification centres or places to which the police will be authorised to take persons who are drunk and incapable rather than to police stations. I understand that the Government have retained discretion whether to give grants to the regional and district authorities concerned for the establishment of these detoxification centres. Again, we are entitled to ask what estimate, if any, the Government have made of the projected increase in public expenditure as a result of the need to set up these detoxification centres.Perhaps I can utter a word of encouragement to the Under-Secretary. If he comes forward with a figure, we may criticise it as inadequate. However, we shall not accept it if the Minister says "We are making all these arrangements for the establishment of detoxification centres, but we are not going to give you any money for them." It is not good enough to come forward with a money resolution of this kind and, at the end of the day, when the Bill becomes an Act, to say to the regional authorities "But you are not getting any money for them."
I turn now to
the conduct of judicial examinations".At the moment this is very much in the experimental stage. The Under-Secretary of State knows that two experiments are about to start: one in Falkirk and the other in the Tayside police region at 168 Dundee. But my understanding is that neither of these two experiments has started because the equipment to conduct them is so far not available. That is not a complaint; it is merely a statement of fact.We are anxious and entitled to hear from the Under-Secretary whether the Government have made any estimate of the expected overall cost not only of the experiment but, assuming for the moment that the House accepts judicial examination—I certainly do not want to prejudge what the Committee might decide; as Ministers know, I have my doubts, which I expressed on Second Reading—and assuming that the experiment is a success and is extended to every regional police force in Scotland, of the expected expenditure on judicial examination, tape recordings and all that would go with it.
I have already mentioned the question of identification parades and of legal aid at such parades. That is a very important aspect of public expenditure, and again we are entitled to know whether any estimates have been made of the expected increase in public expenditure as a result of these measures.
The measure of the Government's sincerity will not be judged—I say this to the Under-Secretary before the Committee stage starts—by the determination that the Minister and his Back-Bench colleagues show in steamrollering the Bill through the House of Commons. It will be judged by the amount of money that the Government provide to make sure that the various measures that they put on the statute book are adequately financed. I hope that the Minister will address his mind to precisely that point.
There is also the very important question of the new procedures in respect of appeals. I do not think that there is any doubt—there is no difference between the two sides of the House—that the new procedure will be very expensive indeed. We are really talking about the most expensive legal procedure, at High Court and Court of Session level. We are talking not about district courts and sheriff courts, but about the highest level of the legal and judicial process in Scotland. There can be no doubt—anyone who has any illusions about this should shed them immediately—that this new procedure, 169 desirable though it may be, will be very expensive.
I do not wish to go on to the two other points left in the money resolution because some of my hon. Friends are anxious to speak in this very short debate. However, all the evidence that we have seen so far from the present Government is to the effect that they have refused to uprate the rate support grant to meet the claim that has been conceded by Clegg in relation to teachers. They have refused to make more money available to health boards to meet the claim that has been conceded by Clegg in relation to nurses and the medical profession. There is no evidence in the history of the present Government that additional resources will be made available by them to meet the new provisions that will be implemented should the Bill become an Act.
It is dishonest for a Government to come forward with a money resolution pretending to the people of Scotland that the money resolution and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill are somehow linked. They are, in fact, linked; but, unless the Government prove that the link exists by making the additional resources available, their determination to push this Bill through on to the statute book will be seen as a very shallow act indeed, because it is the easiest thing in the world to legislate and not to provide the money. I hope that the Minister will make it abundantly clear that his determination and the determination that will be displayed by his senior colleague the Solicitor-General for Scotland in Committee will be matched equally by a determination of the Treasury.
I am sorry that no Treasury Minister is present to answer this debate. I do not say that in any derogatory sense to the Ministers present. At the end of the day Treasury Ministers hold the purse-strings. The motion stands in the name of the Minister. Although he was not guilty of misleading the House on a former occasion, he is less than specific in his comments. I therefore welcome the Under-Secretary's presence, because he is usually more specific. Those who hold the purse-strings should be here to answer the debate, and to assure us that the money will be made available. If it is not made available, everyone in Scot- 170 land will see the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill as a very shallow measure.
§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)I endorse every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) has said. There was a long delay before the money resolution was brought forward. That is mysterious. Presumably, almost every Act that will be affected is listed. Aspects (a) to (f), for which more money will be needed, are listed. If so, why could not the money resolution have been formally and properly debated immediately after debate on the Bill? What is the mystery? We should be given an explanation.
The resolution and the Bill estimate that those subjects listed on today's Order Paper will cost an additional £650,000. Does the Minister still stand by that? If so, those elements in the Bill that were said to be progressive, such as detoxification units for drunken persons and grants for hostel accommodation for those under supervision, will be very shoddy. The truth is that these provisions, including detention centres, would and should cost much more. If they cost that amount they will be shoddy, and if they cost much more—as they should—local authorities will have to pay the cost unless the money resolution is changed.
Local authorities have been given a rate support grant that is based on an inflation rate of 13 per cent. We all know that that is absolute nonsense. Inflation is now running at 19.8 per cent. By next month the rate of inflation will have reached 20 per cent. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has told us that the Government's monetarist policy is unlikely to work, as there is no link between restriction of the money supply and inflation. It is a financial muck-up and demonstrates a muck-up in the Government's understanding of their Bill.
Those things of which no mention is made on the Order Paper are equally important. For example, no mention is made of legal aid in those cases where redress is sought as a result of the iniquitous provisions of detention and search. Perhaps the Government do not intend to give legal aid in such cases. Perhaps they do not intend to allow any such form of redress. No proper safeguards, such as 171 those existing for arrest, have been written into the Bill. Is that why the Government have switched from arrest to detention? Is that why they are using powers of search? Are they seeking a cheap method of clobbering some of our young people? Is that what lies behind the curious figure of £650,000?
If the Government mean "search and detention", errors will be made. If errors are made, cases will arise. If such cases arise, we need to know. There is nothing about that on the Order Paper. We need to know if legal aid will be provided to those seeking redress.
Brief mention is made of judicial examination. The Bill refers to additional staff. I had thought that the Government were in business in order to cut down on manpower levels in the public sector. Do the Government intend to implement a provision that no one in the legal profession has welcomed? I can think of no respectable, responsible legal body that will welcome these provisions. Nevertheless, the cost of extra staff will be incurred.
The extra staff, the extra costs, hostels, detention centres and the redress in relation to search and detention—all this is being done within the limit of £650,000. I do not believe it. These things will be done under the Social Work (Scotland) Act which will involve cost to local authorities. They will also be done under the Local Government (Scotland) Act involving more cost to local authorities. All these things are to be done within that limit. Does the Minister expect us to believe that? He had better have some good explanation, or he had better tell us that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has got it wrong.
§ Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)Perhaps during the course of the Committee stage my colleagues and I will make speeches that are unsympathetic and unhelpful, but we can pride ourselves tonight on the fact that we appear in this debate in a role which would be approved by Conservatives in Scotland and anywhere else. We are worried about public expenditure, the control of it and whether the Government have got it right. 172 I notice that the Solicitor-General for Scotland gave tongue last night in Milnathort, when he talked about an orchestrated assault on the integrity of the police and on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. He invented a new collective noun—"a spectrum of Left-wing groups"—and went on to talk sinisterly about that particularly undesirable type—"the intellectual of the Left". I do not know whether I should hang my head in shame as being identified as an intellectual of the Left. I think that many of my hon. Friends would find it a slightly unlikely role for me. However, tonight I am not interested in general orchestrated assaults on the Bill. I am interested in the £650,000 and how it will be spent.
I have an enormous amount of sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) when he says that it is surprising to find this Government coming forward with provisions which they say quite frankly in the explanatory memorandum at the beginning of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will lead to the need for additional staff. It would help if the Minister could say a little about how much of the £650,000 net figure will go on additional staff costs and how many extra bodies will result.
I am also particularly interested in one of the possible areas of additional expenditure, namely, compensation for the victims. This provision of Dunpark has been very much modified in the Bill. I assume that the initial expenditure cannot come from the scheme, because the compensation is to be met by the convicted offender and paid by him to the victim. However, I assume that the additional expenditure arises under clause 58 of the Bill, which means that the sheriff clerk will have the duty of collecting the money and paying it out. He will have the even more important duty of pursuing payments that are not made under civil diligence.
Perhaps the Minister will say a word or two about the serious impact that this will have on the work load of sheriff clerks' departments. For years we have talked about the possibility of matrimonial payments and other periodical allowances being recovered by some sort of official collection agency, presumably 173 working through the civil department of the sheriff clerks' service. Ministers have constantly resisted this—very properly—on the ground that it would mean an enormous increase in the work load and the staff. I accept that the operation in this Bill would be rather more modest, because I do not suppose that there will be a veritable flood of these orders, but, clearly, the Government hope that this provision will be used, and I believe that it will have a considerable impact on the staffing commitment of sheriff clerks. I want to know more about that and what proportion of this extra 650,000 will be spent on this aspect.
I was also interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) about adult offenders' hostels and detoxification centres. That is important. I plead lamentable ignorance on the matter, but perhaps expenditure under these heads will be included in local authority budgets, rather than central Government budgets, and will therefore not be included in the figure of £650,000. We need some reassurance on that matter. If there is any expenditure under these heads, it will make the figure extraordinarily miserable and inadequate. It is no good passing general exhortatory legislation and saying that it is a good cause and that local authorities will be able to do something about it but that no finance will be allocated. That is intolerable. I want to know whether there is any provision in public finance, either under this specific head or under some other Treasury subdivision of mysterious public Estimates, that will allow local authorities to do what they are invited to do under the Bill.
I turn to more controversial matters, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide information on issues that have been raised by my hon. Friends. The Under-Secretary of State knows that many Labour Members have severe reservations about the new provisions in clause 2. We cannot go into that matter tonight, but we are entitled to ask for more details about the financial impact of the clause. It is speculative, but at the end of the day it will make considerable demands on police time. It goes back to the old question that if a power is in the Bill the Government presumably hope that it will be used, and if it is used it 174 will presumably take up police resources and enery and will therefore have an impact on police budgets. The total figure in the money resolution is, therefore, surprisingly small.
I presume that no part of the £650,000 is devoted to the provision of tape recorders. I know that the Minister is in favour of the concept of tape recorders, and I have no doubt that he hopes that the experiments that have started in Dundee, and which are about to start in Falkirk, will be a success. It would be surprising if he did not take that view, because he will remember that during the debate on the previous Criminal Justice Bill the then Opposition Front Bench spokesman on legal matters, now the Solicitor-General, made it clear that he thought that tape recording was a desirable innovation to be used in conjunction with these powers. He made that point on a television programme in Scotland last Friday. I presume that when we discuss that part of the Bill there will be a receptive ear on the Government Front Bench.
Amendments have already been tabled stating that evidence should not be admissible until tape recorders are installed and the relevant tapes are lodged in court. If that is so, I should like to know from the Minister whether provision has been made in the £620,000 for tape recorders and, if not, will the Minister consider consulting the Treasury to find out whether arrangements can be made to allow that development? I know that the Minister has given much attention to the matter, and he will no doubt be able to tell us the potential cost of installing this equipment in police stations so that we can make a judgment on whether it will be possible to include it in the somewhat stricter limits which the Conservative Government have imposed on public spending. If tape recorders are not introduced the position will be intolerable and the provisions of clause 2 will not simply be undesirable; they will become totally unacceptable.
I turn to judicial examination. That will involve shorthand writers and much shrieval time. An increase in the fiscal service and in the number of sheriffs on the bench will be required. It is costly to provide a verbatim report. May we have some costings on the exercise? It is clear that judicial examinations will involve considerable costs.
175 We do not have enough information. The figure provided is paltry. The Bill contains some good measures, but the controversial parts are thoroughly bad. If we are to be lumbered with it as a result of the Conservative majority, we must have an assurance that at least the finance is available to make it workable.
§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)I shall be brief. We are entitled to an explanation of the issues raised. Why has only one Minister put his name to the resolution? That Treasury Minister, who has no responsibility for law and order in Scotland, has not even had the decency to come here to express his support for the resolution in his name. Where is the Secretary of State for Scotland's name? Where is the Under-Secretary of State's name? Where is the Solicitor-General for Scotland tonight? He is probably lying in his bed after attacking people at the weekend because they are opposed to this nasty piece of legislation which will make law and order more difficult to maintain and improve in Scotland. It will make the job of the police more difficult.
There can be no serious quibble about an increase in social expenditure in some of the areas covered by the resolution. I have no objection to increases in expenditure on legal aid, on the care of people with alcohol problems and detoxification centres, on legal aid in connection with identification parades and compensation, provided that that expenditure will improve existing services and standards of justice. I wonder whether the Government have thought out the financial repercussions of the legislation.
The Government are always saying that they will decrease the numbers employed in the public sector and cut public expenditure. It is strange that one of the few increases in public expenditure is on law and order. It would not be so bad if expenditure on health, social services and education were increased because they are relevant to the improvement in law and order in addition to employing extra policemen and court officials. I wonder whether only 50 additional staff will be needed and whether the £650,000 per annum will be all that is needed.
§ Mr. Harry EwingMy hon. Friend referred to the police. Only today the chief constable of the Central region has issued a confidential report—which, as always, has become widely known—in which he says that he requires substantial increases in police manpower to meet the conditions of the Bill and the increasing demand on police time.
§ Mr. CanavanYes. My hon. Friend is right. I read that report from the chief constable, who services part of my constituency. In some parts of Scotland, the police may be a bit understaffed even at present.
I predict that this bad Bill will make the job of the police far more difficult. It will make the shortage of policemen more acute. It will sour the relationships between policemen and the community, and it will increase the time spent by policemen on many of the tasks that they are required to perform already, and then they will have these additional tasks of being expected to seize people, detain them and question them in a police station for a certain number of hours.
I wonder sometimes whether the Government have thought out fully the repercussions of this measure in terms of police manpower. They will be making the job of the police much more difficult. Many chief constables throughout Scotland will demand from the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary more manpower. They will want their present complements raised.
The House is entitled to an explanation from the Under-Secretary. This is a very bad Bill, and I do not think that we have even had a satisfactory explanation of its financial repercussions, never mind its grave repercussions for the maintenance of law and order.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) will be aware that, because of the additional help that the Government are giving the police in Scotland, for the first time in their history they are approaching full establishment figures not only in other parts of Scotland but in the region which the hon. Gentleman represents. I am sure that he will welcome that. 177 The hon. Members for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) asked why the money resolution was tabled for debate today and was not taken with the Second Reading of the Bill. They will be aware that for that to have happened it would have been necessary for the money resolution to be tabled before the House rose for Easter. Because the Third Reading of the Bill in the other place took place only shortly before the House rose, that did not prove possible. For that reason, it could not be taken at the time of Second Reading.
The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth quoted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who said on Second Reading that the money resolution would be taken in plenty of time before the clauses that it affected were debated in Committee. The hon. Gentleman implied that that commitment was not being maintained. In a sense I am delighted to hear that, because the first clause affected by the money resolution is clause 5, and, if the Committee can look forward to reaching that tomorrow morning, I shall be happy to apologise to the Committee at that stage.
§ Mr. Harry EwingI ought to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition were anxious to proceed with the Bill, but that the late tabling of the money resolution has caused us to change our minds.
§ Mr. RifkindI am interested to hear that. I suppose, then, that we can assume that we shall at least reach clause 4 tomorrow morning, and that we shall have to wait until Thursday before clause 5 can be considered. We understand the hon. Gentleman's problems in that respect.
Hon. Members have asked for details of the amounts that will be available for each of the categories concerned in the money resolution, and I am able to give some general information, although I must emphasise that these are estimates. However, when the Opposition complained about the resources being made available in the Bill, there was a conspicuous silence about their own Bill and the comparable elements in that Bill, which the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth himself sponsored through this House. 178 I was asked how much was being made available in the Bill to deal with the various categories. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked about compensation orders. In a very approximate sense, a sum of about £125,000 is estimated to be appropriate for this category. A rough estimate of the cost of the reform of both the solemn and summary appeal procedure is £200,000. The requirement of additional court staff under the category of judicial examination is also estimated to cost £200,000.
A number of hon. Members asked about detoxification centres. The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth made great play of how terrible it would be if the Government brought forward this measure without making cash available for it. He forgot to mention that this was exactly what happened under the Labour Government, when he himself was the responsible Minister. We should perhaps pass by that matter in silence.
§ Mr. Harry EwingThat is misrepresentation.
§ Mr. RifkindWe shall look forward to hearing why that is misrepresentation. I am happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to say what amount was committed under his Bill for this purpose.
§ Mr. Harry EwingThe difference between the present Government and the previous Government is that the latter estimated that public expenditure in relation to local authorities in Scotland would grow at the rate of 2 per cent. a year. Under the present Government, public expenditure for local authorities is scheduled to decrease substantially in the next five years to a low level. Under the public expenditure provisions of the previous Government, local authorities at least had some chance of financing the programmes that we were introducing. They have no chance under the public expenditure programmes that this Government are introducing.
§ Mr. RifkindI thank the hon. Gentleman for confirming that under his Criminal Justice Bill no specific provision was made for detoxification centres. It would be inappropriate for this Government not to follow so sensible a 179 precedent set by the Opposition when they had responsibility for these matters.
Hon. Members asked about the tape recording experiment. The experiments that have started in Dundee and Falkirk are estimated to cost about £36,000. If the experiment results in the implementation of tape recording in police stations throughout Scotland, it is estimated that the cost will be about £500,000. This matter is not referred to specifically in the Bill. It would therefore be inappropriate for the money resolution to refer to it.
§ Mr. DewarCan the Minister give an assurance that if the experiment is successful, or if an amendment is approved in Comittee to tie tape recorders into the Bill, the money will be forthcoming and there will be no difficulty in finding it?
§ Mr. RifkindThe Government have already made it clear that if the experiment is shown to be successful they will wish to implement the recommendation. We have indicated that, in the Government's view, as in the view of the Opposition when they were responsible for these matters, legislation is not required for this purpose. There is no need for the matter to be specifically included in the Bill. I have already indicated that if the experiment is successful the Government intend that it should be implemented. There would otherwise be little point in conducting the experiment in the first place.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West asked the interesting question why the Bill did not include any sum to allow legal aid for those detained contrary to the law and who would therefore seek reparation or damages from the courts for that abuse. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Government do not start from the premise that this is a requirement to be introduced in the Bill. He must be aware that at the moment, when someone is wrongfully arrested and seeks damages or compensation, that is not an issue that has to be included in legislation for the matter to be properly dealt with.
So far as any question of legal aid is concerned the position of anyone wrongfully detained will be the same as that of anyone wrongfully arrested. The two are 180 identical, as I should have thought was obvious to all concerned.
§ Mr. BuchanI shall look into this matter as the Bill progresses. Will the Minister say who pays under headings (a) and (f)? Will the local authorities pay?
§ Mr. RifkindThe hon. Gentleman refers to drunken persons and hostel accommodation. An estimated £100,000 is provided under clause 77 for hostel accommodation. As under the previous Government's proposals, provision for detoxification centres is a matter for health boards, voluntary organisations or other bodies. This Government, like the previous one, have not allowed a specific amount for this purpose under the Bill. We are following the precedent set by our predecessors, and that is an appropriate way of pursuing the matter.
Unfortunately, the debate has to be terminated within a minute, but I intend to give much fuller details in Committee. I hope that the explanations that I have given—[Interruption.]—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman will not be with us in Committee—
It being a quarter to Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
§ Question agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make further provision as regards criminal justice in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums so payable under or by virtue of—
the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927;
the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933;
the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971;
the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967;
the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or
the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 in so far as any such increase is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present session which relate to—