Seòmar agus comataidhean

May I raise a point of order?

First, the overrun on the one that is happening just now—is that recognised?

That would be fine, thank you.

On the vehicles question, you have a fleet of electric vehicles—cars. My understanding is that they have not been used as well as they might have been, due to the practicalities of charging and so on. I also see from your Twitter feed that you have just taken possession of an electric fire engine. First, what is the cost of that engine, and secondly, has it been bought primarily for the practical purpose that it can serve or has the decision been significantly influenced by environmental considerations? If so, is it the right vehicle for the job?

Is it in use just now?

It is good to see senior officers here today. Firefighters and the public will be grateful for that. I have been taken aback by some of the figures; I did not imagine that it costs £1 million to crew a single fire appliance for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It is obvious that you face some very tough choices.

I have one quick question that picks up from something that Mr Thomson raised, which was the inability to hold reserves. It might be academic in the short term, given the budgets, but can that be fixed? Have you addressed that issue with the Government?

Is there any discussion about having that ability?

The letter is pretty vague and does not really tell us anything. The fourth paragraph states that there is a commitment to “improving victims’ experiences”, but the letter does not address the central point, which is access to court transcriptions.

As the top of the letter points out, there was also quite a delay between our letter and the response. However, I kind of wonder what the point of the response is, as there is so little in it of any substance.

I agree with Jamie Greene. I do not have the Lord President’s response in front of us, but I think that it gave a much more detailed explanation about why what is asked for is difficult. There are many things that we can reasonably ask on the basis of the cabinet secretary’s letter, which really says nothing. We should ask those questions.

What will the inclusive fee be?

How does that differ from the current system?