Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a quick supplementary question on Rona Mackay’s point, before I ask a general question about funding.

My recollection is that, during the pandemic, there was a virtual trials pilot process in Aberdeen that involved many domestic abuse cases. However, in reality, very few cases operated virtually, because both parties had to agree to take part in the pilot. Is the new proposal different from what happened in the previous pilot?

I understand that that was a problem before, so it would very much be appreciated if you could keep us closely advised on that.

This evidence session relates primarily to budgets, and we have asked questions about a number of areas. I understand from the submissions that, for next year, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service is suggesting an additional £20.8 million in revenue and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is suggesting an additional £16 million in revenue. We have heard about a number of proposals and work that might have substantial budget implications. I will go through those proposals and ask whether we can get some more information on those today or in writing after the meeting.

In relation to the summary case management pilot, as we know, there have been attempts to get better case management in the court for many decades. It sounds as though what might be different on this occasion is the very central role of sheriffs in driving that and perhaps their being given more powers to do so. However, that can work only if other parts of the system are resourced. What work is being done on the financial implication of that, even if that will be on a one-off basis over a small number of years? For example, in order to use and agree police evidence, you need the police to play its part, COPFS must be able to provide the evidence to the defence, there has to be a defence agent who is able to take instructions from the client and they need to be able to agree well in advance of the case going before the sheriff. As you know well, that all has resource implications. Often, one part of the process fails, and, as a result, it is not possible to agree something in court.

Therefore, to what extent are you looking at that as a whole system, and what might the resource implications be? If you cannot give the committee that information today, which I would fully understand, could you write to us about that—not just in relation to this year’s budget but with regard to what that cost might be?

As you know, a number of us, as committee members, met PCS, which published its report yesterday. The report noted that there had been problems with COPFS’s information technology system for many years. It said:

“A plan to develop a new case management system, called Phoenix, was abandoned in 2010 after millions of pounds were invested, due to budget cuts following that year’s General Election. As a result, COPFS has continued using the same IT systems deemed unfit for purpose back in 2010.”

The committee has heard a lot of detail about the problems that that causes. System failures means that the system goes down for many hours or for a day at a time, and there are problems with postal citations for witness statements.

There are many other problems that relate not only to COPFS but to the fact that different IT systems in the justice system cannot speak to or share information with each other. That sounds like a mammoth challenge that involves more than just one part of the system. Will you provide us with an understanding of what needs to be done, not just this year but in relation to the investment implications for justice budgets and potential savings? The committee would then be able to look at that over a period of time. Those are two issues that you might already have done work on and that you could look at and respond to the committee on.

The deputy convener probably also heard me say that it was quite clear what the consequentials were in relation to the announcement from July—they were £0.5 billion at a UK level for the household support fund. We know that that means a £41 million consequential for the Scottish Government.

As the deputy convener will know, my colleague Paul O’Kane, as our Scottish Labour policy lead on this issue, has consistently asked for that money to go to the poorest pensioners in Scotland and to people who are losing out as a result of the decision at Westminster, and he has suggested that that could perhaps be done by councils. Does Bob Doris accept that we know—and have known since July—that there is £41 million, but we are still waiting for confirmation of the precise figure in relation to yesterday’s budget?

I myself have a figure, but I do not know whether it is accurate. We know that there is £41 million, but we might have a sum that is considerably more. Does he accept that?

Will the deputy convener take an intervention? I do not know if it is appropriate to intervene on the member in his capacity as deputy convener.

I am sure that other members will pick up some of those themes. Thank you.

In the time available, to what extent did you explore other options?

Cabinet secretary, in the context of scrutinising these regulations, to what extent did you look at what is happening south of the border, and in particular at what councils are doing? In July, half a billion pounds of additional support to councils in England was announced to help them to support fuel poverty, and I believe that further money was announced yesterday.

To what extent have you looked at what additional support is being provided down south, particularly for pensioners who are experiencing fuel poverty?

I quite understand that you might want to speak about some of the things that you have done, but I am asking about the extent to which you have looked at what some councils down south are doing, where there are a number of different approaches. In the context of the policy and regulations that we are considering today, I want to know the extent to which you have looked at those. Have you asked for briefings, or been briefed, on what is happening south of the border?

The committee is dealing with these regulations today, but I wish to note my concern that the cabinet secretary has not been able to say more about the plans in Scotland in light of the £0.5 billion of additional funds that were made available in England for household support. We know that some councils in England are using that money to make payments to the many pensioners who lost out as a result of the Westminster Government’s decision to end certain winter fuel payments. I do not have the figure for the additional funds that were made available yesterday. Once the cabinet secretary is clear about the implications of yesterday’s budget for that aspect of policy, it would be interesting to hear about them.

We have to consider the regulations that are before us, and take a decision on them, but I say to the cabinet secretary that more could be done, despite the decision that has been taken at Westminster. I hope that she will be in a position to consider that in detail, by looking at what is happening down south, what happened with funding in July, and what emerged from yesterday’s budget, to see what more could be done in Scotland this winter.

I am very happy to make an intervention, if the cabinet secretary is willing to take one.

I fully appreciate that you do not have the money from consequentials yet. However, I understand that you already have the money from the benefit on the basis of its being a universal benefit—although I appreciate that there will now be an adjustment. The principle is that money was announced in July as a consequence of the UK Parliament’s decision to pass regulations that focused winter fuel payments only on those who were entitled to claim pension credit. As a consequence, £0.5 billion of additional money was put into the household support fund in Scotland. Therefore, if money has been announced to help poorer pensioners who have lost out as a result of a decision to means test the winter fuel payment, the principle should be that that money, which has been given to the Scottish Government for that reason, should be passed to those poorest pensioners. Do you not agree with that principle?