Seòmar agus comataidhean

You both said that you support a stand-alone specialist court. I am still trying to get my head around all this. We are talking about giving all victims more choice in how they give evidence. Everybody is different. We heard in evidence that there are some people who still wanted their day in court—they wanted to be there live—and others who wanted to give evidence on commission. We are basically saying that the people who are prosecuting—who are working in the courts—need a higher standard of training. We want to make physical adjustments to courts so that it is easier for victims when they go to court—so that, if possible, they have a better experience of going to court. A lot of people said that they wanted more access to advocate deputes. Those are issues that we could address when we are considering the bill. However, it will still be the same estate, and a very high percentage of cases that are being heard will continue to be sexual offence cases. In effect, courts are already sexual offences courts, but we just need to make them better for people when they give evidence.

I am trying to work out what you think is the biggest benefit of creating a stand-alone sexual offences court. We talked earlier about rights of audience. I am concerned that a stand-alone court could end up creating further backlog, and that creating such a court would cause more confusion in the justice system. I know that you support such a court, but what is there about it that will make a big difference?

If we are saying that people would not be able to take part in a trial unless they had had specialist training, why would we need to have a stand-alone sexual offences court? Nobody—including advocates, people working in the court and judges—would be allowed to take part unless they had had specialist training, so why would we need a specialist court? We would not need to change the rights of audience, because such cases would be heard in the estate and system that we already have.

The report says:

“Funding for tackling alcohol and drug harm has more than doubled over the last ten years”,

but it goes on to say:

“However, ADPs have seen an eight per cent decrease in real terms funding over the last two years”,

It also states:

“The Scottish Government has yet to undertake an evaluation of the costs and effectiveness of alcohol and drug services to determine if they are delivering value for money”,

and it highlights as important the need to ensure

“that ... funding is directed in the most effective way.”

I have heard people describe the funding landscape as like spaghetti: when they try to find help or a pathway, there are a lot of groups that are trying to help people, but it can be confusing. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that we are putting the funding into the right areas? The level of drug and alcohol deaths in Scotland is still far too high.

That sounds good, and there are a lot of buzzwords in there. You said that there is a record amount of funding going into ADPs, but the report says that

“ADPs have seen an eight per cent decrease in real terms”.

We are putting a lot of money in, but we are not seeing any improvement in the figures—the numbers of people who are actually losing their lives.

Are you telling me, “Right—we’ve cut money for the ADPs, but we’ve now directed money to somewhere else and that’s why we are seeing a cut for ADPs”? Can you tell us about any specific actions that you are taking in that regard?

The report also lists three areas in drug services where progress has been particularly slow: publishing a mental health and substance use protocol; delivering a stigma action plan; and implementing a drugs and alcohol workforce action plan. Will you give us an update on the progress on those and the reasons for the slow progress? Again, a lot of money is going into this, and many other areas would love to have that budget. What progress are we making, and why is it so slow?

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. I have some questions on Audit Scotland’s “Alcohol and drug services” report, which was published recently.

Do you accept all the recommendations in the report, and can you give us an update on any progress that has been made on those recommendations?

You are considering them just now, so you cannot say that you fully accept them.

In response to my previous questions, the national mission was mentioned. However, at our previous evidence session, the issue of an implementation gap between legislation, policy and strategy and what is being felt by people on the ground was raised. That has also been an area of interest for the people’s panel. Why do you think that there is a perceived implementation gap, and what is the Scottish Government doing about it?

Mr Foggo mentioned earlier that I had said that it was “buzzword bingo” today. I have not heard that phrase before, but I am sure that I will use it in the future.

As committees, we are interested in seeing action that ensures that we end up with improved results. It would be good to ensure that we do not simply talk about strategies but actually see them being implemented, so I would like to get more evidence on that.

I have one final question. In your evidence to the committee last year, you mentioned your concerns about funding in relation to the use of new technologies, particularly body-worn cameras, for Police Scotland.

Another year has passed, and they have still not been rolled out. How disappointed are you about the current situation, and do you have confidence that it will be resolved soon?