Seòmar agus comataidhean

I might come back on the point about medical assessment at a future date. It is worth considering whether there might be any blockages facing someone who comes forward because they think that they need help—that is, the possibility of their being rejected after making such a big step, just because of a medical assessment. As I have said, I might come back to that at another date.

I also want to ask about the fact that men are twice as heavy users of services. I do not detect a lot of discussion about the approach that we should take, given that high numbers of men are harming themselves. How is that factored into the approach that you are taking to drug misuse and stopping drug deaths?

I understand that, but I want to get a sense of how important and central you think access to rehab is. At some point, we need an answer to the question about demand.

I do not know how easy it is for drug users to access rehabilitation, although I am quite familiar with how difficult it is for those who are dependent on alcohol to access such facilities or to know who to call. What is the pathway? Are you satisfied that it is clear? People might be on their own, because they do not have family support or because their family might not be able to cope any more. Are you clear about how easy it is to access facilities?

I want to follow on from Annie Wells’s line of questioning, because she asked what I think is an essential question about demand. We acknowledge the progress that has been made; however, we do not know what the demand is, so it is important to establish that. I know that there are many ways of approaching that question, but to what extent do you think that access to rehabilitation programmes is central to tackling drugs deaths?

Thank you for that comprehensive answer. Fees for defence solicitors in particular have been in crisis for many years. The key question, which I do not think has been addressed by the Scottish Government, is in the way in which the rate is set. In the criminal justice system, prosecutors are paid a certain salary, but defence solicitors do not seem to have kept pace with the people that they are working alongside in the criminal courts. That is why we are losing solicitors from the profession. I know that the cabinet secretary will share my view that, if there is to be fairness in criminal justice for accused persons, it is important that we retain good solicitors in the profession. How will the budget address that specific point, and what are the cabinet secretary’s thoughts on that?

Good morning. Cabinet secretary, you will be aware of press reports that indicate, not for the first time, an on-going crisis in legal aid. Some press reports have said that, since 2021, we have lost more than 400 solicitors from the system. Not all of those were lost because of the legal aid situation, I am sure, but certainly a high number were. There has already been a 23 per cent drop in the number of cases that solicitors have been paid for, so there has been less demand on the budget. However, that is a flat-line budget, so, in effect, there has been a cut to legal aid.

What approach is the Scottish Government taking to the crisis, given that it has not allocated an increase in the legal aid budget, and what is the thinking behind that?

I agree with Will Kerr, who has said that it is an embarrassment to Scotland that we do not have the full roll-out of body-worn cameras. As Martyn Evans outlined to the committee, there is a lot more to consider than simply the equipment, as it is also about the infrastructure that goes with it. I honestly thought that you were going to say to Sharon Dowey that the roll-out would be complete by May 2025, but you said that it is only going to begin in 2025. Can you give the committee an indication of what that means? What are the numbers? Will hundreds of officers have body-worn cameras? Can we follow a timeline so that we can see what the planned roll-out looks like? Will it be 200 or 300?

Thank you for the clarification. My final question is for DCC Jane Connors. I want to set the context for my line of questioning. I understand why you would want to talk about automation, and that you have to look at every possibility as there could be a very difficult budget outcome. However, I confess that automation fills me with dread, to some extent. I would like to know a bit more about what you mean by automation.

Many years ago, when all the call centres were set up, I had concerns that the public might lose out on the service that they used to get. If we put that to one side, would automation mean that when someone calls the central police number, they might not get to speak to a human being? What does automation mean and how will it impact the way in which the public get access to the police when they need them?

That is noted. The committee is well aware of the relationship between poorly maintained buildings, poor environments and mental health, and a whole lot of other issues in relation to not having the modernisation that Sharon Dowey raised. Closing police offices makes savings in one sense, but communities and police officers are concerned about being out of operation while they have to travel much further back and forth. Your point is well made and it is noted.

On police numbers, based on the modelling that you were asked to do, which you referred to in your submission, police numbers could be as low as 15,000. Would that mean that you would have to make police officers redundant?

You know the reason that I am asking about that. There was a report in the press that you had appointed civilians to do what looks to a layperson as though it is detective work. That is why I am concerned.