Seòmar agus comataidhean

You described that as a low-level example, but it is a really good one. In my days as a criminal justice social worker years ago, I would be down at the courts. Police officers were often there for the whole day and they would say, “This is the third time this month that I have done this.”

I understand the penalties argument, but on reputational damage, I think that the public knowing that we were talking about billions in taxpayers’ money would negate that argument. I accept it if the cost of coming out of such a contract will end up outweighing any benefit that might be achieved. I understand that.

I really appreciate that response. I am conscious of the time, so I will hand back to you, convener.

Good morning. I had a few questions about accountability, but a lot of the issues have been covered, so I will ask a question on the back of what Karen Adam asked about. It involves an area that you always highlight, minister, and is a difficult one from the public’s point of view.

Generally, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have a range of policies with human rights at their core. However, when the policies are implemented by local government or other public sector bodies, the human rights element does not always seem to be present on the ground. Could you comment on that? In your response to Karen Adam, you talked about how difficult it is to follow the money to see whether it is being implemented in that way. Is there something that we can do to ensure that all bodies are working together to implement policies in a way that has human rights at their core?

Last week, I raised an issue concerning a mobility hub in my constituency. I was not looking for an intervention on that issue, but I can inform the committee that, following that discussion—about an hour and a half after the end of the meeting—I received an email advising me that the campaign to save the service had been successful. I do not know whether someone somewhere was watching the committee meeting, but I thought that the committee might be interested in what happened, and I want to put on the record my thanks to the committee for allowing me to raise the issue, as it is plausible that that discussion played a part in saving the service.

My question is not about the mobility hub, which has now been saved; it is more about the general idea of how the Parliament’s good human rights policies can be implemented across the board. I know that there are difficulties with funding and so on.

I appreciate that, but the Government has said that the particular bills that I have mentioned are an attempt to help with the pressures in the system. However, you are right: they will initially mean more training and learning about them.

It is really good to hear that. I know that you have said that you are worried about the impact on all the services and how the collaboration can work. On possible ways forward, do you think that any upcoming legislative changes can help? Obviously, the committee is looking at the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill, and a criminal law reform bill is coming up. I know that the police will feed into them, as the police always do. Have you had any thoughts about how such reforms could help in these challenging financial times, or is that thinking a bit of a way off, until the bills come before you?

I think that the sirens that we just heard might have been for the benefit of the committee.

I had a few questions, but some of them have been covered, and I asked a supplementary question earlier. I had a question on the Audit Scotland report and the 14 stations with serious structural safety issues, but colleagues have covered that, so in the interests of time I will move on.

The only question that I have is one about joined-up working that you might have heard me ask the police service in the previous evidence session. If there is a flat cash settlement for all the services—you are all integrated and you all work together—what are your thoughts and planning around how that would pan out?

The police said earlier that, a lot of the time, when other services, including you, and other justice partners struggle, the police are left to pick things up in areas where they would not normally do so. Is that how you see it going? Would it be the police picking things up from you, or would you be picking things up from the police in some areas? Do have any general thoughts on that?

Good morning. I have been a member of this committee and its predecessor for six years, along with Rona Mackay—I think that we are the only two members who are in that position—and I have to say that this budget scrutiny is the starkest that I have heard. During previous sessions, colleagues of Jamie Greene and Russell Findlay would actually have had to ask questions to try and get you to say what you have said today.

All credit to the police, you have always come to the committee and said that you can manage the issues, but today, for me, it sounds totally different, and I think we need to sit up and take note of that because—like James Gray said—you would not come here and scaremonger, and we know that because of the previous meetings. That is really important. None of us can be in any doubt about the serious pressures that you have put to us. I guess that you expect the committee, including the four of us who are Government back benchers, to take that back to the Government. We will do that.

On the issue that Rona Mackay raised, by the same token—this is for the record rather than a question, as I know that you would not want to be involved in the politics—I hope that our Conservative colleagues will use their influence in the position that they are in to ensure that the new Prime Minister does not take a sledgehammer to public services and put the Scottish Government in that position, too.

As I said, the committee’s job is to scrutinise the Scottish Government—there is no getting away from that—but I wanted to put on the record what I have heard today, because it has been very stark and different from what has been said in previous years.

I want to ask about the interaction with other services, which David Page has already touched on. We will hear from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in a wee bit, and I guess that it will have a similar thing to say. There is a flat cash settlement for other key justice sector organisations, including the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the courts. Have you had any thoughts about how that will impact on you? Obviously, you all work together. What sorts of impacts do you see coming down the line if the cuts to those other services go ahead as well? How will it all work?

Thanks very much. I know that some of that was referred to earlier as well. Thanks, convener, for allowing me to ask that extra question.

Yes, it is on that point. I have other questions to ask later, but one of my questions follows on directly from the points that Rona Mackay has raised, so thank you for allowing me to come in, convener.

Ross Haggart talked about the on-call crew. In your written submission and earlier, you said that a consideration of how stations are crewed is a possibility. Even before the current situation, I had queries about the issue and I have done a wee bit of work on the crewing situation at the Coatbridge fire station.

It sounds like the on-call service is really helpful to the fire service. What difficulties does that model bring? What risks are associated with it? I have heard from those involved that there are risks. Is it a less responsive service? Is there a greater risk that something will go wrong when using that service?