Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Thank you very much for that. I will save my other questions for later on.

So it is a work in progress. Thanks very much for that. I have one other quick supplementary question, about the impact of climate change. It came to me as we have been speaking through the course of the committee meeting.

I am asking about it because, throughout the meeting, I have been getting a sun symbol at the bottom of my tablet screen saying that it is 16°C and, at certain points today, it has said that it is a record temperature for this date. We are in nearly November, and it is 16°C—it has just turned red the now, so the app must be listening to me.

Today may not be the best example, but the summer that we had was scorching. You must have been really busy at that point. Is the impact of climate change filtering into your budget requests to the Scottish Government?

I welcome all that. The blue-light collaboration, which you and the police have spoken about, is a fantastic piece of work and should be happening.

It might be that you are not able to look at this, but in relation to budget scrutiny, is part of your analysis and assessment looking at how other services might be cut, or do you have to leave that to the side and not concentrate on it, in case the police get an increase or whatever? Do you sit and say, “The police might be getting cut, and this is how it will impact us”?

Good afternoon. As we have heard, the Scottish Government has a human rights goal or policy but it is not reflected in what people are finding is happening on the ground. I would like the witnesses to talk about how this committee, the Government and Parliament could perhaps meet some of those challenges.

Secondly, how able are councils to play their role in meeting human rights aspirations set out by the Scottish Government? It might be quite easy to say that the issue is just about funding local government—some people will say that local government is not funded enough and others will say that it is—but I do not want the argument to be about that. I want to discuss how local councils decide, with the funding that they have, what services are cut.

I will give an example that I am dealing with locally that I think makes that point clearly. There is a mobility hub in my constituency that is due to close—the charity that runs it will close it at the end of this week, at short notice. We are fighting that, as the mobility hub serves many people in the local area and allows those with physical disabilities, mainly, and learning disabilities, to access town centre healthcare appointments and so on. I have been round the houses trying to get somebody to stand up and say they will save the service, but everybody—the Scottish Government, the council, the health board and the charity organisation—has just passed it on to somebody else. Nobody wants the service to close and everybody thinks that it is a good service and that disabled people need it but, because of the system that we have, the service is at a real risk of closing this week. I have also noted—something that Susan McKellar said brought this to my mind—that the number of women who use this service is disproportionately high, and some women who have come to ask for it to be saved are carers for men who use it. The issue has a real impact on women as well.

I do not expect the witnesses to reflect on my constituency example—I am dealing with that and I know that members have similar examples around the country. However, it makes the point that we have human rights policies, ideas and goals in this Parliament that we all share across parties, but, sometimes, things happen, and the general public do not understand how certain things can be allowed to happen. Does the panel have any advice on what the committee and the Parliament can do to have a better overview when budget decisions around human rights issues are taking place?

I have a comment rather than a question, convener. Criminal justice social work staff carried out a review of nearly 18,000 cases, so it is worth putting on record our thanks to them for doing that. We have heard in various committee evidence sessions about the workloads of staff in the justice sector, so I imagine that that was quite an undertaking in itself.

Yes, convener. I welcome the minister and her colleagues to the meeting.

I put on the record that I am very supportive of this. As Russell Findlay has said, the churn in the court system has been a massive issue; indeed, it was a massive issue that the Justice Committee considered in the previous parliamentary session—and, I imagine, even before that. We should therefore be welcoming any steps to address the issue—it is good that the minister has recognised that and has brought forward something with the potential to deal with the matter.

That brings me to my question, minister. I know that this is a pilot, and that you will review it, but do you have any early indications or assessments of the impact that it might have on the backlog from Covid as well as the longer-term backlog? It is okay if you do not have any numbers—I know that Katy Clark has asked for an update in due course—but do you have any early assessments with regard to what this might mean for the numbers?

Like Pam Duncan-Glancy, I welcome the talk about the possibility of the age of criminal responsibility being increased because, when we scrutinised the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Bill, that was a major talking point for the committee members who were involved in it. The same is true for the place of safety power, which is what the regulations are about. I welcome the explanation that the minister gave, in that the power has been used only four times.

I ask the minister to answer a question that has come up through some of my constituency work. Because of the legislation that is now in force, some constituents are under the impression that the police can no longer talk to children under the age of 12—it is not about charging them but about talking to them. Is the minister able to confirm that that is not the case and that the police can engage with children, as they can with any other member of the community? That is the advice that I gave to my constituent but he asked that I raise it in the Parliament.