Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate everything that you say, but you are also aware of some of the increased risks that we face, such as wildfires. There was also the flooding in Valencia—we do not know why that has happened, but we know that such events will increase with climate change.

On the staffing budget, are the delays in bringing in new employees and the 10 per cent vacancy factor in the fire service representative of the justice sector or are they outliers? Is that happening across the justice sector?

As you have said, cabinet secretary, this has been an area of great concern to you and the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, and very powerful representations have been made, particularly in relation to decontamination. It may well be that we are far more aware of the risks than we were a few years ago. It is clear that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is potentially exposed to legal claims, but I do not think that that is the avenue that the Fire Brigades Union wants to go down at all; it wants to ensure that there are safe systems of work. I think that you are aware of the support that you have from MSPs in that area.

However, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service says that in order to achieve a balanced budget, it has had to delay bringing new employees into the service and has introduced a 10 per cent vacancy factor in support staff functions. There seems to be an issue in relation to not only capital budgets but revenue budgets. Given the parliamentary representations that have been made, can you tell us a bit more about the Government’s approach to overall funding of the fire service? It seems to be a significant area of concern.

I agree whole-heartedly.

We draw our session to a close. Thank you for attending; it has been an interesting session.

That completes our business in public.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. What statistical information will Social Security Scotland publish on the funeral support payment awarded for funerals outwith the UK?

Thank you.

Do both parties have to agree to the process? Do the accused and the defence agents in each case have to agree to take part in the virtual trials pilot?

I want to ask about capital funding, particularly in relation to the building of the new prisons. You have already spoken about Glasgow and Highland and, as you know, there is a lot of pressure on other prisons, such as Greenock. You mention in your written evidence that you have an underspend of £25 million in this year’s capital budget. Can you confirm what is likely to happen to that? Could you also outline the current position, particularly the timescales for the Glasgow and Highland prisons? We fully understand the pressures of rising building costs, but could you give the committee an update of where you are with that?

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.

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?