Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks. For my final question—I recognise that I am to some extent repeating myself—I am interested in the conversations that you have with the UK CCC. Last week’s report was incredibly valuable, and I agree with it as a reflection of the past 25 years and of a complete failure to meet the demands that the science has set out, but it left me with a lot of frustration.

We need to triple the amount that we spend on peatland restoration. You know that there is not £40 million of capital money just rattling around, so that will need to come from somewhere. For decarbonising buildings, it is not tens of millions but tens of billions of pounds that we are talking about. Is it not entirely unrealistic to expect the Scottish Government—keeping within the envelope that is available to it under the current confines of the fiscal framework—to deliver, in particular, the capital investment that is required to meet the demands of our climate legislation and the UK Government’s climate commitments?

That goes back to the point that Professor Roy was making about the choices facing Government. We cannot not build new hospitals. The cost of decarbonising hospitals is massive, but the challenge is how to balance the long-term unavoidable necessity of tackling that while keeping everybody alive in the interim by meeting all the other needs of society.

I am interested in what I think is a bit of a contrast between your report and the CCC report last week. I think that you have the balance better and I acknowledge what you said about having worked with the CCC.

Although I agree with the broad criticism in the CCC’s report that we are off track, I note that it was quite critical of the Scottish Government for highlighting the impact of United Kingdom Government policy making—particularly financial policy making—on Scotland’s ability to meet its own targets. However, as you have outlined this morning and in your report, we require a disproportionate amount of spend, but the fiscal framework does not take that into account and the devolution of the relevant powers is not uniform. The CCC made some pretty sweeping comments about the fact that transport, land use and decarbonising buildings are devolved.

This might be just a reframing of some of the convener’s initial questions but is it fair for me to conclude that, as matters stand, it is effectively impossible for Scotland to meet its climate targets and, therefore, for the UK to meet its targets, given how critical Scotland’s targets are to them, without a significant devolution of financial powers to the Scottish Government, an adjustment to the fiscal framework and more direct funding from the UK Government? Is it the case that something that is entirely within the gift of the UK Government needs to change? It is one thing to say that Governments need to co-operate, but we are not talking about two equal partners that have an equal amount to contribute. Are you saying that something needs to change at UK level, whether it is devolution of powers, increased block grant or whatever?

That would be useful and it would probably be worth while for the committee to engage directly with ministers on the handbook. My understanding is that the handbook is not specific enough in these circumstances and there is a clear need for revision.

I sympathise with you in that, ultimately, you are significantly dependent on the information that is provided by Police Scotland. It is unavoidable, because it is not like there are third-party sources for the kind of information that you need. Am I correct in my understanding of what you said, which is that the first time that you were aware of Police Scotland’s changed position was when the evidence that was submitted to us was published, because Police Scotland did not proactively contact you? When Police Scotland received our call for evidence, I presume that staff realised that what they were going to submit was significantly different from what they originally provided to you. Did they proactively contact you to let you know, or did you find out when our evidence was published?

The last comment segues very neatly into the theme that I want to ask about.

Cabinet secretary, you will have seen that, in previous evidence sessions, there has been a lot of focus on co-ordinated support plans. Colleagues will go into that issue in more detail but, as part of our examination of it, there has been a lot of discussion about the range of plans available to young people, with child’s plans, individual learning plans, individualised education plans and bespoke plans in local authorities, schools et cetera.

Can you say a bit more about the Scottish Government’s position on taking a more consistent and holistic approach to the issue? Specifically, is it GIRFEC compliant for a child to be in the sort of position that they are essentially in at the moment, where, to get a co-ordinated support plan, other plans have to be in place? It means that, by default, a child in the position of getting a co-ordinated support plan already has multiple plans, which, to me, is not GIRFEC compliant. After all, GIRFEC is about each young person having one coherent plan, whereas, in practice, kids with the most complex needs must have multiple plans to access or unlock the support that they require.

If you could write to us on the GIRFEC point, that would be useful.

On CSPs, the cabinet secretary has been a member of the committee and knows that we have taken evidence on the issue and gone round the houses over and over again on the challenges that it presents. Last week, though, we heard quite a significant bit of evidence from ADES and COSLA representatives on the criteria for a CSP. For them, the major barrier is the requirement for a young person to need at least 12 months of intense support from multiple services in multiple agencies, or however the provision is worded, and they are finding that young people who—everybody agreed—needed a CSP were unable to get one because that specific box could not be ticked. Is the Scottish Government open to revising the criteria for the CSPs and, indeed, that part of the 2004 act?

One point that was made in relation to that concerned the example of mental health support and counsellors. When the act was originally drafted, and up until quite recently, the vast majority of that support was provided outside schools. Because of a recent and welcome Scottish Government decision, that support is now provided in school, but that then creates the perverse issue that we are discussing. To what extent can the code of practice alone address that? As we have heard, the act is quite specific, which is a point of learning for the future: maybe primary legislation should be a bit vaguer and more flexible to allow for adaptation. Are you confident that we will be able to address the issues that were surfaced in the 2021 review through a revision of the code of practice alone, given that the underpinning legislation is so specific?

I said that it is unrealistic to expect that before the end of this parliamentary session, given the wider legislative timetable. However, there is a challenge here in that the specific legislative problem that we have identified could be improved through the code of practice but the fundamental issues could not be addressed by the code of practice, because the code of practice cannot be used to rewrite the law.

I will continue with examples, because the committee is really interested in how the bill would operate in practice. The principles behind it are well understood and, I think, well supported.

For example, if a priest goes to a hospital to visit a parishioner, that is totally normal and is an important part of their role. Let us say, though, that the priest stops outside the hospital to pray. I have prayed outside hospitals, on my way in, for a variety of reasons. If a woman who is accessing the hospital for the purposes of an abortion sees the priest and is familiar with the Catholic Church’s position on abortion, she could be alarmed and feel intimidated by that. The offence of causing alarm or distress could be made out. Would the priest’s behaviour constitute an offence? Even if he were not there for the purpose of influencing a woman who is seeking an abortion, alarm or distress could still be created. I presume that such behaviour would not be an offence, because, at that point, we would be criminalising priests for dressing as priests in hospitals.

It was essentially about that. I will paraphrase your position, but correct me if I am getting it wrong. As it stands, the police might well have the power to act in response to the distress that is happening and to the intimidation felt by women, but current provisions do not provide a deterrent effect. You are seeking deterrence but acknowledging that existing law would allow for action where behaviour crosses the line, whatever the line is.