Chamber and committees

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.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not sure whether my vote was recorded. It would have been a yes.

It is a pleasure to follow Elena Whitham and to hear about some of her first-hand experiences in her employment prior to becoming an MSP. I also congratulate Fulton MacGregor on securing the debate.

I recognise the work that has been done by the cross-party group on adult survivors of child sexual abuse on the subject of tackling sibling sexual abuse in Scotland. As Sharon Dowey said, it is important that this debate is happening in the chamber today.

As Fulton MacGregor said, there is a common misconception when it comes to child sexual abuse. Many people believe that it is a problem of stranger danger. It is therefore surprising for many to learn that most child sexual abuse is committed by people who are known to the child and, very often, by family members. Sibling sexual abuse is the most common form of family sexual abuse, given that it is estimated that at least twice as many children are sexually abused by a sibling—a brother or sister—as are abused by a parent.

In 2021, the cross-party group started looking at the issue. It stated that it wanted to look at and prioritise exploring whether the right supports were in place for adult survivors affected by the issue and whether enough was being done in our child protection processes in Scotland to identify and support families in which sibling sexual abuse was an issue. Members of the cross-party group have continued to gather important evidence on the nature and scale of the issue, and the paper that they have worked on lays out the work of the group on the subject to date. Members should commend them on that work and I very much hope that it feeds in to debates in the chamber and the Scottish Government’s thinking in this area.

To discover that their child has been sexually abused by another child must be one of the most distressing experiences that a parent can face, perhaps even more so when they learn that it was one of their other children. For a sibling to be sexually abused by what is often, but not always, an older sibling or siblings who have a position of authority over them, the abuse that is experienced must be seen by many to be an ultimate betrayal of trust and it will often impact adversely on their mental and physical health over a lifetime.

Sibling sexual abuse is less likely to be disclosed than other forms of sexual abuse, perhaps because of shame and fear of imprisonment, blame or whether they will be believed, but also perhaps because they might be worried that the sibling might face punishment. The person might also be afraid of the sibling. They do not understand what is happening as abuse, they do not want their sibling to get into trouble and they do not want to upset parents or the wider family.

We must do more as a society to support survivors of sibling sexual abuse in a trauma-informed way. We need to learn more about it to understand how we can better address the issue. There are many ways in which we can better support people, and the paper produced by the cross-party group contains many recommendations, which I believe is a good start. The funding of a dedicated national service that can suggest evidence-based ways to support children, adult survivors and family members affected by the issue could significantly improve outcomes.

I am happy to support the motion. I am pleased that Fulton MacGregor has brought the issue to the chamber. I hope that the debate will lead to more work being done in the area to ensure that the recommendations of this important report become a reality.

The Fraser of Allander Institute estimated that each ferry journey to Arran contributes £13,200 to the Arran economy. What work has the Scottish Government done to quantify the cost to Arran and Ardrossan of repeated cancellations? Does the Scottish Government have a plan to compensate businesses and the local economy for the on-going disruption because of the age of the fleet?

I welcome the news that the much-needed Promise bill will be introduced during this session of Parliament. That will be a relief to care-experienced campaigners, who have for years been calling for legislation to be strengthened to better support care-experienced people throughout their lives. The bill has been a long time coming since the launch of the care review and the publication of the Promise report, in February 2020.

There has clearly been some progress, which we should all welcome. I listened to what the minister said, but I wonder whether we are as close to keeping the Promise as we should be. We now know categorically that the first phase of the Promise has failed and that the objectives that were set in “Plan 21-24” were not met. The research report “Is Scotland Keeping the Promise?” makes it clear that Scotland is not keeping the promise that was made in 2020. Care-experienced children are still being excluded from our classrooms, which leads to those children having some of the poorest attainment levels in the country. While we continue to exclude care-experienced children from education, that will have a huge impact on their ability to reach a positive destination when they leave school.

We know that Scotland is in the grip of a housing emergency and that care-experienced people are twice as likely to experience homelessness. “Plan 21-24” stated:

“Housing pathways for care experienced young people will include a range of affordable options that are specifically tailored to their needs and preferences. Youth homelessness will be eradicated.”

We have to wonder how close we are to keeping that promise. It went on:

“Scotland must avoid the monetisation of the care of children and prevent the marketisation of care”.

That was at the centre of the Promise, as we know how greed in the care sector can lead to a race to the bottom to maximise profits for shareholders, and the impact of the huge cost of private care placements on local authority budgets. That has not ended. Can the minister outline what the plan is and when that will end?

Although the decision to stop sending under-18s to Polmont is to be warmly welcomed, we also know that there can be issues in secure care settings—for example, the reports of abuse and children facing what was described as a “serious risk to ... life” at St Mary’s Kenmure.

The importance of truly independent advocacy should not be underestimated, as it can have such an impact on the lives of care-experienced people of all ages. We know that being in care as a child can have lifelong consequences, but the Scottish Government almost always puts arbitrary age limits on the support that it offers. We need the introduction of a truly lifelong advocacy service, to build on the good work that is currently done by the helpline run by Who Cares? Scotland. That radical change would really make a difference.

The Promise Scotland, an arm’s-length company owned by the Scottish ministers, does not have any powers to hold Scotland to account on keeping the Promise. It does not seem to take responsibility for the failure of “Plan 21-24”, despite the millions of pounds of public money that have been ploughed into the organisation. Does the minister still believe that continuing to fund the organisation and the expense of consultants attached to it is the best value for the public pound, given the policy failures that have been outlined today?

We must do all that we can for care-experienced people, and we must ensure that the Scottish Government is doing everything that it can to keep the Promise. This has to be a promise made and delivered, or we have let down every care-experienced person who has put their faith in us. We have to say very clearly, in relation to that group in particular, that if we make a promise, we have to keep it.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the stage 3 debate. I welcome the work of the committee and the amendments to the bill, which I believe have strengthened it. However, it is more than disappointing that we are having this debate today and that the targets that were previously set in law will not be achieved. The cabinet secretary made her case very reasonably, but we have to accept that we will all suffer as a result of the failures to take action not just here in Scotland but across the UK and, indeed, the world.

As Monica Lennon said, we need only look at the dreadful scenes in Valencia this week to see the potential consequences of our failure to act. Although it might be hard to draw direct links between climate change and individual events, extreme weather events will become more common and more disruptive to our daily lives. As they do so, as we are already seeing, it will become clear that it is not just about isolated weather events that cause so much damage but about the on-going effect of a new climate on our interconnected world.

Climate change is not just a shocking event elsewhere but a global process that will affect us all, from disasters to everyday increases in the price of food and disruption to supply chains. It is therefore very difficult to put a financial cost on what climate change means.

We need to take action in many areas, including by reducing our reliance on oil and gas, which requires serious work. Therefore, it is very disappointing that the Government has missed nine out of its 13 targets, including eight in the past 12 years. We need to recognise that many environmental activists are angry and shocked by the decision to move away from the targets that were set. However, as politicians, we need to accept that those targets were simply not going to be met and that there has been a lack of ambition across our political institutions and a failure to grapple with the magnitude of the crisis that we face. As Patrick Harvie said, we are going backwards in many policy areas, and we are simply not taking many of the actions that are required to meet the targets that we discuss in the chamber.

I will support the bill, as it recognises where we are, but I hope that it will be a starting point in taking more of the real action that is needed and in seeing the depth of the climate crisis for what it is: a process that requires us to change how we organise our society. From how we transport goods and produce energy to which food we eat and how we travel, there is a need for fundamental change to how we manage emissions and the economy more broadly if we are to have a liveable planet. Climate change is not just happening in other countries; it affects us all. In the Parliament, we need to work collectively, across the parties, to show leadership and to match the warm words of politicians and the Government with action.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.