Chamber and committees

I am sure that you are absolutely right. I wanted to get that on the record and make sure that I have understood correctly. You have said that

“Adverse prisoner reactions are both traumatic and costly”.

In your submission, you said that

“The cost of the prison riots in England between April and May 1986 was estimated by the Government to be”

in the region of

“£5.5 million”

and that

“The riot in HMP Birmingham in 2016 ... cost the Government and the private operator £6 million”.

From what you say in your submission, there is a financial consideration as well as a public safety consideration, so I want to get you to speak to that. Do you have any further concerns? You have put it in your submission, so I have to draw the conclusion that it is a big concern of yours that we might face that possibility, if the budget is not adjusted.

Do you see any options in the short term other than finding alternatives to prison, which you have said we need to do?

The Criminal Justice Committee still has to have a discussion about how it will respond. It might mention, among other things, the issue that you raised about the extras that prisoners get keeping the prison regime quiet or in check. I picked up the word “legitimacy” quite strongly. Given what you have said, if the committee were to say in its report that it felt that the Government should take those important factors in your submission into account when it is considering what it might strip away, would you be pleased to read that?

If ever there were to be a case for changing the rules of privilege in the Scottish Parliament to include questions that are sub judice, it would be this one. I understand why it is so, but I do not think that it is good enough that we cannot get accountability for the decision. I agree with Russell Findlay that the case has brought the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service into complete disrepute. We have been unable to ask any questions and it is now a long time since that all happened. I am beginning to worry about the quality of the answers that we will get.

I totally support the notion that, whenever we can do so, we should ask the Lord Advocates to come to the committee. The committee needs to be the body to question the Crown Office on how such a decision could ever come to pass. Who else will do so? The money is an issue to some extent, but at the heart of the matter is the question of why our Crown Office and Lord Advocate took a decision that, on the face of it, now seems highly questionable and which has been described as involving a malicious prosecution against the directors concerned. We need answers on what was behind that decision. The sooner we can get those, the better.

With more than one in 10 eligible people not claiming the Scottish child payment, one in three not applying for funeral support, which is concerning, and only 29 per cent claiming job support, we can see that we have a huge job to do to ensure that people claim the benefits for which they are eligible. I am sure that we all agree on that. During my time as deputy convener of the Social Security Committee, I recognised that many families were entitled to vital financial support that they were not claiming, and I championed that issue at the time.

I am sure that SNP members will give Scottish Labour some credit for the work that we did in the early years of the creation of the social security system. We championed a Scottish social security system that was fit for purpose—on that, we, the SNP and even some Conservative members were as one. Mark Griffin put essential elements into the 2018 act, and I want to talk about some of them, including the importance of automating social security benefits.

I moved the Labour amendment to the Child Poverty (Scotland) Bill on

“supporting local authorities to consider the automatic payment of benefits and support”.

There is also a duty on the social security agency in Scotland to check, on someone’s application for a benefit, whether they have other benefits. I have not heard much about that. Those are the kind of distinguishing things that are meant to set apart the Scottish system from the Westminster system, so we need to see evidence that those provisions are being used.

In 2018, I convened a round-table meeting on automation in order to explore the options that we needed to be looking at, particularly for the figures that we have considered today. I agree with Emma Roddick that automation is not a simple thing to do, but we need to be ambitious about it, and I am fully content that the Scottish Labour amendment asks the Government to be so, because here we are in 2022—four years later.

The round-table meeting that I conducted brought together local authorities, anti-poverty campaigners, other MSPs and the then minister, Jeane Freeman, who was very keen on the idea of automation. We discussed the automation of benefits such as free school meals and the school clothing grant to help to reduce the number of children living in poverty. Glasgow City Council, which is the authority for the region that Pam Duncan-Glancy and I represent, has been extremely good on that, and it is definitely worth looking at what it has done. There were 3,500 children who were eligible for free school meals but were not registered for them and therefore not accessing that important benefit. I think that that situation exists across the country.

An important point that no one has mentioned so far is that single parents, in particular, are a group who do not apply for eligible benefits, because the very nature of being a single parent means that filling in forms is not first on their agenda. There are many reasons why automation of benefits is really important.

When it automated the school clothing grant, Glasgow City Council’s financial inclusion department said that people were phoning up to say, “I’ve got this cheque for £200—I think there’s been a mistake,” and they had to be told that it was money that they were entitled to. We can see the change that automation of benefits can make to people’s lives.

Pam Duncan-Glancy is also right to mention the issue of redetermination, the Scottish system’s approach to which was meant to set us apart from Westminster. I confess to the minister that I am a wee bit out of touch on the issue, so he should feel free to intervene on me. The idea behind that was that we would get it right first time so that fewer people would have to appeal, and that the appeals system would be easier for people. If the Government cannot demonstrate that that is the case in 2022, I would like to think that the minister would put his hand up and recognise that, four years on, the Government has not got that right.

I am pleased to hear that answer, and I am sure that Pam Duncan-Glancy is, too. A lot of time was spent on the provision in question at the time. There is a further provision that says that, should someone lose their redetermination, all the paperwork for their appeal will automatically be sent to the tribunal. That is another way of helping people to make an application for their appeal. There are lots of things that set our social security system apart.

We know that 104,000 children under six are already getting the Scottish child payment and that, given the Government’s very welcome announcement to extend the scheme, an additional 300,000 children could be eligible. With uptake at only 87 per cent, we must find out why the rest of those who are eligible are not applying for that benefit. That is another reason why automation of benefits is really important.

The Resolution Foundation suggested that, sadly, Scottish child poverty could rise by 29 per cent by 2023-24. I think that we all agree that there has never been a more important time for us to get our work in this area right to ensure that people get the benefits that they are entitled to.

We have all used the term “the cost of living crisis”, which, in many ways, is an innocuous-sounding phrase. However, the grim reality is that behind that phrase lies hungry children, anxious families and mothers who are going without basic essentials. We can change that. Higher levels of automation would ensure that families receive the support that they are entitled to.

I stress that I welcome the progress that has been made, but, four years on, I ask ministers to think very carefully about what else can be done. One of the issues is to do with data sharing, which I recognise is a complex area. We must and can do better, and it is up to the Scottish ministers to be more ambitious.

I am happy to support the Labour amendment.

You said that there are pressures on the contract with GEO Amey. Does there being more virtual court appearances mean that it is not moving prisoners, so there is a cost saving?

I understand. I am thinking of a scenario that I know about, in which some prisoners from London Road police station, let us say, have to go to the sheriff court on first appearance, whereas previously they would have taken all the prisoners to one place. That answer was helpful.

You have mentioned reforms with regard to Lady Dorrian’s review, including single-judge trials and a number of other innovations in that respect. These particular proposals are about trying to reduce delays and help recovery; indeed, that is the Lord Advocate’s position. There are so many women and children victims waiting for their cases to be heard in court, and such an approach would allow you to make progress. However, how can the committee judge whether such reforms are not simply being done on the basis of financial savings? You can see where I am coming from. It is all very well putting in place innovations to make the system more efficient, but I would be deeply concerned if we were making reforms just to save money in a way that was not in the interests of justice.

You have answered some questions to help us to understand the innovations and reforms. Some of those will require legislative change. Some are controversial and they may not see the light of day, but that is a matter for another day.

I will be honest. I am slightly clutching at straws in asking you this question, but it is in my mind. It seems obvious to me that, if the Government put a bit more money up front now, some of the changes, at least, could bring savings even without staff reductions, or with no compulsory redundancies. Is any modelling being done on the figures in that regard? Let us say that you asked the Government to give you X million pounds so that you could front load some changes and you said that you could then deliver savings in future years. Is that discussion taking place?

The reason why I ask that question is that, should we decide to say that we are concerned and suggest something to the Government, we will be required to say where the money would come from. That is the trick in the question that we have to answer. Can you provide any modelling on savings in future years?