Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I will address my first question to the Law Society and COPFS. For good order, I remind colleagues that I am a practising lawyer and am regulated by the Law Society of Scotland.

If the bill gets to stage 2, it is important that we tighten all the definitions and make the bill as good as it can be so that it achieves its aims. In its evidence, COPFS commented on the definition of a domestic abuse offender, and the Law Society made a similar point about the definition of offences involving domestic abuse. Dr Forbes, what is your concern about that definition? More importantly, perhaps, how might the committee look to tighten that definition through amendments to make the bill do what is intended?

Glyn Lloyd appeared to be signalling his agreement with some of Professor Gilchrist’s remarks, so I will come to him. Social Work Scotland’s submission highlights that a positive amendment that the committee might consider would be to include a notification requirement on a change of partner relationship. The submission also highlights that many families remain together following a conviction, so additional requirements might lead to retaliatory action. If that is right, is there not a risk that the Parliament might not legislate for fear of what an abuser might do—almost, that it would not do what is right for fear of how an abuser might react? Surely that is the wrong end of the telescope. How might the bill be adjusted to address that possibility, so that it achieves its aims without posing a risk to families?

I am grateful, convener.

Chief officer, your current budget gives you £332 million in resource funding. You have just said that you need an additional £30.854 million in the next budget, which would allow you to do the various things that you have set out. What extra resource funding do you require to ensure that you do not need to reduce firefighter posts to balance the budget?

Good morning. I will put a question to both panel members, starting with Malcolm Graham. Modelling suggests that there will be a need for increased High Court capacity in the longer term. The RRT funding that was put in place following Covid, for additional High Court and sheriff solemn court capacity, ends in March 2026. Are resources available for the increased capacity of the High Court without continuation of that additional funding?

Thank you. I will go to John Logue first for my next question, because it is about solicitors. I remind everyone that I am a practising solicitor, regulated by the Law Society of Scotland.

In his answer, Malcolm Graham mentioned in passing the summary case management scheme. The FDA trade union has raised concerns about the capacity, with current staffing levels, to deliver improvements under the summary case management model. The Scottish Solicitors Bar Association said that defence solicitors are due to withdraw from the scheme due to their concerns about legal aid rates. Will you update the committee on the summary case management roll-out and any resource impact that it might have? Also, if you do not mind, will you respond to the FDA’s suggestion and give us an update on the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association’s position?

I understand.

On capital funding, you have stated in your submission that you require total capital investment, up to 2030-31, of £354 million, which you break down into various years. If the current £47 million a year of capital funding were to continue, that would leave you £119 million short by 2030-31. What would be the practical result of not getting that investment?

Before I move to John Logue, I have another question. At the start of your answer, Malcolm, you talked about something being baselined. I want to give you the opportunity to clarify that for people who are watching the meeting. What did you mean by “baselined”? Is it not the case that the SCTS was treated differently in relation to baselined RRT funding than other organisations?

I have one final question. You have been very candid and robust in your written submission and in your remarks. Last week, I read in The Sun that a senior police source has suggested that, if the police do not get the money that you say that you need and that you have asked for in the submission, you will not be able to do what you want to do and you would, therefore, consider your position. It is only fair that I give you the opportunity to respond to that report and say whether it is accurate. Regardless of the accuracy, how serious would it be for you personally, given how frank you have been, if you do not get the money that you say that you need?

I am grateful for that answer.

Dr Forbes, you say in your written submission that the Crown Office

“is concerned that police and prosecutors in Scotland will face similar evidential barriers to enforcing the proposed new offence”

to those faced in Northern Ireland and Ireland. You also talked about evidential issues in your opening remarks. Will you expand on what you mean by that? How would the Crown Office envisage prosecuting the offences that are set out in the bill?

Just to clarify, I made my point about the single force because, in your submission, you said that borrowing powers were lost as a result of becoming a single force. That is an important point.