Chamber and committees

Before I bring in Russell Findlay, I want to come back to the issue of where you make the cuts and how you configure that across your service provision. During Covid, fire death numbers increased, and I think that I am right in saying that there was a correlation between that increase and areas of deprivation.

Does that mean that you would have to think carefully and perhaps even use modelling or data to inform in a geographical context where and how you make the cuts? I hope that I am not straying too much from budget but, as Jamie Greene said, how those cuts might look is important in relation to public confidence.

Before I bring in Pauline McNeill, does Jamie Greene want to come in?

Yes.

That is very helpful. Jamie Greene has a follow-up question on the initial topic.

Members have made fair points. As was set out in previous correspondence, what is sought is not straightforward to implement. Bearing in mind the points that members have made, are members content with the suggestion that we note the cabinet secretary’s response but say that the matter should remain a priority, particularly in the context of support for victims? The committee has regularly considered that issue, and it is part of our action plan for reform of the justice sector that we review progress before the end of the year.

Are members content with all that?

My only point in response to that is to question whether that information is available at this point. We can ask the questions, but I wonder whether, if the information had been available, it would already have been shared with us.

The final letter is from NHS Scotland on the issue of medical prescriptions upon liberation. It is a detailed letter following our correspondence in relation to seeking clarity about the availability of prescriptions on release from custody. Bearing in mind the recommendation that has been made, I open that up for comments.

I think that that is the point that we are making—that it is appropriate that the response goes back to the Wise Group. It is at the front end and is probably best placed to comment on the content of the correspondence, if you are content with that. That is at the heart of why we are proposing—

Thank you. That completes our business in public. We now move into private session. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday 26 October, when we will begin to take evidence as part of our pre-budget scrutiny process.

Yes—thank you. If members are happy to take on board Jamie Greene’s points, we can write back to the cabinet secretary. Obviously, we will bear in mind the fact that we would look at that matter anyway, but I am happy for us to take that forward.

The next piece of correspondence, which is, again, from the cabinet secretary, is on the risk assessment review and prison releases. The matter of the level of service and case management inventory—LS/CMI—system was raised in the chamber some time ago, and we have received updates on that previously. Do members have any further comments on that correspondence? Are members happy to note the information provided, as suggested in the paper?