Seòmar agus comataidhean

You have spoken about the cost of a new prison. We know that prisons soak up huge amounts of money and that the stated policy of the Scottish Government is for a shift to non-custodial disposals. After years of cuts or flat budgets, there was a slight increase in funding last year, which might be partly due to the work of the committee. Given the prisons crisis, to what extent is that new money having an impact, and how much more would it require in the coming budget to make a dent on prison numbers?

I am very sympathetic to what the Scottish Government is trying to do. It is clear that we need to strengthen the vetting processes that existed historically in the police. The Sarah Everard case is perhaps the most high-profile case, but many cases have come to light where greater vetting would have led to different outcomes. In particular, the cabinet secretary is aware of the number of domestic abuse and rape allegations against serving police officers, both south of the border and, no doubt, in Scotland.

However, given what has been said and the fact that there does not seem to have been consultation with, for example, the Scottish Police Federation, I think that it would be helpful if we could come back to this issue at stage 3.

When we took evidence on the bill, one of the pieces of evidence that I most strongly welcomed was when we heard that the Scottish Government had put greater resource into vetting and that more staff had been employed to do that work. It is clear that a great deal of attention has already been given to ensuring that we have better vetting now and going forward. However, it would be helpful if we could ensure that this is done on a cross-party basis. Rather than deal with it in this way at this stage, we could use the time between now and stage 3 to look at what the Scottish Government is proposing. That would give us the opportunity, for example, to speak with serving police officers and campaigners for better police accountability and better vetting of the police, and therefore to ensure that the Parliament can support the detail of the amendments.

I support the Scottish Government’s intention to attempt to strengthen and codify the duty of candour. The duty of candour for public officials is a live issue in all parts of the UK and in many different settings. Perhaps we know more about what the duty of candour might be in, for example, a health setting, where a lot of work has been done on the issue over many years.

It would be helpful for me and perhaps other members of the committee to get a better understanding of the Scottish Government’s view on what the duty of candour will look like and whether, as a result of the bill, it will be different in the police setting, specifically for officers but also, in light of the evidence that we heard, for other staff, particularly civilian staff. I do not know whether the cabinet secretary will be able to say more about that, but it would be helpful to get more clarity from her before stage 3 so that we can better understand the issues.

Therefore, in relation to amendment 5, it would be helpful to understand the extent to which the Scottish Government believes that the bill will have an effect in relation to the duty of candour specifically for officers, and whether that will extend to anyone else. I would also like more information about the types of settings and scenarios in which the cabinet secretary believes that the bill will make a difference, or whether the provisions are simply a codification of the existing position.

I will support the Government’s and Sharon Dowey’s amendments, if they are pressed to a vote. I do not intend to press my amendments 48 and 49 to a vote today, but I might bring them back in some form at stage 3, after further consideration and discussion.

As the cabinet secretary has said, amendment 48 seeks to include reference to the Equality Act 2010 in the bill. That act’s requirements are important considerations in relation to the conduct of police officers. Amendment 48 has come about partly as a result of discussions with equality campaigners.

Section 2 of the bill relates to the principles, standards and legislation that the chief constable must have regard to in preparing the code. I note what the cabinet secretary said about a lesser right. I will look at the interrelationship of my amendment 48 with the cabinet secretary’s amendments. However, as she is well aware, it would not be possible to dilute in any way the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 in the bill. I would be happy to work with her to see whether it is possible to come up with a form of words that might be acceptable to all at stage 3.

My amendments in the group relate to the preparation of an equality impact assessment. Amendment 63 relates to complaints handling reviews and amendment 64 relates to the call-in of complaints. In both situations, the preparation of an equality impact assessment would be required. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response to the amendments.

I very much welcome the fact that we are having this discussion, although, as Paul O’Kane has said, it is part of a far wider one that I suspect we will have over the coming weeks.

I have a number of questions. I have already had a discussion with Jeremy Balfour, in which I indicated that I hoped that I would be able to do cross-party work with him on the issue. I am sure that other colleagues would want to do so. I know that Scottish Labour very much wants to work with the Scottish Government in this area.

It would be helpful to know whether we have any information on the cost of the proposal that is before us today on the specific benefits—the highest rate of attendance allowance and the highest rate of pension age disability allowance. I appreciate that Mr Balfour might have that information, but it is more likely that the Scottish Government might be able to provide that information either today or before stage 3.

It would also be helpful to know what the cost would be if the amendments were to be expanded to include other benefits. Mr Balfour has restricted the provisions of amendment 5 to the highest rates of attendance allowance and pension age disability allowance. I hear what he said about the amendments having been drafted before the decision of the UK Parliament. However, there is clearly a relationship between the winter fuel payment and the potential new allowance. From what Mr Balfour is saying, his intention is that the proposed assistance would be in addition to the winter fuel payment, which perhaps addresses one of the questions that I was going to ask about those who will still receive winter fuel payment because they receive pension credit. I think that Mr Balfour envisages that it would be additional to the winter fuel payment. I am clear on that, but it would be helpful to know whether any costings work has been done or could be done on other rates of attendance allowance, pension age disability allowance, housing benefit or, indeed, whether any other timescales are being envisaged.

There is some indication from the Scottish Government of timescales for when the benefit might realistically be implemented. However, given that we know that there often seem to be considerable administration issues, I wonder whether the cabinet secretary could provide that information today.

I suspect that, before stage 3, we might have more information on consequentials, which would be useful to know. I know that the First Minister made a statement this week that mentioned a figure, but there will be further consequentials. A number of councils in England are considering taking similar steps. As I say, this is something that this Parliament will want to look at on a cross-party basis and I hope that, as the debate continues, a similar amendment, or maybe one that includes other benefits, could be lodged at stage 3.

Good morning. I will ask about funding applications. How could funders work with third sector organisations, especially the smaller ones, to create more proportionate reporting and application processes?

So you think that more uniform processes would help. Do third sector interfaces—TSIs—play a role in advocating and supporting the implementation of more streamlined and uniform processes?

The previous panel said that having more uniform processes would help. Do you agree with that?

My question is about funding applications. How could funders work with third sector organisations, particularly smaller ones, to create more proportionate application and reporting processes? Who would like to answer first?