Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I just want to take this opportunity of Rona Mackay’s appearance to ask a brief question that, I think, reflects a constituency interest. I know that alternatives to custody for women will be part of the group’s work. Frankly, we are failing too many women by locking them up. One of the new smaller custodial units for women is being developed in Maryhill, in my constituency, and we are all very keen to see what difference these establishments make in ensuring that women whose being held in such a unit is unavoidable still have access to their families and wider support mechanisms and are not cut off from that wider family group. As the new units come online over the course of this parliamentary session, will looking at their effectiveness or otherwise form part of the work of the cross-party group?

Thanks for coming along, Sarah. I know that it is a busy morning for you. I had not intended to ask a question, but I looked at the list of cross-party groups that have been approved. You mentioned the music sector, and that list includes a cross-party group on music. There is clearly room for it and your group to exist, but what might the relationship between them be? The CPG on music might consider a variety of matters that the cross-party group for which you seek approval might seek to consider. Would you consider partnership working or common themes? Do you have any thoughts on that?

I anticipated that that would be the answer, but it is in the nature of such exchanges that we ask certain questions. Overlap is a theme that comes up quite often. It is not specific to your proposed cross-party group but is a general matter that the committee considers.

I just wanted to give you the opportunity to put that on the record.

I thank the minister for that response. Those are helpful reassurances. I have no further questions.

Given that the minister is here, it would be a shame not to ask one or two questions, to make full use of his time.

I note from the meeting papers that the Scottish Government’s concerns included the UK secretary’s power to appoint the chair and first chief executive officer for ARIA and the possibility of other appointments by the UK Government at future dates that would change the dynamic within ARIA. What is the current situation with that? Have concerns been fully resolved around ensuring that there is no political interference in the independence of the organisation?

No, I am content, convener.

So it will return to the committee and we can consider what we are reporting to the Parliament before we report. Is that correct?

Will that be a formal written report or will it just note the division in the committee? There might be some slight variance in nuance around the reassurances that the committee might or might not wish to seek from the minister. I am keen for that to be clarified.

The model code was consulted on. I assume that the figure of £25,000 was in the consultation draft of the code. Were there any objections to that value being placed in it? If not, I presume that individuals felt relatively content with it. I was asking for information on that.

Secondly, this is a model code. The minister referred to the fact that it can be adapted by the various bodies, which then seek the Government’s approval. Technically, could the figure vary between different codes or is £25,000 baked into a code that all bodies apply?