Seòmar agus comataidhean

Anything that improves access to justice and legal aid is crucial, so I welcome what you have said. However, the meeting is about budget scrutiny, so might the result of streamlining the process be that, once things are working more fully and better, more people will get legal aid? Would that increase budget pressures?

I have a question about the guidance on the administration of legal aid—GALA—project that you are running. Is it having an impact on and streamlining effectiveness in decision making? What is its impact in the experience of solicitors and their clients who are involved in legal aid?

It was useful to get that on the record.

I agree. It is helpful to have that on the record.

I realise that I have just come in, but I have been following proceedings on BlueJeans. Am I able to make a comment?

Most of the areas that I am interested in have been covered. I was particularly interested in the home care aspect that Pam Duncan-Glancy raised. I will not ask the panel to go over that again, because clear answers were given, but the number of home care queries that I have received as a constituency MSP over the past few months has been quite telling. I therefore welcome the thoughts and suggestions that we have heard today about how we might be able to improve those services to meet people’s human rights.

I have a brief question for Paul Bradley. An organisation that started up in my constituency in response to the Covid-19 pandemic undertook a lot of work delivering food parcels and providing support to vulnerable people across the area—indeed, it crossed boundaries into other constituencies as well. The work was done by a group of volunteers. The amount of work that it took on—in a way, it saved the local authority having to do it—was quite significant. It had thousands and thousands of contacts. I found out from people in the organisation that it was not receiving any funding, although it was not particularly looking for any. It was not connected to other voluntary organisations—a network was in place, but it found it difficult to get into that network.

That is just one example from one constituency. Have you seen similar examples during the pandemic? I suppose my question takes us back to ring fencing, which might result in established organisations getting funding, whereas, as Alison Evison said, a local authority might be able to pinpoint an organisation such as the one in my constituency. I ask for comments on that.

Something that has been raised several times by our witnesses this morning, particularly Paul Bradley—as I am sure my colleagues will agree, we hear about it all the time—is that the application process itself is a full-time job. Indeed, I hear that all the time from organisations. Is that a specific issue that needs to be addressed? I know that you have touched on this already, but the main argument seems to be that the funding process needs to be made simpler. Could another way of addressing the issue be for Government and local authorities to provide support for organisations—or, I should say, more support, because I know that some support is already available—in making funding applications?

I have a few questions that follow on from the earlier session this morning—I do not know whether you had a chance to see that—and from the last line of questioning, about the funding streams that are open to voluntary organisations.

We heard quite clearly from Paul Bradley that during Covid, funding was streamlined, and that was found to be helpful. Going back further, we all recognise that accessing funding has been difficult for organisations that have not had somebody to do the job of applying for it. Is that something that you are considering in the budget processes? What impact might it have if more smaller organisations are able to access funding?

I thank Rhoda Grant for taking the bill forward. I, too, pay tribute to Elaine Smith for the work that she did in the previous session of Parliament. As a declaration of interest, I note that I signed up to support the bill and am still very supportive of its aims. I followed what was said today, so I know that the Government has written to the committee to say that it is keen to bring forward such proposals, as part of an overall human rights bill, as well as the good food nation bill. That is a pretty significant change in circumstances. I also feel that the co-operation deal between the Scottish National Party and the Green Party has propelled the matter forward.

However, with a degree of reluctance, at this stage, I am inclined to vote that I am not satisfied.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials.

Like most committee members, I am minded to agree to the instrument, but my concerns, which have already been articulated by Collette Stevenson and Jamie Greene, relate to the vulnerability of a lot of our prisoners. We should all feel slightly uncomfortable about extending such powers, but we need to recognise that we are still in the pandemic and that we need to do what is necessary to keep people safe.

Given that—and perhaps going where Jamie Greene was going in his questions—I want to ask about the vaccination status of prisoners. How has that impacted on the Government’s decision to go for an extension? I know that, this afternoon, there will be another debate on the important part that vaccines play in allowing us to reopen and live with fewer restrictions. Is there an issue with staff or inmates being vaccinated? I know that the Howard League, for instance, has raised concerns about visits—there is a real human rights issue in that regard—but has vaccination status been taken into account in the Government’s decision?