Chamber and committees

A constituent of mine who lives on Arran has contacted me about the lack of joined-up, integrated provision of public transport on the island. She advises that no bus service runs to Brodick from Blackwaterfoot in time for the first ferry sailing and no bus service runs to meet islanders off the last ferry in the evening. Despite engagement with Stagecoach, CalMac Ferries and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, the situation has not improved. Will the minister commit to integrated timetables and ticketing, and will he look at the specific situation on Arran?

A 13-year-old girl was sexually assaulted at Crosshouse hospital, and a 13-year-old girl and a 15-year-old girl were assaulted at Stobhill hospital. Given that the level of sexual assaults in hospitals was raised in the Parliament and in the media last year, what work has the Scottish Government done to investigate the full scale of the issue? Does the First Minister agree that openness about the risks is essential to ensuring that there is robust safeguarding?

The significant cuts to social care provision that are coming into effect next month in North Ayrshire will mean that social care is restricted to critical risk as a result of a £9 million deficit. There is a similar situation in East Ayrshire, which has a £10 million deficit. Does the minister agree that those cuts are unacceptable and will cause real harm? Does he agree that, although there is clearly a wider discussion to be had about the funding that is needed for social care and how we provide it, steps need to be taken now to ensure that those cuts do not go ahead?

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding its cross-Government co-ordination on island connectivity, what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues on how to ensure that public transport meets the needs of island communities. (S6O-05693)

The commissioner has said that there have been “unjustified delays”, a “wall of silence” and “preposterous” excuses, that the Government’s handling of information relating to the Hamilton inquiry stands in stark contrast to the way in which the Government has handled nearly every other case, and that he is now considering consulting on a second contempt of court case.

No one is suggesting that any information that identifies a victim should be released, and that is not what is being asked for. It looks as though the Scottish Government is engaged in a systematic cover-up.

Will the First Minister commit to providing the information that is required by law? Will he give a commitment that he is not considering using his First Minister’s veto, which has never been used since the freedom of information process was introduced?

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that the Scottish Information Commissioner is taking legal advice on further legal action against the Scottish Government and his comments that he “can no longer trust the Government to handle this information unsupervised”. (S6F-04758)

Despite opposition from service users, care workers and trade unions, North Ayrshire health and social care partnership has voted to make significant cuts to social care provision, with funded care set to be restricted to those who are assessed as being at critical risk. Those cuts are being made because the health and social care partnership faces a deficit of around £9 million. Will the Scottish Government intervene to ensure that there is the necessary additional funding to prevent those devastating cuts from coming into effect next month, given the impact that they will have?

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that its budget 2026-27 adequately funds health and social care partnerships to deliver services, including social care. (S6O-05662)

The instrument that we have before us today simply adds an offence where a fixed-penalty notice could be issued, as I understand it, and also increases the levels of fines. I would be minded to support that today.

On the wider issue, including the history and the broader review that has been referred to, many of us were concerned, as has been said, that officials were looking for offences to abolish. The general position is that it is usually helpful to have a range of available offences so that the police and prosecution services have options. It would be helpful if it could be fed back that some of us, at least, do not necessarily expect proposals for abolishing offences.

However, I take on board the wish to review whether the legislative framework works and delivers on the policy objectives. I do not have any questions—I just wanted to put that on the record, so that the minister knows that at least some of us hold that position and that, were the matter to come forward in the next session of Parliament, it might be that others make those points. I hope that that is helpful.

The proposals that are in front of us seem to me to be perfectly acceptable. I am pleased that we have ended up here and that the minister has brought all this information to the committee.

I am minded to support the legislative consent motion that is before us today, given the nature of its content, which seems to relate to the gathering of biometric evidence, legal representation expenses, evidence and records. Those are relatively ancillary matters rather than the principled issues that Mr Mountain has raised with us today.

However, I was surprised when I heard that we will not vote on the motion in this parliamentary session. It would be helpful to hear a bit more about the thinking and reasoning for that. I appreciate that that might not be something that the cabinet secretary has been involved with. I presume that the reason could be that there might not be a committee system up and running when the next parliamentary session begins, and that setting up committees would take some time. I know from our experience at the beginning of this parliamentary session that it took several months to set up the committees. Therefore, in any event, the motion would go straight to the Parliament.

That is the only argument that I can think of for this committee dealing with the legislative consent motion by making a report to members in the next parliamentary session. I would have thought that, ideally, a committee in the next parliamentary session would consider the issue, so that the members who are involved in the scrutiny at that point could take part in the wider parliamentary debate. It would be helpful to get the thinking behind that clarified. I appreciate that the people in this room might not be the ones who have that information.

As I say, I am minded to vote in favour of recommending the legislative consent motion.