Chamber and committees

As was outlined in last week’s evidence, we must give power to the Information Commissioner. All the evidence seems to suggest that their having power acts as a deterrent and ensures that bodies comply with their requirements. In effect, that is a way of policing the bill’s implementation.

The provision that you have just raised, the offences under the 2002 act and the new offence that the bill proposes are in place not because we believe that they would be used regularly—we hope that they would never be used—but as a deterrent and to give power to the Information Commissioner.

I know that the commissioner gave a specific example last week of using his powers to ensure that there was compliance before having to take formal steps. There was another example of that in the newspapers this week. I hope that, although the bill would give the Information Commissioner powers, that does not mean that they would have to be used. However, those powers would ensure that public bodies complied with reasonable and lawful requests that were being made.

Last week was the first time that we have had a detailed response from the Scottish Government, so we have not really been able to take its views into account before. There has been a consensus that, because the power has never been used, it should be removed, and that, with regard to public trust, it is inconsistent to have that power in place. At the end of the day, those matters are political, but proposals have been made over many years that the power should be taken away because it is not needed.

Exactly. The hope is that the provision would not be used, but there might be extreme cases in which the Information Commissioner felt that it was in the public interest for the matter to be taken forward.

If it is okay, I will bring in Carole Ewart.

Yes, of course.

My question is about fire services. I hope that the cabinet secretary is making strong representations on that aspect of the budget. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has advised that its total capital requirement to 2030-31 is £354 million and that, if its annual budget were to remain at £47 million over that period, there would be a gap of £119 million. The cabinet secretary will be well aware of the poor condition of much of the fire service’s estate and, indeed, the inadequate decontamination facilities that are available for many firefighters. Therefore, is it acceptable for there to be such a shortfall?

As you say, Ash, there seems to be support for three pillars of your bill from what I will refer to as both sides of the argument. However, there seem to be quite conflicting views on the fourth pillar, which is the principle of criminalising the purchase of sex.

One of the arguments seems to be that criminalising purchasers might have the unintended consequence of placing people who continue to sell sex at greater risk. A specific issue that has been raised is that it would be difficult for checks to take place with potential clients, and the legislation is likely to lead to there being less time to carry out such checks. What is your response to that? Is there any validity in that argument?

I have a final question. The cabinet secretary said that she had the full opportunity to consider the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s report. One point that was raised relates to the Scottish Government’s policy intention behind the introduction of the new power, which is to enable the time periods for release on home detention curfew or for release for removal from the UK to be fully aligned. However, the DPLR Committee has raised the issue that that is not necessarily how the proposed new power has been drafted, because it is not limited to enabling that alignment. Has the cabinet secretary considered whether the drafting of the legislation is wider than the policy intent? Has she taken advice on that? That point was made in the DPLR Committee’s report.

I understand. Okay—that is fine. That did not go through a full scrutiny process, because it was a later amendment. You are satisfied that you are simply mirroring the previous legislation.

I would not expect the cabinet secretary to be specific about that today. We have already heard reference to the police and fire services getting a less good share of the cake in the past than other parts of the sector have done. I am sure that she will accept that in recent years the fire service has made considerable savings, which I hope will be taken into account.

I also want to ask about funding for alternatives to custody and for justice social work—the cabinet secretary will be familiar with those areas. Written submissions from local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Social Work Scotland have highlighted the impact of the increased complexity of their case loads and the dance that they are having to do without any related increases in their funding.

The cabinet secretary will also be well aware of the restrictions on funding for local government, which has a key role in the delivery of alternatives to custody. I know that she agrees that we need to do something about the rising prison population. Will she say how we will allocate more funding to ensure that justice social work and alternatives to custody are properly funded so that we can provide them as realistic options?