I am glad to take an intervention from the local member.

As the member is well aware, this is a devolved matter. As he also knows, the Labour group in North Ayrshire Council asked for a number of years to be allowed to take the port into municipal ownership because of the horrific impact on the local economy of the delay to the redevelopment of Ardrossan harbour.

The lack of investment in Ardrossan harbour and in our ageing ferry fleet is a national emergency. It has been a national embarrassment for the Scottish Government, and it has been a disaster for businesses and residents in Ardrossan and on Arran.

My constituents in Ardrossan and Arran deserve an apology. They deserve a Scottish Government commitment to provide an adequate support package to cover the cost of the delays. They deserve a reliable ferry service on the fastest route—one that they can count on. Most of all, they deserve a cast-iron commitment from the Scottish Government that Ardrossan is the preferred route for the Arran service and a guarantee that the much-needed works to the harbour will get under way as soon as possible. I sincerely hope that the minister can give my constituents that commitment and guarantee today.

I hope that the minister is going to come on to the issue that we are debating today, which is Ardrossan harbour. We are in a position where Ardrossan harbour is going to lose its ferry service completely. I hope that the minister will have time to respond fully to the issues that have been raised about that.

It was, indeed, me who was asking for an intervention.

Does Kenneth Gibson agree that the port should have been brought into municipal ownership, because, as he said, there has been considerable investment in ports? Does he agree that Peel Ports seems to be the problem at Ardrossan? That seems to be accepted by everybody in the chamber. We need that port in public ownership, and it would have been better if that had happened some time ago to enable progress to have been made.

Will the minister give way?

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 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 the 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 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 that 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, which would ensure that the Parliament can support the detail of the amendments.

To ask the Scottish Government what support it can provide to NHS Ayrshire and Arran, in light of reports that the health board requires over £85 million to cover the cost of backdated repairs. (S6O-03794)