Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. The bill was taken forward as a result of frustration with the Government’s failure to act. After a great deal of lobbying to try to get the Government to come forward with recommendations, Carole Ewart from the Campaign for Freedom of Information Scotland asked me whether I would be willing to take forward a member’s bill.

I am concerned. The bill is in the same position as a number of members’ bills. That is not the fault of any individual member; unfortunately, the Parliament is not geared up to provide support to members. I would have preferred it if the bill had come before the committee earlier in the parliamentary session, but my view is that there is still time.

I have met with the Government a number of times over the years during the bill process, but I have not really had feedback until it made a submission to the committee last week. I have had a great deal of feedback from other stakeholders, and we reflected that in the drafting of the bill.

The original draft bill, which the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland presented to me, has been amended quite substantially to take into account the views of stakeholders, including those who could be designated under the bill and the office of the Information Commissioner.

The policy intention behind the bill is not to add costs. As you will be aware, the 2002 act does not require anybody to create any new information; the requirement is simply to provide information that already exists. However, the intention of the bill is to effect a culture change with regard to proactive publication, and the view is that that will reduce costs.

The committee will have heard that, in itself, the bill will not automatically lead to any new designations. However, if there were new designations, those bodies would also be required to conform to proactive publication.

The view is that the codes of practice on proactive publication that would come from the Information Commissioner would make it very clear to organisations what they would require to do to comply with the duties, but obviously that would apply only to information that already exists. I know that the Information Commissioner spoke last week about the consequences that could flow from proactive publication, which could lead to organisations providing information in a different way and in more of a standard data format. Every committee in the Parliament would probably recognise that as an issue.

As you know, the legislation does not require new information to be provided. I hope that proactive publication would make it easier for the public to get information, reduce the number of FOI requests and ensure that any FOI requests were cheaper to process.

You are absolutely correct that the existing legislation requires that. Indeed, international law requires it, but the reality is that the system is not working well. The way that the legislation was framed in 2002 has meant that the system has not worked in the way that was envisaged. People who are actively involved in the sector believe that a proactive publication duty and very clear codes of practice and guidance from the Information Commissioner about what that actually means are far more effective. Indeed, that is how it is done in other countries, where it appears to be successful.

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?