Seòmar agus comataidhean

I very much welcome the fact that we are having this discussion, although, as Paul O’Kane has said, it is part of a far wider one that I suspect we will have over the coming weeks.

I have a number of questions. I have already had a discussion with Jeremy Balfour, in which I indicated that I hoped that I would be able to do cross-party work with him on the issue. I am sure that other colleagues would want to do so. I know that Scottish Labour very much wants to work with the Scottish Government in this area.

It would be helpful to know whether we have any information on the cost of the proposal that is before us today on the specific benefits—the highest rate of attendance allowance and the highest rate of pension age disability allowance. I appreciate that Mr Balfour might have that information, but it is more likely that the Scottish Government might be able to provide that information either today or before stage 3.

It would also be helpful to know what the cost would be if the amendments were to be expanded to include other benefits. Mr Balfour has restricted the provisions of amendment 5 to the highest rates of attendance allowance and pension age disability allowance. I hear what he said about the amendments having been drafted before the decision of the UK Parliament. However, there is clearly a relationship between the winter fuel payment and the potential new allowance. From what Mr Balfour is saying, his intention is that the proposed assistance would be in addition to the winter fuel payment, which perhaps addresses one of the questions that I was going to ask about those who will still receive winter fuel payment because they receive pension credit. I think that Mr Balfour envisages that it would be additional to the winter fuel payment. I am clear on that, but it would be helpful to know whether any costings work has been done or could be done on other rates of attendance allowance, pension age disability allowance, housing benefit or, indeed, whether any other timescales are being envisaged.

There is some indication from the Scottish Government of timescales for when the benefit might realistically be implemented. However, given that we know that there often seem to be considerable administration issues, I wonder whether the cabinet secretary could provide that information today.

I suspect that, before stage 3, we might have more information on consequentials, which would be useful to know. I know that the First Minister made a statement this week that mentioned a figure, but there will be further consequentials. A number of councils in England are considering taking similar steps. As I say, this is something that this Parliament will want to look at on a cross-party basis and I hope that, as the debate continues, a similar amendment, or maybe one that includes other benefits, could be lodged at stage 3.

Good morning. I will ask about funding applications. How could funders work with third sector organisations, especially the smaller ones, to create more proportionate reporting and application processes?

So you think that more uniform processes would help. Do third sector interfaces—TSIs—play a role in advocating and supporting the implementation of more streamlined and uniform processes?

The previous panel said that having more uniform processes would help. Do you agree with that?

My question is about funding applications. How could funders work with third sector organisations, particularly smaller ones, to create more proportionate application and reporting processes? Who would like to answer first?

I understand that, but is that provision now in place or will that—

I appreciate that.

I appreciate that we do not have much time, convener. I suspect that other members will pick up some of those issues. However, it would be helpful if you could address the issue of the provision of guidance to firefighters.

Thank you. There are a lot of what have been called “behaviours”. Very clear guidance needs to be given to firefighters on the best possible practice to minimise risk. Perhaps Stuart Stevens could outline what work has been done on that.

The evidence we have heard is extremely alarming. Unfortunately, I think that most members are already aware of many of these issues, largely due to the lobbying that has been done, particularly by the FBU, which has done a huge amount of work in this Parliament on the issue. It has, in particular, brought to parliamentarians’ attention the risks of the toxins that firefighters are exposed to.

It seems absolutely clear to me that the fire service is in breach of its duty of care to firefighters and, from the evidence that we have heard today, it is the exception that adequate decontamination facilities are available. The evidence about Inverness is interesting, because I think that most committee members will have been to fire stations and seen the poor decontamination facilities that are available. It is also alarming that, when you speak to firefighters, they will tell you that they look to the FBU guidance and that we still are not in the position of having proper and thorough guidance available. As a result, simple steps might not be taken by every firefighter.

In other situations, we would be closing down such facilities if they did not meet the minimum requirement. It cannot be acceptable to have perhaps dozens of firefighters relying on one shower after an incident. Have you given any thought to emergency responses that can be made to bring in other resources, perhaps not in fire stations that are built, to ensure that, when there are incidents, firefighters have adequate decontamination and that they are not having to rely on baby wipes? How can we as a society respond to ensure that, until we get adequate facilities, firefighters are still able to decontaminate?

I will ask Colin Brown to come in first.