Chamber and committees

I have one more small question. It would probably be useful if we could find out how many beds there are in each health board area—or perhaps we could split it up into regions. It would be a useful for us to know that, because we know that Glasgow and Dundee have more issues and have been impacted more. It would be useful if we could get that information. I know that you probably will not have it today, but if we could get it, that would be helpful.

Good morning. I am sure that it will come as no surprise to the cabinet secretary that I will ask about residential rehabilitation. How many beds are available in Scotland, and how many are in use at the moment?

Thanks very much for that. That is really helpful.

The target and ambition is that 1,000 people will be publicly funded by 2026. You have spoken about 938 people being publicly funded this year, but is 1,000 the right number? How did we come to the figure of 1,000?

By 4 per cent.

I have nothing further to say. I withdraw amendment 8A.

Amendment 8A, by agreement, withdrawn.

The intention behind my amendments relates to the public perception of politicians. We also need to take victims into account. It is about trying to strike the right balance. I understand that my amendments probably do not comply with the Scotland Act 1998 or the Human Rights Act 1998, which is why I will not be moving them. However, further discussion needs to be had about the issues, because it is right that elected representatives represent the values of the Parliament.

I understand what Joe FitzPatrick is saying, in that there is a length of time for which people are put on to the requirements register, if you want to call it that. However, personally, I would not feel comfortable if someone who had been on the register for 15 years became my representative a year later. That is where I am coming from.

I will move on to Graham Simpson’s amendments 1 to 3, which, as well as amendment 58, seek to end dual mandates, so that MPs and members of the House of Lords or councillors could not be elected as MSPs. The amendments provide a valuable opportunity for us to have a discussion about that, although I do not necessarily think that stage 2 of the bill is the right time to have such a discussion.

As the minister pointed out, he has written and offered to put the amendments out to consultation. I think that that is the right thing to do and that the committee would welcome the opportunity for further clarification and discussion on them. For the same reasons, amendment 59 could be part of that further discussion.

Amendment 61, in the name of Ross Greer, would require the Electoral Management Board for Scotland to have a list of people who would be subject to disqualification orders. I cannot support that now, unless the minister can assure us of further funding for the Electoral Management Board to allow that to happen.

I move amendment 8A.

At the outset, I thank the minister for the constructive discussions that we have had on the amendments.

The minister’s amendments 8 and 9 will prohibit individuals who are currently on the sex offenders register from standing at Scottish Parliament or local elections, but my amendments 8A, 9A, 20A and 20B go a bit further and would prevent all sex offenders, including those who have been on the sex offenders register, from standing.

I lodged my amendments because the people who I have spoken to have said that they simply would not feel comfortable allowing someone who had committed a sexual offence to stand for the Parliament or as a councillor, simply because a period of time had passed since they had been removed from the sex offenders register.

After meeting with the minister, I recognise that my amendments do not meet article 3 of protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I lodged the amendments rather hurriedly last week, because I wanted to have a discussion about them. I would be happy to not move my amendments but to further discuss with the minister what else we can do to instil public confidence in what we are trying to achieve.

I turn to my colleague Graham Simpson’s amendments 1 to 3.

Although I understand the intentions behind Mr Greer’s amendment, I agree with Joe FitzPatrick that we need a bit more dialogue on the issues. Therefore, I cannot support the amendments, but the ideas are interesting, and we should have a wider discussion on them.

I thank Ross Greer for the amendments that he has lodged. We have heard from disability groups that randomisation of names on ballot papers could negatively impact some disabled people. Therefore, yes, the idea requires further consultation and discussion, but I ask Mr Greer not to press the amendment. If he does press it, I could not support it at this time.