³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Replacing facilities alone would not be enough. Further education and other factors, such as relief, are also important. Has a business case been made about how those improvements can be implemented?

Thank you. Dave Crawford and Tim Kirk, just quickly, because I know that I probably do not have much time left for questioning, do you have any thoughts from your organisation’s perspective on the decontamination issue?

I apologise to the witnesses but I will also be talking about decontamination. As Colin Brown said, there is a lot to cover, but I think that your opening statements about decontamination leave us as politicians and committee members in a position where that issue simply cannot be ignored because it sounds very serious indeed.

I do not think I was in for Katy Clark’s members’ debate, so some of what I want to ask might have been covered there, if briefly. You said that there was scientific evidence, or that it was beyond scientific evidence—something to that effect—that firefighters were at risk because of some of the chemicals that they deal with. Can you expand on that a bit so that the committee can have an understanding on the record of what that might look like?

Thank you. I will come to Dave Crawford and Tim Kirk in a minute.

There are obviously quite a lot of things in the mix there and, as you have heard and accept, budgets are extremely tight and we are still in an austerity phase but we are talking about people’s health. If there was one thing that could get sorted to improve that whole situation for firefighters’ health, what do you think it would be? What is your one ask?

Thank you, convener. I apologise to everyone for being online today, but it is fortunate that I am able to use this facility.

I am looking forward to being part of the committee. In answer to the convener’s question, I have no relevant interests to declare.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary and the rest of the panel.

This relates to Rona Mackay’s line of questioning on remand. It seems to be an area where some of the pressures on prisons could have been relieved, and it has been really helpful to hear you put on record the reasons why you cannot consider that population.

In your thinking, have you been considering any further legislation in the area that might mean that the remand population could be considered in the future? You said just now that any such consideration would need to be on an individual basis through solicitors and so on, and would be very much in a legal context. Is there anything that could be brought forward by the Government to ensure that the remand population could be considered in the future if such circumstances were to arise again? Is that in any of your thinking?

To follow on from what Katy Clark said, I do not necessarily agree that it is a rushed process—it is emergency legislation, so things must be done and evidence must be taken on an emergency basis.

From what we have heard over the past couple of weeks and from the statements to the Parliament, I believe that, for an emergency situation, the draft order is pretty well thought out, with various safeguards in place, such as the governor’s veto; Victim Support Scotland was very positive about that when it met us last week.

It comes down to the fact that those people will be released anyway, at some point. We have to look at it in that context. Prisons need to be safe for our hard-working staff and for the other prisoners. They also need to be places in which rehabilitation can take place. Last week, we heard clearly—this is also common sense—that that will not happen where there is overcrowding. Whatever the reason for more people getting sent to prison in Scotland—and I understand that we are trying to deal with that through other measures—we have an overcrowding situation right now, which means that rehabilitation is not done to the extent that we would like. That perpetuates the cycle.

I know that it is a tough decision that is being put on us today, and we are being asked to step up to the plate—I get that. Nonetheless, we owe it to the staff in our prisons, to the prisoners and their families and to the victims, who want these people to get help when they go into prison. All those people look to us to do the right thing today, and that is why I will be supporting the motion.

I have a few questions, but I will try to be as quick as possible. Good morning, cabinet secretary and the officials.

The bill does not address the recommendation in the Angiolini review around holding gross misconduct hearings in public. We have heard mixed views on that in taking evidence, with some police organisations being completely opposed to the proposal and stating good reasons why that should not happen, while other organisations, such as HMICS, think that such hearings should be held in public, and they cite examples where that is the case for other professions.

What is your view on that? You have said that you will not bring about such a measure through the bill, but that you might introduce other legislation. Is that still the Government’s view? Has there been any change on that?

I turn to the other area that I want to ask about. The bill confers a duty on the SPA to establish and maintain police advisory and barred lists. Why did the Scottish Government choose the SPA, not Police Scotland, to establish and maintain those lists? Is it the intention to publish the barred list? Both Police Scotland and the SPA told us that they would rather that the list was maintained by Police Scotland.

I think that that would be good.