Chamber and committees

Islanders on Cumbrae are concerned about CalMac proposals for scheduled maintenance windows, which could lead to a direct cut to the island’s vital lifeline ferry services, and believe that CalMac and Transport Scotland must drop the proposals, which could mean that services are withdrawn for either six hours per week or one 24-hour period per month. Will the cabinet secretary provide reassurance that there will be no reduction in service and capacity next year, and that the 2026 summer timetable will match this year’s one?

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to protect and improve ferry services to Scotland’s island communities. (S6O-05284)

I appreciate that there has already been a consultation, so you will be keen to get legislation through before the election and the end of the parliamentary session. Would it not have been preferable to delay the bill or introduce a further bill once the implications of the internal market act were clear, so that the significant policy choices could be set out in primary legislation?

That is very helpful. Thank you.

Scotland is experiencing what is said to be the worst flu death season in more than four decades, and changes to vaccination eligibility, to which the cabinet secretary referred, have meant that an additional half a million people were not offered the flu vaccine. Is the Scottish Government reconsidering eligibility and whether it should be extended to those aged 50 to 64?

There is a strong economic and social case for a direct award to the yard, and I urge the First Minister to support such an award. A decision on the contract has been delayed for far too long and the workforce deserves clarity, so will the First Minister undertake to ensure that there is a speedy decision? If he cannot commit to a direct award of the contract today, will he commit to supporting Ferguson’s through other avenues, such as the second round of the small vessel replacement programme, and the delivery—in full—of the promised £14.2 million investment?

It is really helpful to get your evidence about extended travel time. Can you say more about response times? It is very concerning that there seem to have been considerable increases in response times over recent years. The Fire and Rescue Service would say that there is a health warning with regard to response times: the response time is a statistic that relates to the first appliance arriving, when, sometimes, you need three appliances and the right configuration of firefighters and equipment before you can do what needs to be done. However, how concerned should we be about the significant increases in response times and the prediction that they will continue to increase?

We are primarily looking at the service delivery review, but we are also looking at the budget. It is difficult to disentangle some of the issues that are involved with the two. I hear what you are saying about your concern that some of the proposals are primarily driven by a cuts agenda. You have clearly set out the challenge that we have in relation to response times, the number of firefighters and the number of appliances.

However, in committee meetings earlier in the parliamentary session, we heard strong evidence on decontamination. As an employer, the fire service has a duty of care towards its workforce to provide safe systems of work. It seems clear that that has not been happening. I know that you have done a lot of work on decontamination and that the service has relied quite heavily on your work. To what extent has that massive challenge been incorporated in the review? It must surely feed into some of the decisions. It would be interesting to get your perspective on whether the review captures the issue.

Some elements of the bill would require further legislation to bring them into effect, including part 1—we have heard your evidence that that part might have unintended consequences and might not fit in well with existing systems. However, other aspects of the bill would not need further legislation.

From sitting on the committee, I know that quite a lot of the legislation that was passed in the previous parliamentary session still has not been implemented—for example, the Parliament focused yesterday on female genital mutilation legislation that has not been implemented. Even if we managed to pass the bill, it might be a long time before work was done on implementation.

Work is going on now on school education. We know that about one third of schools are signed up for the equally safe at school programme, but it looks as though that will mean different things in different parts of the country. I have heard the evidence about the scale of sexism, misogyny and violence in schools and how it has not been dealt with, so we cannot silo it into personal and social education and modern studies classes.

If we were to go ahead with mandatory school education on domestic abuse, would it be helpful to restrict it to domestic abuse alone, or would it need to be framed far more widely to cover sexism, misogyny and violence? We know that violence in schools—in particular against women staff and pupils—is a massive problem, against the backdrop of social media and the influence of the far right. If we were to go down the path of mandatory education, would it be helpful to frame it narrowly?

Convener, would it be okay to ask a question about decontamination and the extent to which that is covered in the review?