Chamber and committees

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the specific problems in schools; I am sure that she will agree that teachers have an important role to play in addressing the issues. The EIS is calling for development of more specific anti-sexism learning in the curriculum and for issues such as misogyny to be explored through existing subjects. Will the cabinet secretary look at updating curriculum for excellence so that it includes across all subjects specific aims around tackling misogyny and promoting gender equality in schools?

Will the minister take an intervention?

I congratulate Maggie Chapman on securing the debate and thank the Fire Brigades Union for all the work that it is doing on the issue.

The exposure of firefighters to toxins during their employment is creating a health crisis. There are currently 357 fire stations in Scotland and the FBU estimates that more than 100 lack sufficient showering or toilet facilities.

That figure was confirmed by Interim Chief Officer Ross Haggart when I questioned him at the Criminal Justice Committee recently. He also confirmed that around one in four fire stations in this country lacks basic bathroom facilities and that some stations do not have a running water supply. In total, 220 stations are in poor or bad condition, 150 do not have showering facilities, 100 lack drying facilities and 11 have no water supply at all. The FBU also claims that a number of stations are held together by internal scaffolding.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has also cancelled a multimillion-pound contract for a new command and control system due to financial pressures. Mr Haggart estimated that £138 million is needed just to address those essential health and safety issues that have been highlighted. He also said that there was a backlog of £630 million in the fire service’s capital budget.

Those issues are nothing to do with this year’s budgetary issues or with whatever settlement might be coming from Westminster. The issues are a result of a failure to give the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service the resources that it needs to invest in its capital projects over many years. It is shameful that we are in this position today. The resource budget for the fire service has been cut by £40 million in real terms since 2012-13, and it is set to suffer further real-terms cuts over the next four years.

It is clear that there is a rich seam of research that shows that firefighting, as an occupation, is carcinogenic. It is also clear that the employer has a legal responsibility and that, if cases were taken to court, it would be liable.

The debate raises some very practical issues. From 2012-13 to last year, almost 1,100 firefighter jobs were cut across all uniformed posts in Scotland, which is almost 15 per cent of the total workforce. That is partially due to a lack of investment, but there is also a growing perception that firefighting is not a safe profession and that the pay levels are not attractive. The FBU is currently balloting its members with regard to pay.

The message that comes out of today’s debate is that the Scottish Government needs to make it a top priority to address the risks that are being highlighted. It has a legal responsibility to act, just as the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has a responsibility to put in place a safe system of work for the people whom it employs. Frankly, this situation is not good enough. Firefighters deserve better.

I am very aware that the minister is quite new to her role and that she has been presented with a massive challenge, but does she accept that the research that is coming out makes it clear that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has significant legal liabilities and that there will be a need for significant capital expenditure, which puts it into a priority category for attention? Is that something that the minister will try to address?

I do not know whether the Law Society of Scotland would like to come in on that. It might be something to consider after today. Do you have any initial thoughts?

In the previous session, we heard evidence about the central marking of cases and the decisions that the Crown makes as to whether to oppose bail. In particular, there was a suggestion that procurators fiscal should be able to use their discretion more in the courts, rather than having to go up a managerial chain and impose central policy.

We will be meeting, and hearing evidence from, the Crown next week. I am interested in any thoughts that you have about changes that need to be made to practice or, indeed, process or policy in Crown decisions. You might feel that you do not have expertise in that and do not have an opinion.

My final question is whether you support the inclusion of the public safety test in the bill. You spoke a little about that already. Would that be a helpful addition to the bill, or would it make no difference whatsoever and, possibly, create uncertainty? We have heard that it might lead to appeals as we tried to clarify what that provision would mean.

David Mackie, you made suggestions about additional provisions that could be put into the bill that might be of assistance. If there is going to be a test of that nature, do you have any suggestions about how we could define it?

I want to go back to the beginning of the bail process. We have heard about the importance of providing sufficient information to the court in relation to bail decisions, and we have heard that the social work provision that we would ideally want to be in place is often just not there. How does that interface with your work? The police are not social workers, obviously, but presumably you have to go some way down that path to ensure that there is sufficient information. Could you comment on not just the resource implications but the extent to which you are able to go down that path to ensure that there is a holistic understanding of the situation when the court is making a decision?

Thank you.

My second question is about virtual custodies, which is an issue that we have been discussing over an extended period. The Scottish Government might come forward with firm proposals on that at a later date. Given what Joanne McMillan said and expressed so clearly about the importance of discussions—of speaking to all the parties, including the police, the social workers and the procurator fiscal—and the value of face-to-face discussion and talking, what are the circumstances in which you think that virtual custodies would work?

I will start with Joanne McMillan, because she has been talking about some of that.

I do not know whether the Faculty of Advocates—