I understand what you are saying, and I understand your frustration.

The bill includes provisions on a lot of different issues, and I am not sure how much time you have been able to devote to part 4. You have said that there is a postcode lottery. Are there any examples of good practice that you can point to that you would like to be rolled out throughout the country? Have you had the time to look at examples of good practice, given that there is so much in the bill?

I want to ask about how we deal with these issues in schools. You will have heard what the Scottish Government said when the Minister for Victims and Community Safety gave evidence to the committee. She took the view that putting the matter in statute would not be in line with the current discretionary and non-prescriptive approach to the delivery of learning and teaching.

Why do you think that there should be something in statute in relation to education on domestic abuse? Do you think that it might be helpful if the bill’s provisions were broadened out? We know that a significant problem exists with sexism and misogyny, including in school settings. Do you think that the provisions should be wider than domestic abuse and that that part of the bill should be about ensuring that, in the curriculum, we deal more widely with sexism and misogyny, including domestic violence and violence against women and girls?

There are two parts to my question. First, I would like your justification as to why you think that education on domestic abuse should be statutory. Secondly, I would like to know whether you have given any consideration to the provisions potentially being broadened out.

That would be very helpful.

Violence, sexism and misogyny are on the rise in schools across the United Kingdom, which is why the UK Government announced plans for specialist training courses, including on issues such as consent, for teachers and pupils who are classified as high risk. Will the Scottish Government work with key stakeholders such as Police Scotland and the education sector unions to introduce a cross-campus strategy to tackle violence, sexism and misogyny in our schools, including looking at the specialist training approach that the UK Government has set out?

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. We thank committee members, clerks and all others who contributed to the committee’s important report. We believe that the issues that are highlighted in the report go back over many decades. It is vital that we have a properly funded and accessible legal aid system.

As we have heard, cuts to legal aid rates over a number of years have led to what are called legal aid deserts, where it is impossible to find a lawyer to take on a civil legal aid case. Insufficient fees for civil legal aid have led to lawyers being unwilling to carry out such work, and low eligibility thresholds mean that fewer and fewer people qualify. There have also been cuts—again, over many years—to the types of cases in which it is possible to get legal aid.

We are all aware of many constituents who have been unable to get legal representation when they need it, and we agree with the committee convener that it is very disappointing that there will be no primary legislation on the issue in this parliamentary session. It is also very disappointing that there has been no other significant action, with the situation only getting worse—in that respect, I listened very carefully to what the minister said.

Scottish Labour has repeatedly warned about the deep and damaging cuts that the Scottish Government has made to the legal aid system. Scottish Government spending on legal aid has declined by 45 per cent over the past decade. We are clear that there must be an end to the cuts to legal aid and that the system must receive sustainable funding. The cuts that there have been have also clearly contributed to the growing issues with legal aid provision that we are seeing across Scotland.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it plans to address CalMac’s ferry repair and maintenance costs, in light of reports that these costs have doubled over the past two years. (S6T-02824)

It is reported that more than £260 million has been spent on repairs in the past 11 years. The bill was £50.1 million in 2024-25, compared with £25 million two years earlier. Does the cabinet secretary agree with campaigners that costs are out of control?

The number of solicitors who are registered to provide legal aid in Scotland has fallen by 12 per cent in just three years.

Does the minister still want to make an intervention?

I understand that some key stakeholders are not willing to take part in that group. At this point in my speech, I am focused on legal aid rates and the reasons why solicitors have walked away from undertaking civil legal aid work in particular, but the issues are very similar with criminal legal aid.

The cuts in rates have been accompanied by an 18 per cent reduction in the number of firms that are registered for legal aid, and I have already spoken about the number of solicitors having reduced by 12 per cent in only three years. That is the very recent past—those are the figures that we are dealing with now, against the backdrop of historical cuts to civil legal aid, which the minister is aware of.

In a recent survey, the Law Society of Scotland found that nearly 41 per cent of respondents plan to stop offering legal aid within two years or are unsure whether they will continue.

I do not know whether I have more time, given that I have taken a couple of interventions.

The increase in costs is clearly a result of the ageing fleet and the failure of the Scottish Government to order new vessels over many years. Given the delays to the MV Glen Rosa and the two Turkish vessels that have been ordered coming into service, and given the number of vessels that keep being taken out of commission for repairs, how can CalMac realistically be expected to plan its annual deployment timetable with any degree of confidence?