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 female 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?

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.

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

Yes, I will take an intervention from the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee.

I disagree with the member on that, but she is absolutely correct to say—as I said—that the Scottish Police Authority already stands as an independent governance body for policing in Scotland. However, having served on the Criminal Justice Committee for more than four years with the member, I still say that there is a need for far greater scrutiny of policing in Scotland. The committee is very aware of that.

The Scottish Government has previously commissioned independent reviews into police complaints, such as those that were undertaken by Lady Elish Angiolini. Police Scotland has also established independent oversight bodies such as the equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights independent review group. We believe that independent oversight of the audit is appropriate and that it would not undermine the operational independence of Police Scotland. We welcome the appointment of Professor Alexis Jay and reiterate our view that that role needs to be independent and have full, unfettered access to all information and records.

Pauline McNeill and Rona Mackay spoke about the audit that was undertaken by Baroness Casey in relation to group-based abuse and exploitation of children and young people in England and Wales. Although we recognise that many of Baroness Casey’s recommendations apply to other parts of the UK, we think it appropriate that the Scottish Government look at that work and provide an update to identify what can be implemented in relation to any recommendations in Scotland.

I understand that the First Minister previously stated that the Scottish Government is doing work on child protection policies and practices through the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group. It would be helpful if he could clarify how survivors and other relevant stakeholders are being engaged in that work to ensure that there is no further exploitation of vulnerable children and young people in the future.

Members have rightly highlighted the recent powerful testimony of Taylor, the care-experienced survivor of human trafficking and child abuse, and have talked about many other children. All the bodies that we have spoken about in the debate have, in the past, failed to take the necessary safeguarding and reporting actions. Taylor herself has called on the First Minister to establish an inquiry, and Scottish Labour supports her in that call. We believe that an inquiry is vital if we are to establish why there has been a lack of intervention and investigation into cases such as Taylor’s.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has rightly stressed the need for ministerial leadership to establish the true scale of child abuse and exploitation, particularly in relation to group-based abuse. Although we think that the Scottish Government has been slow to call for an inquiry and show leadership on the issue of group-based sexual exploitation and abuse, we believe that the review can help to determine the extent of grooming in Scotland and the remit of any inquiry. That is why we believe that the review is required and we will support the Scottish Government in that work. However, we believe that it is likely that the review will lead to an inquiry.

Scottish Labour lodged the motion because we believe that there must be accountability, transparency and justice, and we believe that the Scottish Government has been complacent on group-based sexual exploitation and abuse. The individuals, organisations and public bodies that fail to protect children and young people, especially girls, must be held to account for their failings, and we believe that victims and survivors must have confidence in that process.

We need full transparency from the Government, police, local authorities and other relevant bodies about how and why those failings have occurred. Children and young people who are subjected to such appalling abuse and exploitation deserve justice, including a commitment from the Parliament and the Scottish Government that all steps will be taken to ensure that such crimes never happen again.

I welcome the announcement from Police Scotland last week that there will be an audit to identify any child grooming gangs that have been reported to the force since 2013. We know that there are significant problems with child abuse and grooming in Scotland, and the audit will be key in helping to identify patterns, trends or concerns in relation to the demographics of suspects and offenders. It will be vital in helping to build a clearer picture of the scale of such abuse and exploitation across Scotland, and it will contribute to the on-going work of the National Crime Agency’s operation Beaconport, which forms a broader UK law enforcement approach to the issue.

If the audit identifies any potential cases for reinvestigation, that will hopefully lead to convictions for those who have engaged in such crimes. However, members have rightly questioned whether the audit will inspire the confidence and trust of victims. After all, Police Scotland has been accused of failing victims of group-based sexual exploitation and abuse. That is why Scottish Labour believes that independent oversight of the audit is vital if Police Scotland is to have the confidence and trust of victims. Independent oversight is not uncommon or inappropriate in relation to Police Scotland reviews and audits. The Scottish Police Authority already stands—

I am glad that the cabinet secretary seems to agree that we should have a police station in Greenock. As she said, one of the concerns that has been raised is about the loss of the custody suite.

More generally, does she agree that it is important that we continue to have custody suites in local areas? Will she use the opportunity of her meeting with Police Scotland to raise that issue and to impress on the organisation the importance of having local custody suites to reduce the time that is spent escorting people when they are taken into custody?

It is helpful that that has been put on the record.

On the provisions on the law of retention, I note that proposed new section 21A(4) states that the effects of retention

“must not be clearly disproportionate to the effects of the breach”

of contract. Can you clarify exactly what “clearly disproportionate” means? Why is that going to be included in the bill?

Proposed new section 21D(b) gives courts the power

“to refuse the exercise of … retention where that … would be inequitable.”

Can you explain what is meant by that and what you envisage will be covered by that provision?