Chamber and committees

That is helpful. Does that mean that you think that there is a need for a definition in the bill, or would it be more appropriate in guidance?

My second question is for Jim Kerr. We have previously had an exchange with the SPS on remand figures and so on. As I understand it, the bill came about when the committee raised questions about those figures. I want to give you a chance to talk about your general sense of why we are here. I presume that you see the figures and the profile of the remand population regularly and can see it more clearly.

We went to the custody court in Glasgow and, although it was only a snapshot, we saw that, in the summary cases, there was a lot of bail supervision, so we can assume that most of those in the remand population are involved in solemn proceedings. Last week, the remand population was at 29 per cent of the overall population, which looks high, although I know that it changes. Is there a sense in the SPS that that is a crisis? What is the profile of the remand figures? It would be helpful to know what your sense is of why we are here.

I am assuming from what you have said that no policy decision has been made that fiscals cannot depart from how a case is marked.

Do we need to look at how the system is resourced? I take your point that the decision is up to the sheriff, but if we are sending in young inexperienced fiscals, would not it be helpful to the court if the fiscal who is in the court is in a different position from the one who is marking the case and is hearing all the facts and circumstances? I note what you say about the pressure that fiscals—experienced or otherwise—are under in custody courts. That has been a concern of mine for more than a decade. Would it help the court if, in a minority of cases, the Crown could, having heard all the points that have been made, say that it will not oppose bail?

The fact that prisoners might be segregated in a women’s jail in the first place speaks to the fact that the very nature of the women’s prison estate is being changed to accommodate that. I agree that it has nothing to do with the GRR bill, because it is about the risk assessment. Would the cabinet secretary consider that that risk assessment is obviously failing in some way, because it is impacting on other women prisoners, who have not been consulted on how they feel about that assessment? I call on the cabinet secretary to assure me that there will be a rights-based approach, which will include the views of women, women prisoners and women who have served time in prisons; that the crime of rape remains a crime that cannot be recorded as being committed by a woman; and that he will consider whether the new risk assessment meets those requirements.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that ordinary women and members of the public are outraged by the imprisonment of a rapist, who was convicted of two counts of rape, which is one of the most serious charges in the Scottish criminal legal system—

I sincerely thank Maggie Chapman for her superb speech. I was delighted to host a presentation about the report with her late last year.

According to Action on Asbestos, firefighters are two and a half times more likely than other people are to develop mesothelioma, a type of lung cancer. It is an invariably fatal cancer that results from exposure to asbestos fibres. It causes horrific suffering and loss, not only for those affected but for family and friends who witness someone close to them suffer and die.

As we have heard, asbestos-related illnesses are not the only risk that firefighters face as a result of their occupation. Firefighters are four times more likely to get cancer than the average working person and might get it up to 15 years earlier. That has been directly linked to contact with toxic contaminants that are released during fires. It is unacceptable for that to go unaddressed any longer.

As other speakers have said, the World Health Organization declared occupational exposure experienced by firefighters to be carcinogenic and a preventable cause of human cancer, but there is, as yet, no policy of regular checks or screening for cancer throughout their careers. That is totally unacceptable.

The issue is not confined to Scotland. We heard recently that a dozen firefighters who tackled the blaze at Grenfell tower in June 2017 have since been diagnosed with terminal cancer. There is no doubt that firefighters are exposed to life-threatening contaminants as a result of their occupation.

A number of studies have focused on the risks and dangers associated with contaminated personal protective equipment and workplaces and on the bringing of contaminants back to fire stations on clothing, PPE and vehicles. Those studies have shown that there is a high, but preventable, risk of exposure to carcinogenic and toxic substances in fire stations.

As we heard in the presentation, firefighters working in rural Scotland have expressed the fear that they are at increased risk of cancer because so many of our rural fire stations are without running water. Their inability to shower quickly after returning from fires means that they cannot properly clean cancer-causing chemicals that are released during fires from their clothes and skin. I am sure that the minister will address that concern. A report last year stated that 11 Scottish fire stations in remote countryside areas had inadequate facilities, which is a matter that the FBU has repeatedly raised.

Professor Stec’s study and the research that was commissioned by the Fire Brigades Union absolutely confirm what firefighters and their representatives in Scotland have been saying for years: unfortunately, firefighting causes cancer.

I fully support all of Maggie Chapman’s asks. Worryingly, it seems that the industrial injuries disablement and benefit advisory group, which was set up by the Government in 2016, has not met for some time. It is important that we get that up and running.

Having previously been involved in the fight against asbestos-related cancers in other industries, I know that it is important to look for and establish causal links. When there is an accepted causal link—sadly, that is the case for some workers—workers need to challenge their employers and fight for compensation for being put in those conditions. We should make it easy for firefighters to be able to do that, as we have done for other professions, such as shipyard workers, under the mesothelioma compensation scheme. It is a difficult issue to raise, but it is one that we must address.

I fully support the Fire Brigades Union’s asks on the matter and look forward to hearing the minister’s response.

Wendy Sinclair-Gieben, this might be another question that you cannot answer but, after the visit to the Glasgow sheriff court on Monday, the committee was interested in the profile of remand prisoners and the distinction between summary cases and petition cases. In Glasgow sheriff court on Monday, in summary court, most of the 13 cases that we saw were bail supervision cases. That was the trend for the day. I believe that those figures are available. Do you think that it is important for us to analyse the remand profile to try to understand it? It is still a bit mystifying why, as David Mackie mentioned, the overall remand population is around 29 per cent. It was only one day in Glasgow sheriff court, but, looking at summary justice, the sheriff was very particular about applying that principle of remanding only where there was no other way that the sheriff could go in respect of bail supervision. Will you comment or give us any information on that?

Right. Obviously, we need to ask social work what is going on there. Do you have you any ideas? There is a potential human rights issue here. The courts run until 7 in the evening. If someone is taken at 2 in the afternoon and gets the benefit of social work, and someone else is taken at 5.30 and does not, that is a clear omission of the system.

Good morning. I have two questions: one to David Mackie and one to Wendy Sinclair-Gieben. I will begin by thanking the Howard League for the work that it has done in highlighting not just the remand population, which first drew my attention to this horrendous issue for Scotland, but the conditions in which prisoners have been held on remand in particular. The committee is at one on this, and we have discussed it with the chief inspectorate. It is a situation that we all want to get out of. I just want to thank you for that.

In your submission, David, you say that you would like to see the bill also include provisions for discretion where a case is unlikely to result in a custodial sentence. Can you say more about that? I imagine that you would not know in all cases whether there is likely to be a custodial sentence, but anything that you can tell the committee about how that would operate would be helpful.

Does Fred or Stuart want to come in?