Chamber and committees

Thank you.

In a sense, that is my point about the lack of clarity. In the minds of jurors, they are perhaps not making the hardest of judgments between guilty and not guilty. You have marshalled a number of scenarios in which different perspectives might pertain as they make those decisions.

Although I acknowledge that winter weather can disrupt public services, we are increasingly finding that heavy rainfall can disrupt public services in spring, summer, autumn and winter. There is a risk that heavy rainfall can result in the type of disruption that my constituents have experienced in the past two months, so can the justice secretary reassure Parliament that all responders are preparing for changes in climate in order to protect public services?

Listen!

Convener, if you will forgive me, I think that what we discussed as a committee—we might have discussed it in private when we looked at some timescales for FAIs—was that there appeared to be a pattern that prison-related FAIs took longer to be commenced than many other FAIs. That relates to the serious point that Pauline McNeill raised about the Allan Marshall case. Again, that is a reasonable issue to put to the Crown because I do not know the answer. Instinctively, I agree that families should have unfettered access to information, but I do not know how that sits alongside proper investigation about the potential for criminality. Those are legitimate issues that we need to explore.

What Russell Findlay said helps to tease out what we need to do practically. I am not firm in my view—and I do not think that Gill Imery is—that there is a need for a new system, provided that the FAI system works as we all believe it should.

There is a course of action that we need to take. I certainly could not sign up to a new system, and I am in favour of people doing what they should be doing, so I would rather explore the position on FAIs, including what the Crown’s view is and what improvements can be secured, before we align ourselves with a proposition for a new system. Going to the Crown and establishing the FAI approach is the first base for us in pursuing the issue.

It is important to hear Gill Imery’s view on all this, because she was a compelling witness and has done a huge amount of work on the matter, but we also need to hear from the Government on whether she is being invited to continue in her role. If Gill Imery has been asked to do that, she can tell us, but we need confirmation from the cabinet secretary.

On Pauline McNeill’s point about information on the fatalities in Scottish prisons, I have a recollection that we saw some of that data from either Gill Imery or the Scottish Prison Service. It is important to understand the circumstances and the context. There will be different circumstances surrounding deaths in custody. Some of those deaths will be because of suicide and some will be because of health issues. However, the management of those health issues is important to ensure that prisoners are being properly supported with the healthcare that they require when they are incarcerated. That is a fundamental commitment in relation to prisoners’ human rights. It is important that we are assured that, in relation to both of those very different situations, individuals’ wellbeing is supported to try to avoid circumstances in which people take their own lives or to ensure that prisoners are getting proper access to the healthcare to which they are entitled.

Those issues lie at the heart of the work that Gill Imery has been looking at. I agree with colleagues that she was a very strong and compelling witness in explaining the work that she has tried to do.

I do not question the fact that more needs to be done. I would encourage some clarity on whether Gill Imery is being invited to stay on in post, because the work is not yet complete. However, I take a different view of the letters from the cabinet secretary, the chief executive of NHS Scotland and the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service. The letters demonstrate that work is under way here. There might not be as much as the committee would like, or as Gill Imery would like, but work is under way. There is a clear commitment to taking the agenda forward, although it might not be moving as fast as everybody would like. For that reason, it is important that Gill Imery is able to continue her work.

My last point is that an issue that arises here but also crosses over into other areas of responsibility is the approach to fatal accident inquiries. We can ask the Government for information on certain points in that regard, but fundamentally we need to hear from the Crown about those questions. As part of our response to the material, we should put some of the points to the Crown and ask for a response.

Before Mr Rennie leaves the circumstances and context in which we find ourselves, will he say whether he thinks that the prolonged austerity that was ushered in by the Liberal Democrats in 2010 has been a help or a hindrance in tackling the housing challenges that we face?

I am grateful to Mr Johnson for giving way. The only slight flaw in the contorted information that he has just given to Parliament is that it ignores factors such as the financial crash in 2008, which led to a haemorrhage of private building. That had nothing to do with the Scottish Government and everything to do with the financial mismanagement of the last Labour Government in the UK.

It is an enormous pleasure to follow Jackson Carlaw and to offer him my congratulations on securing the debate and my thanks for lodging the motion.

While I am on my feet, in such difficult and challenging times in relation to international conflict, I will take the opportunity to commend Jackson Carlaw on the speech that he delivered to the Parliament yesterday. Although I did not agree with all of it, it was a thoughtful, reflective and gracious contribution—typical of Mr Carlaw, frankly—which I think enhanced our debate. I am grateful to have the opportunity to put that on the parliamentary record.

It gives me great pleasure to add my congratulations to Calderwood Lodge primary school on its 60th anniversary—the 60th anniversary of its being the only Jewish school in Scotland. When I listened to Mr Carlaw talk about the roots of the school, I reflected on how it is, in essence, a product of innovation in education and of a recognition 60 years ago that there was space in our education system for creative approaches to be taken by a community to ensure that this educational tradition could be established. We can now look at what has been created as a consequence: the new-build Calderwood Lodge primary school and the joint campus of which it is a part.

I know that members might be a bit sceptical when I say that my five years as education secretary were happy years. They were also challenging years, but there was a lot of joy in that time. I can see part of that joy reflected in some of what Calderwood Lodge is trying to achieve. The school’s vision is to

“empower our hearts and minds to develop the knowledge and skills, attitudes and values to be the best we can for our future, our community and our global environment.”

At the heart of the school’s aims is a desire to develop the school’s

“Jewish identity and ethos, while promoting respect for all global cultures and religions.”

What on earth could be finer motivations and foundations for the educational attainment of children in our society today in Scotland?

In a sense, the fact that—with the leadership of East Renfrewshire Council, of which Paul O’Kane is a distinguished former education convener—Calderwood Lodge school has developed as a joint campus with St Clare’s Roman Catholic primary school embodies the aim that I have just talked about, which is to promote respect for all global cultures and religions. What better way to do that than in a joint campus with a Roman Catholic primary school?

As the father of a son whose primary education took place in a Roman Catholic school in a joint campus, I think that joint campus developments have been an absolutely fabulous innovation in Scottish education. They are places where tradition has been protected and nurtured but where common cause and common space have been created. Again, for our children’s educational environment, what more could we hope for than that?

The fact that the school was opened jointly by the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, and Bishop John Keenan of Paisley is very special, and it symbolises that coming together.

Another element of that coming together is the contribution of the Scottish Government to the opening of the joint campus. It contributed a modest amount of money—£300,000—for the creation of an interactive hub, which is a shared-faith space at the heart of the campus. Given that the joint campus tries to provide the opportunity for distinct communities to come together, I cannot think of a finer way to do that than by investing in a faith space where we can all bring our traditions together, celebrate one another’s traditions, respect them and cherish them. That is surely the foundation of the acknowledgment of the common humanity that all of us want to see, the neglecting of which many of us are distressed about in the current environment.

This is a lovely moment to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the foundation of Calderwood Lodge and to pay tribute to those who had the imagination and the creativity to make it happen, and to the subsequent generations who have been prepared to invest in it and who enabled Paul O’Kane, in his former guise as a councillor, and others to make the choices to ensure that we have fantastic educational facilities for young people.

I commend the motion and all that it aims to achieve for the children and young people of Calderwood Lodge primary school.