Seòmar agus comataidhean

My final line of questioning is on council digital services. The report highlights the fact that, as I think we all find in the cases of our constituents at times, those services are not always easy to access. Your report looks at some of the strategies of particular councils, almost as good-practice examples. There is probably good practice on the part of different digital services even within councils. What further support is required from the Scottish Government and COSLA to ensure that some of the positive work that the councils are doing to eliminate digital exclusion is being shared and applied at a more national level so that the approach does not depend on someone’s postcode and the council area that they live in?

Good morning to the panel. You have stolen my line, convener—I was about to comment on the fact that I am joining the meeting digitally.

I have enjoyed this morning’s session so far. It has been very interesting. I have a couple of questions. The report sets out the measures that Social Security Scotland has in place to minimise digital exclusion, which include non-digital facilities to apply for benefits and the availability of face-to-face guidance and home visits. Does any member of the panel know whether those measures are being shared with other public bodies? If so, how is that being done?

If I am picking it up right, it is right to say that a real mitigation to the risks that you are talking about is access to showering facilities immediately after attending a fire or an incident. Am I also picking up correctly that some fire stations have those facilities and that they are used but some do not so it is almost a bit of a postcode lottery situation? Is that accurate?

Replacing facilities alone would not be enough. Further education and other factors, such as relief, are also important. Has a business case been made about how those improvements can be implemented?

Thank you. Dave Crawford and Tim Kirk, just quickly, because I know that I probably do not have much time left for questioning, do you have any thoughts from your organisation’s perspective on the decontamination issue?

I apologise to the witnesses but I will also be talking about decontamination. As Colin Brown said, there is a lot to cover, but I think that your opening statements about decontamination leave us as politicians and committee members in a position where that issue simply cannot be ignored because it sounds very serious indeed.

I do not think I was in for Katy Clark’s members’ debate, so some of what I want to ask might have been covered there, if briefly. You said that there was scientific evidence, or that it was beyond scientific evidence—something to that effect—that firefighters were at risk because of some of the chemicals that they deal with. Can you expand on that a bit so that the committee can have an understanding on the record of what that might look like?

Thank you. I will come to Dave Crawford and Tim Kirk in a minute.

There are obviously quite a lot of things in the mix there and, as you have heard and accept, budgets are extremely tight and we are still in an austerity phase but we are talking about people’s health. If there was one thing that could get sorted to improve that whole situation for firefighters’ health, what do you think it would be? What is your one ask?

Thank you, convener. I apologise to everyone for being online today, but it is fortunate that I am able to use this facility.

I am looking forward to being part of the committee. In answer to the convener’s question, I have no relevant interests to declare.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, cabinet secretary and the rest of the panel.

This relates to Rona Mackay’s line of questioning on remand. It seems to be an area where some of the pressures on prisons could have been relieved, and it has been really helpful to hear you put on record the reasons why you cannot consider that population.

In your thinking, have you been considering any further legislation in the area that might mean that the remand population could be considered in the future? You said just now that any such consideration would need to be on an individual basis through solicitors and so on, and would be very much in a legal context. Is there anything that could be brought forward by the Government to ensure that the remand population could be considered in the future if such circumstances were to arise again? Is that in any of your thinking?

To follow on from what Katy Clark said, I do not necessarily agree that it is a rushed process—it is emergency legislation, so things must be done and evidence must be taken on an emergency basis.

From what we have heard over the past couple of weeks and from the statements to the Parliament, I believe that, for an emergency situation, the draft order is pretty well thought out, with various safeguards in place, such as the governor’s veto; Victim Support Scotland was very positive about that when it met us last week.

It comes down to the fact that those people will be released anyway, at some point. We have to look at it in that context. Prisons need to be safe for our hard-working staff and for the other prisoners. They also need to be places in which rehabilitation can take place. Last week, we heard clearly—this is also common sense—that that will not happen where there is overcrowding. Whatever the reason for more people getting sent to prison in Scotland—and I understand that we are trying to deal with that through other measures—we have an overcrowding situation right now, which means that rehabilitation is not done to the extent that we would like. That perpetuates the cycle.

I know that it is a tough decision that is being put on us today, and we are being asked to step up to the plate—I get that. Nonetheless, we owe it to the staff in our prisons, to the prisoners and their families and to the victims, who want these people to get help when they go into prison. All those people look to us to do the right thing today, and that is why I will be supporting the motion.