Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have been told that there are more than 100 stations without sufficient shower or toilet facilities. Is that correct? Are you able to provide a cost for the resource implication of undertaking upgrade work for those specific reasons?

It has been asked.

In an area such as fingerprinting, if you lose expertise because staff go, does that mean that you might have to bring in officers who are less likely to stay in those roles for a lengthy period because they will be progressing through the organisation or are more expensive? Is it a false economy?

Do you agree that that work has to be a priority? I am sure that there is a whole range of upgrading work on the estate that, ideally, should take place, but this particular work has to be a priority. It would be useful to get as much information as possible on the capital spend for this tranche of work that is necessary for the reasons that I have given.

I want to ask a bit more about the modelling process, from the perspective of the 31 per cent of police staff who are civilians.

I understand that over many years there has been a process of civilianisation of the police service, in which roles that might previously have been carried out by uniformed staff are now being done by civilian staff.

What are the implications of that process for reductions in the numbers of such groups? The convener has already mentioned forensic services. What are the implications for Police Scotland’s levels of expertise? What is likely to happen if some of those roles go? Would it mean that you would have to outsource work of that nature? Would you be reliant on outsourcing it to, say, people in England and Wales? How would you deal with the loss of expertise that has been developed over many years? Is that a major issue that you are having to consider?

I want to pick up on the extensive research that now exists on the carcinogenic effect of fire particles and ask about the implications, including legal implications, of that for the fire service and the duty of care that you have for the people who you employ. My understanding is that there is a significant number of stations that do not have adequate shower or toilet facilities or—I know that you have referred to this—even a proper fresh water supply. Will you give us more detail about that? As I said, there are legal obligations in terms of your duty of care for staff. I understand that a lot of work has been done abroad and a lot of research is now available that shows that there is a significant link between exposure to fire particles and various forms of cancer. Will you expand on the need to upgrade the estate?

My question is on pay. The Fire Brigades Union is lobbying the Parliament tomorrow. As you know, it is currently having a consultative ballot on the 5 per cent pay offer and has recommended rejection. The case that the FBU makes, as I am sure you are well aware, is that its members have received year-on-year real-terms pay cuts for 15 years and, over the past decade, there have been significant job cuts. We all know the inflation rates. It is not that the FBU has a bad or unreasonable case.

How will you make decisions about how to deal with the pay issue? Will the cabinet secretary be involved? It is clearly a massive issue for the people whom you employ.

Thank you, convener. I am grateful for this opportunity. As you know, I have not been to the committee before. I am here to represent the lead petitioner, who is a constituent and is unable to be here due to medical conditions associated with the mesh procedure, which, I have to say, was undertaken on her without her knowledge or consent. I think that it is fair to say, from my meetings with her, that she is someone who is very well informed, had very detailed discussions with her medical practitioners before her procedure and was given information about what would be used that was very different from what happened in reality.

It is fair to say that the people who are involved in the campaign have life-changing conditions that are completely associated with the mesh procedure that they underwent. Indeed, there have also been deaths that it is believed were associated with the procedure. What they are asking for is that mesh is used only when it is essential—there are alternatives to mesh—and that it should be used only with the fully informed consent of the patient.

I know that the committee is very aware of the previous debates about transvaginal mesh and other procedures. The mesh used in relation to things such as hernia operations is, I understand, different and used for different purposes, but many of the issues are similar. It has to be said that the campaigners still believe that they are not being listened to, that their concerns are not being taken into account and that practice has not changed in relation to these matters in Scotland.

I am grateful for your consideration of what the campaigners are saying.

I welcome the pilots and I think that the minister is correct to identify that funding arrangements can affect how work is done and cases are prepared.

Once the pilots have concluded, it would be helpful if a full and detailed report could be provided to committee members so that we can understand what has happened and the potential implications. Perhaps the minister could take that away for consideration.

I was going to ask whether you have consulted the Law Society or representatives of criminal defence agents on the regulations. You have clearly already had a certain level of engagement, although there has not been a great deal of feedback. Given all the concerns that have been raised about the problems in the funding of criminal defence work, and given the cuts to legal aid over a considerable period of time, will you ensure that you obtain and capture detailed feedback from that side of the profession as the pilots proceed and as the provisions of the regulations are rolled out?

At the committee’s away day events, we discussed consistency in the Crown Office’s position on bail. We presumed that that would not be dealt with in the centralisation process, because people would have to appear from custody at short notice and that simply would not be practical. However, it would be quite helpful to get clarification on how the Crown Office attempts to ensure consistency across Scotland in relation to its position on bail and bail applications, which I suspect are dealt with in a slightly different way from what is outlined in the letter.