Chamber and committees

I might expand on the point later in my contribution. As I said when I intervened on the minister, there have been previous consultations. As I said, the most recent work was agreed to as a result of the debate on booking office closures, and the railway unions were campaigning against those closures. The voices of trade unions and—as I am sure that the minister will agree—of women trade union members, in particular, need to be heard on these matters.

Campaigners have suggested that the British Transport Police presence should be increased at stations. Would the member support that?

Does the minister accept that the scale of the disruption that is being faced by islanders is a direct result of the Scottish Government’s failure to adequately invest in new ferries since taking office? Bar the overdue ferries that are being built at Ferguson Marine, there still does not seem to be a strategy. In total, CMAL has examined 650 second-hand ships, most of which were found to be unsuitable. Will the Scottish Government commit to developing a long-term strategy to build capacity so that we can build and commission vessels here in Scotland?

I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

I warmly welcome that the Caledonian sleeper will be publicly run and note what the minister said about the length of the arrangement and the UK Government review. The ScotRail contract is for five years, with the option to extend for five more. Does the minster agree that it would be preferable to have certainty on the length of the contract with a Government-owned arms-length company?

On behalf of Scottish Labour, I associate my party with the tributes to Chief Constable Iain Livingstone and to the whole of Police Scotland for their work.

As has been said, Chief Constable Iain Livingstone has warned that the proposed cuts that Police Scotland faces are “unsustainable”. The cabinet secretary mentioned the figure of 14,000 police officers. Last year, the Criminal Justice Committee was given projections that showed a frozen budget for police officer and civilian staff numbers. More money has now been made available, but we do not know what the proposed police numbers are.

Could the cabinet secretary share his understanding of the proposed numbers of police officers and civilian staff for the coming year, and outline his strategy for the recruitment and retention of police officers and civilian staff, given that we know that there is a significant problem with officers leaving the service?

To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making towards fulfilling its commitment to introduce a national system of rent controls by the end of 2025. (S6O-01963)

I appreciate that there is litigation in relation to the rent cap and the eviction ban but, as the minister knows, the cost of living crisis continues. Therefore, can he reassure tenants that the Government remains committed to providing protection against unfair rent increases and to introducing the national system of rent controls?

I will keep my contribution relatively short. I do not have any objection to the rules that the cabinet secretary is proposing. However, I welcome the fact that Jamie Greene has lodged a motion to annul the instrument. As the committee has discussed on previous occasions, many of us feel that this is a missed opportunity. The committee would have liked to have been involved in the discussion at an earlier stage and we felt that we came to the matter quite late, because the process and the procedure are such that we, as the Parliament, are not able to amend the rules.

I do not have any objection to any of the rules that are being put before us. Although I welcome Jamie Greene’s motion, I am not minded to vote for it. It has given us the opportunity to highlight some of the issues. Indeed, as Jamie Greene said, as a result, the committee has been furnished with considerable extra information, which is very useful.

A far wider debate about the role of victims needs to take place. That means a debate not only about their meaningful role in parole hearings—as Jamie Greene suggested—but about the experience that victims have had for generations: they receive a lack of information, feel excluded from the process and find out about issues accidentally and at a later stage than they would wish. Collectively, the Parliament is aware of those issues; yesterday, there was a debate on victims’ rights.

Although I am not minded to vote for Jamie Greene’s motion, the fact that it has been lodged is welcome. As he said, the committee and the Parliament often look at enabling legislation and we are asked to vote for it on trust that the regulations that come thereafter will be acceptable. However, there is not really a proper process for scrutiny of the subordinate legislation that follows.

I do not want to give the impression that I think time has been wasted by this motion having been lodged, because even if there are not significant problems with the specific rules, they represent a missed opportunity, and it is important that the committee puts on record that we want more to be done in relation to the issues that they raise.

I have a point about youth offending and community justice solutions. We will probably discuss this in more detail when we talk about the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill. The intention on the shift towards community justice under that bill is clear but those budgets are getting cut for the year starting in April.

The committee needs to examine how that money is spent and how even a relatively modest increase might reap rewards. I wonder whether we should consider incorporating that into the action plan. It is likely that the bill will be passed, but there is a risk that nothing will change unless there is a structural shift in where the money goes. We might want to monitor that more heavily than other areas that we are considering, particularly given that we have spent so much time scrutinising the bill.

What factors would be taken into account? We know that, on this occasion, it was not somebody who had lived as a woman for many years because, at the time of the offence, they had not self-defined. At some point during the legal process, did their status change? Do you know that? Was that fact available at the time and were the offence and the conviction taken into account in the operational decision that was taken?

I am not asking you to focus on the individual; I am asking you to focus on how those issues are dealt with and what factors would be taken into account, given that you would not have all the facts, as you would not have had the multidisciplinary assessment.