Chamber and committees

I would be happy to do so, but I am probably running out of time.

I accept that point, but what I have been trying to get a better understanding of is whether the recommendations and guidance that were made back then have been implemented over the past two decades. We know, for example, that that work said clearly that surveillance and technology must be supported by “appropriate staffing” and that technology was “not a solution in itself”. Now, in this century, more than 200 rail stations—around 60 per cent of the total in Scotland—are unstaffed and, in the West Scotland region, which I represent, just a third of all rail stations are deemed to be fully accessible, based on Transport Scotland’s methodology.

The Scottish Government’s transport policy identifies that

“Many women and disabled people feel vulnerable when using public transport”.

We have had numerous contributions on how that has an impact. Despite that, the reality is that the Scottish Government’s proposals have been to cut back on services and staffing levels across the railways, and we know from our constituency experience about the cancellation of bus services. Today, the Scottish Government still refuses to rule out cuts to existing ticket office hours. I ask the minister to rule out staffing cuts before the national conversation starts. We need to invest in and expand our public transport systems.

I am very grateful to the minister if she is ruling that out today.

As the minister has said, the harassment of women is a systemic problem and one that is particularly prevalent on public transport. We agree with that assessment. We think that that has been made clear across the chamber today; by women and girls in surveys; by women’s groups; and by workers and trade unions. However, we also think that the problem cannot be addressed without significant investment in staffing and infrastructure.

I commend the minister for raising the issue. I am pleased by the commitments that she has made today on staffing levels, on which there will undoubtedly be further discussion, and I commend her for commissioning the report.

I encourage all parties to agree to Scottish Labour’s amendment. By ensuring that our stations, carriages and platforms are accessible and well staffed, we will ensure that women and girls feel safe and comfortable in using public transport 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 want to go back to the lessons learned review and what actually happened on 24 and 25 January. The facts as we understand it are that, when the offences took place and when the individual was initially charged, they were a man and had not self-defined as a woman at that point, but thereafter they self-defined as a woman. You say that the outcome of the review is that the 2014 policy was adhered to. Obviously, we have not seen the full lessons learned review; we have just seen a summary, but the summary is that the policy was adhered to. However, I think that you are also saying that the multidisciplinary assessment had not taken place as of 24 or 25 January.

That is our understanding of the position. What we do not understand is why the individual was not transferred to Barlinnie and held in segregation there pending the multidisciplinary risk assessment.

I am not asking you to identify individuals, but at what level was the decision taken in the case that we are discussing?

Okay—thank you.