Chamber and committees

I fully accept what the minister is saying. Indeed, women have been elected to positions in some of the major trade unions recently, such as Sharon Graham, who is general secretary of Unite, which is one of the leading unions that I am sure the minister meets. I have met many women activists in railway unions in Scotland, and I hope that the minister has met them, too.

As I said, it is important to lay down that marker. Tinkering around at the edges will not address the scale of the issue. A number of members referred to the work that was carried out by the women’s charity Engender. Its research has found that bus services are currently seen as being incompatible with women’s working patterns and that women are particularly concerned about safety on train travel, as we heard from a number of members. We have also heard—from Pam Duncan-Glancy, in particular—that disabled women lack assistance and feel insecure when travelling and when at stations and on platforms.

I was pleased that Pam Duncan-Glancy and Maggie Chapman spoke about Unite’s “Get me home safely” campaign, which asks employers to provide workers with safe and free transport home after 11 pm and when there is no public transport available.

Women’s sense of insecurity and fear is a persistent theme. A number of members have referred to the survey by the Office for National Statistics, which suggests that nearly half of women in Britain feel unsafe using public transport alone after dark, compared with around one in five men. That is not surprising. A number of members, including Jackie Dunbar and Graham Simpson, spoke of statistics from the British Transport Police that show that there were 63 reports of sexual assault on ScotRail trains between 2017 and 2021. Those are appalling figures.

The minister spoke about female public transport staff, who deal with unacceptable levels of abuse and antisocial behaviour. As Carol Mochan has said, in a survey that it carried out last year, the RMT trade union found that more than 80 per cent of ScotRail women workers had been subjected to violent or antisocial behaviour at work in the past year. Given that the problem seems to be increasing, and given that it is already an aggravated offence to assault or abuse emergency services workers, will the minister confirm whether the Scottish Government will extend that legislation to cover public transport workers?

As has been said in powerful testimony by a number of members, these issues require a change in attitude and culture. However, that will not be enough to address the challenge immediately. There is a need for significant investment in staffing and infrastructure.

The Scottish Government’s report lacks concrete recommendations on how to combat attitudes among men that lead to gender-based antisocial behaviour and violence, and we must think about whether we should put so much focus on the responsibility of women. I do not disagree with any of the report’s recommendations or conclusions, but although raising awareness of the technologies—such as tracking apps—that are available to assist women and girls would be a welcome step, it would not address the problem. In addition, developing “credible” guidance for women and girls on what to do if they feel unsafe is not an unhelpful measure, but it will take us only so far.

The reason that I made an intervention on the minister about the survey that was undertaken in 2000 was to highlight the fact that these are not new issues and that we must not reinvent the wheel. That survey, which was carried out between July 1999 and May 2000, resulted in the development of guidance and a checklist to assist central and local government transport policy makers to ensure that a number of basic requirements would be built into the formulation and development of policy, including that issues affecting women should form part of mainstream consideration.

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?