You both said that you support a stand-alone specialist court. I am still trying to get my head around all this. We are talking about giving all victims more choice in how they give evidence. Everybody is different. We heard in evidence that there are some people who still wanted their day in court—they wanted to be there live—and others who wanted to give evidence on commission. We are basically saying that the people who are prosecuting—who are working in the courts—need a higher standard of training. We want to make physical adjustments to courts so that it is easier for victims when they go to court—so that, if possible, they have a better experience of going to court. A lot of people said that they wanted more access to advocate deputes. Those are issues that we could address when we are considering the bill. However, it will still be the same estate, and a very high percentage of cases that are being heard will continue to be sexual offence cases. In effect, courts are already sexual offences courts, but we just need to make them better for people when they give evidence.

I am trying to work out what you think is the biggest benefit of creating a stand-alone sexual offences court. We talked earlier about rights of audience. I am concerned that a stand-alone court could end up creating further backlog, and that creating such a court would cause more confusion in the justice system. I know that you support such a court, but what is there about it that will make a big difference?

If we are saying that people would not be able to take part in a trial unless they had had specialist training, why would we need to have a stand-alone sexual offences court? Nobody—including advocates, people working in the court and judges—would be allowed to take part unless they had had specialist training, so why would we need a specialist court? We would not need to change the rights of audience, because such cases would be heard in the estate and system that we already have.

We would be changing the system by creating a stand-alone court. However, if all that we need to do is to ensure that everybody who takes part in such trials has that extra level of training, so that they are all specialists, we could do that within the current estate and system, so why do we need a specialist stand-alone court?

The latest statistics reveal the scale of confiscation orders that are imposed on criminals but not yet paid. Around a quarter of the fines that were issued in 2020-21 remain unpaid and behind schedule, amounting to almost £500,000, and the figures for 2022-23 are not much better.

In total, from the past five years, criminals who are subject to those orders are £1.7 million in arrears—that is money that could be benefiting communities and victims of crime. What is the Scottish Government doing to improve collection rates?

Healthcare accounts for 40 per cent of the Scottish budget, yet many health board areas, including my own in Ayrshire and Arran, often feel short-changed by the NHS funding formula. Does the cabinet secretary have any intention of reviewing the NHS Scotland resource allocation committee—NRAC—funding formula to ensure that resources are distributed fairly?

I move amendment 2.

I am sorry.

I support Pauline McNeill’s amendments 10, 17 and 20. My amendment 26 is more specific. It would ensure that young offenders are definitively included. Youth crime continues to be an issue in Scotland. We have recently seen a concerning trend of antisocial behaviour, particularly by youths who have taken advantage of free bus transport. Cases such as that of Keith Rollinson, who was killed by a 15-year-old boy, exemplify why we cannot take the issue lightly. Of course, my amendment also covers adult offenders.

After the Scottish National Party’s wave of prisoner releases in the summer, it was reported in September that fewer than 20 victims were notified, whereas 477 prisoners were released. That cannot happen again. Therefore, my amendment would require the Scottish Government to notify victims of any early releases resulting from the bill, whether they be of adult offenders or of children.

Although I and other Scottish Conservative members have been very clear that we oppose the bill and are especially opposed to the timetable laid out by the Government, we know that we must think carefully about which prisoners will be released if the bill is passed.

My amendments 2 and 8 would exclude from the 40 per cent release point any prisoners who have refused to participate in a rehabilitation programme. During the stage 1 debate, Rona Mackay said:

“If no rehabilitation and preparation for liberty has been undertaken, the people who we release will eventually return to prison through the revolving door.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2024; c 94.]

I whole-heartedly agree with Ms Mackay that we should not reward offenders who have resisted efforts to rehabilitate them by releasing them early.

If we release a large number of individuals who are likely to reoffend, we will be facing the exact same problem in a few months’ time and the Government will have failed to protect victims of crime. I therefore hope that the Government will support my amendments, so that those who are likely to reoffend will remain behind bars.

My colleagues and I will also support Jamie Greene’s amendments 3 and 9, which seek to add reoffenders to the list of prisoners to be excluded from the provisions of the bill, because it is clear that those individuals require further rehabilitation and support within the prison system.

As I said earlier, I was disappointed that the Government did not support my amendments at stage 2. However, I am pleased that the Government has worked with me on this amendment and with Pauline McNeill on amendment 2A, which Conservative members will also support.

Amendment 2 will require that, if ministers make any changes to the regulations, they must make an oral statement to Parliament setting out the reasons for those changes. I am grateful to the minister for working with me.

I move amendment 2.