Chamber and committees

This week, The Herald has been running an excellent series to highlight the crisis in legal aid. It is not only in criminal legal aid that lawyers are abandoning their profession, but in civil legal aid. Four out of five lawyers who work in civil legal aid in Glasgow will no longer take on protective order cases for victims of domestic abuse. In 1999, lawyers accepted the principle of one fee of £500 for work on a single case; 25 years later, that fee is only £572, and more work is required, which has resulted in many young lawyers entering the legal profession with better options, including the Crown Office.

Does the First Minister accept that this is a crisis and that it would be reprehensible if domestic abuse victims could not access a lawyer? Does he agree that the way forward is for Scotland to invest in the whole legal aid system—in fact, the whole justice system—by an annual uprating of fees and by invigorating the trainee scheme to encourage young lawyers to choose that branch of the legal profession to demonstrate that there is a future for legal aid in Scotland?

The Parliament has been asked to agree that the Scottish Government can put before the Parliament emergency legislation—a bill that we saw only on Monday—to change the approach of Scottish prisons to the release of short-term and long-term prisoners. That is a substantial change in prison policy, and the proposed approach denies the Scottish Parliament and the Criminal Justice Committee their scrutiny role over a change in policy. The right to call witnesses, to take our time and to decide who we want to listen to will be denied if we agree to the emergency legislation procedure.

As Liam Kerr said, the Scottish Government is seeking a permanent change to the way in which we release prisoners—those who are serving a short-term sentence will go from serving 50 per cent to 40 per cent, with some exclusions—even though the temporary release programme seems to have its flaws and we are back to where we started in July this year, with the prison population back up to 8,300.

A number of prisoners who were released have been back in jail during that period. As predicted, there is a revolving door, which is a major concern for those who are interested in prison policy. I am sure that all parties agree that, for short-term sentences, it seems obvious that simply legislating to reduce time in jail without a more radical plan to tackle reoffending rates is a failure. We should have the right to discuss that and the impact that it will have on victims and communities in more detail.

Victims have the right to expect the Parliament to demonstrate that we put their concerns at the heart of the matter. By rushing the bill through this week and next week, we are not going to do that. Indeed, victims’ organisations are extremely concerned about the legislation and the fact that it would be fast tracked. The experience of victims so far is that we are yet to make significant improvements to our criminal justice system.

It is unacceptable that the Scottish Government is saying that this is emergency legislation. The emergency legislation that we have passed has mostly met the criteria, but this bill does not.

The most concerning aspect of the emergency bill is the regulation power, which indicates a significant change in policy that will apply to both short-term and long-term prisoners. Section 3 grants the Scottish ministers a power to make future changes to automatic early release for both short-term and long-term prisoners.

When a major change was made to the release of long-term prisoners in 2015 and 2016, that was done through standard primary legislation, because it involved a significant shift in prison policy, and it seems to have had an impact on the prison population. If we are going to change the policy, is it not obvious that such a change should again be done through standard primary legislation, to allow the Parliament to look at it? It seems odd that the Government is arguing that this is an emergency.

Scottish Labour opposes the motion for the bill to be treated as emergency legislation, because the bill involves a substantial policy change, so the Parliament and the relevant committee should have the right to examine in detail what impact it will have on the prison population and whether the proposal will in fact achieve its aim to sustainably reduce the prison population. I do not think that we can achieve that by looking at the bill tomorrow and next week. I urge the Parliament to give proper scrutiny to this important piece of legislation and to oppose the Government’s proposals tonight.

Let us talk about the policy in relation to long-term prisoners, which the main argument that we are putting to you concerns. Does the minister accept that, if the bill is passed in this way, we cannot scrutinise it in the same way as we would in a committee? Does he accept that we cannot amend a Scottish statutory instrument and that we must accept what you put before us? Would it not be more in tune with the Parliament’s principles for you to let us amend the policy when you decide to introduce it?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will consider ring fencing funding in its forthcoming budget to allocate to a Glasgow airport rail link. (S6O-03982)

The Parliament has been asked to agree that the Scottish Government can put before the Parliament emergency legislation—a bill that we saw only on Monday—to change the approach of Scottish prisons to the release of short-term and long-term prisoners. That is a substantial change in prison policy, and the proposed approach denies the Scottish Parliament and the Criminal Justice Committee their scrutiny role over a change in policy. The right to call witnesses, to take our time and to decide who we want to listen to will be denied if we agree to the emergency legislation procedure.

As Liam Kerr said, the Scottish Government is seeking a permanent change to the way in which we release prisoners—those who are serving a short-term sentence will go from serving 50 per cent to 40 per cent, with some exclusions—even though the temporary release programme seems to have its flaws and we are back to where we started in July this year, with the prison population back up to 8,300.

A number of prisoners who were released have been back in jail during that period. As predicted, there is a revolving door, which is a major concern for those who are interested in prison policy. I am sure that all parties agree that, for short-term sentences, it seems obvious that simply legislating to reduce time in jail without a more radical plan to tackle reoffending rates is a failure. We should have the right to discuss that and the impact that it will have on victims and communities in more detail.

Victims have the right to expect the Parliament to demonstrate that we put their concerns at the heart of the matter. By rushing the bill through this week and next week, we are not going to do that. Indeed, victims organisations are extremely concerned about the legislation and the fact that it would be fast tracked. The experience of victims so far is that we are yet to make significant improvements to our criminal justice system.

It is unacceptable that the Scottish Government is saying that this is emergency legislation. The emergency legislation that we have passed has mostly met the criteria, but this bill does not.

The most concerning aspect of the emergency bill is the regulation power, which indicates a significant change in policy that will apply to both short-term and long-term prisoners. Section 3 grants the Scottish ministers a power to make future changes to automatic early release for both short-term and long-term prisoners.

When a major change was made to the release of long-term prisoners in 2015 and 2016, that was done through standard primary legislation, because it involved a significant shift in prison policy, and it seems to have had an impact on the prison population. If we are going to change the policy, is it not obvious that such a change should again be done through standard primary legislation, to allow the Parliament to look at it? It seems odd that the Government is arguing that this is an emergency.

Scottish Labour opposes the motion for the bill to be treated as emergency legislation, because the bill involves a substantial policy change, so the Parliament and the relevant committee should have the right to examine in detail what impact it will have on the prison population and whether the proposal will in fact achieve its aim to sustainably reduce the prison population. I do not think that we can achieve that by looking at the bill tomorrow and next week. I urge the Parliament to give proper scrutiny to this important piece of legislation and to oppose the Government’s proposals tonight.

I asked the minister a specific question, which I will ask again: what funding will be allocated specifically for the airport rail link? Glasgow is one of the few major cities in Europe that does not have a direct rail link to its airport. I am sure that the minister, who has a Glasgow constituency, agrees with me that having an airport rail link is fundamental to Glasgow’s economy.

I would like an assurance today that the airport rail link will be a priority for phase 1 of the metro plan that the minister mentioned. Will the minister confirm that the Scottish Government, through Transport Scotland, will allocate the funding to enable the airport rail link to be developed in phase 1 of the project?

I understand that, but I want to get a sense of how important and central you think access to rehab is. At some point, we need an answer to the question about demand.

I do not know how easy it is for drug users to access rehabilitation, although I am quite familiar with how difficult it is for those who are dependent on alcohol to access such facilities or to know who to call. What is the pathway? Are you satisfied that it is clear? People might be on their own, because they do not have family support or because their family might not be able to cope any more. Are you clear about how easy it is to access facilities?

I want to follow on from Annie Wells’s line of questioning, because she asked what I think is an essential question about demand. We acknowledge the progress that has been made; however, we do not know what the demand is, so it is important to establish that. I know that there are many ways of approaching that question, but to what extent do you think that access to rehabilitation programmes is central to tackling drugs deaths?

I might come back on the point about medical assessment at a future date. It is worth considering whether there might be any blockages facing someone who comes forward because they think that they need help—that is, the possibility of their being rejected after making such a big step, just because of a medical assessment. As I have said, I might come back to that at another date.

I also want to ask about the fact that men are twice as heavy users of services. I do not detect a lot of discussion about the approach that we should take, given that high numbers of men are harming themselves. How is that factored into the approach that you are taking to drug misuse and stopping drug deaths?

Good morning. Cabinet secretary, you will be aware of press reports that indicate, not for the first time, an on-going crisis in legal aid. Some press reports have said that, since 2021, we have lost more than 400 solicitors from the system. Not all of those were lost because of the legal aid situation, I am sure, but certainly a high number were. There has already been a 23 per cent drop in the number of cases that solicitors have been paid for, so there has been less demand on the budget. However, that is a flat-line budget, so, in effect, there has been a cut to legal aid.

What approach is the Scottish Government taking to the crisis, given that it has not allocated an increase in the legal aid budget, and what is the thinking behind that?