Chamber and committees

I will do my best, convener.

We will have to vote on this pretty soon. What I am trying to understand from both organisations is what you would like us to argue for in relation to the jury size. Give us some guidance on that. That is what I am trying to get to, because if we do not want to be an outlier, we either go with the English position or we do something that is completely unique to Scotland, which is what we have.

Do I conclude that you would prefer the bill not to go through? I am just surmising. There has obviously been a lot of discussion behind the scenes. That has concluded with the Government changing its position to a jury majority of 10 to five, which is what the senators had asked for; it is not what the committee had concluded. I am just trying to understand where you would like the committee to be at stage 2. If you cannot change the Government’s position, is that fatal enough for us to vote against the bill?

I am not meaning that. It is about the jury numbers. It has been suggested that, if we go for a majority of 10 out of 15, we would be an outlier. However, we were already an outlier under the original proposals in the bill. My question is whether we should accept that we are going to be an outlier or whether we try to bring ourselves into line—I do not like using the term “into line”, but you know what I mean. Should we mimic another jurisdiction, so that we are not an outlier? That is what I am trying to get at. Does that make sense?

But you do not think that it—

The Scottish Government regularly highlights its excellent equally safe at school project, which was developed by Rape Crisis Scotland. That project is one of the key ways of tackling violence against women and girls at its root.

The Scottish Government reported that it expected that the equally safe at school project would have been running in around 48 per cent of secondary schools by 2020, but it seems from an answer to a parliamentary question that I recently submitted that, four years later, only 116 schools have registered with the project, which is less than one third of secondary schools. Will the cabinet secretary outline what action the Government will take to ensure that all secondary schools run the equally safe at school programme, or a similar programme, to tackle violence against women and girls at its root?

The legal aid crisis seems to have been ignored in the budget, with a £14 million real-terms cut compared with 2023-24. What does that signal to those who need a legal aid lawyer in both civil and criminal cases? What allocation is there in the budget to address and sustain the legal aid system to attract new lawyers to the profession? I ask that question not simply in the interests of the legal profession but in that of the system that supports ordinary people who need good-quality representation in their lives, whether it is for a civil or criminal matter.

Amendment 2A amends Sharon Dowey’s amendment 2 by adding that the Scottish ministers’ statement to Parliament must say

“what information will be available to victims about the change that the draft regulations would make (if approved) and the release of prisoners under the provisions amended by the regulations”.

I said at stage 2 that we wanted more information to satisfy the public, and victims, about the changes and about the impact that those will have on communities. I recognise that the Government has been prepared to work with me and with Sharon Dowey.

I move amendment 2A.

I will press amendment 2A.

Amendment 2A agreed to.

I thank Jamie Greene for lodging amendment 24, allowing discussion on what I think is a really important aspect of the bill. Current policy is that prisoners are released at 50 per cent of their sentence, which, if the bill is agreed to, will be moved back to 40 per cent, with no end in sight, as Jamie Greene has said.

I have big concerns about the bill, and the biggest is the one that Liam Kerr spoke to earlier in relation to section 3 and long-term prisoners. Probably the second most concerning aspect of the bill is that there is no prospect that, if we agree to it tonight, we will ever go back to the position of early release at 50 per cent of a sentence.

I do not know whether the Government is open minded, but I would have thought that it might be, because the rationale for the policy is to relax the numbers in our prisons to allow prison officers to manage the prison estate in a way that they think is safe.

Given that, there should be an opportunity at some point in the future to go back to the substantive policy that we have had for some time in Scotland, which is that prisoners should serve at least 50 per cent of their sentence if they are serving a sentence of less than four years. The problem with the lack of scrutiny is that we are all going to be scratching our heads about exactly what point in the future might be palatable to the Government in any stage 3 amendments that we lodge—right now, I have no idea about that. Jamie Greene’s suggestion of 90 per cent prison capacity is definitely worth considering. There should certainly be a sunset clause on the proposals, and we will be thinking about what time period would be sensible.

Labour members will vote against the bill, but, if it survives, we would at least like to amend it so that there is some end in sight in relation to that policy.

I regard this set of amendments as a vital part of not just the discussion on the bill but the wider discussion on how we support prisoners on release.

Amendment 13 deals with the management of the integration of short-term prisoners by local authorities. Amendment 14 is about access to housing for certain short-term prisoners to whom automatic early release has been extended.

Amendment 18 is about the reintegration of prisoners. It provides that Scottish ministers would have to

“publish their plans to support local authorities in managing the re-integration of prisoners released by virtue of the regulations.”

Under amendment 19, before making regulations, Scottish ministers would have to

“publish their plans to support prisoners released by virtue of the regulations with access to housing, health and rehabilitative support.”

As the Parliament has previously debated, one essential issue, particularly in relation to short-term prisoners, is the revolving door and the tendency for such offenders to reoffend. That is pertinent in the wider debate, of course, but the emergency legislation is a perfect opportunity to ensure that we make provision for offenders who are released into the community, many of whom would not be back in prison if they had the right support, particularly in relation to their housing and medical needs.

I therefore hope that Scottish ministers will give a positive welcome to at least the content of the amendments—if not, I am sure that they could be redrafted, to make sure that they are competent for stage 3. They are an important aspect of the debate.

I move amendment 13.