To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland report indicating that staff shortages mean young prisoners at HMP and YOI Polmont lack enough opportunities for work, education or recreation and spend “far too long locked in their cells”. (S6F-04789)

It is extremely sad that yet another inspection at Polmont young offenders institution has told us that there are deep-rooted problems in keeping young offenders safe. The tragic suicide of 19-year-old Daniel Kerr two weeks ago illustrates again that the state is failing to keep those young people safe—and that comes after the findings of the inquiry into the deaths of William Brown and Katie Allan.

This week, Professor Sarah Armstrong pointed out in an interview that the issue is not just about resources. However, despite the professionalism and dedication of our prison staff, the system still operates in a way that is completely contrary to the obvious needs of a young person who struggles when they are detained and does not have adequate time out of their cell. In fact, His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons for Scotland, Sara Snell, said:

“Young men in Polmont continue to spend far too long locked in their cells”.

Why has there not already been a complete shake-up of how we detain young offenders? Surely, in the last days of this current Scottish Government, it is time to admit failure on the issue.

Perhaps the First Minister and I could agree that Scotland must implement a new daily structure in the Polmont young offenders institution—one in which, at the very least, adequate and productive time out of a prison cell is at the heart of the system.

The centralisation of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service was not just about reducing duplication; it was about much more than that. In 2023, 166 firefighters were cut from the service and there was a temporary withdrawal of 10 fire appliances. It was not simply about duplication.

Last week, Colin Brown of the FBU wrote to the First Minister and said:

“It is impossible to accept the argument that fewer firefighters, fewer stations, fewer pumping appliances … and longer response times will somehow make communities safer.”

The Criminal Justice Committee has heard not just from the union but from SFRS management that they are concerned about the budget’s impact. Is it right for the board to make a decision in June, when the new Parliament will only just have been elected? I think that that will result in the burying of bad news. Surely the minister shares my concerns about the issue. Is it not time to shift that decision, at least until the Parliament settles in and we can have a proper look at the impact of the budget on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service?

As the member said, it was only a year ago that such prisoners were serving 50 per cent of their sentence, and we are being asked to agree tonight that that should decrease to 30 per cent. Does the member agree that sentencing is already controversial for the general public? It is very hard for the public to understand what our sentencing system is now. With this proposal, it will be even more confusing. Does he further agree that making this permanent change is not the way to manage prisoners?

As the member said, it was only a year ago that such prisoners were serving 50 per cent of their sentence, and we are being asked to agree tonight that that should decrease to 30 per cent. Does the member agree that sentencing is already controversial for the general public? It is very hard for the public to understand what our sentencing system is now. With this proposal, it will be even more confusing. Does he further agree that making this permanent change is not the way to manage prisoners?

As the member said, it was only a year ago that such prisoners were serving 50 per cent of their sentence, and we are being asked to agree tonight that that should decrease to 30 per cent. Does the member agree that sentencing is already controversial for the general public? It is very hard for the public to understand what our sentencing system is now. With this proposal, it will be even more confusing. Does he further agree that making this permanent change is not the way to manage prisoners?

As the member said, it was only a year ago that such prisoners were serving 50 per cent of their sentence, and we are being asked to agree tonight that that should decrease to 30 per cent. Does the member agree that sentencing is already controversial for the general public? It is very hard for the public to understand what our sentencing system is now. With this proposal, it will be even more confusing. Does he further agree that making this permanent change is not the way to manage prisoners?

I want to make a short contribution on this group of amendments.

Doctors’ opinions are very influential, in my experience. It is also my experience that that can vary among different cultures. I appreciate that many members have looked at different jurisdictions and the legislation that applies there, but we should see the legislation in the context of our own culture. That is my experience: that doctors are very influential in our society.

It should be clear that a doctor’s opinion should not form any part of a diagnosis. That is a substantive issue in relation to the bill—which, as I have said on the record, I will not be supporting. However, if it is passed, I want to ensure that there are safeguards in it.

As we discussed yesterday, members of the medical profession will need to decide whether they wish to participate in the administration of assisted dying. In some ways, I feel that there could be a protection for those in the medical profession in the amendments in this group, because if it is clear that they will not be expected to introduce the option into the conversation, they will be asked not to. Those people’s function, as I understand it, will be to administer and assist a person who wishes to take their life.

It seems to me that, if the bill were to pass, a review would be the best way to decide whether or not there are omissions, but the current provision is absolutely wrong.

I agree that there is some confusion here with the “Do not resuscitate” policy, which was misused during Covid. That is an NHS policy question, as well as a medical question.

I also agree with what Kate Forbes said about patients being vulnerable. We must provide a safeguard because of that. The greatest safeguard here, in terms of the ethics of the legislation, is to ensure that we are safeguarding the profession with clarity on what is expected at this point in a person’s pathway to their diagnosis, should it be terminal.

Police Scotland has been fined £66,000 for a deeply serious data protection failure after the full contents of a female officer’s device—including medical records, intimate images and sensitive personal information—were extracted and shared with a colleague whom she had accused of rape, along with his lawyer and his Scottish Police Federation representative.

Today, it has been reported that the Scottish Information Commissioner found that the force failed to minimise data collection, lacked adequate technical and organisational safeguards and did not report the breach within the legally required 72 hours. Police Scotland has apologised for the incident and said that it has learned lessons from it, but does the First Minister agree that that is an absolute scandal?

If it is a necessary practice to download the full contents of anyone’s phone or device, that should be all the more reason to ensure that cast-iron protections are in place. What steps could the Scottish Government take to reassure complainers, and anyone else, that there is proper oversight to prevent such a situation from ever happening again?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to recent reports that police officers are attending up to 700 mental health-related calls per day. (S6O-05624)