 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 2148, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out changes to this week's business. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request to speak button now, and I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I moved. Thank you, minister. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore the question is that motion 2148 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is topical questions in order to get in as many questions as possible. Short and succinct questions and responses would be appreciated, and I call it question number one, Katie Clark. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports of a legal opinion stating that local authorities cannot use their bylaw powers to implement buffer zones at NHS reproductive health facilities, how it will ensure that women have access to these services free of harassment? Our programme for government includes a commitment to support any local authority who wishes to use bylaws to establish buffer zones. We are all agreed in the Scottish Parliament, and it seems in local government too that it is absolutely unacceptable for any woman to face harassment when accessing healthcare. I am not trying to shift the burden onto local authorities, but we do not share the view that bylaws cannot be used, and we will work with them to explore every possible avenue to find a way forward. Ministers will look at bringing together key parties as soon as possible to discuss potential solutions. In addition, the Scottish Government looks forward to the member's bill being proposed by Gillian Mackay, and I am happy to discuss her proposals with her. Katie Clark. Does the minister not accept, however, that it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to ensure that women have safe access to NHS services? We know that seven hospitals and clinics in Scotland have been repeatedly targeted, so will the minister not agree, given that there seem to be legal problems, but we do not want a postcode lottery with some local authorities taking action and others not? Will the minister now consider Scottish-wide legislation to create buffered zones around about facilities? The principle of prospect protected spaces is one that this Government absolutely supports. That is why we have said that we would support local authority use of bylaws. In terms of taking forward how we progress on this issue, next week my officials are meeting with COSLA and with local authority representatives to find it a way forward. I plan to also convene a ministerial working group, so I will be taking the lead to bring together interested parties, COSLA, health, police to find a way forward urgently. I am absolutely determined to make progress on this, and I have been absolutely crystal clear. I do not disagree with Gillian Mackay on this issue in many ways. I look forward to seeing the legislation that Gillian Mackay brings forward. We will look closely at the detail of that, but I think that the principles that we are largely agreed on. Does the minister not accept that it would be far better if the Scottish Government brought forward legislation rather than relying on private member's bill, or indeed local authorities, to act in situations where they are being advised that they do not have legal competence? One of the main reasons that we are keen to work with local authorities on this issue, we do not share the view that bylaws cannot be used. One of the main reasons that we are keen to work with them on this issue is that we think that that is the fastest way to find a solution. Primary legislation will take time to pass through the course of this Parliament, and it will take time to enact. We think that using bylaws is a far speedier way to resolve the situation than any other solution. However, to be absolutely clear, I am willing to work with local authorities and I am willing to work with police and I am willing to work with health. I am determined to make progress on this issue. Gillian Mackay I thank the minister for her indication of working together on my member's bill. Given that primary legislation will take quite a while to come forward and there seems to be a legal impasse between the Scottish Government and local authorities, has the minister given any thought to what we could put in temporarily to make sure that women are not harassed when accessing those facilities? As I outlined, what I am keen to do is to find a way forward. I would like to speedy resolution to the situation. One of the reasons that I am keen to use bylaws is that I think that it is the fastest way forward, but my officials are meeting with COSLA and some specific local authorities just next week. Finding a fast solution will be one of the main items on the agenda. As I said, I am keen to convene a ministerial group and I am keen to bring urgency to the resolution of the situation. Alex Cole-Hamilton I was very proud to speak alongside Gillian Mackay in her member's debate on this issue. I am enjoying members from all parties in our shared belief that somebody's right to freedom of speech is not somebody's right to medical privacy or the right to seek intimate medical care without molestation, but the minister shattered that consensus that evening by saying that the Government was unmoved. If the minister is determined that there is a difference of legal opinion here, the opinion received by SOLO was, I quote, unequivocal that bylaws could not be used to create Balfourstone's by-local authorities. Can I ask the minister if her Government has sought legal opinion to the contrary, and if so will she publish it? I do not think that I need to rehearse again the principles of legal opinion and publishing legal opinion. The principle of protected spaces is one that this Government supports. That is why we have said that we would support any local authority who wishes to bring forward bylaws to ensure that women had protected spaces and were not harassed as they accessed healthcare. Let me be absolutely clear that we are committed on that principle, and I am absolutely committed to finding a way forward. To ask the Scottish Government which victim support organisations it consulted with ahead of drafting the paper, consultation on bail and release from custody arrangements in Scotland. Developing proposals for formal consultation, the Scottish Government discussed those issues informally with a range of partners, including the Victims Organisation Collaboration Forum, Scotland, chaired by Victim Support Scotland. Public protection and victim safety at the heart of the proposals for reform, which are focused on reducing crime, re-offending and future victimisation. Building on engagement with victims organisations throughout the pandemic, we will continue to work closely with them and with a range of other partners during the consultation and bill processes to ensure that their views are heard and inform future decisions in this critical area. By refocusing use of custody so that it is for those who pose a particular risk to public safety, I want to help to deliver further improvements to the safety of the people of Scotland. Recorded crime remains at one of its lowest levels since 1974 and is down 41 per cent since 2006-07. I want to build further on those achievements by ensuring that custody, including the use of remand, is used appropriately and enhanced support is provided for those dealt with in the community for their offending behaviour. The consultation includes a proposal to shorten the automatic early release trigger for criminals from having served half of their sentence to just a third. However, we know that 30 per cent of prisoners who receive a sentence of less than four years go on to re-offend compared to just eight per cent of those sentenced to four years or more. The evidence is clear, Presiding Officer. The shorter the sentence, the higher the re-offending rate, which undoubtedly further traumatises victims of crime and does nothing to solve the problem of either overcrowding in our prisons or re-offending for that matter. What message of fairness and justice does the cabinet secretary think that releasing criminals a third of the way through their sentence will send to the victims of those crimes? The proposals that Jamie Greene refers to are one or two proposals among the whole list of proposals that seek to address a number of concerns, not least concerns that he has raised in relation to the high remand population. It is always true that the discretion in those areas lies with the courts, and the courts can take into account the issues that Jamie Greene has mentioned when they have passed a sentence. Those things are dealt with by the courts, and that is the way that they should be. What we want to have is a genuine discussion based on the almost consensual concerns that have been expressed across the Parliament. It is also true to say that if we can, of course, reduce further prison population, the amount of time and effort that can be spent on individual prisoners is greater and thereby reducing even further the recidivism rate. The continuation of our policies, which have led to some of the lowest crime records ever, have led to the lowest number of recorded homicides ever, are consistent with those proposals. Of course, we will wait to see what people come back with. It is interesting that the cabinet secretary did not address the issue of re-offending, which I presume forms part of the consultation in the first place. I am afraid that, week after week, we come to the chamber and hear countless proposals of how we are going to water down sentences and guidelines, whether it is how we treat criminals under 25 or automatic release triggers, and now the prospect of giving ministers the power to release prisoners simply out of fear of our prisons becoming full. I am afraid that this is a move that reeks of a panic-stricken Government facing down the barrel of a court backlog of tens of thousands of cases yet to be heard. We are frequently reminded in this chamber by the cabinet secretary that decisions about remand and sentencing are rightly made by independent judges. Why does he now think that ministers know better than they do? The member says that he presumes that something is in the consultation. I would have hoped that he had read the consultation before he actually presumes that it is in the consultation, so he does not know, so he should really read those things before he comes to ask those questions. It is the case that discretion will remain with the court. That is the way that we do things in this country—the independent courts decide on those things, but it is also true to say that remand is at a very high level in Scotland. He is right to say that, of course, there is a concern about the number of backlog of cases. It is not peculiar to this jurisdiction that we have a backlog of cases due to the pandemic and also in relation to the point about what I think he referred to of automatic early release. Of course, it was the Conservatives that brought in automatic early release, and they were the ones that voted against it the last time that Parliament voted on it. I do not know where the Tories are on justice these days. I do not think that they have a clue what is meant by soft justice anymore. What we want to have is smart, effective justice and make sure that the right people are in prison and people are given the rehabilitation opportunities that they should have to make sure that we continue to drive down the levels of recidivism that we are doing successfully. I welcome the launch of the consultation and acknowledge that it has formed a core part of the discussion within the criminal justice committee this session. Indeed, the need to prevent indefinite imprisonment via remand is something that has been mentioned on several occasions. I ask the cabinet secretary to expand on how the consultation will look to tackle the issues of prison population and remand. The member asked an important question, which has already been alluded to by Jamie Greene. The Parliament has been clear in recent years that too many people are being held on remand. I think that that is shared across all the parties. It is right, as I have said, that courts make such decisions based on individual cases before them. However, the consultation looks afresh at the legal framework in which those decisions are made. I would say that if people do not accept that, they perhaps can offer an alternative way forward. However, I thought that that was where the Parliament wanted to concentrate its activities. We want remand to only be used where it is absolutely necessary, and the proposals emphasise the importance of public safety and victim safety being at the forefront of decisions whether to remand. Where an accused person does not pose a significant risk but requires additional support or supervision in the community, such as drug treatment, then bail should be the default option with necessary enhanced support given. I am grateful for the criminal justice committees of which the member is a convener. They are early focus on this area. I look forward to working with members during the consultation and bill process. I appreciated the opportunity to have an early discussion about this when I attended the committee back in September. I welcomed at that point Jamie Greene's comments that there are human rights aspects of this matter, particularly in relation to the length of time people are held on remand. Remand, just to remind members, is now at 30 per cent of the prison population, that is too high. I urge those with their interests to respond to the proposals for reform. Pauline McNeill The cabinet secretary is aware that there was a significant rise in remand in Scotland with the population almost doubling between April 2020 and April this year. By the end of that period, close to one in four prisoners were on remand, but were only 40 per cent aged 16 to 20 on remand. Some evidence suggests that requests for supervised bail orders have been historically low, but a possible fact have been a lack of awareness of available programmes and a scarcity of short-term funding. Given the consultation on bail and release from custody has only just begun and we perhaps need a short to medium-term answer to this, as the cabinet secretary, will the Government make the judiciary more aware of supervised bail orders as an immediate or medium-term step so that we can start to bring down the high levels of remand Scotland sooner rather than later? I can't speak obviously for the judiciary, as the member knows, but it is true to say that the judiciary is aware of the alternatives that it has. I think that we sometimes have to make sure that people have confidence in those alternatives. I think that the other point to make is in relation to remand. We should also be looking, and I would hope that the consultation would shed some light on this, and what we can do to protect victims of those who are accused who then go on remand as well. I think that we have some more work to do in relation to that. However, the member has raised before the very high levels of remand. That is what we intend to try to address in relation to this. I would just repeat the point, and I am grateful for the comments that members have made in the past in relation to this. If others have different ideas about how to address the situation, which they all seem to agree on, has to be addressed, then they can come forward with those proposals and we will listen to them. That concludes topical questions. The next item of business is a statement