Seòmar agus comataidhean

Extensive policy development work has been done. In a minute, I will ask Mr Lamont to give people a feel for the size and scope of it. The issue is complex. As it is criminal law, any misogyny bill needs to have clear and unambiguous provisions. That has been central to considerations in the Government.

Such a bill must also include the policy implications of the recent Supreme Court judgment. At one point in time, we were waiting on that judgment; we now have it, which means that further work is required. It is accurate for me to say that Baroness Kennedy’s working group left some matters to legislators. I am not saying that she was wrong to do so—it is entirely fair and credible—but some matters were left to legislators to address in and around a misogyny bill, and we have not concluded that policy work.

Philip, would you like to add anything?

Yes, I do. I am conscious that no issue is considered in a vacuum and that many of our stakeholders campaigned for misogyny legislation. However, I believe that filling the gap in the hate crime legislation is a step forward.

The new protections for women and girls might have a bearing on any future work and reduce the size and scope of a misogyny bill. We operate in an environment in which we are highly sensitive to the range of views on the matter. Many of our stakeholders and partners fought very hard for a misogyny bill, so I understand their disappointment. However, as Mr Lamont said, the scope of the SSI—what the legislation allows us to do—is quite specific, and I am very appreciative of the opportunity to lay it.

We currently have hate crime legislation that rightly offers people protections based on age, disability, religion, race, transgender identity and so forth. Protections include stirring up hatred offences, which are where threatening or abusive behaviour or communication is essentially targeted at people because of their protected characteristic, such as sex, race or disability.

Also, aggravated offences, which add in the scope to convict on offences aggravated by malice and ill will, are really important, because if an offence is already being committed and it has been motivated by hatred towards women and girls, that should rightly be recorded and taken into account, for example, in sentencing, and it is a salient matter for the court to decide on.

Of course they do—they always do. I will address the specific point about the budget and Scottish Government actions, but, first, I want to put on record that I recognise that prison officers, as well as other Prison Service staff and NHS colleagues in our institutions, do a difficult and, at times, dangerous job.

On the budget, I point out that, in this financial year, there was a 10 per cent uplift for the Scottish Prison Service, following an uplift of nearly 10 per cent the previous year. We are investing nearly half a billion pounds in our prison service. Prison officer numbers have increased; today, the number sits at 3,797 people. However, I am conscious that resource is about more than top-level financial investment; the issue is also how we use our resources.

I am sure that the committee will have seen that we successfully reached a two-year pay deal for prison officers in the Scottish Prison Service. That was on a par with the deal on the agenda for change; I was pleased to secure it, and I hope that it speaks to my commitment to prison staff and my arguing the case for them in the budget process.

I am conscious that you asked about Scottish Government action, but a point that I would make—because I think that our trade union colleagues would be quite miffed if I did not—is about the Prison Officers Association’s 68 is too late campaign. Prison officers cannot retire until they are 68, which I find incredible and horrifying. As many of you will know, a few decades ago, I was a prison social worker; I cannot imagine being a prison-based social worker at 68, never mind a prison officer. There is work to be done there at a United Kingdom level, because there was an omission of the unique position of prison officers from the Hutton pension review.

I just want to put that on record, because I think that the Prison Officers Association would wish me to do so.

I am happy to do that. I will start by being fair and balanced: when I found out about the regulations that apply in England and Wales, I was a wee bit miffed that Scotland had been treated as an afterthought, because aviation—civil aviation, air navigation and all the rest of it—is reserved. Nonetheless, engagement between my officials and UK Government officials has been constructive. We are asking the Ministry of Justice to be a sponsor and to make a recommendation to the Civil Aviation Authority.

It is one of many tools. I do not want to say that everything would be solved or that the job would be done if those regulations applied to Scotland. It would help with drone activity, the impact of which is exceptionally concerning, but I am aware that the supply of illicit drugs to prisons is constantly evolving, which means that we constantly have to reappraise the tactical and operational approaches. Nevertheless, that would definitely help and, thus far, engagement at official level has been positive.

I have also taken the opportunity to write to the new Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice and Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, to welcome him to his new role and to raise the issue.

Progress has been made with the implementation of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023. If you recall, part 1 was the new bail test, and that was implemented in May. You might recall that a section 102 order was required from the UK Government to ensure that our bail test did not inadvertently have consequences for extradition procedures.

Part 1 of the act has been fully implemented. That also enabled justice social work to contribute to bail decisions if it has information. Obviously, the court can also make requests of justice social work.

Parts of part 2 have been implemented. During the passage of the act, particularly at stage 3, there were amendments to lengthen the time between commencement and the publication of the national throughcare standards, in acknowledgement of the amount of work that needs to be done in relation to that.

Section 12 contains the duty to engage in release planning, and we are looking at a space for commencement of that. The duty is about putting an obligation on named partners—it is a lengthy list that includes local authorities, health boards and Police Scotland—to comply with any request from the Scottish Prison Service to engage

“in the development, management, and delivery of release plans”.

Some of that work has happened in practice through the STP 40 programme and earlier release programmes, so there has, in some ways, been a bit of a trial run. However, we are making plans for the commencement of section 12.

Section 13 relates to the national throughcare standards. During the passage of the act, we made it clear that there would be two years between commencement and the publication of those standards. We are engaged in the work with partners and we are liaising with the Scottish Government legal directorate on a timeframe for commencement. There are two phases to that work. As you might recall, the commitment was for the standards to be co-produced by partners and for there to be public consultation. There is a lengthy list of partners with whom the Scottish Government must engage, including the voluntary sector, which is positive. There is research being undertaken that will have to be brought to a conclusion as well. Phase 2 is the full, 12-week public consultation. The clock will start ticking when we lay the commencement order.

I have seen that evidence, and I will certainly discuss the issue further with the Scottish Prison Service. As you will appreciate, I engage very regularly with the chief executive and other senior staff, so I acknowledge that I have seen that evidence. Ms Todd is a bit more of an expert on vapes in the real world than I am.

Thanks, convener. As the committee is aware, the Scottish Government intended to legislate for a misogyny bill in this parliamentary session. However, I announced on 2 May that, due to the complexity of this area of law, and the clear and unambiguous provisions that would be needed, which would include the policy implications of the Supreme Court judgment of 16 April, there would be insufficient time for a bill to be finalised and introduced. That was also exacerbated by the short time left in this parliamentary session along with a packed legislative timetable.

I was also clear that I did not want a gap in the criminal law protections for women and girls and that, therefore, I would produce an SSI to add the characteristic of sex to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. As you said, convener, that SSI is subject to the super-affirmative procedure, which allows for thorough scrutiny before any legislation is finalised. Therefore, the required consultation seeks views on the draft policy of the SSI. We will, of course, carefully consider all feedback and views, including those of the committee. That process will inform the final SSI that will be laid in the Parliament.

The changes that are being consulted on will ensure that the criminal law protections for women and girls are the same as those that are provided through the 2021 act for other characteristics, such as age, race and disability. As the characteristic of sex will be added, men and boys will also be protected. However, we know that women and girls suffer significantly more from threats, abuse and harassment based on their sex, so they are likely to benefit most from those new protections and be able to report matters to the police.

The legislation will make it an offence for a person to stir up hatred against women and girls. Where an offender is motivated by, or demonstrates, malice or ill will towards women and girls in committing a criminal offence, that offence will be aggravated by prejudice relating to the characteristic of sex.

I consider the measures on which we are consulting to represent a significant step forward in strengthening legal protections for women and girls and ensuring that our justice system can respond appropriately to hate crimes that are motivated by prejudice on the basis of sex ahead of any misogyny bill that a future Government could introduce.

I am happy to take questions, convener.

That speaks to the broader issue, which is that legislation alone does not always change people’s behaviour or rectify the experiences that women have in our communities. We have just had a session about a completely different matter that touched on the need for people to know and exercise their rights.

In response to the process point, the consultation will end on 10 October. The responses will then be published, provided that respondents have given their permission. There will need to be an analysis of the information that we have received, including a form of statistical analysis, as there always is with such consultations.

Then, in due course, we will write to the committee, whether any changes are made to the final SSI or not. I want to lay the SSI before Christmas so that it can be addressed in early 2026. I certainly hope that it will be laid before the February recess, which is when I am aiming for.