Chamber and committees

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. We will support the bill today, although we have had significant concerns about it during the scrutiny process.

We recognise that the bill comes to us as a result of the Angiolini review, and we accept that some of the changes should be made. We believe, however, that there still needs to be significant cultural change in our police service and that the bill in itself is not going to deliver that. The police service itself accepts that it is institutionally sexist and racist, and the Sheku Bayoh and Ian Packer cases, for example, highlight some of those concerns. The bill is technical and far from transformational, and we believe that it fails to address some of the legitimate concerns that are being raised by the public about policing and about the handling of complaints. We therefore agree with Maggie Chapman that the bill is unlikely to address some of the significant issues that are raised in high-profile cases.

At stage 1, there were significant concerns about the adequacy of the financial memorandum, and we are pleased that those have been addressed. We were also concerned specifically, as Pauline McNeill said, that the amendments relating to vetting procedures were lodged late and were therefore not scrutinised by the committee. The Scottish Police Federation and Unison have raised concerns about some of the potential implications for police officers and civilian staff. Scottish Labour has been concerned about both the level of engagement with the unions and some of the concerns that they are raising.

As I have said before, I warmly welcome the additional resources that have been put into vetting by the Scottish Government as a result of high-profile cases such as that of Wayne Couzens. We recognise that there is a need for vetting to be strengthened, but, given the lack of scrutiny during the bill process and what the cabinet secretary has said today, I very much hope that it will be possible to have a cross-party consensus as we proceed with the changes.

There is real concern about how the legislation will be perceived in the employment space and that it will be used as a disciplinary procedure. I understand that the Scottish Government’s position is that the duty of candour relates to institutions and does not impact on the employment rights of individuals. It would be helpful if the cabinet secretary could put that on the record today, given the specific concerns that have been raised by Unison and the Scottish Police Federation.

The Criminal Justice Committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses who complained about their treatment by the police and about the police complaints process. It is fair to say that some of the evidence that the committee heard was shocking and harrowing. Both Fergus Ewing and Maggie Chapman have spoken today about specific cases. However, it is far from clear that the bill that we are discussing will make any difference to the experience of such witnesses.

We recognise the very difficult job that our police service performs and the significant risks that the police take daily. However, public institutions must behave with candour. We pay tribute to all the campaigners whose activity has led to this type of legislation being lodged across the UK, although we recognise that the bill falls short of what is required to address some of those injustices and breaches of trust. We look forward to continuing to work with members across the chamber on the issues, recognising that the bill, if passed, is unlikely to make the significant differences that we believe are required if we are to meet the challenges that have been put to us.

I congratulate Kenneth Gibson on securing the debate, and I am pleased to join calls for the UK Government to reconsider its decision not to award compensation to WASPI women. I am very pleased about some of the points that have been made today, and I hope that it will be possible to get a motion for the debate next week that all political parties in the chamber are able to vote for.

I agree with the SNP and Conservative members when they say that WASPI women have been wronged. I believe that the campaign deserves justice and that we need to continue to do everything that we can, as individuals and in our political parties, to ensure that compensation is provided to WASPI women.

As has been said, in 2021, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found the Department for Work and Pensions guilty of “maladministration” in the handling of the changes to women’s state pension age that were outlined in the 1995 act. That came about as a result of the DWP’s failure to properly inform the women involved of increases—of up to six years in some cases—which left more than 3 million women vulnerable to financial stress, uncertainty and instability.

More than four years since the publication of the PHSO’s report—during those four years, as has been said, more than 270,000 affected women who were born in the 1950s have died—WASPI women continue to fight for justice and fair repayment, in particular in the light of the recent decision to rule out a financial compensation scheme against the losses that they are facing.

The ombudsman found that approximately 60 per cent of affected women were not adequately informed in the early 2000s that changes to the women’s state pension age would apply to them specifically, nor were they sent letters to notify them adequately in advance. Those are all matters that have been considered by the ombudsman. WASPI has repeatedly campaigned across the country to explain the lack of proper communication and the lack of a warning to enable women to make plans to bridge the financial gap until their retirement and to address the financial difficulties in which that has placed them.

Today’s debate is taking place because of the announcement that was made before Christmas. I welcomed the apology that was given to WASPI women at that time. However, it was a major mistake to make the decision and to announce that there would not be compensation paid to WASPI women.

There is a debate to be had about the details of any compensation package, and as someone who has been involved in these issues over many years, I am aware that, if there was to be full compensation paid, that would be exceptionally costly. Nonetheless, to say—after the publication of the ombudsman’s report, and given the level of the loss that many women have suffered—that there should be no compensation at all is completely unacceptable.

I believe that women should not be penalised as a result of past Governments’ miscommunication, and I will continue to do all that I can to ensure that WASPI women receive justice. I look forward to continuing to work on a cross-party basis as convener of the WASPI cross-party group and with colleagues on all sides of the chamber, and within my political party, to try to ensure that we get justice for WASPI women.

You wrote to the committee in August in relation to the mental health and wellbeing strategy and the delivery plan. It would be extremely helpful if the committee could be kept advised not only of the work on the delivery plan that you have referred to with regard to the reform programme, but of whether this actually sits under justice. After all, we have to ensure that there is ministerial drive on this. I have to say, though, that it sounds as if you are not concerned about things falling through the cracks because some of the responsibilities do not lie within your remit. Do you still feel able to have oversight and to ensure that, on the subject of policing vulnerable people that we are looking at today, action is being taken as quickly as possible to implement policy?

Thank you. That is reassuring. I wonder whether Robby Steel or David Hamilton would like to comment.

Cabinet secretary, you have spoken this morning about a number of workstreams and action plans. As somebody who is not involved in that, I sometimes find it quite difficult to understand the terrain. You have made clear the commitment to whole-system approaches and to partnership work.

As I understand it, the Scottish Government established a mental health and capacity reform programme to address the recommendations from the Scottish mental health law review. That programme does not sit under the justice portfolio. Indeed, much of the work will sit outside justice, although it obviously has a massive impact in relation to your responsibilities. Will you say a bit more about the work under the reform programme to deliver the recommendations of the Scottish mental health law review, about your oversight role and about the extent to which it relates to other parts of Government?

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her offer to meet. As she knows, many rape victims describe their experience of the justice system as retraumatising, intimidating and disempowering. Over recent decades, many other countries have introduced far greater advice and representation for victims, including rape victims. Does the cabinet secretary agree with organisations such as Rape Crisis Scotland that there is a strong case for a further extension of legal advice to victims of rape to empower those survivors?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it is giving consideration to a pilot scheme on independent legal representation for rape victims. (S6O-04166)

Given what you have said, I think that it is fair to say that you feel that you have strong statistical data and that the Scottish Government has provided the administrative data that you require to develop a robust costing. We look forward to your report in January.

Will you tell us how far ahead you are able to make forecasts? The two-child limit policy affects only children born since 2017 and will not be fully rolled out until 2035. Once a policy is introduced, it can be very difficult to withdraw it, so we need to make decisions for the long term. We do not know what will happen with the UK Government’s policy position on the issue, but if the Scottish Government were to take that on for the long term, how far ahead are you able to forecast? We need to be able to understand the long-term implications of any policy decisions.

Thank you. I have no doubt that the committee will come back to that.

The report in January will give us forecasts only for the next five years. Is that correct?