Chamber and committees

I welcome that intervention from Jamie Greene. He always makes very helpful contributions to these debates, so I am glad that he has been able to make a very short contribution on this occasion.

A number of members have spoken about specific cases. We are not aware of every case, but it is appropriate that we consider whether those cases have been dealt with adequately and whether sentences are appropriate.

With regard to the specific point that Jamie Greene made, my understanding has always been that it has been possible for the Crown to narrate those facts and the injuries suffered, but that will be at the point of sentencing and we will not always know the long-term impact that an assault and an injury may have on a woman who has experienced pregnancy loss.

The cabinet secretary spoke about the work that the Scottish Sentencing Council is undertaking in relation to domestic abuse and the work of the domestic abuse justice partners round table. It would be helpful if she kept the Criminal Justice Committee advised of that work.

Pam Gosal spoke about the appalling circumstances that led Nicola Murray to petition the Parliament. It is the Parliament’s responsibility to ensure that the justice system deals with violence against women effectively when there is pregnancy loss, that there are effective sentences available to the court and that they being used.

We need to recognise that pregnancy—and, indeed, having children—makes women more vulnerable. As John Swinney said, the Criminal Justice Committee has been scrutinising the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill and has given a great deal of consideration as to how the justice system fails women.

We have also carried out post-legislative scrutiny of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. We are of the view that it has been an effective piece of legislation, but I think that we need to look more carefully at sentencing in cases such as Nicola Murray’s to see whether sentencing is being effectively administered in instances of pregnancy loss or whether further attention needs to be paid to that, either through a new offence or through other mechanisms such as the Scottish Sentencing Council. Whatever mechanism is used, we need to look at the maximum penalties that are attached to offences. These sentences are available to the court now. So, it would be helpful to know from the Scottish Government whether the Lord Advocate believes that there is a need to strengthen the law in this area, what view the Crown Office takes on its ability to prosecute in such cases, and whether there is concern that the courts are giving lenient sentences.

There have been a number of references to what happens in England and Wales, particularly from Maurice Golden and Pam Gosal. It would be helpful if the cabinet secretary could advise whether sentences are, indeed, more lenient in Scotland. In general, sentences are not more lenient in Scotland, but it would be helpful to get more information from the Scottish Government in that regard.

I conclude by thanking Nicola Murray again for bringing the issue to the Parliament. I hope that, as we move forward, the Parliament will scrutinise both the law and the practice of the courts in administering justice to ensure that the issues that the petition raises are properly addressed.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide further details of its reasons for removing its annual and interim targets for carbon emissions. (S6O-03356)

In 2020, the Climate Change Committee wrote to the Scottish Government, saying that the interim targets were difficult but not impossible to achieve, and it outlined what needed to be done in order to achieve them. Does the minister not accept that the necessary action was not taken? Does he accept that we must now set out a plan to achieve the maximum reductions and set out targets, given the climate emergency and its impact on humanity?

It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate and to call on the UK Government to take action now to deliver justice and compensation for WASPI women.

WASPI women are calling on the UK Government’s Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Mel Stride, to come to the House of Commons to outline his response to the recent report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and with his Government’s proposal to address this injustice. This Parliament should also be calling for that. Frankly, it is astonishing that there has not even been a statement in the House of Commons up until now.

I have been the convener of the WASPI cross-party group since 2021, and it has been a pleasure to work with WASPI campaigners in Scotland, some of whom are in the gallery today and some of whom have made three visits to this Parliament in the past fortnight to lobby politicians. They have consistently campaigned for justice for women who were born in the 1950s and for compensation. Many of the women who are affected are in financial difficulties.

MSPs and MPs from all political parties that are represented in this chamber have been involved in the cross-party group, and it would have been helpful if the Parliament had agreed on a motion today.

A great deal of work was undertaken by Labour prior to the 2021 general election. That work included a manifesto commitment with a detailed package of compensation. Labour, of course, was not elected, and it is for the Conservatives to deliver justice now.

Last month, the then Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman published his long-awaited stage 2 and stage 3 reports on the Department for Work and Pensions maladministration. That report deals with maladministration only. The WASPI campaign was launched in 2021 and we know that, since then, it is estimated that 277,400 WASPI women have died. It is estimated that one 1950s-born woman dies every 13 minutes. One third of WASPI women are in debt, and one in four is living under the poverty line.

In Ayrshire, it is estimated that 26,590 women have been affected, and WASPI campaigners in Ayrshire have done considerable work to quantify the loss to those women and the communities in which they live and to make the case that compensation paid to those women would be spent mainly in local communities and be of benefit to the whole local community.

It is fair to say that many WASPI women are very disappointed that, after a 67-month investigation, the levels of compensation proposed are relatively low. Of course, the ombudsman’s report related to maladministration only. The UK Government must come forward quickly with its response to that report and to the proposals. If it does not deal with it, the next UK Government must. We must deliver justice and compensation to those women.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There was a problem with the app, but I believe that I voted yes.

How many redeterminations and appeal decisions are based on new information rather than simply a different view being taken of the same facts? Given the complexity of, for example, the adult disability payment, we are interested in whether it is reasonable for different decision makers to come to different conclusions on the same facts. Can you comment on the extent to which new information changes outcomes?

Lesley Black, you might want to respond to that question, but I have another question that I would also like to put to you.

Based on what we have heard, it seems that, often, redeterminations and appeals are based on further information that has been provided. How easy would it be to try to obtain that information during the initial decision making? Do you have any suggestions on how we could address that, so that the information is captured at the earliest possible stage?

Thank you. Does anyone else want to come in on that question?

Gayle Devlin, do you want to come in to conclude this part of the questioning?

I appreciate that you might not have hard data, but do you have an impression of how often a different decision is taken when, essentially, the facts are the same?