Until 2015, I was a member of the UK Parliament and a member of the select committee that took evidence in that year. However, like many other MPs, I was aware of the serious concerns that had been raised about the Horizon convictions prior to then. Does the Lord Advocate not accept that it was clear from at least 2013 that it was unsafe to prosecute those cases and that any convictions were unreliable? Has the Lord Advocate given thought to why the Crown Office wished to accept what the Post Office said and to prosecute so many people who had always been law abiding, when there was so much concern that there had been miscarriages of justice?

The delivery plan refers to the modernisation of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service but not to the state of the fire estate, although a national review of the service has been published. Nearly half of the fire estate has been assessed as being in either bad condition or poor condition. What priority is the Scottish Government giving to the lack of adequate decontamination facilities available to many firefighters, given the serious medical consequences of contact with toxins?

Could I go to David Kennedy to get the federation’s perspective? Would you have any concerns?

If we can put the resource issue to one side, would you have a problem with such an approach? It is not a question of whether a case has been made in relation to the police; independent complaints processes are being considered across a range of institutions. Is there any reason why we should not go down that path if the resource implications were equivalent?

Some of the witnesses on the previous panel were supportive of a completely independent complaints process, which they referred to as the gold standard. There have been concerns about the resource implications of such an approach in the past, but one witness on the previous panel made the point that the same resource issues exist with the current PIRC system. What is your response to the proposal for an independent complaints process, which operates in several other countries? We will start with Chief Superintendent Hay.

I would like to hear from Unison, if that would be okay with the convener.

Unison organises civilian staff rather than officers, although, increasingly, your members undertake many roles that would previously have been undertaken by police officers. How do you think that the issue relates to Unison? How does your complaints process operate? Would it be appropriate for civilian staff to be covered by an independent complaints process?

Will the minister provide a timetable for when a rent control system will be in operation, given that the system that was recently introduced by the now-departed Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights introduced a complicated system of transitional measures? Does the minister envisage that those measures will be in operation until there are rent controls?

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.

We congratulate the petitioner, Nicola Murray, on bringing the issue to the Scottish Parliament and on her courage in sharing her personal experiences, and we welcome the opportunity to consider whether the law in the area is adequate. We know that, historically, the justice system has treated victims of domestic abuse very poorly and, indeed, that it has often not treated domestic abuse as a crime. We must all recognise that, although there has been significant progress over recent decades, there is still a long way to go.

As Pauline McNeill, Fulton MacGregor, Foysol Choudhury and others have said, pregnancy loss is not an uncommon feature of domestic abuse. Pregnant women, in particular, are often a target of male partners, and there is often a rise in violence against women during pregnancy. As Pauline McNeill said, pregnancy can alter the pattern of assault, with pregnant women more likely to be struck on the abdomen.

We recognise that Scots law has always allowed the facts of a case and the injury as part of an assault to be narrated by the Crown and that the Scots legal system has always had a far more flexible approach than there has been in England and Wales. As the cabinet secretary said, there is already provision in Scots law for pregnancy loss and the intense distress that it can cause, which could be lifelong, to be taken into account in sentencing. It would be very helpful to get more detail from the Scottish Government—either from the cabinet secretary in her summing up or after the debate—as to whether the sentences that courts are giving in such situations are adequate.

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.

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.