Chamber and committees

I will speak to amendment 10 first and to amendment 11 later. I believe that the amendments are fairly straightforward. Their aim is to improve transparency and increase the amount of information that is provided to the Parliament.

Amendment 11, which I will speak to later, requires that, when the chief constable lays a revised code, they are also required to lay a statement before the Parliament that summarises any representations that have been made during the consultation and any representations that have not resulted in a revision to the code. The amendments seek to provide the Parliament with information about the arguments and representations that have been made that relate to the code.

The provision in amendment 11 is slightly different to the wording that I proposed in an amendment at stage 2.

My amendments in the group were submitted after discussion with the Scottish Government, and I thank the officials involved for their assistance in drafting them. I hope that the amendments are now drafted in terms that will enable them to have wide support.

I move amendment 10.

I press amendment 10.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Amendment 11 moved—[Katy Clark]—and agreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Sharon Dowey]—and agreed to.

Section 3A—Vetting code of practice

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.

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 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)

The First Minister confirmed in his letter to me, dated 6 November, that there remain five extant FOI cases relating to the evidence to James Hamilton’s investigation. Does the minister accept that, although there has been significant improvement in reducing the backlog in FOI cases, it is in these highly political situations with ministerial involvement that requested information is being withheld?

I thank the minister for bringing the motion to the chamber, as we mark the 16 days of activism, and for the cross-party nature of the debate. The 16 days of activism developed from the international day for the elimination of violence against women, which we mark on 25 November. It was established in 1981 by Latin American and Caribbean feminists and then adopted by the UN.

Despite the 16 days of activism having been marked since 1999, we all know that a huge amount still remains to be done. I welcome the focus of the motion, which highlights the importance of education and of listening to younger people on how we can address women’s inequality. Ninety-three per cent of young people who were recently consulted by the Scottish Youth Parliament agreed that many girls and women feel unsafe in public spaces.

We know that violence against women is endemic across the world, and I welcome what the minister has said about the Scottish Government’s international work. However, we also know that, as the minister also said, we have very high levels of violence against women and girls in Scotland. As Tess White said, that is an outrage. The only way that will change is if we change our culture, and young people need to be central to that.

In 2021, my colleague Pauline McNeill and I launched Scottish Labour’s consultation on ending violence against women and girls to develop our policies in the area. One of the key issues that emerged during that consultation was the significant challenge of sexism and misogyny in schools, the need for a cross-campus strategy to deal with sexism and misogyny, and the rising levels of violence against pupils and staff in schools, particularly girls and women staff. I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for her support and for the work that she is doing on tackling sexism and misogyny in schools and in developing our policies. I thank everyone—in particular, all the young people—who has attended events and contributed to the discussion that my party is having.

We all need to support initiatives to combat sexism in schools, including the mentoring projects and the variety of other initiatives that are taking place across Scotland. However, we must be clear that what we are currently doing is inadequate and that far more needs to be done.

We have been joined this week in the Parliament by Scottish Women’s Aid, which has a stall in the garden lobby. SWA staff have been sharing with MSPs not only the experiences of the women who use their services but the importance of listening to children and young people who are affected by abuse. Women might be able to separate from their abusers, but the abuse can continue through child contact. Again, we need to listen to women and children as we develop our policies in all areas.

Research from Engender shows that 43 per cent of girls and women in Scotland do not feel safe outside alone. The Scottish Government’s research, which was published last year, found that women feel more comfortable when train station ticket offices are open and staffed. However, the recent announcement of a reduction in hours at ScotRail ticket offices across Scotland is disappointing and another example of how we need to prioritise the needs of girls and women in all our policies. I look forward to working alongside my colleague Claire Baker, who has been appointed as Labour’s new transport spokesperson, and with colleagues from any party across the chamber with a desire to assist in rolling back cuts in ticket offices and in ensuring safe staffing levels in all public spaces where people need to use public transport.

The voice of children and young people is vital in all areas of policy. The Scottish Government and MSPs must ensure that the

“youth voice is central to action to address gender-based violence”,

as the motion sets out. I very much hope that we continue to work cross party to ensure that that happens and that we accept that, sometimes, that will have to mean changes in the way we do politics and the policies that we adopt.

North Ayrshire Council has had its budgets cut by £100 million since 2010, with disproportionate cuts to local government over the past 17 years. The council is now consulting on cuts to teacher numbers, on abolishing all school crossing patrollers, and on closing libraries and the Arran outdoor education centre. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the budget, which continues with increased ring fencing for councils, will still mean that more vital public services will be cut in the coming year, or can she give assurance that it is sufficient to address the immediate funding pressures and to start to undo the damage of the past 17 years?

What discussions has the Scottish Government had with councils that implemented firework control zones in this first year? Will the minister undertake to provide a full report to this Parliament, which spent a great deal of time scrutinising the legislation, on the operation and effectiveness of control zones and the lessons that can be learned?