Chamber and committees

Good morning. My questions will focus on the content of the annual report in terms of the funding and finance of SCoSS. From the 2023-24 annual report, we saw that expenditure would exceed the budget in 2024-25. That was not a huge overspend—it was £470,000 compared to the projected spend of £450,000. The committee is interested to know whether that has been resolved and whether there is a view about the financial sustainability of SCoSS going forward?

Do you feel that you are now in a position where the budget planning process will be easier because—to borrow a phrase—known unknowns are perhaps lessened by where we are in the process of transfer? Are you finding that the engagement with the Government on your needs—saying, “Here is a need. How do we get to the budget figure that will work for us?”—is a communicative and open process?

It sounds as though, given the timing, with more and more people either accessing new benefits or being transferred to benefits, it is probably quite crucial that the lived experience piece is at the forefront of what you are doing.

That is helpful. You referred to the increase in the secretariat, and it was good to hear Judith Paterson talk about getting up to full capacity with board members and those sorts of things. Has that changed the way that SCoSS works? I have heard that you feel that you are being efficient but also that you can respond to things. Is that the secretariat's role in particular?

I thank the First Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I welcome the formal apology that he has made to Scotland’s Gypsy and Traveller communities.

The Government is right to acknowledge that, although they occurred before the Parliament was established, the Scottish state and its public institutions should recognise the wrongs that were visited on Gypsy and Traveller communities. The tinker experiment was wrong and should never have happened. It exposed some of our most marginalised communities to cultural injustice, prejudice and failure. Although that occurred many decades ago, it is clear that it has had a lasting effect. On behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, I add our apology to that of the First Minister.

We have heard that it has taken a long time to reach this day. Once again, it is important that we pay tribute to all the individuals in the Gypsy Traveller community who have spoken out and have had to relive injustices in order to get the recognition and the apology that they deserve. It is also important to put on record the work not just of Christina McKelvie, about which I accord myself with the comments of the First Minister, but of all the other organisations in Scotland, particularly the Scottish Human Rights Commission under the stewardship of Professor Angela O’Hagan and others, that continue to work on these issues.

In response to Alexander Stewart, the First Minister acknowledged, once again, that this is the beginning of a conversation and a process, but I do not think that he said in definitive terms whether there will be consideration of a redress scheme. Is he able to say anything further on that? If not, is he able to say why that is and whether he thinks that redress in the form of compensation would be appropriate?

Cashback for communities does, indeed, do great work and, clearly, youth work is part of the response. However, I have spoken with a number of youth groups in my community, including Johnstone Castle Learning Centre, which is locked out of that funding because its income is under £200,000. Most youth groups that we represent in our communities will not have an income of £200,000. What does the minister suggest that they should do to ensure that their life-saving work continues?

In that case, I am wondering about the legacy of regulation that will be held over from this parliamentary session until the next session. The minister is right to say that we have to go through an election and a Government has to be formed, but do officials have a view on the timescale for the work?

That will be useful to the committee when we write our legacy report to hand over to whoever comes next.

A number of non-Government amendments to the then Children (Scotland) Bill that were agreed to introduced various provisions, not least on child advocacy services under section 21 and alternative dispute resolution under sections 23 and 24. At the moment, there is no plan for implementing them. It would be useful if the Government placed on record its policy intention in relation to implementing those provisions. I appreciate that that will probably be done in the next parliamentary session, not this one.

Good morning. Given the policy criticisms of the lack of regulation of child welfare reporters, implementation of the regulatory regime that is proposed for them—how that will be carried out—is important. Does the Government intend to implement the regime for child welfare reporters in this parliamentary session or the next? If it is going to be in the next session, is there a best estimate for when that will happen and come into effect?

I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate. Like colleagues across the chamber, I welcome the publication of the annual statement, which finally delivers on the recommendation that Scottish ministers deliver an annual statement on gender policy coherence. As we have heard, that was first suggested by the National Advisory Council on Women and Girls in 2019. It has taken the time since then for the annual statement to be brought to fruition. I appreciate that we have had challenges in the intervening period—not least Covid—but we should reflect on the amount of time that it sometimes takes to prepare reports and then decide how we will implement the actions. Members across the chamber have reflected on the fact that having reports is all well and good but that taking action is really important.

Whatever the internal processes and challenges have been in collating the information that was needed to deliver an annual statement, there is now an opportunity for us all to take cognisance of it, reflect on it and decide how to move forward in relation to both the Government’s actions and the actions that Parliament can take through scrutiny. This debate will be important in that regard, but it is important that we come together annually to reflect on what progress is and is not being made.

There are similar opportunities in the parliamentary calendar to reflect on and debate issues that are relevant to supporting women and girls in Scottish society. Every year, we have many important opportunities for debate, such as on the annual 16 days of activism on gender-based violence. I have reflected, as have colleagues, that those debates cannot just take place at that time, or during those 16 days in the case of that example. We need year-round scrutiny and interrogation to ensure that we do not miss those important issues in the day-to-day work of the Parliament.

The point has been made already, but I agree that it is crucial that men—those who are in the chamber and other male colleagues in the Parliament—are involved in that scrutiny. It is always the case that too few men take part in these debates. I always try to say that it is very important that we reflect on our actions and behaviours. We must also reflect on how we are bringing up a new generation of boys and young men and informing their attitudes towards and understanding of women. We must reflect on whether we are giving them the right support to be the best men that they can be and to respect and understand what is acceptable behaviour towards women and girls. Many of those issues have already been explored very eloquently in the debate.

We need to take robust action to push back on toxic influences, toxic figures online and the drip-feeding of outdated and harmful views towards women, which has arguably set back our debates quite some way. We have to push harder to look at potential new ways to target those narratives, particularly online. I pay tribute to everyone, particularly the women in the chamber, who continue to work collaboratively to do that and to raise those issues and ensure that they do not disappear from our discourse.

I will reflect on the work that is being done in committees in the Parliament, which is very important. A lot of good, high-quality work can be done in committees, not least in the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee—some members of the committee are in the chamber for the debate—but also the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, which is concluding its report on the impact of finances on women who are leaving a domestically abusive relationship. Its forthcoming report will be important, because the evidence that we heard in the committee’s inquiry was stark and concerning. A lot of tangible action could make a real difference in how we support women to leave a financially abusive relationship, to get the right support and, fundamentally, to get on to the right footing and have the right financial support to move on with their lives.

There is a huge amount of work for us all to do, but I am particularly cognisant of the role that men play in understanding the issues, moving forward and supporting the women in the chamber and beyond in Scotland so that we can all move forward together for equality.