Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its on-going work with local authorities, Police Scotland and other partners to tackle the reported increasing antisocial behaviour in town centres. (S6O-03614)

The minister will be aware of the problems that antisocial behaviour causes across the country, but I want to mention specific incidents that have occurred in parts of Barrhead, which is in my region, and in particular around the Asda supermarket there. When we debated the issue last year, other members put to the minister the challenges that such behaviour presents across the country, and particularly around supermarkets. I have been engaging with the various stakeholders. I noticed that the minister mentioned that the independent working group on antisocial behaviour will report later this year. Will she agree to meet me to give me an update on that work? Can she be any more specific on the timescale for the publication of the working group’s report?

I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I do not intend to speak for too long, but I want to offer some remarks.

In the stage 1 proceedings on the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, I commented that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which I am a member of, had produced the smallest stage 1 report that I had ever seen in the Parliament and had reached the conclusion that the bill should proceed in order to tidy up the statute book. At stage 2, there were no amendments for the committee to consider, and this afternoon, in a rare occurrence, we have no amendments to the bill to consider at stage 3. It is clear that there is consensus on passing the bill and, therefore, taking the action that is required to ensure that the statute book reflects the legal judgment that was handed down in the Court of Session.

There are a number of things that we should take time to reflect on as we bring our consideration of the bill to its conclusion. As has already been outlined, we are here because of a legal judgment on the original act. I have sometimes felt of late that that has become a more common situation. We could look at some of the challenges around bringing the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to its conclusion and around other issues. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament collectively need to be better at ensuring that legislation does not end up in the courts and that we produce good legislation at every stage. We need to ensure that the scrutiny of legislation is well considered and well done so that we do not end up with a legal challenge.

It is worth reiterating at this stage in the proceedings the importance of the original legislation. I made some comments on that in my contribution at stage 1. Scottish Labour fully supported the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. I was not a member of the Scottish Parliament when the 2018 act was passed. However, although we are now seeking to rectify the statute book, I think that everybody recognises that the 2018 act is an important step on the journey to ensuring better gender parity and increasing the representation of women in public life.

We know that the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill will not change anything that is happening on the ground, because the definition in the 2018 act has been defunct since Lady Dorrian’s initial judgment and the introduction of the Scottish Government’s revised guidance, which was subsequently affirmed by the court. Given that the act has been in effect with revised guidance since the judgments, it would be good to hear from the Government what assessment it is making of the impact of the original act and whether that is living up to its policy intent. We all want to see the original act meeting the policy intent of creating greater parity.

In speaking to colleagues this morning, I was reflecting that we are still falling short on that in many areas in public life. Just because there is legislation for public boards, that does not mean that we always get it right in every sphere of life to ensure gender balance. Indeed, changes today to the Parliament’s Public Audit Committee mean that that committee now has five male members and three male substitute members. It is incumbent on all parties that are represented in the Parliamentary Bureau to reflect on how we show leadership in the chamber and in the Parliament as a whole, and on how to have greater parity in decisions on Parliament committees, and to lead by example. I am sure that the business managers will reflect on that, as I am sure that you will, too, Presiding Officer.

I do not intend to detain members for much longer with my opening speech, and I do not intend to rehearse the old debates to any large degree. It is our job as responsible legislators to consider the court’s judgments, to respect them and to ensure that we have a tidy statute book to prevent any future confusion.

Given the brevity of the bill, I will leave my remarks there.

The member is inaccurate in saying that there have been no words from Keir Starmer. When he was in Scotland to launch the first six steps for a Labour Government, he said that there is a duty on the next Government to look at the report and to act on it, so he has clearly outlined that that is important.

I welcome the chance to debate these issues again and to highlight the WASPI women’s campaign.

As I set out when we last debated the issue, at the beginning of May, in Government time, Scottish Labour welcomed the publication of the PHSO’s detailed report, which, rightly, should command the attention of us all. We had already started to hear about the desire for members to focus on the report and consider it in great detail. Since our previous debate, though, it appears that the report’s findings have not commanded the full attention of the current Conservative UK Government.

More than two months passed between the report’s publication in March and the Prime Minister’s announcement that he was calling a general election in July. During that period, despite calls from campaigners and Opposition parties to publish a full statement and response to the report, the Conservative Government utterly failed to do so. It has had the power to respond, but it has chosen not to do so and to kick the issue into the long grass. As other members have articulated, I do not think that it is right that the UK Government did not take that opportunity to respond while it had access to the information that sits with the Treasury and the DWP.

Following the general election, it will be for the next UK Government to carefully consider the report’s recommendations in full. If Labour is fortunate enough to be elected, we will work to give the report proper consideration. As we have done from the start, we will listen respectfully to the women who have been involved in this injustice. We have to recognise that this is an injustice, as other members have articulated during the debate so far.

We should reflect on the important issues that Ruth Maguire highlighted about the injustice that women, in particular, have experienced in this context. Speaking as a man, I am very conscious of the imbalance in rights and the challenge that exists in trying to achieve equality.

We should also speak of the campaigners, who have been tireless and ferocious in highlighting inequalities and trying to set things right. As I did in May, I take the opportunity to thank them and, indeed, everyone who contributed to the PHSO’s report. Recently, I met WASPI campaigners in Renfrewshire and Inverclyde. We had a constructive discussion about the issues highlighted in the report, the redress that they would like to see and what the next steps might be for any incoming Government.

It is clear that there are a number of challenges. As I have said, we have not had access to all the information that sits with the Treasury and the DWP. It is important that, if the response to the report includes establishing a compensation scheme, the scheme be agreed by those who have been affected. We must ensure that it commands their confidence and meets the aspirations of those who seek redress, perhaps at varying levels. We must also ensure, of course, that the scheme can be properly and fully funded and that the commitment is not made and then not delivered properly.

We know that there are significant challenges not only in relation to the WASPI women but in righting injustices such as the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal. The Windrush generation has not yet been properly compensated, either. The incoming UK Government will have a huge amount of work in its in-tray, which, quite frankly, has not been addressed by the current Conservative Government. It is clear to me that that might take time and that there will be competing interests, but it is important that we consider the report in full and have the Government respond. If Labour is fortunate enough to form that incoming Government, that is what we will do. We will work hand in hand with the WASPI women. We will ensure that we do not make promises that we cannot keep, that justice is done and that there is redress.

I am disappointed by the way in which the member has chosen to characterise the debate. It is clear in what I said that we need to consider the report. With regard to the SNP’s manifesto commitment, has she costed how much the compensation would be, and will she say how it will be paid for? I think that those are fair questions.

Thus far, the minister’s answers have been quite extraordinary. People in Inverclyde do not want warm words from the Government, nor do they want visits from the minister or comparisons with England; they want dental services to be there to serve the people who need them. The reality is that Mydentist is not the first practice in Inverclyde to close. With the remaining practices either being closed to new NHS patients or dealing with ever-expanding waiting lists, the area is a dental desert. I see that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is in his place in the chamber, so he might want to reflect on the issue, too. Why has it taken so long for any intervention to come? Given that, across the country, four out of every five practices are not accepting new NHS patients, when Inverclyde residents ask who is responsible for the lack of dentistry provision that they face, surely the only answer can be that it is this Scottish National Party Government.

Good morning. I am keen to understand how clear you think the bill is on enforcement of the new homelessness duties. Who will be responsible for monitoring relevant bodies’ compliance with those duties? I think that that will be crucial.

In the interests of time, I think that we can follow up on those points in writing.

Thank you—that was very helpful. We will want to reflect on that across all the equalities strands.

On the rural aspect of the bill’s proposals, we have discussed the different solutions to homelessness that are required in our rural communities. I suppose that this is quite a big question, but it would be good to get a sense of how far you think the provisions go in addressing specific issues in rural communities. I do not know who wants to kick off on that.