Chamber and committees

I am always grateful to hear that I have been praised when I have been momentarily absent from the chamber. However, I understand that he also referred to my colleague Katy Clark. I believe that she was absent on the day when we voted on the committee report. I mention that for clarity and for the record.

I note what the cabinet secretary said in her answer, and in previous answers, about an incoming Labour Government. She will, I am sure, want to support transformational policies such as the new deal for working people, which will put money in people’s pockets.

Does she recognise, however, with regard to her own responsibilities in Scotland, that, prior to the recess, the annual release of official statistics showed that child poverty levels have been static at 24 per cent? That is significantly above the interim target of 18 per cent, which the Scottish Government is now almost certain to miss. Does she accept that she is going to miss those legally set targets? If so, when will she come to the chamber and outline her concerns about that?

As we have said throughout, we are interested in the lived experience element, and in people talking about their experience of disability, which would suggest that model of people’s experience that we have in the social model. I do not understand why the cabinet secretary would not support workers and people with that lived experience giving voice to it through the council in terms of what is being proposed.

Returning to the point that I was making about support for the bill, the trade union movement supports it, and Roz Foyer of the STUC commented just this week that,

“by rejecting Mark Griffin’s Bill,”

the Scottish Government

“would be sending out the message that workers injured at their work and now in need of assistance from the state can be discarded or ignored.”

We know that the bill has the support of organisations that recognise that it does not represent the end of the road for employment injuries assistance but is a step in the right direction towards getting voices heard and making calls for assistance. Such groups include Action on Asbestos, Long Covid Scotland and the Injury Time campaign, ably led by my friend and colleague Michael Marra and supported by legends of the game in Scotland. All those people have spoken about the hazards that they experienced at work and the need to be covered by employment injury assistance. That should involve an expert body that looks at the evidence and makes recommendations. They consistently told us that an advisory council was a step in the right direction towards that.

I completely agree with the points that Michael Marra and Mark Griffin have made that people are running out of time to get justice, to get their sense of injustice fixed or sorted and, crucially, to have their voices heard in the process as we develop the benefit.

It is clear that the SNP’s failure to move forward at pace and with purpose on these issues, and its failure to support the bill, marks another failure to support workers and working people in this country. It would appear that the Government wants to give us warm words about its support for the general principles of the bill, but without putting that into action by backing the bill at decision time. It seems to me that the Government is only interested in paying lip service to Scotland’s workers and trade union movement, while never actually carrying forward the policies that are needed with any sense of urgency.

As I said at the outset, Scottish Labour will always be the party of working people in Scotland, and that is why we are pleased to support the bill at stage 1.

I remind the cabinet secretary that, when she gave evidence to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, she spoke about the consultation coming forward early in the new year. We are now in April. I understand what she has said in the debate, but the delay has caused deep concern for people about the progress of the benefit and making sure that we get the right assistance for the people who deserve it.

It is therefore incumbent on Parliament to support the bill, so as to make some forward movement in this area. I recognise, as stakeholders do, that the bill will not introduce the benefit, and it has not been outlined at this stage what the benefit will look like. However, the bill sets up the key components that will be needed when that benefit comes forward. Expert advice and workers’ voices will be required to ensure that the right illnesses, injuries and disabilities are covered, and we believe that an advisory council, as proposed, is the right vehicle for that.

The proposals as outlined by my colleague Mark Griffin would make the proposed council independent from Government and gender balanced, with permanent representation from workers and able to carry out its own research. Critically, in my view, and, in contrast with the alternatives that could exist, they put the body on a statutory footing, so that the Government cannot just disband it, as it has done with other advisory groups, such as the disability and carers benefits expert advisory group, or DACBEAG.

What struck me from all the evidence that we heard, as a member of the committee, was the widespread support from stakeholders and the fact that there was very little opposition to the proposals.

I am in my final 30 seconds. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will want to reflect on that issue in her concluding remarks.

I return to where I began. The intent of the law is right. I think that everyone in the chamber agrees that challenges exist in relation to pernicious hate, but it is clear to me that the Government has failed on the implementation of the law and on building public confidence. It must now act, as we ask in our amendment, to rectify the situation.

Although I was not in the Parliament at the time when the legislation was passed, I recognise, as colleagues have done, that it was accepted in good faith and that it sought to act on the findings of Lord Bracadale’s review, of which we have heard much this afternoon. We would all want to take a moment to recognise that hate crime is pernicious and deeply damaging. In his review, Lord Bracadale went out of his way to highlight the particularly challenging circumstances of growing Islamophobia and antisemitism in Scotland and, through his recommendations, he sought consolidation of the law to make things better around access to recourse in that regard.

However, the past fortnight, since the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 came into force, must surely be instructive for the Government, because there has been a clear demonstration of how the chaotic implementation of a law that is intended to improve protections from hate for individuals and communities has actively undermined confidence in that law and in its operation more generally. Many colleagues, including Pauline McNeill in her opening contribution, have outlined that the principles of the act, which consolidates hate crime legislation into one body of law and seeks to tackle damaging hate crime incidents, have been weakened by the Government’s botched implementation. We need to reflect on a number of issues around that.

Pauline McNeill also highlighted that the omission of misogyny and sex-based hate crimes has left women feeling unprotected. There has been woeful communication, which has left people in the dark about what the act does and does not do, and implementation has been undermined by inadequate training and resourcing for Police Scotland. The Government has had three years since the bill was passed in which to ensure that the issues were dealt with—to ensure that the police were properly supported to train officers, to ensure that clear guidance was in place on practical implementation and interpretation, and to communicate clearly with the public about what was changing. We have heard about the three-year delay around the misogyny element, which could have been brought into the bill, and we are still waiting for progress on the stand-alone misogyny law. The inconsistent communication around the act has understandably confused matters.

Although we agree, on the whole, with the general principles of the law, we have to look at the serious problems that have been posed. A number of speakers have helpfully reflected on the challenges. Most notably, Liam McArthur and Fergus Ewing highlighted much that can be done to reflect on the legislation and improve it. It is also important to quote these words from Adam Tomkins, which we have heard many times:

“If we focus on what the Act actually means, rather than on what intemperate voices on both the left and the right are falsely claiming it means, we might yet make a success of it.”

That is where my contribution comes from today. The implementation of the act has not been a good example of how to go about introducing new legislation in Scotland.

I hope that the Government is in self-reflective mode, because it has to take stock of the challenges and problems that have been highlighted throughout the debate, such as the absence of clear communication and guidance and the need for the police to be well resourced and supported, and it has to ensure that progress is made on what is missing from the act. It is clear that a number of things must be done to reflect on the act and move forward, because we have to face the facts of where we are and what we can do.

Pauline McNeill’s suggestions and those in the Labour amendment point very clearly to what should be done. The Criminal Justice Committee should immediately undertake work to review the implementation of the act and look at the specific issues that I and colleagues have raised in the debate. In doing that, it should go into the level and nature of the complaints in the first week of implementation and what has happened with the drop in numbers. That important post-legislative scrutiny, which we are calling for today, should be undertaken by the Criminal Justice Committee, because it is crucial for moving forward.

It is also important that the Government reflects on the broader point of how we resource the police in Scotland. I am seriously concerned about the issues that have been raised by the Scottish Police Federation and others regarding how Police Scotland is resourced and supported. I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect in her summing-up speech on the cuts that have occurred in community policing across Scotland and the challenges that have been posed.

Thanks for that. I recall the discussions at the time of the passage of the bill around how that system might work. It might also tie into the point about accessibility. The process might be a more accessible if you go straight to an appeal. Do you feel that, in terms of some of the points that Erica Young made about accessibility, it would be easier if we just went straight to that process?

Great, thank you. I have a question about some of the challenges arising from differences in where people live. Are there differences between rural, semi-rural and urban areas in terms of clients’ experiences of redetermination?

I have just lost my place in my papers, convener. Can you give me one moment?