Chamber and committees

I do not intend to detain the chamber for too much longer in having to listen to me, given that I opened for the Labour Party at the beginning of the debate. I will simply reflect on some of the contributions that have been made and then offer again our view on the requirement that the bill be on the statute book and on the lessons to be learned.

I put on record my thanks to the legislation team who prepared the bill and briefed the committee, the legal officers from the Government who gave evidence to the committee, and those who responded to the call for views and gave their opinions on the bill—and, perhaps, on wider issues, which I am keen not to relitigate today, as I have said.

Carol Mochan spoke powerfully, as did Evelyn Tweed and others, about the 2018 act, which was debated in the previous parliamentary session, and the importance of pursuing that further equality in our public bodies in order to ensure that they are more representative of the country and that mechanisms are in place to support that.

I recognise the contributions that were made about what the act does and what it does not do when it comes to the statute book. I reiterate the fact that Labour previously supported and continues to support the fundamental principles of the act, but we are acutely aware of the need to respect the decision of the court and to ensure that the statute book reflects that decision, given that that is now the way in which the law has to be conducted in practice.

In opening, I asked the cabinet secretary for a number of points of clarification on the lessons that can be learned from this process. That is important for both the Government and the Parliament, not least when it comes to how we might avoid such situations but also in relation to how we might learn from the opportunities that we have to clarify and tidy up the statute book before we come to the process of passing a stand-alone bill. I hope that, in her summing up, the cabinet secretary will reflect on the questions that I have asked in good faith, and on the need to ensure that all our processes in this Parliament are well scrutinised and reflected on, so that we do not have to revisit legislation in this way.

I will leave my comments there, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am very grateful for your indulgence this afternoon.

I am pleased to open on behalf of Scottish Labour in the debate. Scottish Labour supported the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 and we continue to support the principle of the act. It is an important step towards achieving gender parity and increasing the representation of women through a robust level to promote equality.

However, we fully acknowledge that the amendment is necessary and therefore welcome the stage 1 debate and process. We recognise what previous speakers have said about the technical nature of the bill and that it has been introduced to tidy up the statute book. Recognising that fact and considering all the judgments that were passed down is the reason why the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, of which I am a member, produced what is perhaps one of the smallest reports that I have seen for stage 1 of a bill. It is an accurate reflection of the purpose of the bill.

I do not intend to try to rehearse the debates that we had during the passage of the bill, and I note that I was not a member of the Parliament at that time. Today is about acknowledging the judgments of the court and ensuring that we do our job to tidy up the statute book to deflect the possibility of any potential future confusion.

It is important to reflect on the fact that the bill does not change what is currently operating on the ground, because the definition in the 2018 act has become defunct since Lady Dorrian’s initial judgment, and the Scottish Government’s revised guidance has been in effect since its introduction. We are not changing anything today; we are just tidying up the statute book.

In the spirit of constructive criticism for the Scottish Government and for Parliament as a whole, as the convener and others have said, there are opportunities for reflection on some of the issues that the process has raised. We need to reflect on whether the confusion that often arises in legal cases could be avoided in the first place. Nobody wants legislation to end up in the courts, particularly in areas in which it is deemed to be outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament. We need to reflect on that more broadly in respect of a number of pieces of legislation and think about how we deal with those issues, particularly in the drafting process.

Another issue—we have heard this already—is whether this change to the statute book could have been achieved sooner. I appreciate what the cabinet secretary has said today and in committee about waiting to see whether there were alternative vehicles through which the amendment could have been made, rather than through this stand-alone bill. Obviously, the Government has come to the conclusion that there was no opportunity to do that before starting this process, but I note that this is not the first time that we have had to wait quite a while to tidy up legislation or to react to the rulings of the court—we can think back to the process around the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. It is worth thinking about what we can do procedurally to speed up changes to ensure that issues do not sit unresolved for longer than needed.

Like the bill and its accompanying stage 1 report, I will be brief and leave my remarks there. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and hope that we can move forward at pace to update the legislation.

This is a very serious report, and I thank all the women who have contributed to it and campaigned over many years. Now that the report has been published, will the cabinet secretary take the opportunity to outline what steps she is taking to discuss its implications for WASPI women in Scotland with the relevant UK ministers? I am sure that she agrees that a swift response from this UK Government is extremely important in terms of the next steps, as is listening to the views of all those who are impacted.

Given that poverty and inequality statistics published last week—to which I think the cabinet secretary referred—show static and rising poverty rates among pensioners over the past decade, what more will the Scottish Government do, within its powers, to support pensioners?

Good morning. I will start with a broad question. What experience do you have of the existing appointee system under the DWP and Social Security Scotland? What has been your experience of that process?

Those answers are helpful. On some of the practical suggestions, I am sensing frustration about blockages, if I can use that expression, in the system. The bill will create empowering opportunities, but a lot of the detail comes down to how the system operates in practice. Is Social Security Scotland engaging with some of the suggestions that Vicki Cahill made or with the conversation about a more automated process, as Fiona Collie suggested?

The bill requires DWP appointees to be authorised by Social Security Scotland

“as soon as reasonably practical”.

What are your general expectations about how long it should take Social Security Scotland to authorise an appointee? We had a discussion with other witnesses about timescales and expectations, so it would be good to get your sense of that.

Disabled people across my West Scotland region have been in touch with me to express their frustration that the Government is not taking their issues and concerns seriously. Although they have welcomed the intent behind the immediate priorities plan, that has become something of a misnomer because there is no immediacy on a plan that the Government has been discussing for a year. Indeed, the minister’s answer suggested that we will see further progress some time later this year. Will she listen to the concerns of disabled people who are raising those issues with their MSPs? What will she do to energise that work as a matter of urgency, so that we can deliver action on the challenges that disabled people in Scotland face?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the implementation of the immediate priorities plan developed with disabled people’s organisations. (S6O-03247)

I reiterate the purpose of my amendment 18. It is clear from the debate that people want clarity and certainty about a mental health moratorium that goes beyond what has been proposed in the bill as introduced. The framework that I have used in my amendment models some of the areas that were covered by the committee report, and it considers how we expand the framework beyond formal emergency care.

Community settings are important, too, in acknowledging that people can access treatment for crisis in communities and in a variety of ways. It is important that we reflect on that.

As I said at the outset, there is a variance of views among those who have been consulted. For example, I acknowledge that Change Mental Health has been very supportive of the approach that I have taken through amendment 18, whereas Citizens Advice Scotland, which sits on the working group, has said that things should perhaps be done in a different way that allows for the flexibility that the minister has described.

On reflection, it is clear to me that putting something in the bill gives certainty and clarity, although I appreciate the minister’s point about having flexibility. One of the arguments that has been put to me is that mental health law will change and that there has been a consultation process on that change. I do not think that that is insurmountable—something could be put into legislation and then be amended should, for example, mental health law change.

However, I recognise colleagues’ point about people’s lived experience and about those in the sector who have a view on the issue and might want to inform how we change the regulations on the moratorium in a more flexible way.

I also recognise the minister’s offer to find consensus on a wider moratorium that reaches more people and gives them the support that they need when they are in debt crisis. A debate remains about whether we do that in the bill or through regulations. I am encouraged by the minister’s willingness to further discuss any secondary legislation that he would want to introduce and anything that he would want the committee and the Parliament to scrutinise. I am willing to have that conversation, as I am sure my colleagues are. However, I reserve the right to carry out further consultation with stakeholders and to bring back a proposal at stage 3, if I think that that is the right thing to do.

My colleagues Daniel Johnson and Colin Smyth have clearly outlined the strengths and importance of their amendments.

I will end my comments here. I am happy to press manuscript amendment 18A, which amends amendment 18.

Amendment 18A agreed to.

On the basis that the minister and I have a difference of opinion, I will move the amendment.

Amendment 29 moved—[Paul O’Kane].