Chamber and committees

Sorry—I would have voted yes.

—that there is a need for urgency.

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is regarding the reported 200,000 public sector workers who are still waiting on their pension entitlement following the 2018 McCloud judgment on pension discrimination. (S6F-04397)

This has been described by those who are affected as a national scandal, and that is what it is. Public sector workers including nurses, police officers, firefighters and local government workers are still to receive pension funds amounting to tens of thousands of pounds.

Seven years on from the McCloud judgment on pension discrimination, 55,000 people are still waiting on pension remedy statements, which must be received before any compensation is paid. Some people have died waiting for their pension remedy statement from the Scottish Public Pensions Agency. It has broken at least two statutory deadlines, and it will miss a third deadline tomorrow. Delays are now expected to run until 2027. Every year in which a deadline is missed represents a cost to the taxpayer in interest payments of 8 per cent.

Does the First Minister agree that, after seven years, it is unacceptable that the SPPA has not put this right? Given that it is a Government agency, what action is the First Minister prepared to take to bring forward the work that is required to issue remedy statements and pay public sector pensioners on time? What further redress will he provide for those who are impacted by this debacle? Here, I am talking about those who have already retired on reduced pensions. He could at least agree—

Good morning. I thank the cabinet secretary and Teresa Medhurst for sharing their insights into why we are facing this crisis in the Scottish Prison Service. They have always been frank and open with the Opposition parties, and I appreciate that.

I would like to understand the detail of what all of this means in relation to short-term prisoners. It is quite hard to follow, but am I correct in saying that the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 changes the early release point to 40 per cent of a sentence having been served? Where does that provision come in?

Thank you—that was helpful.

I noted that the updated rules will apply in relation to the Upper Tribunal, which the chair will have some flexibility in appointing members to. I presume that it would be expected that people who were appointed to the Upper Tribunal would be familiar with, and have had training in, the police rules specifically.

That is great; thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. I will start with the global exploitation of, and sexual violence committed against, women and girls—mainly by men; I would like to think that we probably all agree on that.

I am not probing whether you are for or against decriminalisation; that has been well covered. I am interested in hearing, in particular from Dr Sandy and Dr Vuolajärvi, what happens if we go down the path of removing stigma.

I know that there are various levels of stigma attached to the industry, which you have articulated very well; I agree with that. However, the normalisation of the sale of sex is what concerns me most and what I want to ask about. Niina Vuolajärvi, are you not concerned about going down that path? Can we really stop men sexually exploiting women by normalising the sale of sex?

Do you think that your argument harms women who are not involved in the sex trade who are exploited by men? Does not wanting to protect the sale of sex in any country, which is what I think that you are arguing for—for all the right reasons; I understand that—cause harm to other women, because of the very nature of men’s attitudes to women? Alternatively, do you think that it does not harm them? If so, that is fine, but I would like to know.

I start by saying that I do not find this at all easy. I can see that there is an emergency. I heard Phil Fairlie from the Prison Officers Association on the radio this morning and I know that the situation is horrendous. For that reason, the regulations must be carefully considered, but I am going to oppose the SSI and will set out the balance of my reasoning.

The issue is not straightforward, and there will be consequences whichever way we vote. We want to release the pressure on our prisons, but this is the third time that we have been in this situation, and my main concern is that I do not want to endorse an approach of managing prisoners in that way.

The situation is already complex, and I appreciated the exchange with the cabinet secretary as I tried to understand the current sentencing policy in Scottish prisons. I dearly wish that the committee had been given time to do its job, because I agree with the point about the long term. The convener knows that I feel that this committee should be able to examine some bigger issues during the final six months of this parliamentary session because that is our job. The Sentencing Council has its job, and I will say something about that, but we have a job and do not have the time to do it, for reasons that I will not go into.

I am not convinced that the Sentencing Council is doing the job that it was set up for. That is my initial take on that, because I think that there should be clearer answers to the changing trends. You cannot take a period of 18 or 20 years and say that we could not have predicted this situation. Things do not stay the same, that is for sure: the prison population might become older, and the courts are independent and we do not know what they will do. I appreciate all that, but I think that the Sentencing Council should be more up front and should have more of an exchange with us, as elected members, about how it will deal with this in the longer term. I agree with the cabinet secretary on that.

I have to be constantly reminded that we changed the approach to long-term prisoners, who are not eligible for release on parole until six months before the end of their sentence. That shows how complex sentencing has become, for many reasons. The committee should have a legacy discussion about that.

The convener asked about lessons learned. I am sure that lessons have been learned and are learned every time that we have to go through this process. Communication with victims is not easy.

I know that we are running out of time for discussion, but I will mention that Families Outside appealed to the committee to recognise the importance of families. I know that the cabinet secretary is fully aware that families make a huge difference to reoffending rates, and that organisation has pleaded for better communication.

The decision is a very difficult one—I am not going to pretend otherwise—but I thought that I should contribute to the debate and explain my decision.