Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have no difficulty agreeing with Alex Cole-Hamilton’s point.

It is unbelievable how many people who would never have dreamed of using private healthcare are now being forced to use their life savings to put their health first. However, many other people cannot do that. For basic operations such as hip operations and knee replacements, people are now anxious about calling their GP for a simple appointment. When people are ill, they have to go through the 8.30 phone queue and they have deep anxiety when the countdown starts.

That must change. Scottish Labour would openly say that it is something on which we will work with the Government, but it must change and there must be reform. Although support for the NHS remains unwaveringly high, satisfaction levels with NHS performance are at a record low.

GPs themselves are crying out for reform. They have asked the Government to help them to reform the system. They are willing to do more to broaden out the primary care services that are the cornerstone of our NHS. If they are given the power and resources to do it, they will. GPs are natural problem-solvers. A study in the British Journal of General Practice shows that GPs can reduce mortality by up to 30 per cent if people get to see their own GP regularly. That speaks for itself.

However, reform seems stagnant. There is really no excuse for not planning a decade ago for some of this. We might not have predicted a pandemic—albeit that some people did—but we knew that there was an ageing population and a mental health crisis. The short-term and piecemeal approach to investment and workforce planning has meant that NHS Scotland has paid a heavy price, and it will take more than money to turn things around. In a fresh report, Audit Scotland has said that the Government has

“No clear plan”

for NHS reform, while

“commitments to reducing waiting times have not been met”

and

“the number of people remaining in hospital because their discharge has been delayed is the highest on record”.

I emphasise that point. The chairman of the BMA, Dr Iain Kennedy, said:

“At this stage, we still lack the detail and comprehensive vision needed to make any plan a reality.”

The Government needs to convince the general public not only that it has a plan but that people can have confidence in the detail of that plan and in the 800 GPs that it says that it will deliver to transfer the NHS that people love so dearly.

The minister has said that there is to be an independently led case review, but surely we must have some answers now and not in a year’s time. Perhaps she could clarify the timescale.

How could the people who were protecting the children in question, who were under 13, have missed the signs of the deep levels of abuse that were taking place in a flat when there were children screaming and there were comings and goings? Surely the minister is not satisfied with simply leaving it to a case-led review to give us some answers to that key question.

I ask the minister whether anything can be done to give us some preliminary answers now. If we are expected to wait longer than that, I do not see how the minister can say that she is satisfied that all Scotland’s children are in fact protected.

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government plans to make creating sexually explicit “deepfake” images and videos a crime. (S6F-03730)

Deepfake abuse has been described as a “new frontier” of violence against women. The proliferation of sexually explicit deepfake images has grown at an alarming rate and is causing devastating harm to victims. #MyImageMyChoice, which is a campaign group that tackles image abuse, has found that 99 per cent of deepfake images are of women and girls.

One of the most unsettling features of that abuse is that it is often people who are known to the victim who are creating and sharing the images. Teenage girls have found that their classmates are using apps to transform their social media posts into nudes before sharing them. I have raised the issue before, so I am pleased with the First Minister’s answer. Does he agree that there is now urgency to close any loopholes in the law in Scotland by working with the United Kingdom Government, which is doing the same? As I said, it is the sharing of images that is illegal, so we need to close that gap. Does the First Minister agree that we, as a Parliament, and the Scottish Government need to send a clear message that dealing with that type of abuse is part of the campaign to eradicate violence against women and girls?

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement, which I found helpful.

This must be a turning point for Scotland’s prisons. Our system lacks accountability and transparency when there are deaths in custody. Sadly, there have been more deaths since the tragic and preventable deaths of Katie Allan and William Lindsay Brown.

Now is the time to adopt all the recommendations, which the Government has done, and to go beyond them and use them as the basis for whole-system change. For too long, the prison system, which we trust to look after people on behalf of the state, has let down families. They have been immediately shut out of a system whose first response is to defend its own interests.

Communication to families immediately after the death of their loved one has been poor. The unfettered access to information following a death in custody that families were promised by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland in its recommendations is meaningless, unless those families have rights to their own representation.

I have one specific question. Will the cabinet secretary commit to legal aid support for all families in the first 24 hours following a death in custody so that they have a chance against the system when it comes to asking immediate questions about the circumstances of the death of their loved one? Families tell me that they feel closed out of the system during the first period after a death in custody, and such a move would go a long way to making sure that we have whole-system change.

Scottish Labour believes that we must act to ensure the highest standards in our police force. The power held by police officers and police organisations requires the right structures and standards to ensure that we can have confidence in our policing. Measures in the bill seek to introduce robust mechanisms to address unacceptable conduct and behaviours of a minority of police officers and staff.

I, too, thank all the witnesses and the victims who spoke up and gave the Criminal Justice Committee first-hand evidence of how police processes can impact on their lives. I also thank my colleagues on the committee, the bill team and our clerks, who worked very hard to produce a constructive stage 1 report.

The bill cannot be viewed in isolation and is only part of a wider piece of work that must be done to improve police complaints and conduct systems. The code of ethics and the duty of candour will not have any particular legal effect, but they set out the expectations. There was quite a lot of debate on those, particularly from victims organisations such as Victim Support Scotland, which wants the code to be more transparent and publicly available, and wants there to be consequences of breaches. However, we are clear that the code of ethics should be robust and reflect the challenges of modern policing. In its report, the committee asked to be able to review the draft code.

Separately from that, there is the duty of candour, which is a standard requirement to assist in investigations. The duty is different to following any other duty or order; it is fundamentally of a more serious nature. Some witnesses advised caution on whether the duty of candour will extend in circumstances in which officers are off duty, but during the legislative process it has been made clear that it will do. However, that will not cut across the right of an accused person, whether they are a police officer or a member of police staff, not to self-incriminate in criminal inquiries. It is fair to put on the record that the Scottish Police Federation’s view was that a duty was not necessary as, in any case, 99.9 per cent of officers co-operate when asked to do so during the course of any inquiries.

One of the critical matters for both the Criminal Justice Committee and Scottish Labour was the financial memorandum. We could not have supported the bill if the Government had not corrected it. As early as this morning, we heard again from the PIRC, who reiterated that the financial implications of legislative decisions are important to consider. The PIRC remains opposed to taking on the responsibility of presenting cases against senior officers, not just from a financial point of view but in terms of the process itself, because they do not think that they should be “judge and jury”.

There are still things in the bill that are problematic, but because there are elements that we support, we will support it this evening. I hope that we can get a full update later in this session of Parliament on how it is proceeding.

One of the biggest issues with the bill is that it is not transformative in the way that the public might have liked. I do not know whether the public will notice any real difference in the handling of complaints, nor will the bill allow any new avenues for victims’ families to raise concerns about police inquiries. I have raised the specific question of the Emma Caldwell inquiry; if a family had some concerns about the avenue being pursued by the police, there is not really a route for that. It is pretty clear that there is a lot of work to be done.

The introduction of the barred list is an important aspect of the bill. It seems like a lifetime ago that the Criminal Justice Committee examined the issue of the length of time that cases involving police officers take to come to court. The committee did a good job of trying to thrash out why that was the case. I had a good session with Lady Elish Angiolini about the issue, which I think is contained in the stage 1 report, and I hope we have come to a conclusion on it.

The criminal allegations against the police division in the Crown Office—known as CAAPD—which is responsible for the investigation of criminal complaints, has said that it expects to

“progress and conclude 75 per cent of the cases that are reported to us within six months”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 15 May 2024; c 42]

Let us see whether that happens.

Although we have introduced new provision to pursue officers after they have left the service, I fully supported Sharon Dowey’s important amendments to ensure that the timescale for doing so is not completely open ended.

I will not reiterate what I said earlier about the vetting provisions that apply to police officers and staff, but I emphasise the fact that we agreed in our stage 1 report to the chief constable having the power to dismiss officers and staff who do not maintain their vetting before we had sight of the detail of the vetting provisions. Who knows what view we might otherwise have taken of that power? Because the chief constable now has that power under the new vetting provisions, we need to be clear that there is balance and fairness in the system.

It is important that the Government accepted my amendment 17 on written reasons, because it will provide substantial fairness for police officers who think that they should get to know why their vetting has been refused. As I said when we considered the grouping on vetting, my only remaining concern relates to the fact that we need to be clear, in principle, that there should be a right of correction or appeal.

I took a lot from what the cabinet secretary said about the discussions that we expect to take place between the police organisations and representatives of the police unions and staff. I hope that, in those discussions, we can thrash out something that everyone feels is a fair conclusion.

Does the existing statutory appeals provision apply when an officer has already been dismissed and appeals the dismissal? In my amendments, I am trying to get at the fact that people should at least have a right to rectify any information that might be wrong and has led to their failing their vetting and their possible dismissal.

The cabinet secretary referred to the regulations. Would there be scope to ensure that the regulations included something that an officer could use to correct misinformation in relation to vetting?

Sure—of course I will.

I was going to get to amendments 16 and 17. I fully welcome the Government’s position on them, as it will make a substantial difference in relation to fairness. I welcome the Government’s response.

I remain concerned about not having something in primary legislation on correcting information on vetting, but I am content for the most part. The only amendment in the group that I intend to move is amendment 14, on appeals; I will not seek to move the other amendments in my name. I thank the Government for the response on amendments 16 and 17.

Amendment 12, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 13 not moved.

Amendment 14 moved—[Pauline McNeill].

This group contains a number of amendments, so I will try to be concise and clear. I believe that we require a proper vetting process that will give the public confidence in policing and in Police Scotland officers, and Scottish Labour is clear that we support the vetting provisions and their modernisation.

Police Scotland carries out checks and manages all levels of police vetting. It has an administrative role in managing national security vetting, with the process being undertaken on Police Scotland’s behalf by the Scottish Government. Currently, vetting includes recruitment vetting, which is the minimum level that is required for applications from all those who are seeking appointment as police officers or employment as members of staff in Police Scotland; management vetting; and vetting for a designated post.

HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland conducted a review of vetting policy and procedures in Police Scotland in 2023, and those new vetting provisions were inserted in the bill at stage 2 without adequate consultation with those with an interest, such as the Scottish Police Federation, staff trade unions and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. My amendments in the group seek to delete the vetting provisions, but I make it clear that I am probing the Government on the issue and inviting it to respond, particularly with regard to the lack of scrutiny of the provisions. That is my intention.

The Government indicated at stage 1 that it was considering putting vetting on a statutory footing. The Criminal Justice Committee’s stage 1 report refers, on page 56, to a letter from the cabinet secretary in which she said that she was

“exploring the legislative basis for vetting, particularly in the context of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) Scotland Bill”.

The stage 1 report also refers to the “HMICS Assurance review of vetting policy and procedures within Police Scotland” report, which said:

“The Scottish Government should place into legislation the requirement for all Police Scotland officers and staff to obtain and maintain a minimum standard of vetting ... and the provision for the Chief Constable to dispense with the service of an officer or staff member who cannot maintain suitable vetting”.