Douglas Ross
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to comments by the Scottish Information Commissioner who stated, in relation to the Government’s handling of information concerning the Salmond files, “I can no longer trust the government to handle this information unsupervised and will explore more intrusive options to ensure complianc…”
“I literally follow sport from the sidelines in my role as a match official but, more than that, as a parent of two boys in Moray, I give credit to the sporting organisations in Moray and across the Highlands that provide so many opportunities for young people—boys and girls— throughout the country.”
“When we are thinking about the bill, which will undoubtedly pass at stage 3 today, I am sure unanimously, we might consider what she said in her email: “Calum can’t advocate for himself due to his complex disability, but he can express this truth: the children aren’t naughty, they are scared.” Children should not be scared in Scotland, an…”
“I rise to make my final speech in the chamber. I chose to speak in this debate, on this subject, for a number of reasons. First, the member in charge proved to be a very conscientious and determined member in getting the bill through.”
“The work that I have done as an individual member, as a party spokesperson, as a party leader and as a convener has been assisted by their tremendous efforts.”
“I am frustrated that we have politicians who cannot speak for four minutes without having the lectern up and reading from a script, daring not to deviate by taking an intervention.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,089 lines we hold for Douglas Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 21 of 22.
“I am not saying that that is the case across the board, but there are some examples of headteachers who do not take the action that is needed to support their staff in the classroom. That relates to Alex Rowley’s point that we need more support staff in our classrooms, but is it an attractive opportunity for people to come into our classrooms to do a difficult job if they will not get the support that they need? The two issues that Willie Rennie and Alex Rowley raised are important and they are linked to some of the problems that we are facing at the moment. In what I thought was an excellent speech, Pam Gosal mentioned that a teacher suffers physical or verbal abuse every two minutes in the school day, and that is not the case only in the areas that have been mentioned today.”
“We have had an excellent debate. It was led by Miles Briggs, who covered a range of issues. His outlining of the concerns that he heard about from EIS members last night replicates what each and every one of us have heard from parents and staff up and down the country. Just last month, I met two teaching assistants in Moray who explained that they love their jobs but they are facing hugely challenging and difficult circumstances in the classroom every day and they wonder about their future in the profession. That relates to the point that Willie Rennie made about support from management. One of the concerns that those teaching assistants came to speak to me about was their belief that their headteacher does not do enough to support them if a pupil needs to be removed from the classroom or needs more support.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported concerns by the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers that falling cattle levels are leading to a reduction in beef supplies, and that gaps could subsequently appear in the red meat sections of supermarkets. (S6O-04218)”
“Clearly, Scottish Government ministers knew about this when they released the FOI or, at the very latest, on Sunday, when the article appeared. Was there any notification to you that the health secretary would seek to apologise and correct the record not after two members made points of order but when the matter became very clear in the media at the weekend? The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ross. I confirm that there was no discussion of the matter at the Parliamentary Bureau today. Decision Time 17:03”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Further to the apology that we have now had from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, this is the second time, I think, that he has had to come to the chamber to apologise for his conduct on this matter. As Stephen Kerr pointed out earlier today, the matter was the subject of a freedom of information request, which information the Government would have released to a Sunday newspaper, which was published last week. It is now Tuesday. Our standing orders are very clear that a member must correct the official record as quickly as possible. What discussion was there at the Parliamentary Bureau earlier today with the Minister for Parliamentary Business?”
“However, the cleanest and clearest message from this Parliament tonight will come if we unite behind the Scottish Government motion, because it simply suggests a response to the PHSO report, including the point on compensation. Paul O’Kane: The add-on amendment was about a statement of fact in relation to the apology. It also sets in context exactly what Douglas Ross said about the varying asks in terms of compensation and tries to reflect that. The amendment is certainly not about trying to defend our position. It is about enhancing what this Parliament is saying with one voice. [Interruption.] The member clearly does not agree with that—”
“It produced a thorough report, and it sends out the most worrying and concerning message that parliamentarians—whether here or at Westminster—can cherry pick and take some parts of the report and say, “We agree with this” but need not agree with the parts that are more difficult to deliver, such as compensation. The Labour amendment is trying to get some kind of praise for saying that it has acknowledged the maladministration and has apologised for it. That is not enough. It is almost as if Labour wants to be patted on the back for going two thirds of the way, but not the final and ultimate whole way, to deliver that compensation. I do not think that the amendment was necessary, but as it would only add to the motion that we have in front of us today and would not remove anything, we are perhaps using it as a debating point.”
“It is very clear that if we vote for the Government motion today, that will send the strongest possible signal to the UK Government that it should reconsider the matter and deliver compensation. I understand and accept that that compensation would not be at the level that every WASPI campaigner would want or expect, but it would be a start, because the PHSO looked at the matter not just for weeks or months but for years. The PHSO went into significant detail about the complaints and the response from the DWP and it came up with its conclusions.”
“As I have said, we have debated the issue a number of times, and it is right that we continue to bring the testimony of WASPI women to the chamber. That was done expertly by Carol Mochan, Katy Clark and Mercedes Villalba on behalf of their constituents, and by the Labour representatives who spoke in Kenny Gibson's debate last week. I also think that we had an opportunity, which I made a point about. I am not saying that the Government did it because I said it; in fact, it was more likely that the Government would not have done it because I said it. I made the suggestion that, if the Government lodged a simple and straightforward motion today, we could get unanimous support for it around the chamber. That is why my colleagues and I decided not to try to amend the motion today.”
“In answer to his question about what I did, I voted against my Government and was the first of my intake to do so. In his response to Jeremy Balfour’s intervention, Paul O’Kane also made the point that the UK Government had plenty of time to look at the issue. The UK Government got the report in March and the election was called in May, so there were two or three months to look at it. If Paul O’Kane believes that the Conservatives should have responded to it in that timeframe, why did it take six months for the UK Labour Government to respond to it just before Christmas? For the WASPI women, having that taken away from them at that point was possibly the worst Christmas present they could have received.”
“He served a longer term in the House of Commons than any other MSP who is present in the chamber, so what has he done? Mr Ross comes to the chamber and levels his accusations at me, when I am trying to make a case about what more we need to do, but what did he do? Douglas Ross: That was a lengthy answer that did not address the point that I made. I simply wanted to know whether Paul O’Kane agrees with Liz Kendall, the UK Labour secretary of state, who believes that the great majority of women knew that the state pension age was increasing and that changing the policy would not be fair or represent value for money for the taxpayer. It is not a difficult question to ask, but it sounds as though it is a difficult question for Paul O’Kane to answer.”
“Is Paul O’Kane correct in saying that those women deserve compensation, or is his Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions correct in saying that enough of them knew about it and that paying compensation would not be value for money for UK taxpayers? Paul O’Kane: I have outlined my position, and the Scottish Labour Party’s position, quite clearly, which is that the Government should look again at the issue of compensation. However, I gently say to Mr Ross, for whom I also have respect, and who has spoken well on the issue, that he was a Conservative member of the House of Commons and a member of the Government—a minister of state—who did nothing when the report was delivered to that previous Government, which did not consider an apology or any lessons learned but instead long-grassed the issue.”
“I cannot listen to what he, on one hand, is saying about the Scottish Labour position and what its members are doing to fight for their constituents and for the cause when, on the other hand, his Secretary of State for Work and Pensions at the UK level, Liz Kendall, said this— Paul O’Kane: [Made a request to intervene.] Douglas Ross: I will give way to Paul O’Kane when I have read out Liz Kendall’s response, and I would like him to either agree or disagree with what she said. In her statement to the House of Commons, she said that “the great majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing”, and she went on to say that it would not represent “value for ... money”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 17 December 2024; Vol 759, c 169.] for the taxpayer if compensation were to be paid.”
“We then went into the general election campaign, in which probably every single Labour candidate in Scotland and across the United Kingdom was urging people to vote for them to deliver on the PHSO recommendations, to address the injustice, to change things in the Department for Work and Pensions and across the UK Government, and to deliver that compensation. In the Labour Administration’s first six months, however, it dealt the WASPI campaigners a very bitter blow. It said, “Well, we do think that you have suffered maladministration and we will say sorry, but we will not pay you for that.” I think that that is indefensible. I say in all fairness to Paul O’Kane—whom I like, and who is a very experienced parliamentarian—that that is why he has struggled in the debate today.”
“Taking the politics out of the issue and looking at it independently, the PHSO has said that there was “maladministration”—not, perhaps, for everyone, but for a significant cohort of women who did not receive the notification that they deserved and who should, as a result, be compensated. Back in May last year, when we debated the issue, I agreed that the PHSO’s recommendations, which at that time had just gone to the UK Conservative Government, should be considered in full, including the question of compensation.”
“I accept that they also have major criticisms of previous Conservative and Labour Governments and of the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition Government. At the heart of what we are debating today is the PHSO’s report and the role of the PHSO. I looked at the PHSO’s website this week. It states: “We independently investigate complaints about UK government departments ... We believe complaints have the power to reveal the truth, create lasting change and inspire a better relationship between people and public services.” That is crucial, and it goes to the heart of what we are debating today.”
“Like the two previous speakers, I welcome the WASPI women to Parliament today, as I did last Wednesday, when Kenny Gibson led an excellent debate in which we heard testimony from MSPs on all sides of the chamber, across the parties, about the work that they have being doing on behalf of their constituents for many years. I have mentioned in previous WASPI debates the efforts of Sheila Forbes in Moray, who was the first person to contact me about the issue, long before I was elected, when I was a candidate. She brought together a group of affected people in Moray who have were fighting for justice and continue to do so to this day, because they certainly do not feel that they have received it from the UK Labour Government.”
“The reason why we need the unit back again is clear from a freedom of information response that I have received about the number of babies born to Moray parents since 2018 who were born outwith the area. Of the more than 5,500 babies born to Moray parents since 2018, just over 1,000 were born at Dr Gray’s; more than 4,200 were born in either Aberdeen or Inverness. They need to be born locally. We need that service back up and running, because, on top of that, almost 550 Moray mums, including my wife, have had to have a blue-light ambulance transfer to give birth. It needs to get a lot better, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will listen to those points and act urgently. 17:23”
“Marj and Kirsty are slightly more concerned about the Dr Gray’s strategy planning paper that went to the NHS Grampian board on 12 December. Quite apart from anything else, it was quite a concerning report. What public consultation was there by NHS Grampian in order to hear from people in Moray, Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen city—in particular from those in Moray who rely on Dr Gray’s? Where was the public engagement? There does not seem to have been much. Marj and Kirsty stated that they have heard from several NHS staff that they fear that, at NHS Grampian board level, the commitment to the restoration of the consultant-led maternity unit at Dr Gray’s is weak.”
“The other issue that I want to raise, which has been on-going since 2018 and which I have mentioned repeatedly in the chamber is the lack of consultant-led maternity services at Dr Gray’s hospital. I spoke to Marj Adams and Kirsty Watson of the keep MUM—maternity unit for Moray— campaign group ahead of the debate. The points—both positive and concerning—that they want to get across are important. On a positive note, Marj and Kirsty said that they are really encouraged by the system of consultation that is being held locally and by the local staff at Dr Gray’s hospital, who are pushing that forward. Like me, they are positive that elective caesareans could return to Dr Gray’s soon. If we could get a date for that, that would be welcome news in Moray.”
“I hope that, following the proposals from the save our surgeries Burghead and Hopeman group, the cabinet secretary and his ministers will reconsider the plan, because, without Scottish Government support, it will go no further. There is an opportunity to show the local group—campaigners who are dedicated to services in their area—that there is an opportunity to have a nurse-led service in Burghead. I have written to the cabinet secretary to ask that, if ministers continue to say that they will not support the plan, they tell us the funding calculation that they have made on the proposal. Without that, it will seem as though the local group is being fobbed off when there is a real opportunity to provide a local service.”
“When I met them on Monday, they wanted the cabinet secretary and his ministers to know that they will be watching the debate at home in Moray to hear—they hope—a positive response. Last month, when I raised the campaigners’ concerns and their proposals for a nurse-led unit in Burghead to replace the GP surgeries in Burghead and Hopeman that they have lost, they hoped to hear positive news, but they did not get it: from Jenni Minto, they got a point-blank refusal. I asked the campaigners for their words, because I do not want to make this a party-political issue. They said that I could tell members that they were “bitterly disappointed”. They also said that it is “very frustrating”, given the positive meeting—which I attended—that they had had with Jenni Minto in Burghead in the summer.”
“I congratulate Tim Eagle not just on securing tonight’s debate but on the tour de force speech that he gave on issues affecting his constituents— our constituents—in the Highlands and Islands and other people across rural Scotland. The issues that I raise tonight will not be a surprise to the cabinet secretary; I have raised them many times in the chamber before, and I will keep coming here and raising them until we see improvements and change. The first issue is that of the save our surgeries Burghead and Hopeman group. Some of the campaigners were going to come down to the Parliament to watch the debate when it was previously scheduled, and they had hoped to be here today; however, because of illness, they are not.”
“In my final seconds, I urge the Government to come up with a motion for next week’s debate, in which I will be speaking, that is able to receive universal support. When the issue was debated on 1 May last year, Humza Yousaf, the then outgoing First Minister, said that he wanted there to be pretty much unlimited compensation, and I can understand why he wanted that. However, if the motion next week simply asks for the compensation that is advised by the PHSO to be delivered, the Government can be assured of the support of the Scottish Conservatives and, I hope, the support of every party in the chamber. We could send a united and unanimous message to the UK Government that the compensation that is recommended by the PHSO should be delivered, and now. 18:12”
“It is incumbent on the UK Government to look at the issue again. I know that some of my Conservative colleagues at Westminster have asked for a vote on the matter. However, at the moment, the Government will not even give MPs the opportunity to have a division in the House of Commons to say whether its position is right or wrong. This campaign has gone on for far too long. Kenny Gibson was right to highlight Patricia Gibson, and, in our previous debate on the issue, I highlighted Labour’s Carolyn Harris and the Conservatives’ Tim Loughton, who have done a lot of work on it. Surely now, after many years of thorough and significant investigation by the PHSO, we can see that women did not get the required notice and that they deserve compensation.”
“I thought that Christine Grahame gave an excellent speech, and I agree with what she said. How can Scottish Labour and Labour politicians in Holyrood and Westminster reconcile the position that they took before the general election, which was to support WASPI women at every opportunity, with the position that they are now taking, with their party in government and refusing women the right to the compensation that they deserve? The PHSO did not look at whether it was right or wrong to change the pension age, and the vast majority of WASPI campaigners—if not every one of them I have spoken to—were not against the changing of the pension age. Rather, they were against the way that that was communicated—or, in most cases, not communicated—and the fact that that did not allow them to prepare for retirement while they were in work.”
“What I find most difficult about the new UK Government’s position is that it accepts part of the report—it accepts that there has been fault and that women were not given the required notice that they were entitled to and deserved—but it does not accept the compensation bit. I am sorry but, with PHSO reports, we do not get to pick and choose. The ombudsman is an independent judge who is in place to try to take the politics out of the issue, remove the clear injustice and come up with a solution. I know that there are WASPI women in Moray and across Scotland who do not believe that the PHSO report goes far enough or that the compensation that is recommended in that report is sufficient. However, for Labour to say that they do not deserve any compensation at all is completely wrong.”
“At times, that has put me at odds with my party; I was the first of the 2017 intake of new Conservative MPs in the Westminster Parliament to vote against the party whip on the issue, because I agree that WASPI women have been wronged by successive Governments of different political persuasions. The fight for justice has taken far too long. Kenny Gibson is right to highlight how many of his constituents, and people across Scotland, are still fighting. Sadly, however, some have lost that fight and did not live to see the day on which the justice that they were looking for would be delivered through the PHSO report.”
“I congratulate Kenneth Gibson on securing the debate. He opened his remarks by thanking the SNP and Green members who had supported the motion to allow the debate to be brought to the chamber. I, too, would have supported the motion, because there is nothing in it with which I disagree. I think that it is fair to say that, when the motion was lodged, a flurry of motions came in from SNP members. I supported Clare Haughey’s motion on 19 December, which had almost identical wording, because there was nothing in it with which I disagreed. Indeed, I said that in the chamber on 1 May last year, when we had a debate on the issue. I welcome the WASPI campaigners in the public gallery. I have supported WASPI women in Moray and across the Highlands and Islands since my election.”
“It is always possible to improve the system, and to incorporate good ideas that could enhance it, but, generally, it is significantly better than it was when I started as a young fiscal depute.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 16 May 2024; c 11.] Of course, our journey must continue. As Lady Elish wrote: “Instant results are seldom possible and seldom sustained. Changing the culture is a long game but it is worth investing time, effort and resource now to lay solid foundations for a process of change that is absolutely essential.” I commend the bill to Parliament, as it is another vital step forward. Business Motion 17:38”
“Nonetheless, the debate in and around the detail of the vetting provisions has been well motivated and will strengthen our engagement as we go forward. On Katy Clark’s question about the organisational duty of candour, the individual duty of candour will apply only to those who hold the office of constable, while the organisational duty of candour will apply to those who are, in an indirect manner, under the control of the chief constable— that is, constables and police staff. I will end with two quotes that capture what we are all endeavouring to achieve. Last year, when Lady Elish Angiolini gave evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee, she said: “the system in Scotland is possibly nearly as good as you can get it.”
“It is important to acknowledge the wealth of evidence that was submitted to the Criminal Justice Committee to help shape the bill, which came from organisations such as Amnesty International UK, Victim Support Scotland, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner. Of course, I also thank again all those individuals with lived experience, police and stakeholders who have supported and informed the bill’s development. I will not reiterate the stage 1 and stage 2 debates, but I will say two things briefly. First, if I had ignored the recommendation of HMICS and the Criminal Justice Committee to lodge an amendment on vetting, I think that I would have received criticism that was equal to the criticism that I received for lodging it.”
“With all of that in mind, I reiterate my thanks to my Scottish Government officials. The Presiding Officer: Cabinet secretary, could you pause for a second? I am aware of several conversations taking place across the chamber, and I would be grateful if we focused on the cabinet secretary’s remarks. Angela Constance: I reiterate my thanks to the bill team and to officials from Government departments and policing bodies across the four home nations who have engaged with my officials to help form cross-border provisions, which the bill provides powers to enact. That includes officials from the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scotland Office and the College of Policing.”
“I echo the comments of Ms Dowey and other members that we will all have to continue to work together, not least because there will be a massive amount of regulation to bring to the committee. I reiterate that, whether it is in relation to the issues raised by the PIRC on its new responsibilities, should the bill be passed, or the debate that we have had on vetting, there will be further consultation. That will happen at the Scottish police consultative forum, before regulations are brought to Parliament, or in the engagement that I have with individual organisations. Our approach to improvement has been, first and foremost, to concentrate on Lady Elish Angiolini’s non-legislative recommendations, and then to focus on the bill to take forward the legislative requirements. We now have to get into the business of regulations.”
“I pay tribute to Audrey Nicoll, the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, who, as a former police officer, embodies the determination to have exemplar public services, particularly in policing, where we must always strive for greater and better, as well as the determination to ensure fairness to front-line staff. I pay tribute to her scrupulous approach and to her fairness and her determination, on behalf of all members of the committee, not just to raise issues but to follow matters up. The committee as a whole will never just raise a concern as a one-off but will always see issues through. I have seen that with regard to this bill and other work that the committee has pursued—particularly the work in relation to policing and mental health.”
“It is clear to me, from listening to the contributions of Maggie Chapman, Douglas Ross, Fergus Ewing and many others today and throughout the committee process, that they have been deeply affected and touched by the personal testimony of individuals and their families when matters have not been dealt with as they should have been. Members know the value of those who have lived experience of the complaints and misconduct system. That lived experience has been deeply informative to all our collective deliberations, not least in the journey of the bill. In equal measure, it has also been apparent to me throughout the scrutiny of the bill that there has been a very deep desire to ensure fairness to our police officers.”
“It is difficult to say, because the provisions were introduced only at stage 2 and lack detail. Perhaps the cabinet secretary can in closing set out her response to the federation’s concerns and, I hope, allay them, because that is the issue. Given all the good things that the bill will bring in, I will vote for it at decision time. However, as with so many bills emanating from the Scottish Government, it is far from perfect. I hope that the cabinet secretary will make the case that it is good enough for now. 17:30 Angela Constance: I thank all members for their contributions and for the spirit of constructive co-operation that has, by and large, been evident throughout the journey of the bill, despite one or two feisty moments.”
“Finally, like Pauline McNeill, I am deeply uncomfortable that something that is as important as vetting was introduced at stage 2, which means that it has not been subject to the usual call for views or consultation process. There is a wider point about how we legislate in the Parliament, which is for another day. The fact is that we have heard in the past couple of days significant concerns from the SPF about those changes to the vetting process, as Jamie Greene flagged earlier. Those concerns worry me because, from listening to the amendment debates and reading the SPF’s concerns, I think that it seems more than possible that there is something to them. As MSPs, we have done our best to amend the provisions, but will the amendments address the concerns? Will they head off the unintended consequences?”
“The Government admitted at the Finance and Public Administration Committee that it had failed to take account of inflation and pay rises, and that it was using scenarios and figures that related to September 2022—yet the bill was being discussed in 2024. Of course, we have a new financial memorandum that was published in November last year, which the Government will say is authoritative. However, a whole raft of new features and requirements have been added to the bill, such as vetting and other items that will be developed as a result of the bill. My general position of having little, if any, confidence in the Government’s financial projections has not changed.”
“It acknowledged that it is running at full capacity already. Although it will, of course, do its best to meet all the objectives that are put on it, it will require adequate resource. At this stage, it is not in a position to say what additional costs the bill would impose. That is in a situation in which the PIRC has already said in its annual report that it is having to request additional funding for staff costs and temporary funding for legal fees. Its uncertainty is understandable, given that, as Katy Clark highlighted, the financial memorandum’s projections for the bill from last summer were at least £4 million lower than was necessary in order to meet the obligations as they existed at the time.”
“During the consideration of amendments, I cited a constituency case of someone who made a complaint against the police 16 months ago but was told yesterday that the complaint has still not been allocated to someone to investigate it. Does the member agree that, if we are to have confidence in the system, Police Scotland needs to get an awful lot better at dealing with those complaints and resolving them, because complainants need answers? Liam Kerr: That is a very important point, which goes towards what the bill will achieve. As I set out at the start, there are areas in which I think that the bill is far from ideal. Just this morning at the Criminal Justice Committee, the PIRC candidly admitted that it is unclear at this stage what the extent of the extra workload that it will be required to do will be.”
“Therefore, after consultation with the PIRC on the matter, I lodged amendment 9 to allow “absolute privilege” to protect those persons making statements to the PIRC against defamation in relation to the PIRC’s new function to review and make recommendations about practices and policies of the police as set out in section 15. The amendment will ensure that the law is consistent with the protections from actions for defamation contained in the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006. I move amendment 9. Amendment 9 agreed to. Long Title Amendment 27 not moved. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That ends consideration of stage 3 amendments. Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill”
“Angela Constance: The bill gives the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner a new power to review a policy or practice of the police when it considers that it is in the public interest to do so. It also provides the PIRC with protection from legal actions for defamation in relation to statements made in the course of that new function. However, the same protections are not currently in place for those persons making statements to the PIRC when the PIRC is carrying out that new function, and the amendment will ensure that those protections are put in place. There is a concern that the absence of such protections for those making statements to the PIRC would affect the information provided to the PIRC in conducting that new function, to the detriment of the ability to report and provide recommendations.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Sharon Dowey to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 8. Sharon Dowey: I take this opportunity to thank the legislation team, the cabinet secretary and the Government officials for their help in working with the amendments at stage 2 to get them passed at stage 3. I press amendment 8. Amendment 8 agreed to. Section 15—Review of, and recommendations about, practices and policies of the police Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 8 is on the PIRC review of practices and policies of the police. Amendment 9, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group.”
“I move amendment 8. Angela Constance: I am pleased to have been able to work with Ms Dowey on the amendment, which is subsequent to an amendment that she lodged at stage 2, to place a duty on the PIRC to notify the relevant complainer that a decision has been made to carry out a complaint handling review of the PIRC’s own volition. I supported that amendment and the policy intention of requiring the PIRC to notify the complainer of any decision to carry out a complaint handling review, regardless of how it came about, in order to make the complainer aware that the PIRC would go ahead with a review. Amendment 8 will ensure that the complainer is, in every case, made aware that the PIRC will review the handling of their complaint, keeping them informed and allowing them to be engaged with the review. I ask members to support amendment 8.”
“However, my stage 2 amendment focused only on the new power that will be granted to the PIRC to conduct a complaint handling review of their own volition. It was my understanding that, if the PIRC decided to review a case at the request of a complainer, the complainer would be notified, but that is not the case, largely due to a defect in existing legislation. Amendment 8 attempts to fix that situation by ensuring that the complainer is notified if a complaint handling review takes place, regardless of whether the complainer or the PIRC requested it. The amendment will ensure that, in every case, the complainer will be made aware that the PIRC will be reviewing the handling of their complaint, thereby keeping them informed and allowing them to engage with the review. It is a very simple amendment that I hope the Parliament will support.”
“Sharon Dowey: If an individual who has made a complaint against the police is unhappy with the way in which the complaint has been handled, they can request that the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner conduct a complaint handling review. The bill expands that aspect of the complaints procedure to allow the commissioner to conduct a complaint handling review if they think that it is appropriate, instead of having to rely on the complainer to bring the matter to them. At stage 2, I successfully amended section 11 to require the PIRC to notify the relevant complainer if they decide to conduct a complaint handling review, and I am glad that the Scottish Government agreed with me on that issue.”
“If the Lord Advocate, the head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland, and the First Minister, the head of the Scottish Government, can meet the family, surely the head of Police Scotland can meet the family, too. Once again, I thank Fergus Ewing for his contribution, I thank all the party representatives who engaged with me on the matter and I genuinely thank the justice secretary for our meeting this morning and for the constructive way in which she will take forward the issues that I have raised. I confirm that I will not press amendment 28. Amendment 28, by agreement, withdrawn. Section 11—Complaint handling reviews The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 7 is on complaint handling reviews. Amendment 8, in the name of Sharon Dowey, is the only amendment in the group.”
“Last year, following a meeting with Veronica, I wrote to the chief constable again, urging her to respond. Just before Christmas, I got a letter back. It still annoys me that the chief constable could not even be bothered with the pretence that she had looked at my letter herself. She did not even add an electronic signature; she got one of her deputies to sign the letter. I do not know what the chief constable is thinking, but I hope that people at Tulliallan and those in her office are watching today and have heard Fergus Ewing’s strong advocacy for the family and the comments from the justice secretary, who is, within the confines of her office, urging the chief constable to look at the matter.”
“In relation to a high-profile case that has been one of the most talked-about and long-running murder investigations in Scotland’s history, she continues to refuse to meet Veronica, Andrew and other members of the Wilson family. Those of us who have been privileged to sit in on meetings with Andrew and Veronica will know that they are constructive and determined to get justice and that they just want answers. I do not think that that is an unacceptable request from people who have been waiting decades for answers. We should remember that Veronica opened the door to the killer and that Andrew still speaks about the image that he had—he was just a toddler at the time. They have been through unimaginable pain and suffering, which have been extended by the callous approach of Scotland’s chief constable, who continues to refuse to meet them.”