Chamber and committees

Thank you very much for that. Were there any areas of contention to note in the responses?

Thank you.

Kemi Badenoch has already clarified what she said.

I am talking about broken promises. Looking at the WASPI campaign and the winter fuel payment, we see that it is broken promise after broken promise from the Labour Government. Again, when we look at the situation in Scotland in relation to the winter fuel payment, we see that it will be reinstated next year in some form, but that will not do any good to an older person who has had to turn their heating off and sit in a freezing cold house this year because not just one but two Governments have not reinstated it. We simply cannot continue to let our older generations down.

We can talk all day about the disastrous decisions that the new Labour Government has made. We can watch Scottish Labour try to set itself apart from Keir Starmer and Liz Kendall. However, that will not wash, because, no matter what Anas Sarwar says or what any of his colleagues say in the chamber today, WASPI women will not be compensated.

The Scottish Conservatives will vote for the Scottish Government motion today and for the Labour amendment, because the recommendations are clear. I supported them last year, and I support them today.

I am glad that I do not have to choose between Glasgow and Edinburgh in that debate. I am thankful that I represent Central Scotland, which means that I am bang in the middle and get to go to both cities with ease.

I congratulate David Torrance on securing cross-party support for the debate, and I give a huge welcome to our showpeople in the public gallery, who are here not only to listen to our debate but to attend the event that will take place thereafter.

It has been said in many contributions this evening that the funfair culture is important in Scotland and across the United Kingdom, and members have shared stories of their childhood memories of visiting funfairs. For me, the memories are of the Bellshill street fair, which took place every year on the last weekend in May. It was amazing. I have a brief memory, from when I was seven or eight years old, of the dodgems, the waltzers, the helter-skelter and the Ferris wheel. All those things were contained in one big street in Bellshill, and it was amazing to be there and take part in all the different attractions.

John Mason made an important point just moments ago. Like many funfairs, including the one in his constituency, the annual Bellshill street fair was cancelled back in 2018. That was a result of various issues, one of which was that the funfair itself did not have sufficient means to carry on, and the committee was falling apart. There were also issues in relation to licensing laws. There was talk at one point of a rethink about bringing back the Bellshill street fair—about how to modernise it and about all the issues that meant that it might not take place. However, to my knowledge, there has been no real discussion since. That is a real shame, because I know many people from the Bellshill area who think fondly of their time visiting the Bellshill street fair.

We seem to be seeing an unnecessary decline in street fairs and travelling fairs—there is a risk of their disappearing entirely, which is why I was pleased to find out that the European Showmen’s Union congress was coming to Edinburgh. It is an opportunity for showmen and showwomen to discuss matters relating to the industry and the importance of preserving its culture. Their resilience and perseverance are important and are integral to the continuation of funfairs and attractions in Scotland.

One of the options to save the many events, funfairs and attractions that we see throughout the year has already been explored this evening, with Jackson Carlaw and others mentioning the bill that was introduced in Parliament by former MSP Richard Lyle—who, I believe, is in the gallery this evening. He rightly stated that travelling entertainers are given very little in the way of licensing leeway. They face overly burdensome and inconsistent application processes that differ from council to council. To put it simply, there is a complete imbalance between councils and those businesses.

Licensing systems appear to work against showpeople at every turn. They are overly complex, tedious and unreliable. Because showpeople spend a lot of time moving around the country, it is difficult for them to pin down local elected members to raise issues with councils to get them rectified. Had Mr Lyle’s bill been successful, councils would have had to grant a licence within 21 days if an operator met certain application requirements. If the council did not respond within those 21 days, the licence would be granted automatically. Crucially, the application fee across the board would have been a grand total of £50. That would have been a fairer way of allowing fairs and attractions to take place across the country.

I appreciate that time is running out in the current parliamentary session—as is my time to speak this evening. However, the question needs to be asked whether, come the next parliamentary session, an MSP will pick up such a bill to try to make the system fairer. I think that it would get cross-party support, as it did the last time around.

There is more to do to support our showpeople in Scotland, but I am delighted to have been able to speak in this debate. I genuinely hope that the problems that we have raised can be rectified and that we can get a response from the cabinet secretary.

Before I begin, I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as my husband works for the Department for Work and Pensions.

Last year, I and others took part in a debate following the publication of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s inquiry into the changes to the state pension age for women. The findings could not have been clearer. The report called on the UK Parliament to identify a mechanism for providing appropriate remedies for those who had suffered injustice. The maladministration and the DWP’s complaint handling undoubtedly caused women unnecessary stress and anxiety and left them unable to make informed decisions about their personal autonomy and financial control.

WASPI women have spent years campaigning for compensation. They have taken to the streets, contacted elected members in all chambers and raised their profile to force Parliament to act. They have been critical of my party and of Labour about what has happened in recent weeks, and we need to accept those criticisms. We need to move on and find a resolution for those who have been impacted.

The MSPs who stood up and spoke in the previous debate were all clear in their conviction that the recommendations contained in the report should be implemented. Why, therefore, are we here in another debate on the WASPI situation and the ombudsman’s report? To put it bluntly, Labour is struggling in Government. We have already witnessed the increase in national insurance contributions, the introduction of the family farm tax and the cutting of winter fuel payments, and we are now seeing the betrayal of the WASPI women.

Labour politicians spent years promising the world to those who were impacted by the changes to the state pension age. They committed themselves to compensating women, only to reject the ombudsman’s recommendations. Sadly, it is true that, no matter what Labour MSPs say today, their Labour Government has denied WASPI women financial compensation.

I get it—being in Government is a tough business—but, at the end of the day, when he was in opposition, Keir Starmer stood alongside WASPI women and promised them action. It has been mentioned again today that he was photographed with a pledge that read:

“I support fair and fast compensation for 1950s women”.

He has broken that promise.

The statement made a few weeks ago was devastating to women who felt that they had won their hard-fought campaign. As Douglas Ross mentioned in his speech, when Liz Kendall delivered the news, she said:

“Given that the vast majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing, the Government do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women … would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 17 December 2024; Vol 759, c 168.]

However, that was the same Liz Kendall who was pictured just before the general election, holding a banner that stated:

“I will work with WASPI to identify and deliver a fair solution for all women affected”.

I guess it is clear that delivery is not Liz Kendall’s strong point, but this recent episode outlines what is wrong with politics: broken promises.

I mentioned winter fuel payments earlier, and this is a similar story. Labour cut the winter fuel payment right before we entered our winter months, and pensioners who were already worried about heating and energy costs were dealt a devastating blow. Some 900,000 older Scots are going to lose their benefits. In the time since, we have witnessed freezing cold temperatures, particularly in our most rural areas.

Rural housing providers face unique and complex challenges that set them apart from providers in urban areas. When they attempt to meet net zero targets, they are faced with high retrofit costs due to traditional construction, lack of access to skilled labour and materials and, as the minister cited in his response, funding gaps. The grants that are given by the Government often fall short of covering the substantial costs of decarbonising rural housing. That is not to mention the difficulties of complying with the energy performance certificate system, due to the issues that I have just raised. Such issues need to be fully addressed in the heat in buildings framework when the relevant bill comes to the Parliament. Will the minister commit to working towards a tailored strategy for rural communities that does not leave them at a disadvantage?

To ask the Scottish Government what additional measures will be introduced to support rural housing providers to achieve the net zero emissions target by decarbonising social housing. (S6O-04213)

Yesterday, I asked the housing minister about the Scottish Government’s affordable homes target of providing 110,000 homes by 2032. To achieve that target, there would need to be, on average, 10,700 homes built per year; however, as it stands, only 21 per cent of that overall target has been delivered.

To build more houses, there needs to be confidence in the market and long-term planning. However, over the past three years, the affordable housing budget has been committed, cut and restored. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that that has damaged market confidence? Why should investors have confidence that the Government will not cut the budget again next year?

The debate on multiyear funding will, as you have said, happen in due course. However, the Government here has been in power for 17 years, and the need for housing has increased across all the different markets, whether it be the social rented sector, the private rented sector or, indeed, home ownership. Has the Government calculated the loss in house building in 2024-25 as a result of last year’s cut to the housing budget? If so, what is that figure?

I hear what you say about multiyear funding, stalled sites and mid-market rent, but you set a target without knowing that any of those changes were going to come to fruition, so you need to respond to that. The target was set and we do not know whether it will be met.