Chamber and committees

Thank you. It is definitely in everyone’s interests to reach an agreement as quickly as possible, then.

The Parliament was not scheduled to hold a debate on WASPI women today; the original debate for this afternoon was on positive masculinity. I was looking forward to talking about men’s sheds and how they are helping men to open up about their mental health and creating generations of role models who will help and support younger men so that they can become role models in their family and among their friends, especially when it comes to relationships with women. Considering that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee is looking at suicide prevention, and that suicide is the biggest killer among men under the age of 35, I hope that the debate can be rescheduled. I am pleased that Paul O’Kane also called for that debate to take place at another point.

I turn to the crux of today’s debate. My party leader, Douglas Ross, set out the Scottish Conservatives’ position on the WASPI campaign. I echo his remarks and those of others in congratulating the women who have been relentless in their efforts to obtain compensation for the changes to their state pension. That view has been echoed by many members during their contributions today.

Since being elected in 2021, I have often stood up in the chamber and fought for women’s issues. I recognise how painful the campaign has been and I do not think that any Government would ever intentionally try to cause hurt and anger. However, I see the reason for creating more parity and equality for men and women who are in receipt of the state pension.

The WASPI women recognise that it was never about the decisions, but about how the decisions were carried out. That is why it is right for the UK Government to consider carefully the ombudsman’s findings before updating MPs at Westminster.

Some MSPs have reflected this afternoon on the WASPI campaign and the journeys of particular women. We have heard that women have been negatively impacted financially and emotionally by decisions that have been taken. The First Minister rightly mentioned that all political party leaders have pledged their support for the WASPI campaign.

Colleagues have given a long list of women who have never given up, who have kept going and who have made sure that their voices have been heard. It is right to pay tribute to Sheila, Linda, Lorraine and every woman who has written a letter, attended an elected member’s surgery or given evidence about how they have been affected by the changes in state pension age.

Some of our MP colleagues have also been mentioned—Carolyn Harris, Tim Loughton and Peter Aldous have all taken the issue to Westminster to fight on behalf of women.

This afternoon, MSPs have referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report. It is fair to say that the outcome of that report has been the subject of a lot of today’s speeches. The process has taken five long years, and the issue has been raised consistently by Roz McCall and others.

Even though the report concluded that timely and accurate information was available about changes to the number of qualifying years that were needed in order to receive a full state pension, it recognised that there have been significant issues. Many women did not understand the situation as regards their own personal circumstances and how the new state pension would impact on them, and the DWP did not adequately use feedback and research to improve its service and performance. Jeremy Balfour and others referred to unintended consequences.

The report also concluded that the maladministration of the DWP’s complaints handling had caused unnecessary distress and anxiety, and that women had lost the opportunity to make informed decisions about personal autonomy and financial control. Most importantly, the report recommended that those who have suffered injustice should be compensated financially. I do not think that anybody who has spoken in the debate has argued otherwise.

That is why the Scottish Conservatives’ amendment

“calls on the UK Government to respond in full to the substantial report ... and recommendations contained within it as quickly as possible, including the recommendation to pay compensation”.

Douglas Ross gave a passionate speech that aimed to unite Parliament; our amendment is also one of consensus. Earlier, MSPs were asked to rise to the challenge—

As Douglas Ross explained in his intervention on Maggie Chapman, our amendment is about getting consensus in Parliament today. We could certainly return to such issues. I think that our request is reasonable. We are seeking to unite Parliament, as was made clear earlier, and I hope that we can all rise to that challenge today, especially now that we have different circumstances and we are working in Parliament with a minority Government.

This debate is the first test, and it gives us the best opportunity to unite behind the WASPI women. It should not be about party lines; politicians of every party have raised the issues of the WASPI campaign. We can come back to the issue of compensation at a later date. We can have another debate on WASPI women and the WASPI campaign. It is a really important issue, so there would be no issue with our coming back and having discussions again.

I will reflect on Beatrice Wishart’s speech, to which I really enjoyed listening. She spoke about the rise of feminism in this country and how some of the women who were behind the rise of feminism have been impacted. They fought for equality and equal rights. By standing up for rights through really difficult times, they tried to make the lives of future generations better. They are the stalwarts who have passed the baton on to younger women so that they can continue that fight to achieve equality.

I echo Douglas Ross’s calls and ask the Government to support our amendment. We are trying to reach beyond the political divide to send a unified message to the UK Government that the PHSO’s recommendations be implemented in full and that the women who have been impacted receive the compensation that they deserve.

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

For the past few weeks, my inbox has been full of letters from constituents who have written to me—it will, of course, be the same for MSP colleagues—about their views on Gillian Mackay’s abortion clinic buffer zone bill. There have, of course, been opposing views, but it is important that everyone has the right to put their argument to their MSPs, who are elected to the Parliament. Such debates are never easy. They are emotive, they can be polarising, and they can easily diverge into debates about social conscience issues. However, I do not see that in this debate about abortion today, and I am pleased that that has been reflected across the chamber so far.

People have strong views on whether they support abortion, and everyone is, of course, entitled to their view. However, in my opinion, the bill is simply about women and creating safe access to healthcare where they do not feel intimidated or harassed. That is a reasonable ask, so I commend Gillian Mackay’s work in bringing forward a bill that aims to protect and support women.

We are not the first Parliament to look at such legislation. The United Kingdom Parliament voted in favour of establishing buffer zones in England and Wales that create perimeters within which certain activities cannot take place.

The Scottish Conservatives will support the general principles of the bill. However, I want to outline some concerns that were identified through the committee stage that still need work, should the bill move on to stage 2.

The harrowing accounts shared by women at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee are a stark reminder that women fight every day for their rights to be upheld. Therefore, it is incumbent on MSPs to bring forward meaningful legislation that sets out clear aims and objectives, because, regardless of whether the principles are right, if the bill is unworkable it will not provide the protections that it aims to provide.

Gillian Mackay covered a number of the concerns that were raised in committee in her opening speech. One of the first concerns that I was going to raise was about the perimeters surrounding the buildings in question. However, I understand that she has addressed that element. Therefore, I will move on to other concerns, because policing, I think, will be more problematic in relation to the bill.

There is a long-standing argument in this country—one that I whole-heartedly support—that surrounds the rights of freedom of expression and religion. We have already mentioned silent prayers and where it is appropriate to perform them: whether that can be done at home or anywhere. The question that I still have, which will take a lot more exploration in order to come to a conclusion, is whether silent prayers need to happen outside a clinic, or whether people can gather in another location that would allow them to express themselves while giving women the ability to access healthcare. I fundamentally agree that religious freedom is a protected characteristic, but I am not entirely sure how we work around that in the bill that has been introduced.

Then there is the enforcement argument. More consideration is needed around how intimidation is defined to ensure that the bill is clear in its objectives. The largest stumbling block in the bill relates to how the law will be enforced. How will it be enforced equally? Will it be down to individual determination by officers? When will people know that they might be breaking the law? What happens if, as has already been raised, someone is expressing themselves in a home that is included in a marked zone? It will be incredibly difficult for police officers to determine breaches of the proposed bill, but that is something that we can tease out at stage 2 and stage 3, should the bill progress to those stages.

Returning to the argument on silent prayers, should that be an exemption or is it seen as intimidating? It is different from examples that we have heard that involved clear intimidation, where leaflets have been handed out and words have been exchanged. I would view that as intimidation, and it would be traumatic for clinicians, women and everyone who is accessing the clinic for whatever purpose. We need to remember that not everyone who is accessing the clinics is doing so for abortion services.

Good points are raised by Elena Whitham. For me, it is about ensuring that women have safe access to those clinics. That is the fundamental principle of the bill, and that is certainly why I back it, because I believe that that should be the case.

However, as has already been highlighted by others, the human rights element is important. We have to tread carefully in how we move forward to ensure that we have a balance and that it does not tip. If we tip the balance, that can create more animosity and more of a problem than that which the bill is trying to solve. I think that the intention of the bill is right, but we need to think about how we move forward to ensure that all the issues that have been highlighted thus far are teased out.

I know that I am against the clock, so I will conclude on that point. I thank Gillian Mackay for introducing the bill. I look forward to considering the bill at stage 2 and stage 3, and I will certainly vote for the bill at decision time today.

It definitely does. I am hugely concerned about the situation, for the reasons that you have articulated so well. As you said, it is so important for there to be safe places for men to talk. As women, we will congregate to get all the weight off our shoulders, but men will not automatically do that. You highlighted an excellent point about the need for role models to bring up the next generation of men who can be confident in themselves, and it is hugely important that men have somewhere to go where they know for a fact that they will be welcome and able to be open and that will not be an alien place to them.

On funding for men’s sheds, I am terribly concerned about the impact that the closure of men’s sheds would have on already concerning statistics for men in general. What is the timeframe? You mentioned eight to nine months. What happens? Do men’s sheds in rural areas close first, or is it those in urban areas? How could that be condensed? I am pretty certain that every men’s shed across Scotland has a worth and a purpose and serves many men—I think that you have 3,000 members.

If that does not tell us how important men’s sheds are, I do not know what will. We can link men’s sheds to other issues. We have veterans groups for a purpose, we have Women’s Aid groups for a purpose, and I whole-heartedly believe that we have men’s sheds for a purpose.

Thank you very much, Jason. I am sorry that I did not widen my question, but I believe that we need to emphasise one of the biggest groups who are impacted by suicide. I understand that the same issue will affect all the groups who are covered by charities that are represented here today, but I felt that that needed to be put on the record. I do not know whether anyone else wants to come in on that point.

Would anyone else like to comment?

That is definitely a point that we should address.

It is about data harnessing to create prevention. If we do not know what the causes are, we cannot prevent it. It is a cycle and we need to get it right. There are a lot of factors. Although we have a strategy, there are still links missing from the chain, so there is a lot more work to do.