Chamber and committees

When will the next meeting of the Ardrossan harbour task force take place? When will the long-overdue business case for Ardrossan harbour redevelopment be published?

Kenneth Gibson, would you like to respond?

Jonathan Jones, from a Westminster perspective, is there a case for being able to amend secondary legislation? At the moment, we are put in a position in which we have to take it or leave it—parliamentarians are not able to amend SSIs. Do you have a view on that? What would the issues be?

Does Mike Hedges have a view on that?

I have no relevant interests to declare.

The reason that I have heard ministers give for introducing framework legislation is the resource and cost that go into co-design. They argue that, if they do not know whether the Parliament will approve a piece of legislation, the significant cost and resource that would be required to create the detail are not justified.

How do you respond to that and to suggestions that have been made to the committee that there should be longer periods attached to the scrutiny of secondary legislation? There has been reference to a number of days. In situations in which a bill that does not have all the detail is passed, should there be an enhanced scrutiny process for secondary legislation that is set out in the bill in far greater detail? Finlay Carson, would you like to come in first?

If Mike Hedges or Jonathan Jones do not want to come in on that, I will move on.

Another issue is the supporting documentation that comes with statutory instruments. As you know, there is often an explanatory note as well as a policy note. In your experience, is the information that is provided accurate? Moreover, is it sufficient, particularly in respect of delegated legislation that is made under a framework bill?

That is a question for the witnesses in the room. I do not know whether Finlay Carson would like to come in on that first.

I have raised the issue with UK colleagues and have also had discussions with many of those involved in Labour’s 2019 general election manifesto, which included a costed compensation package for women. I believe that we must look at all options for compensation for WASPI women, but we must be honest about the fact that full compensation would be very expensive, costing many tens of billions of pounds. The 2019 general election manifesto did not call for full compensation but for a tapered scheme, which would still have cost £56 billion.

The changes have impacted 3.6 million women across the UK, which is why full compensation would be so expensive. More than 336,000 women in Scotland have been affected. As Maggie Chapman said in her speech, many of those women had limited opportunities when they were girls and young women and, indeed, throughout their lives. The world has changed in many ways. At that time, women did not have the same pay opportunities as men. We still do not, but when many of the women began work, the equalities legislation was not even in place.

I welcome the UK Government’s acknowledgement of the injustice and losses suffered by WASPI women and of the failures by the Department for Work and Pensions. However, I believe that the decision not to compensate this group of women, particularly after the ombudsman had considered the issues, was a mistake.

Women who were born in the 1950s and entered the workforce in the late 1960s or early 1970s were expected and sometimes required to leave work if they married or had children, and many women paid the small stamp. That group of women was affected by decades of systematic inequality in the workplace. As Age Scotland’s briefing for last week’s members’ business debate on the subject made clear, the pension wealth of many women in their late 50s is considerably lower than men’s. Overall, it is equivalent to less than two thirds—62 per cent—of men’s pensions, which explains why so many women claim pension credit.

I am pleased that this Parliament is discussing the issue today and I hope that a unified message comes from this Parliament. Many politicians have campaigned with the WASPI women, who were given hope that there would be a successful outcome. I therefore support the motion and the amendment, and I call on the UK Government to reconsider its decision.

I speak in support of the calls of WASPI women across the country for fair compensation and for the recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman to be implemented. We should consider all options for financial compensation, particularly given the financial circumstances of many of the women who are affected.

I welcome the contributions made by members from across the chamber and hope that this Parliament will speak with a unified voice today. I very much hope that the UK Government will reconsider its decision not to award any compensation to WASPI women.

I also join others from across the chamber who have welcomed WASPI women to Parliament today—I have worked with many of them for a number of years in the cross-party group. They have campaigned on behalf of women who were born in the 1950s and were affected by the decision to raise the state pension age for women from 60 to 65 and then to 66.

The ombudsman found that the Department for Work and Pensions was guilty of maladministration in the handling of those changes to women’s state pension age and of miscommunication following decisions about the equalisation of the state pension age. The implementation of those changes was found to be inadequate due to maladministration, confusing advertising campaigns and a lack of timely communication with those affected. The ombudsman’s recommendations followed an independent process that looked at all the issues and should be honoured. The recommendations dealt only with the maladministration issue and do not relate to full compensation. However, it is important for the integrity of the ombudsman system that the Government honour the recommendations of that independent process. For that reason, it is also important that WASPI women receive compensation. Douglas Ross made those points earlier in the debate.

As the ombudsman’s report outlined, only 43 per cent of the affected women were made aware of the changes to their state pension age. As a result of the changes, many women suffered significant shortfalls in their expected retirement income, to the detriment of their financial confidence, their health and their wellbeing, and they had to wait many years for their pensions.

The changes have impacted more than 3.6 million women—

I am thinking about specific cases that I have been involved with, and I am trying to understand whether there is a more general issue of inconsistency. Centralisation may mean that there are specialist staff who have very good skills in dealing with complaints, but are you concerned that they are not the only players in the process? Is that something that you have looked at or have views on?