Chamber and committees

As I have said previously, in this speech and in my other contributions on this matter, the door should not be closed and there is a process that should be explored. I have been clear that that is my position and the position of the Scottish Labour Party. We have been clear about that.

I have also noted, however, that the PHSO report highlighted a number of different ways in which women could be compensated. I think that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should look again at that and at all the issues within that with regard to how redress may be made to those women. That is why Scottish Labour will support the Government’s motion tonight, and it is why I have lodged an amendment saying that we have to look at redress in full and understand what people are asking of us. I give that assurance on the record.

I am conscious of the number of interventions that I have taken and that I am rapidly running out of time. We will hear contributions from members on all sides of the chamber today about the experience across Scotland and more widely. I am clear that we support the principle, as I have outlined, and I look forward to this important debate and to continuing to move the issues forward on behalf of the WASPI women.

I move amendment S6M-16160.1, to insert at end:

“; acknowledges that the UK Government has apologised to women who have been impacted as a result of maladministration, and agrees that the UK Government should look at all options for remedy, particularly for those most adversely impacted.”

I appreciate that Meghan Gallacher is broadening out her speech to talk about policies that affect and impact pensioners across the country. Will she confirm whether she supports her leader’s comments on the pension triple lock or whether she is committed to protecting the triple lock for pensioners across the country?

[Made a request to intervene.]

That is certainly not the intention of my amendment, which I lodged in good faith. I like to find consensus, which I think is important. Many members have mentioned the importance of the Parliament speaking with one voice.

It is clear that there are variations in the detriment caused by maladministration. We are seeking to recognise that and the fact that a system could be put in place to do so. Does the cabinet secretary not agree?

Will Tess White take an intervention?

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. 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?

I will begin, as I have done in debates in which I have spoken on this topic in this chamber in my four years in Parliament, by acknowledging all the WASPI women, including those who are in the gallery today and those we represent in our regions and constituencies. In doing so, I offer them my respect for the work that they have done over many years of campaigning. Indeed, like colleagues across the chamber, I have had the opportunity to speak to many impacted constituents and WASPI campaigners over the years. I have listened to their views and experiences of what has happened to them, the impact that those issues and decisions have had on their life, and to what they feel is an appropriate remedy for them in terms of their circumstances.

I have heard, as members across the chamber will have, a variety of experiences that I believe deserve to be accounted for and heard today, as well as a variety of views on what is required to achieve the redress that I think that everyone would want to see. I have also heard a variety of views on the report that we are debating and the subsequent issues.

In the time that I have available to me, I will focus my comments particularly on the PHSO report. When I last spoke on this matter in the chamber, the PHSO report had been received by the previous UK Government but had not been responded to. I outlined in that debate that it would fall to any incoming Government to deal with the detail in the report and to respond. I also highlighted my desire for a response to be made and, indeed, my support for that response to include a redress scheme. That had to be fully considered in line with the different recommendations that the ombudsman outlined in their report. Therefore, I recognise the disappointment at the fact that the UK Government has not taken to the UK Parliament the PHSO’s recommendations on compensation.

Along with Labour colleagues, I have been clear that, although steps have been taken to recognise maladministration, the UK Government could go further. However, it would be remiss not to recognise that the UK Government has finally acknowledged that maladministration occurred—something that the previous UK Government refused to do—and has offered an apology on behalf of the state for that maladministration.

In addition, the UK Government has made commitments to taking clear action to ensure that maladministration of that kind cannot happen again. Those actions include working with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan for the report, setting clear and sufficient notice of any future changes to pension age—[Interruption.]

Not at this stage. I have much to get through, as Mr Stewart will appreciate.

I recognise the importance of what the ombudsman has said about the apology and those other actions, and I recognise that, for many WASPI women, including those in the gallery and those who will be watching today, that action does not go far enough. That is the point that I am coming on to, which members are highlighting. That action does not go far enough. That is why we, in Scottish Labour, have been clear that the UK Government should not close the door on this issue and should think again about the whole issue of compensation following the apology.

I also have to accept and acknowledge what has been said about the economic circumstances. The current UK Government has inherited a horrendous financial situation from the previous Government, and the new Government has had to deal with a long legacy of unresolved issues—not just WASPI women, but the infected blood scandal, the Horizon Post Office scandal, Windrush and others. I am saying that to set the context, and I think that that is important to consider in terms of any future decisions. I think that all of us in the chamber would recognise that Governments have to make decisions and that the previous UK Government left behind a huge in-tray of issues for the current UK Government to deal with.

That said, and as I am coming on to outline the position of members on the Labour benches, it is clear that more could be done to look at fair and flexible compensation, to be provided in particular to those who have been the most adversely impacted by the maladministration that was outlined by the ombudsman in her report. I think that we will hear examples of that in the course of the debate.

I recognise that arguments have been made that many WASPI women were not adversely impacted by pension age changes and that, if the maladministration had not occurred, it may not have made a difference, but we need to drill into that in terms of what the ombudsman has said.

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—

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was about to make the point that there has been an undertaking to learn from the experience, to understand what the issues are and to ensure that it cannot happen again.

I give way to Jeremy Balfour.