Chamber and committees

I am coming on to that point about that disappointment and what else I feel could be done.

An apology is important, and I have outlined why. I gently say to Mr Adam that, very often, his Government comes to this chamber and makes apologies on a range of issues and does not follow up with compensation. [Interruption.] He asks about the value of apologies. What is the value of apologies that this Scottish Government has given to many women across Scotland, on many other issues, who have not been fully compensated? [Interruption.] He needs to reflect on that as I progress.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

I have to say to the member that, in a spirit of consensus, I am trying to make points relating to the PHSO report, and the PHSO has outlined a number of recommendations. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice is shaking her head, but this is what is in the report. There are a number of options—either looking at a flat rate of compensation, which I will come on to, or looking at individual circumstances. The PHSO report deals solely with maladministration and is not looking at the wider issues of detriment. That is something that we debated under the previous First Minister, when we had debates and discussions on this topic and on trying to design a system—crucially, in conjunction with WASPI women—that can seek to give the redress that is required to a person because of their individual circumstances.

As I have said, and as I am trying to outline to members, I have spoken with many different WASPI women who have had different experiences. Their experience of maladministration and the injustice towards them has been different, and they often have different views of how recompense should be made. Therefore, it is important that we look at all of the ombudsman’s recommendations and try to arrive at a system that will, in particular, allow us to address those who have had the most detriment to them in terms of that maladministration.

I recognise that many women, often from lower-income backgrounds, were at greater risk of being adversely affected by that maladministration, and I believe that they were put at a disadvantage because of the late notice that they received. Indeed, that position is explicitly recognised in the report, in paragraphs 495 to 498, which set out that

“Not all women born in the 1950s will have suffered an injustice because of DWP’s maladministration in communicating”

the pension age but that it is likely that there will be

“a significant number of women born in the 1950s who have ... suffered injustice because of maladministration in DWP’s communication about the 1995 Pensions Act.”

I was going to defend Christine Grahame by referring to the sticky buttons, which is probably the best way to put it.

Tess White makes a number of points. We have clearly outlined the Scottish Labour Party’s position, but during the 14 years that the Conservative Party was in power, what action did she take on WASPI women, and what did she raise with secretaries of state and ministers? What did she say when the PHSO report came to Mel Stride? He made many points in the Westminster chamber not accepting parts of the report. What would her plan for compensation be if her party was still in government?

The options that I referred to were outlined in the PHSO report and are about the levels of compensation. It does a disservice to the debate to stand in the chamber shouting about medals and mugs. We are trying to have a serious debate about the levels of compensation that were outlined by the PHSO. I do not know whether Marie McNair has read the report, but there are clearly options within it.

Will the member give way?

The cabinet secretary’s remarks completely fail to acknowledge the UK Labour Government’s commitment to the pension triple lock—a commitment that I hope she shares and that we have debated before in the chamber. Does she share my concern that the Conservative party seems no longer to support the triple lock, which is protecting people’s pensions?

Presiding Officer, I am afraid that I am finding it very difficult to hear. I do not know whether that is due to the gallery clearing or as a result of noise at the back of the chamber.

I think that it was wrong of Mr Balfour’s party not to engage with the PHSO report in any meaningful way in the previous UK parliamentary session and, indeed, to kick the issue into the long grass and not even offer an apology or take any learning at all from the process. I do not think that Mr Balfour can stand here and lecture us on what should or should not have been done. I will come to the point about where I think the UK Government could and should go further; I will, of course, address that wider point. However, I think that Conservative members must consider the inaction of their own Government during its long 14 years in power and, in the recent past, its inaction following receipt of the PHSO’s report.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has tasked officials to develop a strategy for effective and timely modern communications on state pensions to ensure that nobody falls through the cracks in the future.

On the issue of an apology, it is important and worth putting on the record that the ombudsman described the apology as “very significant” and welcomed

“the Government’s recognition that mistakes were made, and the commitment from the Secretary of State to make sure this never happens again.”

The ombudsman went on to recognise the disappointment that not all the recommendations on redress have been taken forward.

Will the member give way?