Chamber and committees

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.

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?