I welcome the chance to debate these issues again and to highlight the WASPI women’s campaign.

As I set out when we last debated the issue, at the beginning of May, in Government time, Scottish Labour welcomed the publication of the PHSO’s detailed report, which, rightly, should command the attention of us all. We had already started to hear about the desire for members to focus on the report and consider it in great detail. Since our previous debate, though, it appears that the report’s findings have not commanded the full attention of the current Conservative UK Government.

More than two months passed between the report’s publication in March and the Prime Minister’s announcement that he was calling a general election in July. During that period, despite calls from campaigners and Opposition parties to publish a full statement and response to the report, the Conservative Government utterly failed to do so. It has had the power to respond, but it has chosen not to do so and to kick the issue into the long grass. As other members have articulated, I do not think that it is right that the UK Government did not take that opportunity to respond while it had access to the information that sits with the Treasury and the DWP.

Following the general election, it will be for the next UK Government to carefully consider the report’s recommendations in full. If Labour is fortunate enough to be elected, we will work to give the report proper consideration. As we have done from the start, we will listen respectfully to the women who have been involved in this injustice. We have to recognise that this is an injustice, as other members have articulated during the debate so far.

We should reflect on the important issues that Ruth Maguire highlighted about the injustice that women, in particular, have experienced in this context. Speaking as a man, I am very conscious of the imbalance in rights and the challenge that exists in trying to achieve equality.

We should also speak of the campaigners, who have been tireless and ferocious in highlighting inequalities and trying to set things right. As I did in May, I take the opportunity to thank them and, indeed, everyone who contributed to the PHSO’s report. Recently, I met WASPI campaigners in Renfrewshire and Inverclyde. We had a constructive discussion about the issues highlighted in the report, the redress that they would like to see and what the next steps might be for any incoming Government.

It is clear that there are a number of challenges. As I have said, we have not had access to all the information that sits with the Treasury and the DWP. It is important that, if the response to the report includes establishing a compensation scheme, the scheme be agreed by those who have been affected. We must ensure that it commands their confidence and meets the aspirations of those who seek redress, perhaps at varying levels. We must also ensure, of course, that the scheme can be properly and fully funded and that the commitment is not made and then not delivered properly.

We know that there are significant challenges not only in relation to the WASPI women but in righting injustices such as the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal. The Windrush generation has not yet been properly compensated, either. The incoming UK Government will have a huge amount of work in its in-tray, which, quite frankly, has not been addressed by the current Conservative Government. It is clear to me that that might take time and that there will be competing interests, but it is important that we consider the report in full and have the Government respond. If Labour is fortunate enough to form that incoming Government, that is what we will do. We will work hand in hand with the WASPI women. We will ensure that we do not make promises that we cannot keep, that justice is done and that there is redress.

I am disappointed by the way in which the member has chosen to characterise the debate. It is clear in what I said that we need to consider the report. With regard to the SNP’s manifesto commitment, has she costed how much the compensation would be, and will she say how it will be paid for? I think that those are fair questions.

Thus far, the minister’s answers have been quite extraordinary. People in Inverclyde do not want warm words from the Government, nor do they want visits from the minister or comparisons with England; they want dental services to be there to serve the people who need them. The reality is that Mydentist is not the first practice in Inverclyde to close. With the remaining practices either being closed to new NHS patients or dealing with ever-expanding waiting lists, the area is a dental desert. I see that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is in his place in the chamber, so he might want to reflect on the issue, too. Why has it taken so long for any intervention to come? Given that, across the country, four out of every five practices are not accepting new NHS patients, when Inverclyde residents ask who is responsible for the lack of dentistry provision that they face, surely the only answer can be that it is this Scottish National Party Government.

Good morning. I am keen to understand how clear you think the bill is on enforcement of the new homelessness duties. Who will be responsible for monitoring relevant bodies’ compliance with those duties? I think that that will be crucial.

In the interests of time, I think that we can follow up on those points in writing.

Thank you—that was very helpful. We will want to reflect on that across all the equalities strands.

On the rural aspect of the bill’s proposals, we have discussed the different solutions to homelessness that are required in our rural communities. I suppose that this is quite a big question, but it would be good to get a sense of how far you think the provisions go in addressing specific issues in rural communities. I do not know who wants to kick off on that.

This question follows on from Marie McNair’s questioning and is directed at Gordon MacRae. In its submission, Shelter Scotland suggested that consideration be given to including anti-racism responsibilities in the bill. It would be good to get some more context for that. Could you give us an idea of what you think such a provision might look like and why you think that it is needed?

I have a brief follow-up to that. The Scottish Parliament cross-party group on poverty has done a piece of work on rural poverty and the premiums that exist in rural areas. Do you recognise that to be the case in the housing space, too? Do people in rural areas face a premium in relation to their experience of homelessness?

Does anyone else want to comment?

We touched briefly on the role of the Mental Welfare Commission in some of those spaces; the Scottish Human Rights Commission has given evidence; and we have spoken more broadly about the need for that intersectionality as well as the need not to become too siloed but to work across that space. Is there a sense that those organisations need more resource or input from people who have a disability, is there more that we can do in the broader landscape without a commissioner or is it a bit of a mix of all those things? Going back to Jenny Miller’s original point, I think that, across the board, we need to improve what is on offer and what we are moving through. Do any members of the panel have a view on that?