Chamber and committees

Just two years after strike action was averted, thanks to trade union negotiation, UCU members at the University of Aberdeen have voted overwhelmingly in support of industrial action. They voted in defence of their jobs, their workplace and their students’ learning conditions, because, over the past two years, more than 440 jobs at the university have been lost.

Elsewhere, the University of Dundee has seen more than 500 job losses since July 2024. Strike ballots have been held at Heriot-Watt University, the University of Strathclyde and the University of Stirling, and a new ballot opened today in Edinburgh. UCU members are having to fight the same battle, again and again, up and down the country.

I am pleased to hear the First Minister urging university principals across the country to meet campus unions. They must listen to their workforce, but what is his Government doing to address the financial crisis in our higher education sector?

Will the cabinet secretary meet workers and their union—the Public and Commercial Services Union—to hear their concerns?

According to news reports, SEPA confirmed that a specialist clean-up contractor was working to reduce the environmental impacts of the spill. That is the latest in a long line of outsourcing decisions taken by the environmental regulator, and it comes at a time when other public sector organisations such as Scottish Water have been criticised for outsourcing core work to contractors, whose workers are on inferior conditions and suppressed pay and pensions, which, according to the Scottish Trades Union Congress, leads to post-retirement poverty.

Does the cabinet secretary expect the public to believe that an individual private contractor can deliver that service more efficiently than the national body? If so, is that not an indictment of the Government’s record on public services?

According to news reports, SEPA confirmed that a specialist clean-up contractor was working to reduce the environmental impacts of the spill. That is the latest in a long line of outsourcing decisions taken by the environmental regulator, and it comes at a time when other public sector organisations such as Scottish Water have been criticised for outsourcing core work to contractors, whose workers are on inferior conditions and suppressed pay and pensions, which, according to the Scottish Trades Union Congress, leads to post-retirement poverty.

Does the cabinet secretary expect the public to believe that an individual private contractor can deliver that service more efficiently than the national body? If so, is that not an indictment of the Government’s record on public services?

According to news reports, SEPA confirmed that a specialist clean-up contractor was working to reduce the environmental impacts of the spill. That is the latest in a long line of outsourcing decisions taken by the environmental regulator, and it comes at a time when other public sector organisations such as Scottish Water have been criticised for outsourcing core work to contractors, whose workers are on inferior conditions and suppressed pay and pensions, which, according to the Scottish Trades Union Congress, leads to post-retirement poverty.

Does the cabinet secretary expect the public to believe that an individual private contractor can deliver that service more efficiently than the national body? If so, is that not an indictment of the Government’s record on public services?

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute remotely to tonight’s debate and I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing chamber time for this important issue. I am privileged to represent the north-east region, which is home to Linda Carmichael, the WASPI Scotland chair. I am grateful to Linda and the other WASPI delegates who travelled to Parliament earlier this month to speak to MSPs about their campaign for pension equality.

I put on record my support and solidarity with the women against state pension inequality campaign, and I thank the campaign and organisations such as Age Scotland for their briefings ahead of tonight’s debate.

These women had always expected to retire at 60 and made plans on that basis. I should add that the women made those plans against the backdrop of austerity, which made it harder for young mothers to access childcare and return to the workplace. As we have heard from the dedicated WASPI campaigners, the changes and maladministration meant that, in some cases, women could no longer care for their grandchildren or other family members, so it is incredibly disappointing that, following a fresh review, the UK Government has announced that there will be no financial compensation for WASPI women. I disagree with that decision. I do not think that it is right, and I will continue to call on the Government to think again.

Campaigners and affected women are justifiably angry about the decision. The change to state pension age has impacted around 336,000 women in Scotland. The current UK Government position is undoubtedly unfair, and we will not accept it. However, like other members, I do not believe that it is enough to criticise successive UK Governments when the Scottish Government could act to provide compensation to the WASPI women if it so wished. It has used those powers before and it can choose to do so again, but it does not want to act. As with so many issues, rather than utilising devolution to its fullest extent, the SNP has used the injustice faced by the WASPI women as a political football, preferring to exploit distress and indignation rather than use its powers in government to resolve it.

That is not a politics that I can support. That is why I added my support for the motion lodged by Katy Clark MSP, a long-time advocate for the WASPI campaign. That is why I have publicly called out the mistakes of the UK Government and did not hesitate to support Bill Kidd’s motion. Furthermore, that is why I will not stop speaking out in support of the WASPI women until they—and we—win, because an injustice to them is an injustice to all of us.

17:13

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute remotely to tonight’s debate and I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing chamber time for this important issue. I am privileged to represent the north-east region, which is home to Linda Carmichael, the WASPI Scotland chair. I am grateful to Linda and the other WASPI delegates who travelled to Parliament earlier this month to speak to MSPs about their campaign for pension equality.

I put on record my support and solidarity with the women against state pension inequality campaign, and I thank the campaign and organisations such as Age Scotland for their briefings ahead of tonight’s debate.

These women had always expected to retire at 60 and made plans on that basis. I should add that the women made those plans against the backdrop of austerity, which made it harder for young mothers to access childcare and return to the workplace. As we have heard from the dedicated WASPI campaigners, the changes and maladministration meant that, in some cases, women could no longer care for their grandchildren or other family members, so it is incredibly disappointing that, following a fresh review, the UK Government has announced that there will be no financial compensation for WASPI women. I disagree with that decision. I do not think that it is right, and I will continue to call on the Government to think again.

Campaigners and affected women are justifiably angry about the decision. The change to state pension age has impacted around 336,000 women in Scotland. The current UK Government position is undoubtedly unfair, and we will not accept it. However, like other members, I do not believe that it is enough to criticise successive UK Governments when the Scottish Government could act to provide compensation to the WASPI women if it so wished. It has used those powers before and it can choose to do so again, but it does not want to act. As with so many issues, rather than utilising devolution to its fullest extent, the SNP has used the injustice faced by the WASPI women as a political football, preferring to exploit distress and indignation rather than use its powers in government to resolve it.

That is not a politics that I can support. That is why I added my support for the motion lodged by Katy Clark MSP, a long-time advocate for the WASPI campaign. That is why I have publicly called out the mistakes of the UK Government and did not hesitate to support Bill Kidd’s motion. Furthermore, that is why I will not stop speaking out in support of the WASPI women until they—and we—win, because an injustice to them is an injustice to all of us.

17:13

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute remotely to tonight’s debate and I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing chamber time for this important issue. I am privileged to represent the north-east region, which is home to Linda Carmichael, the WASPI Scotland chair. I am grateful to Linda and the other WASPI delegates who travelled to Parliament earlier this month to speak to MSPs about their campaign for pension equality.

I put on record my support and solidarity with the women against state pension inequality campaign, and I thank the campaign and organisations such as Age Scotland for their briefings ahead of tonight’s debate.

These women had always expected to retire at 60 and made plans on that basis. I should add that the women made those plans against the backdrop of austerity, which made it harder for young mothers to access childcare and return to the workplace. As we have heard from the dedicated WASPI campaigners, the changes and maladministration meant that, in some cases, women could no longer care for their grandchildren or other family members, so it is incredibly disappointing that, following a fresh review, the UK Government has announced that there will be no financial compensation for WASPI women. I disagree with that decision. I do not think that it is right, and I will continue to call on the Government to think again.

Campaigners and affected women are justifiably angry about the decision. The change to state pension age has impacted around 336,000 women in Scotland. The current UK Government position is undoubtedly unfair, and we will not accept it. However, like other members, I do not believe that it is enough to criticise successive UK Governments when the Scottish Government could act to provide compensation to the WASPI women if it so wished. It has used those powers before and it can choose to do so again, but it does not want to act. As with so many issues, rather than utilising devolution to its fullest extent, the SNP has used the injustice faced by the WASPI women as a political football, preferring to exploit distress and indignation rather than use its powers in government to resolve it.

That is not a politics that I can support. That is why I added my support for the motion lodged by Katy Clark MSP, a long-time advocate for the WASPI campaign. That is why I have publicly called out the mistakes of the UK Government and did not hesitate to support Bill Kidd’s motion. Furthermore, that is why I will not stop speaking out in support of the WASPI women until they—and we—win, because an injustice to them is an injustice to all of us.

17:13

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute remotely to tonight’s debate and I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing chamber time for this important issue. I am privileged to represent the north-east region, which is home to Linda Carmichael, the WASPI Scotland chair. I am grateful to Linda and the other WASPI delegates who travelled to Parliament earlier this month to speak to MSPs about their campaign for pension equality.

I put on record my support and solidarity with the women against state pension inequality campaign, and I thank the campaign and organisations such as Age Scotland for their briefings ahead of tonight’s debate.

These women had always expected to retire at 60 and made plans on that basis. I should add that the women made those plans against the backdrop of austerity, which made it harder for young mothers to access childcare and return to the workplace. As we have heard from the dedicated WASPI campaigners, the changes and maladministration meant that, in some cases, women could no longer care for their grandchildren or other family members, so it is incredibly disappointing that, following a fresh review, the UK Government has announced that there will be no financial compensation for WASPI women. I disagree with that decision. I do not think that it is right, and I will continue to call on the Government to think again.

Campaigners and affected women are justifiably angry about the decision. The change to state pension age has impacted around 336,000 women in Scotland. The current UK Government position is undoubtedly unfair, and we will not accept it. However, like other members, I do not believe that it is enough to criticise successive UK Governments when the Scottish Government could act to provide compensation to the WASPI women if it so wished. It has used those powers before and it can choose to do so again, but it does not want to act. As with so many issues, rather than utilising devolution to its fullest extent, the SNP has used the injustice faced by the WASPI women as a political football, preferring to exploit distress and indignation rather than use its powers in government to resolve it.

That is not a politics that I can support. That is why I added my support for the motion lodged by Katy Clark MSP, a long-time advocate for the WASPI campaign. That is why I have publicly called out the mistakes of the UK Government and did not hesitate to support Bill Kidd’s motion. Furthermore, that is why I will not stop speaking out in support of the WASPI women until they—and we—win, because an injustice to them is an injustice to all of us.

17:13

I begin by thanking my friend and comrade Katy Clark for taking up the challenge of reforming our freedom of information laws to be fit for the 21st century. The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 was significant in that it gave everyone the right to obtain information held by public authorities, yet, as Katy has rightly highlighted, that law has not kept pace with the level of outsourcing to private companies of our public services. In effect, our right to know has been stripped back.

I will use buses as an example. In Edinburgh, the buses are owned and operated by Lothian Buses. Publicly owned Lothian Buses is the United Kingdom’s largest municipal bus company and, as such, it is rightly subject to freedom of information requests. Elsewhere, however, First Bus, which is owned by FirstGroup plc, is not subject to freedom of information laws despite receiving huge sums of public money. People who live outwith the capital have no right to know about their local bus services. The Parliament has a duty to change that.

However, it is not just bus companies that have been allowed to avoid public scrutiny. In energy, we have seen the vast majority of the money from the Scottish Government’s just transition fund siphoned off to the private sector. More than 40 per cent of that fund has gone to organisations that are linked to billionaire oil tycoon Sir Ian Wood, all while energy workers lose their jobs and are forced to pay out of pocket to retrain. Without this vital freedom of information bill, the public will have no right to ask questions about how that money is being spent. How can the Scottish Government justify that? What is it hiding? Who is it protecting? Is it not time that Scotland had a Government that will work in the interests of the people rather than those of big business, billionaires and barons?

The Covid pandemic exposed the hard reality of how few Government decisions across the world truly serve the people those Governments are supposed to represent. A harrowing example that brought that point home to many was the care home scandal. I highlight the tireless work of former MSP Neil Findlay, both inside and outside the chamber, on that issue. As members will remember, many people across the country spent their final days alone in care homes as part of a botched plan to free up hospital beds. Due to the outsourcing, bereaved families cannot make freedom of information requests regarding where their loved ones spent their final days, yet, if those people had remained in hospital, their families could have made such requests. That is another example of where the current FOI laws are simply not strong enough.

For victims, workers, the travelling public and many more, we need FOI reform. We need Katy Clark’s member’s bill. The Scottish Government clearly recognises that need, as it is now consulting on extending FOI to care homes. If it agrees that current FOI laws are inadequate and recognises the injustice that the public are facing in seeking crucial information, why on earth would it not support this timely bill today?

I commend the bill to Parliament and I thank Katy Clark for introducing it.