Chamber and committees

It is concerning to hear about some of the constraints around resources, because the strong view is that that needs to be a priority. Maybe we can explore that later. That was just a brief supplementary question, convener.

I will move on to some other questions. Last December, Transport Scotland published research that covered the pros and cons of the national road user charging scheme. The research said that the scheme could achieve a 20 per cent reduction in distance driven at minimal social cost while raising revenue for sustainable alternatives. With that in mind, can you explain why the Scottish Government has ruled out national road user charging schemes?

The Scottish Government is committed to a constructive four-nations approach in exploring what the replacement for fuel duty should be. Is it a distance-based charge that you feel is right? Do you have a view? What would you bring into those discussions with the UK Government?

I am glad to hear you talk about capacity, because it is not all about funding. This committee takes a close interest in skills and knowledge, not just for workforce and organisations but for communities, to make sure that all communities have equal opportunities.

I want to probe a bit further. You are telling us that the Government will not be overly prescriptive about what will work in different projects. However, is it your expectation that GB Energy will help communities to secure stakes in privately operated energy generation projects by providing, for example, matching capital investment? We are aware of the Danish renewable energy act, which requires at least 20 per cent community ownership for all new wind projects. Will GB Energy perform a similar role?

To prove Christine Grahame right, there is an issue with the request-to-speak buttons.

Does Tess White agree that, to best help the WASPI women, we should try to focus on what we agree on? In the Parliament today, we agree on justice and fair compensation for the women. Rather than pick out individuals who could say or do more, we have given examples of where our Labour colleagues are doing their very best. We know that we have a long way to go, but does she agree that we should focus on what we agree on and unite to speak with one voice for the WASPI women?

Presiding Officer, I am grateful to you for calling me to speak. I did not know that I was going to get six minutes, so I might not take up all of that time.

It was important for me to put on the record my support for the WASPI women, because it really matters to my constituents in central Scotland, to WASPI women across Scotland and the UK, and to the people in all our constituencies and regions.

I will add my words of welcome to the WASPI campaigners who are in the public gallery. I am sorry that they have to continue the battle.

It is an understatement to say that it is disappointing that the debate is necessary, but here we are. We are here because women who are affected by state pension inequality deserve justice, and no one today has argued against that.

There can be no justice without fair compensation. Although an apology from the UK Labour Government is really welcome, it is not enough and it is not good enough. It is undeniable that the Labour Government has been handed a tough inheritance after 14 years of Tory chaos, but 1950s-born women are not to blame for the constraints on public finances, and the UK Government is not powerless to act.

The purpose of today’s debate is not to explain or justify why the WASPI women should be compensated. Those arguments have been won, but this is a moment for the Scottish Parliament to unite, and that is what we are doing today. Everything that I have heard today tells me that we are united. After decision time today, when, I hope, we will speak with one voice, UK ministers must play their part. They must listen, reconsider and work with us towards a just outcome for the women.

We have heard some really good contributions from colleagues in the chamber today. We heard a frank but fair speech from my colleague, Beatrice Wishart, who spoke in the recent members’ business debate in support of the WASPI women. To Beatrice Wishart and other colleagues who are wondering, it is not just Labour women who are furious and frustrated. Labour men are, too, among our members and supporters. We are not here to get a pat on the back for speaking with our colleagues today, but to show that party democracy is as important as the democracy of the country. It is good that we have space in our Parliament today to come together to debate the issues. No one is saying that it is easy to find a way to get the compensation in place, but we have to act fairly and act fast.

I follow the contributions of Labour colleagues including Katy Clark, who, as colleagues know, is heavily involved in the cross-party group on WASPI and can speak from experience about development of Labour policy in the past. We have knowledge and insight that we can lean into. In the debate last week, my colleagues Carol Mochan and Mercedes Villalba made excellent comments.

I hope that I am putting across the fact that this is very much a live debate and discussion within the Labour Party. That is why my local Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse Labour Party organised an emergency meeting on 6 January—the day when most people were returning to work after the Christmas and new year break. At that meeting, an emergency motion was agreed to. It is very clear that the decision that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced on 17 December is not the right decision. The motion is clear that the women should be “suitably compensated”. The text of the motion also references a motion that our local authority, South Lanarkshire Council, passed in November. I make those points to show that there is widespread support for the WASPI campaigners.

We have to step aside. There is much that we can debate in the chamber about what the UK Government is getting wrong, what the Scottish Government is getting wrong and what we would all like to see all parties do better on. However, on this one issue we can come together.

Today, on behalf of my constituents and my local Labour Party members who have asked me to speak up on the matter, I say that although no Government gets everything right, the UK Government is in entirely the wrong position on WASPI.

My plea today is not to think again about what the women deserve but to recognise that the Government is getting it wrong and that it is not too late to act. Today, I will vote for the motion and for the Scottish Labour amendment. I hope that we will continue to use every opportunity to speak out and to call for action, because the UK Government must do the right thing.

I support the cabinet secretary’s remarks so far. I hope that she is right that the Parliament will speak with one voice today. Will she give an update on discussions between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on the matter?

I am just trying to take a note of those figures. Year 1 was 2022-23. We know about the £75 million so far, because that was confirmed at the end of 2024. You have mentioned another £15.9 million, so that adds up to £90.9 million. You mentioned a few other projects. So far, out of the £500 million, is £90.9 million the total that has been allocated, or is there more than that?

Thank you. Back to you, convener.

That was helpful, but I would like you to clarify the figures. The concern was that the fund was being raided to the tune of up to £460 million. I think that the Government was looking at around £424 million, but you mentioned £160 million, which might go down further. Can you give a bit more detail on the timeline? You said that you expect that the amount could be even less than £160 million. What are you basing that on? What advice are you getting?

It is really good to get clarity on that. It sounds as if there has been a bit of reflection within the Government.

You have been stressing the importance of legacy projects. Are you confident that, as we go forward, every effort will be made to ensure that use of ScotWind funding and resources is clearly linked to specific climate, net zero and biodiversity funding? Is that the policy intention?