Chamber and committees

Too many families are on waiting lists for affordable housing. The most difficult housing casework that I deal with involves individuals and families who require adapted properties in order to live safe, full lives.

The motion that the Parliament passed noted the role that all levels of government must play in tackling Scotland’s housing emergency and the fact that the current situation follows a decade of austerity across the UK—austerity that, to be frank, the Labour Party manifesto seems reluctant or unwilling to reverse. Will the minister elaborate on the steps that must be taken by the next UK Government to remedy the current difficulties and help us to build what we need to ensure that the housing needs of all Scotland’s citizens are met in full?

As many as 3.8 million women were given the news that their state pension age would increase from 60 to 66 just as they were about to retire—when it was too late for them to do any proper financial planning. Such maladministration warrants not only an apology but action. It is an injustice for which women must be promptly and properly compensated by the UK Government.

I congratulate Clare Haughey on securing cross-party support for this important debate. She has consistently spoken up, both in the Parliament and in her community, for the women who have been so wronged by that maladministration.

I also wish to congratulate the WASPI women on their campaign so far. I was pleased to meet Ayrshire WASPI campaigners outside the Parliament as they rallied in the past month or so. However, it was terribly sad to hear that not all the women whom I had previously met are still with us. Their loss compounds the huge sense of injustice that is felt.

What was good to hear was that the women felt well supported by their Ayrshire MPs—in particular, Patricia Gibson, who has represented North Ayrshire and Arran with distinction. I know that it is not only WASPI women who hope that she will be re-elected.

The Scottish National Party will never abandon the WASPI women. We demand justice and compensation for them, and we will not rest until they have it. Clare Haughey’s motion rightly highlights cross-party commitments to delivering justice for the women who have been affected, and I know that there is cross-party support for them in the Scottish Parliament. Unfortunately, any action must come from elsewhere.

I could make arguments about fairness and equality for women, and note how a similar cohort of men would never have been treated in the same way. I could talk, too, about the impact of that injustice on families and children—on children missing out on quality time with their grandparents, adult children missing out on practical support with bringing up their own children, and ageing parents missing out on support and care. However, such arguments are likely to fall on deaf ears. For all those people, we need to take action. In my judgment, any UK Prime Minister—whether he comes with a red tie or a blue one—who continues with a two-child benefit cap and a rape clause will not be particularly persuadable on arguments about fairness for women and families.

Let me make an argument for righting that wrong and for awarding fair and fast compensation to the 1950s women, whom I hope will be valued by an incoming PM. The awarding of such compensation could result in millions of pounds going into local economies. Figures that have been provided to me by the Ayrshire WASPI women from the House of Commons library briefing paper on the topic show that if the 15,000 women in Ayrshire who have been deprived of a full six years of their state pension entitlement were to be compensated by only a quarter of what is owed to them, it would result in £150 million being spent in local communities. In our local economies, that would mean benefits for business and, in turn, employment and training opportunities.

Women told me that being able to retire would help them to take up volunteering roles, which would contribute to the community and to their personal wellbeing. They spoke of the employment opportunities that would open up for younger people when the WASPI women retired, of the health and wellbeing implications of retirement, and of the value of being able to spend more time with grandchildren and supporting parents to work, which brings more money into households and eases money pressures and worries. There would be clear economic and social benefits from righting that wrong.

In addition, more than 60 per cent of the money concerned would go back into the Treasury in income tax, national insurance and VAT paid by women and local businesses. Therefore, the net cost to the UK Government of doing the right thing would be substantially lower than the gross cost.

Kind of. When my colleagues and I talk about these systems, it is not an abstract thing for us, as we will often have in mind specific constituents who have perhaps been failed, sometimes with tragic consequences. For me, the most important question is: when will citizens who are in receipt of or in need of this support see changes as a result of that improvement work? What is the timeframe?

It might be helpful to say what appreciative inquiry is.

Good morning, and thanks for your contributions so far.

Most of my questions are for you, Mr McCart, and are around the national collaboration and the learning-based approach to improvement. We have heard a bit about that this morning, but could you define what a learning-based approach to improvement is?

To what extent can the committee be assured that health and social care partnerships and local authorities have access to support for improvement work?

Is that work accessible to people who are delivering services on the ground?

Jeremy Balfour is speaking about rights, and that is absolutely correct. However, does he acknowledge that it is also about women’s rights to access healthcare, so there is a balancing act? It is not just one set of rights that we are talking about.

Thank you. Do any panel members who are online wish to come in?

Okay. Self-directed support and that different way of working will be about achieving outcomes for the individual and will be asset focused—I have heard that phrase quite a few times this morning. How do health and social care partnerships manage that against risk? I give the example of someone who has been assessed as requiring greater intervention but who wishes to have less of a service, if that makes sense.