Chamber and committees

I am delighted to have secured this debate on the WASPI campaign and the United Kingdom Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s final report. I thank colleagues from my party, and from the Green party, who supported the motion.

Established in 2015, the WASPI campaign was set up to protest against the way in which the state pension age for men and women was equalised. The Conservative Government’s Pensions Act 1995 included plans to increase women’s state pension age from 60 to 65, so that it was the same as the age for men. The Pensions Act 2007 introduced a series of increases, starting with a state pension age of 66 between 2024 and 2026, and ending with an increase to 68 between 2044 and 2046.

The Tory and Liberal Democrat coalition Government then introduced the Pensions Act 2011, which accelerated the equalisation of women’s state pension age by 18 months and brought forward, by five and a half years, the increase in men’s and women’s state pension age to 66. Those changes impacted an estimated 3.8 million women who were born in the 1950s, including more than 5,000 in the Rutherglen Westminster constituency. Many had had little or no notice of the changes, which meant that it was too late for them to do any proper financial planning.

I know that MSPs of all parties will have heard from constituents about the impact that the changes had on them. For example, there were those who took early retirement as a result of their own ill health or that of their partner, and who had to go back to work as they belatedly found out that they were not able to receive their pension until years later than they had anticipated. There were people who had to sell their homes, and people who lost all their savings. However, it is about not just the financial hardship, but the emotional distress and the health issues that the situation caused for people.

The tenacity, commitment and resolve of the WASPI women has been quite remarkable. In September 2016, I had the privilege of attending a WASPI march in Glasgow, and I have been delighted to work closely with some of the organisers ever since. My constituent Anne Potter has been one of the key figures in the campaign in Scotland, having set up the Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire WASPI branch in 2016. Anne and other activists, including Kathy McDonald and Rosie Dickson, have organised protests, handed out countless flyers, spoken to print and broadcast media, lobbied politicians at party conferences, and much more. They have kept the WASPI case at the forefront of politicians’ minds ever since, and they have done that despite setback after setback as a result of the intransigence of the UK Government, delays to the PHSO report and defeats in court. Throughout the whole process, the WASPI campaigns have always known that they were right and that they had suffered an injustice.

After around five years, the PHSO published its final report into the issue. In the summary of the complaint and the ombudsman’s findings, the report referred to

“2004 research that DWP was considering in August 2005”,

which

“showed that ... overall, more than half of women affected by the 1995 Pensions Act did not know their State Pension was 65, or between 60 and 65.”

The ombudsman also found that the UK Government had failed to

“give due weight to ... relevant considerations”.

For example, the 2004 research had recommended that information “should be ‘appropriately targeted’”. Despite the UK Government having identified that it could do more, it “failed to provide” the public with as much information as possible.

In addition, the ombudsman’s report found that the Department for Work and Pensions did not “act promptly” enough on its proposal of November 2006 to write directly to women who were affected to tell them about the changes to the state pension age. It also

“failed ... to give due weight to how much time had already been lost since the 1995 Pensions Act.”

The WASPI position has finally been vindicated with the publication of the PSHO’s report. The “maladministration” by the UK Government has now been confirmed, and the ombudsman has been clear that a compensation scheme must be established.

However, like the WASPI women themselves, I am deeply disappointed at the level of compensation that is being suggested. The PHSO recommends compensation levels equivalent to level 4 on its banding scale; that is between £1,000 and £2,950. Compensating all women who were born in the 1950s at the level 4 range would involve spending between £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion of public funds. However, that amount must be considered in context: the UK Government has saved £181.4 billion purely by raising the state pension age of those women.

There has been dither and delay from the Tories over many years. They have had years to resolve this injustice without forcing women to go to the ombudsman or to courts for resolution, and they have had months to respond in full to the PHSO report. However, just as the Tory Government has failed the WASPI women, the same is true of Labour. For years, scores of Labour members of Parliament and MSPs have been vocal in their support for the WASPI campaign. Labour politicians have happily posed for photographs, signed pledges and offered warm words, but at the point at which they should be honouring their promises and paying what is due, they have reneged on the deal. There is not one word in Labour’s manifesto about the WASPI campaign, and we have heard nothing from Sir Keir Starmer or from Anas Sarwar. They have backtracked and U-turned, as they have done on numerous policy positions in recent months. A whiff of power in number 10, and they have abandoned the women who had trusted them to fulfil their promises.

Good morning and welcome to the 20th meeting of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in 2024. I have received apologies from Paul Sweeney.

The first item on our agenda is to decide whether to take item 4 in private. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

I am sorry, James, but I think that both Des McCart and Richard Brunner wish to respond to that last question.

Okay. Tess White has a supplementary.

The next item on our agenda is consideration of one negative instrument, which is the Food Additives and Novel Foods (Authorisations and Miscellaneous Amendments) and Food Flavourings (Removal of Authorisations) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. The purpose of the regulations is to implement the decision that was made by the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health on eight regulated food product applications. It authorises the placing on the market in Scotland of four new novel foods, authorises a new production method for two food additives and a new use for one other food additive, and authorises the removal of 22 food-flavouring substances.

The regulations also set a maximum limit for residues of ethylene oxide in all food additives, and they correct minor technical errors and omissions in two existing novel foods authorisations and two existing food additive authorisations.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the regulations at its meeting on 11 June 2024 and made no recommendations. No motion to annul has been lodged.

I believe that Emma Harper has a comment.

Would you be content for the committee to write to the minister and ask about the concerns that you have raised?

The next item on our agenda is an evidence session on monitoring and evaluation as part of phase 2 of our post-legislative scrutiny of the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013. I welcome Dr Richard Brunner, who is a research associate at the University of Glasgow; Rob Gowans, who is policy and public affairs manager at the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland; James Mahon, who is an economist at the York Health Economics Consortium; and Des McCart, who is senior programme manager for strategic commissioning at Healthcare Improvement Scotland. We will move straight to questions.

James Mahon is online and wants to come in.

Is that you finished, James?

Are you finished with your questions, Tess?