Chamber and committees

Okay. I think that that is covered.

Dr Wright, I am processing the information that you gave about whether people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart disease might be considered terminal, as might people with diabetes who struggle because they are in dialysis three times a week or have neuropathic pain or something like that. Are you suggesting that the definition of what constitutes a terminal illness diagnosis is too broad, because it might lead to persons with diabetes, COPD and heart disease being eligible?

I want to highlight the case of a diet pill that was sold in America and then came to Britain. It has now been relabelled as a poison. That is down to the work that the Food Standards Agency is doing. The diet pill 2,4-dinitrophenol—DNP—is a poison, and it was reclassified in legislation. That is part of the work that you do to highlight certain products, which you might then act to ban or to reclassify, which is what happened in that case. Is that correct?

Dr Wright, I want to pick up on what you said about GPs working behind closed doors. I am a registered nurse and, in my experience, if somebody is given a terminal diagnosis, a multidisciplinary team of specialists will be working with them. That will include haematologists, surgeons, nurse practitioners and physiotherapists—a whole range of specialists will come into contact with the patient. If a patient makes a statement, therefore, in which they say, “I want to end this,” it is not then just going be up to a GP to make a decision behind closed doors.

Quite often, in my experience, if a physician comes to speak to a patient and there is a family member at the bedside, the patient will be asked whether it is okay for the family member to stay or whether they should leave, and it is up to the patient to make that decision. It is about choice and more than one person is making a decision, so I am not sure that I agree that GPs would be working behind closed doors and making a decision in a vacuum with regard to what somebody’s autonomous choice might be. I am thinking about the wider multidisciplinary team and about the decision being part of a care process.

Thanks. I do not want to take over anybody else’s questions, so I will leave it there.

Last week it came up that somebody might have a terminal illness but also have what might be considered to be a mental ill-health issue; the bill talks about the person having a “mental disorder”. However, somebody can have depression then get a terminal illness, too. That is the sort of thing that, down the line, should be addressed in further guidance—the bill supports the development of guidance—so that the assessment of adequate “capacity” can take into account that some people will have co-existing conditions.

I will pick up on Joe FitzPatrick’s point about the impact of the new US President on products that will be marketed in or brought to this country. The US Food and Drug Administration has the “Food Defect Levels Handbook”, which sets out acceptable levels of defects in food. That allows certain levels of insect parts, mould, mites, dust and even—dare I say it?—rat poo.

We do not have anything like that in Europe or in the UK. I am assuming that the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland will be horizon scanning for products that might be brought to the market from the USA for instance. I have concerns about the acceptable level of defects in the products that are coming from America.

I am a type 1 diabetic, and I do not consider myself terminal.

I normally start by saying that I am pleased to speak on a subject, but that is not really the case today. That is for many reasons, but none more than the complete injustice faced by WASPI women in Scotland and the rest of the UK at the hands of successive UK Tory and Labour Governments.

I have met many WASPI women across Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders, and many of them have been scammed out of the pension that they ought to have by right and that they were led to believe that they would receive. I thank all of the WASPI women, including those in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, for their tenacity in standing up to the UK Government and continuing to campaign for justice. Like others, I welcome the WASPI women to the gallery today.

Following the UK Government’s shocking decision to ignore the ombudsman’s recommendations and refuse compensation, WASPI campaigners have simply redoubled their efforts. WASPI women are spreading information through their local networks, appearing in local and national media, staging protests and events and lobbying politicians. They are certainly not taking the decision lying down, as they should not. The message written on the placards outside the Parliament was clear: “No notice, no letter, no pension.” My colleagues and I will do all that we can to support those women’s efforts in the face of a two-faced Labour Government.

It has now been 30 years since the Pensions Act 1995, when the events that we are discussing today were set in motion, which was before the Scottish Parliament even existed. Appallingly, WASPI women have been told by the Prime Minister, the chancellor and the media—not to mention by numerous shameful Labour MPs—that they will not be compensated because most 1950s-born women

“knew the state pension age was increasing”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 17 December 2024; Vol 759, c 168.]

That is entirely inaccurate.

The statistic that is being bandied around is from a 2006 survey—that was 18 years ago—and refers to general awareness across the population about changes to the state pension age in the future. The survey did not ask whether people knew about the specific impact of changes to the state pension age on them, as individuals. To add further insult, only about 5 per cent of the survey respondents were 1950s-born WASPI women.

Let me be crystal clear: the Department for Work and Pensions knew that a huge cohort of 1950s-born women were unaware of changes to their pension, and it agreed internally that it should write to the women and that doing so would make a difference. Those were the conclusions of a thorough independent review by the ombudsman, and that is exactly why it ruled that there had been a clear case of maladministration. To try to rewrite or deny history is appalling.

As many as 3.8 million women were given the news that their state pension age was going to increase from 60 to 66 just as they were about to retire, which was too late for them to do any proper financial planning. It is estimated that more than 300,000 women in Scotland were impacted by the WASPI pension scandal. Many were already in ill health or worse, and others had taken early retirement and were planning to get by until the age of 60, when they thought that they would receive their state pension.

While the UK Government delays in the hope that WASPI women will just go away, the campaign for justice continues, but as many as 40,000 women are dying each year without getting any form of compensation. That is absolutely shameful.

During the previous session of Parliament, I held several WASPI engagement events across Dumfries and Galloway. I was supported by the fantastic older persons champion from Scottish Borders Council, Councillor Elaine Thornton-Nicol, as well as by a local Dumfries resident and WASPI and pensions campaigner, Ann Ferguson MBE. Both should be thanked for their dedication to pension equality and their support of WASPI.

Many colleagues, including Clare Haughey and Christine Grahame, should also be thanked for their campaigning. I was in the chamber last week for the debate that Kenneth Gibson led, although I did not speak in it.

Following recent events, in the past few days, my office has been in contact with local WASPI women. The one thing that they say is how shocking it is that Labour MPs, who, when they were in opposition, stood with placards with the WASPI women, calling for justice, are now defending their Labour bosses and throwing WASPI women out in the cold. It is galling and shows the true heart of Labour members.

After so many public commitments, the Labour UK Government’s position is utterly indefensible. The question for Scottish Labour MPs is this: will they do the right thing and stand up for older people in Scotland, or will they stand up for a pledge-breaking Prime Minister? My WASPI women constituents do not have much hope.

The UK Government must reverse its decision. It must accept the ombudsman’s findings in full and provide compensation to WASPI women urgently.

It is clear that there has been increased concern in recent weeks, not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom, about the rising level of flu infections in all age groups. It is not too late to take a vaccine. Will the minister outline what work the Scottish Government and stakeholders are conducting to encourage an increased uptake of the flu vaccination?