Chamber and committees

You mentioned feed. Food Standards Scotland looks not only at products that are for human consumption but at products for animals. We know that some products are added to the food of ruminants for emissions reduction. One of those products was mentioned in the chamber last week, because there seems to be a perception—perhaps because of fake news on the internet—that some products are not safe. However, they are rigorously tested before the products are even added to feed for our dairy cows, beef cattle or sheep.

I seek reassurance that my understanding is correct—that the products are rigorously tested and safe and that, therefore, people should not believe what they read on the internet.

Again, we are talking about autonomy and choice. Dialysis is not nice to go through. I have worked with patients who have had multiple issues. If someone is suffering, work should be done with their care provider, their clinician and their family to establish what autonomy they should be afforded.

My understanding is that the UK bill refers to conditions that are untreatable, rather than ones that people cannot recover from, which is the language that the Scottish bill uses. Does that make a difference?

Some people can refuse treatment, but they might be treatable. For example, they could receive chemotherapy to extend their life for another six weeks, but they might say, “I don’t want to go through that.” I am trying to explore the difference in definition between untreatable and unrecoverable.

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?

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?

Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, thousands of nurses and other healthcare professionals across Scotland administered crucial vaccines to the wider population. I remind members that, as a nurse, I was part of Dumfries and Galloway’s vaccine team during that time.

The vaccine programme was one of the most pivotal moments in tackling the pandemic, reducing harms and deaths, enabling a return to a certain level of normality and reuniting friends and family by enabling safe socialisation. Will the Deputy First Minister speak to what lessons the Scottish Government has learned on the medical response to the pandemic, particularly through the vaccine and testing programme, and how those will enable better planning and pandemic preparedness in the future?