Meeting of the Parliament 01 May 2024
It would not be a contribution from me unless I started with a personal anecdote. I was a child who grew up in the 1970s in Glasgow, and I hit the job market in the late 1980s. At that time, the position of female equality was still moving on from legislation such as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It is hard for women now to imagine a Scotland where they were not allowed to have a bank account or loan without the additional signatory of a father or a husband, but that is how it was.
The idea of feminism and pure, undiluted equality was an absolute driving force for me. It was well discussed that there would have to be radical changes to allow women and men to be treated equally within the law. Some of the changes would be good and some would be bad, but it was universally accepted that radical change was needed nonetheless.
The plans in the Pensions Act 1995 to increase women’s state pension age from 60 to 65—with a gradual increase over a decade—were pretty much accepted, and I certainly have no recollection of me, my friends or anyone else disagreeing with the need for a more equal state pension process to encompass men and women. It is important to mention that, because we should be mindful that the report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is not looking at that decision, as has been mentioned already. Rather, the report was to investigate how the decisions were communicated and explained, and the failings in that regard.
The fact that the ombudsman has taken more than five years to produce the final report reflects the complexities surrounding the matter, and I understand the strong feelings around it. It is right that due care and attention was given when producing the report; it is right that the investigation considers approximately 30 years and goes all the way back to 1995; and it is right that all changes that successive Governments made were thoroughly investigated.
However, as I said, the debate before us is about questioning not the decisions but their communication. The opening sentence from the motion says that
“the Parliament welcomes the report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman”.
That is the context of our discussion, and I do welcome the report. It is a serious report that requires serious consideration, and I want to place on record my view that we must continue to have dialogue with all those people who have been impacted.
As our amendment states, the UK Government must
“respond in full to the substantial report”
and the
“recommendations contained within it as quickly as possible”.
I also agree with
“the recommendation to pay compensation to those affected”,
and I add my congratulations to the WASPI women and campaigners for their hard work and diligence in getting to this point.
Now that the ombudsman has provided the information, the UK Government has agreed to consider the report’s findings and will bring back an update to Parliament. That is absolutely right, but it must do so at pace.
Of course, there were numerous findings within the report, and some of its conclusions around access to information, complaint handling and the introduction of transitional arrangements are also important to consider and should form part of a broader reflection by the UK Government.
In conclusion, I applaud the UK Government’s commitment to the full and proper consideration of the ombudsman’s report and to its continued, full and constructive engagement. I await with interest the Government’s findings and I state again that it needs to present them at pace.
16:15