Meeting of the Parliament 01 May 2024
Yes—I do, and that is what I have said. In fact, my amendment states that the UK Government should urgently address and respond to the recommendations of the PHSO report,
“including the recommendation to pay compensation to those affected”.
The First Minister asked me a yes or no question, and the answer is yes.
I have been supporting WASPI campaigners in Moray, and in the House of Commons, with their campaign. They deserve justice, and part of the road toward justice involves taking the recommendations from the report and delivering on them. However, timing is crucial. In my letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I urged him and the UK Government to respond to the report as quickly as possible. In his response, Mel Stride said that the UK Government is considering all of the recommendations, including the recommendation to pay compensation.
The First Minister was correct to say that this issue is not and should not be political. Members of every political party—individually, at a local level, or nationally, in Parliament—have raised the issue time and again. I pay tribute to Carolyn Harris, from the Labour Party, who co-chairs, with my Conservative colleague Tim Loughton, the UK Parliament all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women. The Conservative MP Peter Aldous raises this issue time and again. On behalf of the SNP, Patricia Gibson recently challenged the UK Government to respond to the report and the recommendations contained in it as a matter of urgency. The WASPI women have managed to get people from across the political spectrum to listen to their issues and concerns. Crucially, the PHSO—which is non-partisan—has listened to them and has accepted that there was maladministration.
It is important to remember that the report could not look at whether it was right to change the state pension age for women. I agree with the First Minister: no WASPI women that I have ever met have been against equalisation; the issue has been how that was communicated. From the very first moment that I spoke on this subject, I have raised concerns about how it was communicated. Based on the summary of the complaint and the findings of the report, there is no doubt that there was maladministration. The report states clearly, “That was maladministration. That was also maladministration.” The maladministration has rightly been brought to the fore in the comprehensive report, which requires thorough discussion, debate and a response from the UK Government. That is why the amendment that I have lodged echoes much of what the First Minister put forward in his motion, but in a way that we can all support.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I hope that in his reflections, the First Minister will consider—today, of all days, and given the words that he and the Deputy First Minister used about the Parliament working together—that perhaps he and the Scottish Government can accept our amendment, so that the Parliament sends a united voice that we support the efforts of WASPI women and that we want to see the recommendations of the report promptly responded to by the UK Government.
I move amendment S6M-13041.2, to leave out from “the UK Government” to end and insert:
“this is a substantial report, which specifically considered the communication of changes about the state pension age for women by the Department for Work and Pensions; calls on the UK Government to respond in full to the substantial report by the ombudsman and recommendations contained within it as quickly as possible, including the recommendation to pay compensation to those affected, and congratulates the WASPI women and campaigners for their individual and collective campaigns on this issue over many years.”
15:53Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.