PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Support for Women Pensioners - 22 January 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

The Labour Government’s choice to protect the pension triple lock means that millions of women pensioners will see their yearly pensions rise by up to £470 in April, and by up to £1,900 over this Parliament. That stands in stark contrast to the Conservative party, who cut the state pension of over 1 million Scots. The Conservatives are still in chaos, announcing policies on the hoof that would mean a raid on pension pots. Meanwhile, this Labour Government are taking tough decisions and action to clean up the Tories’ economic mess.

I appreciate that campaigners are disappointed, but the hon. Lady has got herself in a bit of a fankle and is eliding two separate issues: a decision about the legality of the changes and the question of compensation. The ombudsman’s findings showed that the vast majority of WASPI women knew that the state pension age was changing. It is therefore difficult to justify up to £10 billion for a compensation scheme and conclude that that is a fair, proportionate and good value-for-money use of public funds.

Will Members please look at where the questions are coming from? Not doing so is disrespectful and not the way we should be carrying on. I am talking about senior Members who should know better. Here is a good example of a new Member—I call Ann Davies.

Thank you, Mr Llefarydd. In 2021, the then Secretary of State called for a vote on redress for 1950s-born women, urging the UK Government to get on the front foot and offer serious compensation to those affected, but women in Scotland and Wales have seen the same broken promises from Labour. The now First Minister of Wales pledged in 2018 that a Labour Government would right that injustice. With the Secretary of State, the Welsh First Minister and Labour politicians across these isles turning their backs on 1950s women in Scotland, Wales and elsewhere, why should those women ever again believe a word they say?

I am afraid that another hon. Member is in a bit of a fankle. The question about the legality of the changes has been settled by the courts. The question that the hon. Lady and her allies must answer is why they think that up to £10 billion of public money should be spent on compensation. Is that proportionate, fair, feasible and value for money? The Government’s view is that it is not.

Does the Minister agree that alongside the triple lock, the most important thing for women pensioners in Scotland is fixing our NHS, and that the SNP Government must act urgently to ensure that vulnerable Scots do not face what even the SNP Health Secretary has described as unacceptable waits for treatment?

I could not agree more. Scotland’s NHS is in crisis; one in six Scots are on a waiting list. The UK Government have provided a record investment to fix Scotland’s public services. The Scottish Government led by the SNP should get on with it.

The most common problem raised with me by women pensioners is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) says, the enormous waiting lists. Researchers from Oxford University, Strathclyde University and Edinburgh University have predicted that by the time the SNP leaves office, almost a million Scots will be on waiting lists. How can we ensure that the billions provided in the Labour Budget do not go down the same drain as everything else given to the SNP?

One in six Scots is on a waiting list today, and we face a housing emergency and a very stubborn attainment gap. Nobody could look around Scotland and say that it is going in the right direction. That is the choice that people will have to make in 2026: is Scotland going in the right or wrong direction? Canny Scots will, I am sure, make choices in the interest of their families and say that it is time to replace a failing SNP Government.

I welcome that welcome from the Labour Benches.

The Minister campaigned on compensation for WASPI women, as the Secretary of State for Scotland did, so will she tell me, if she will not listen to the women and if she will not listen to the ombudsman, will she listen to Scottish Labour MSPs who called for compensation?

There is a third Member in a dreadful fankle. We said at the election that we would wait for the ombudsman’s report, we would examine it and we would take a view. We have a taken view: we have taken a view that up to £10 billion of public money should not be spent providing compensation on a decision that was legal and of which it has been concluded that the vast majority of 1950s-born women were aware.

The Secretary of State recently reacted to Labour’s dip in the polls in Scotland by saying that the voters “don’t like honesty”. I wonder if it was more to do with Labour not keeping its commitment to women pensioners, or saying that it would decrease fuel bills—and they went up—or saying that it would tackle child poverty and then taking on some of the most regressive Tory policies on the two-child cap? As we approach Burns night, I wonder if the bard was right when he said:

“Dare to be honest and fear no labour.”

Nowadays, would he say, “Dare to be honest and fear the voters”?

Polls come, polls go. The fact remains that this Labour Government have provided record investment for Scottish public services. I suggest the hon. Member invests in a notepad so that he can keep track.