Seòmar agus comataidhean

At this point, you need to move or not move amendment 549; you should not be responding to the debate.

Good morning, and welcome to the second meeting in 2025 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have received no apologies. Our first and only agenda item is consideration of the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill at stage 2.

I will briefly explain the procedure that we will follow for the benefit of anyone who is watching. Members should have with them a copy of the bill, the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The documents are available on the bill page on the Scottish Parliament’s website. I will call each amendment individually in the order on the marshalled list. The member who lodged the amendment should either move it or say “not moved” when the amendment is called. If that member does not move the amendment, any other member present may do so.

The groupings of amendments set out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. In each debate, I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. It would be helpful if members could be clear about which amendment they are speaking to, given that there are so many amendments.

I will then call other members who have amendments in the group to speak to, but not to move, their amendments and to speak to other amendments in the group, if they wish. I will then call any other member who wishes to speak in the debate. Members wishing to speak should indicate that by catching my or the clerk’s attention. I will then call the minister, if she has not already spoken in the debate.

Finally, I will call the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up and to indicate whether he or she wishes to press the amendment or to withdraw it. If the amendment is pressed, I will put the question on the amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw an amendment after it has been moved and debated, I will ask whether any member present objects. If there is an objection, I will immediately put the question on the amendment.

The other amendments in a group are not debated again when they are reached. If they are moved, I will put the question on them straight away. If there is a division, only committee members are entitled to vote. Voting is done by a show of hands and it is important that members keep their hands raised clearly until the clerk has recorded their names. If there is a tie, I must exercise a casting vote.

The committee is also required to consider and decide on each section and schedule of the bill and the long title. I will put the question on each of those provisions at the appropriate point. We will not go beyond the end of section 50 today.

Before we begin proceedings, I welcome the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, Siobhian Brown.

Section 1—Overview of the regulatory framework

Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2 to 4 and 38 to 46. I call the minister to move amendment 1 and to speak to all the amendments in the group.

I invite Tess White to wind up and press or seek to withdraw amendment 541.

I call Tess White to speak to amendment 638 and other amendments in the group.

Welcome back. Amendment 179, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 180 to 188, 543, 189, 190, 544, 191 to 199 and 545.

Amendment 236, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 237 to 249, 264, 266, 265 and 267 to 270.

Amendment 250, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 455 to 458.

I, too, congratulate Kenny Gibson on securing the debate, and I welcome the WASPI women to our Parliament.

To add context to my contribution, I feel that it is important primarily to set out the circumstances as they might have been a few decades ago for many women across Scotland, especially women who are of pension age now.

We already understand—and it is widely accepted—that women have disproportionately borne the burden of care responsibilities. Women, in particular those in low-income or part-time employment, have also long been disadvantaged in the working environment.

I thank Close the Gap for its briefing, which sets out clearly how the pension system was designed around the model of a male breadwinner role in a way that fails to account for the disrupted work patterns of women who have care-giving responsibilities. Although we have moved on in attitudes and employment practices to help to alleviate that inequality, progress has been slower than is acceptable, and throughout the time of the WASPI women’s working years, the world really has become a different place.

Because they often have to care for children and other family members and are usually the first to sacrifice employment altogether because of family commitments, women retire with significantly less savings than men. On average, women have £123,000 less in pension savings than their male counterparts. A woman who is aged 25 today would need to work a staggering additional 18 years in full-time employment to retire with the same pension pot as a man. The stark fact is that two thirds of pensioners who are living in poverty are women and half of them are single.

That injustice stems from a series of failures, and the decision to raise the state pension age for women who were born in the 1950s without proper communication or consideration of its impact only exacerbated the impact of those failures. Women were left unprepared and unable to make the necessary financial arrangements, and many faced, and continue to face, significant hardship as a result. Notwithstanding the emotional distress that has been caused by the woeful handling of the fiasco, the ombudsman was clear that the women who are affected are owed compensation.

Let me share the story of Olive Sharpe. Olive is the co-ordinator of the Banff and Buchan WASPI supporters group. Like thousands of women who were born in the 1950s, Olive worked hard for her entire life. She planned her retirement around the understanding that she would receive her state pension at the age of 60. That promise was broken, and Olive was left scrambling to cover her expenses when the state pension age rose unexpectedly for her. Fast forward to recent months, and a glimmer of hope was offered to those WASPI women. In opposition, Labour promised the world. The leader of Scottish Labour said:

“Under my leadership, WASPI women will finally receive the justice they deserve.”

After promising the world to get elected, what did Labour offer our WASPI women? Absolutely nothing. Is that truly what Scottish Labour thinks of WASPI women and what they deserve? Labour said to vote for it for change and all we have seen is short change. The decision is an affront to justice and it perpetuates the systemic inequality that women face in retirement.

Olive’s story is one of resistance and resilience, but it is also one of unnecessary hardship that has been caused by a failure of governance and a lack of compassion. Her story is one among hundreds of thousands across Scotland. Last night, when I spoke to Olive Sharpe, she urged Labour to reconsider and asked me to put a question to Scottish Labour. Does the current UK Government, which supported the WASPI campaign since the beginning, really wish to add its failure to this maladministration?

Westminster has shown us yet again that, whichever party is elected in London, the people of Scotland and—in this case—the women of Scotland, are continually let down. It is time that compensation was paid and that WASPI women truly get the justice that they deserve.

Good morning, and welcome to the first meeting in 2025, in session 6, of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. We have received no apologies.

Our first agenda item is a decision on taking item 3, which is consideration of today’s evidence session, in private. Do we agree to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.