Seòmar agus comataidhean

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry to interrupt the member. All my buttons have come on now. It is as if it is playing tunes. I pressed the intervention button and it would not light up, but now they are all on.

He is here.

I, too, welcome the WASPI women who are in the public gallery. I also welcome the opportunity to contribute, as I did in the members’ business debate last week. I declare an interest, as a pensioner, although I am fortunate in that I missed the change in pension age, being born in the mid-1940s, although my three younger sisters were affected.

Back then, it was expected that women would aim to get married, leave work to have children and perhaps return later. Broadly speaking, they were not expected to have a career or, if they did, they were expected to interrupt it for the children. That is what I did—I left my then profession of teaching for six years, as there was no formal childcare then. There was an assumption that the married woman would have her husband’s pension to rely on, as well as her own smaller pension through paying what was known as the small stamp, as I did. Any woman’s employment pension was also reduced because of those years out. That is how I recall those years, anyway.

However, although life has its ups and downs, there was that constant of the retirement age of 60 for women. It was a contract between women and Government that was founded in trust—it was secure. With changes in life expectancy and work patterns, change was on the cards, and I do not think that there is any argument about that. I think that WASPI women do not dispute the move towards equalisation; the issue is the way that it was done. There was not only a lack of proper information but a brutal loss of pensionable years, which has left many women in penury.

As a divorced older woman, and in common with many single women, including widows and divorcees, I had to plan and calculate how I could pay off my mortgage in line with my retirement. The extension of the state pension age by up to six years sabotaged financial plans, and we already had a smaller state pension—it is only by chance that I am still working. The financial penalties for women are high. For example, 23 per cent of single female Scottish pensioners live in relative poverty, and 66 per cent of pension credit claimants are women. To relate it to my constituency, in cold numbers, as many as 5,630 WASPI women in Midlothian and 8,740 across the Borders have lost out, many of whom have tirelessly campaigned for decades to right this wrong.

As I said, WASPI women have no argument with the equalisation of the pension age; the issue is the way that it was done, with immediate financial change compounded by the failure to publicise and inform of the changes. That is what the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found in its report, which was confined to the question of maladministration by the DWP. The report found that the women affected were not properly informed and that they deserved and should be awarded compensation. In other words, it would not be compensation for lost pension, which is another injustice; it would be compensation only for the failure to inform women, to enable them to adequately adjust matters for their financial future. The suggested figures are in the lower thousands of pounds, not tens of thousands.

The report states:

“Complainants have ... told us the Government Gateway website incorrectly stated State Pension age for women was 60 as late as 2016.”

It also states:

“Complainants have told us they did not see any of the publicly available information because, for example, they did not read magazines, did not see leaflets, or had no reason to visit Benefits Agency offices. And they say that because they had no reason to question their State Pension age, they did not request information.”

The PHSO has also stated:

“Given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, we are taking the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene.”

I emphasise the phrase “rare but necessary”. That brings me to Labour. The DWP has now said that introducing such a compensation scheme for women who were born in the 1950s would be “neither fair nor feasible”—contrast that with the phrase “rare but necessary”.

Now that their party is in Government, Labour MPs have erased many of their online comments in support of the WASPI women just as quickly as they stood for photo ops with the campaigners. Now—as is evidenced by the amendment, frankly—the Labour UK branch office is alive and well.

Today, Labour has nowhere to hide—not even in that amendment. Each of those 14,000-plus women across my constituency is an individual, so I will end with the words of Clare Ramage, who had to take early retirement at 58 and who established the Borders WASPI group.

“I was told that to get my state pension I would have to apply for it so at 58 I contacted the DWP to better understand how I go about this. I was then told that I would not get my state pension until I was 66 years old. I was shocked and said, But you never told me. To which they replied, ‘WE DIDN’T NEED TO’.

I felt powerless for the first time in my life. Who was going to fight for me as there was no union to help?”

That is when she set up WASPI Scottish Borders. She continues:

“Obviously we now have the Ombudsman’s findings that indeed the DWP did not inform these women about the changes to their pension age to give them time to set up alternative pensions.

Finally it angers me to see how we have been used by the Labour Party who fully supported us, signed petitions, got their pictures taken—for what, just votes?”

Those are Clare’s words. I could not say it better myself.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I take your word, but I pressed the intervention button and a delayed request to speak came up instead. This is not an age matter.

Thank you, Mr Marra.

My point of order is that I am being denied the right to intervene because of electronic faults that are none of my doing.

I congratulate the member on securing the debate and I welcome members of the congress. I had better mention Richard Lyle or I will never live it down.

I want to make a brief contribution. Fairgrounds and shows are an important part of our agricultural shows, with their shiny new tractors, the powder-puffed sheep, the geese that have been marching against each other, the food stalls, the charity stalls and even the political stalls. Above all that, there is the noise and music and the familiar tunes of the fairgrounds—the happy homes of shows at the Border union in Kelso, at Peebles and at Penicuik, in the park. There is the timeless scream of the children who cannot make up their minds whether they are frightened or having a good time on some of the very scary rides and the dodgems. I wish them all well because of the atmosphere that they bring to agricultural shows, which nobody else has mentioned. I do not pitch Edinburgh against Glasgow; that is a waste of time—it is the Borders first.

Getting back to the issue, I have two confessions to make about the fairgrounds. First, I just cannae eat candy floss. It does not matter how it comes, I just cannae eat it, try as I will. Secondly, fairgrounds have given me, as a granny, the opportunity to indulge in things that I find very scary—although sometimes I am commanded to do so by my grandchildren. They do not find them scary, but they put the fear of God into this politician, and not many people can do that.

I thank the showpeople again for the great atmosphere that they bring to agricultural shows. I apologise for not being able to come to the reception later. Strangely enough, I am chairing something to do with salmon farming, which shows the diversity in the Parliament. I cannot see how I can put the two things together.

I say to the showpeople, “Keep it up”, because without fairgrounds our agricultural shows would be very dull places indeed.

I thank the member for securing this debate. For obvious reasons, I will focus on my constituency, which is part of the rural Borders. Of course there are pressures in rural areas on the broad range of health services, which by the nature of distance, topography and demographics—with more elderly people—differ from urban areas. I know that not only because I am constituency MSP, but because in earlier times I lived in Minnigaff, in rural Galloway, which is 60 miles from either Ayr or Dumfries hospital.

However, although there are pressures, as there are across the UK, there are advantages to being rural. Everyone across the professional and voluntary sector seems to know someone who knows someone else, whether GPs or pharmacists, or housing agency, social work or NHS Borders staff. Collaboration, which is so difficult in urban areas, is personal. Of course, volunteers interact not only professionally but socially, and in smaller communities, there is even closer-knit collaboration.

Regarding Rachael Hamilton’s comment, I have had similar situations and have intervened successfully for a constituent when an alternative offered to them simply was not practical. What was said was wrong—not what Rachael Hamilton said, but the message that her constituent received.

In recent years, NHS Borders has successfully taken on 33 international recruits. The figures are slightly historical, but they show that a further 27 had not yet started and they demonstrate success. How did the health board do it? It set in place contacts with local services, schools, key worker housing and so on for the recruits and their families. Things were made comfortable for people who wanted to come to work professionally in the Borders.

I turn to hospital at home, which does what it says on the tin. It was launched as a pilot in the Borders in 2023. On a recent visit to Borders general hospital with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, we learned of the success of hospital at home for the wellbeing and recovery of patients, particularly the elderly. NHS Borders benefits from the largest slice of the Scottish Government’s funding to continue to develop that service, having been allocated £600,000 from a £3.6 million pot. Evidence shows that those who benefit from the service are more likely to avoid hospital or care home stays for up to six months after an acute illness. It frees up hospital beds, and more than 90 per cent of people who took up the offer had nothing but praise for it. It is so much better if people can be treated and recover at home, in the comfort of familiar surroundings.

The voluntary sector is integral to the delivery of healthcare and wellbeing across the Borders. The Royal Voluntary Service has a Scottish Borders hub. Volunteer drivers can take clients to regular NHS appointments in the community, and patient transport for cancer care appointments, which may be outwith the local area—even as far as Edinburgh royal infirmary—is covered. Similarly, Borders Wheels, which I visited in Galashiels, is available to take people to health appointments and respite care. Such services are difficult to connect in urban areas.

We Are With You—formerly known as Addaction—is a drug and alcohol support service in the Borders that I have visited a few times. It is free and provides non-judgmental support and advice from what it now calls the with you team. Everything, whether in person or online, is confidential. The only time that that might change is if the service has serious concerns about the safety of a client or someone else. We Are With You provides support groups, as well as support for family and friends. There is a free syringe service, which is very discreet.

Finally, Dementia Friendly Tweeddale is very supportive, not just of people who have been diagnosed with dementia but of their families. I commend all the NHS services and volunteers across my constituency for what they do.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government transport secretary regarding the £5 million contribution that the previous Administration made towards a feasibility study into the extension of the Borders railway. (S6O-04211)

As this is a pressing matter, I hope that we will shortly have from the UK Government a timeline for delivery of its half share of the £10 million for the feasibility study on the extension. The cabinet secretary mentioned the proposed senior project manager, and I note that Scottish Borders Council has agreed to appoint one from April. Although it is prepared to fund the post from that time if it has to, I do not think that that would be fair to the council. I hope that the cabinet secretary will impress that on the UK Government.