Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank my colleague Bill Kidd for securing the debate. Since my contribution is at this late stage in the debate, there will be some repetition in it.

As has been said, according to data from the House of Commons library, it is estimated that between 331,000 and 336,000 women in Scotland have been affected by what women against state pension inequality are campaigning about. Women who were born in the 1950s—as were three of my sisters, although I am old enough not to have been caught up in this—had their state pension age raised without adequate notification. Compounding the injustice, more than 4,000 WASPI women in Scotland have died since 2020 without receiving anything. Although former UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall apologised for the 28-month delay—that is a delay of more than two years—in sending letters warning of the pension age change, she said that there was no evidence of “direct financial loss”. Well, it depends how you define “direct”.

Women had planned their finances on the basis that they would receive their state pension at 60, as I did—I paid off my mortgage. That was especially true of women who were divorced, widowed or single, who had only their own income. They discovered, out of the blue, that they had better change their plans. It is not that they objected to their pension age being equalised with that of men; it is the way that it was done that they objected to. It was done without notice and not incrementally—there was simply a cliff edge.

In its final report in March 2024, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concluded that the DWP committed maladministration by failing to adequately communicate changes to the women’s state pension age, found that that caused injustice, including distress, and lost opportunities to plan, which I mentioned, and recommended that compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 be paid to the women affected. That is not a lot of money if a pension of several years has simply disappeared, but it was compensation only for the delay, not for pension loss. Now Labour will not pay even that small amount.

I give Anas Sarwar his due. Once upon a time, along with Labour colleagues, he said that the UK Government should pay up, but, as we know, what Labour says in here—what Anas Sarwar says—is dismissed by the UK leader. That reminds me of the words of Johann Lamont, who resigned as Labour leader in 2014, with immediate effect. She accused the UK party of treating Scotland like “a branch office” and said that she had “had enough”.

Anas Sarwar has obviously not had enough. He and Jackie Baillie have been publicly humiliated, but apparently not enough to make them follow in Johann Lamont’s footsteps. Put back in their box by Labour headquarters, lid firmly nailed down, they have betrayed the WASPI women. The images of them and Sir Keir Starmer standing shoulder to shoulder with WASPI women cannot be erased. The abandonment of the WASPI women by Labour and, before that, the Tories, after years of false promises, is a disgrace. I say to the WASPI women: don’t give up; fight for another U-turn.

17:37

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government is taking to standardise the criteria for urgent referrals to child and adolescent mental health services for an assessment, in light of reports that it is currently a postcode lottery. (S6F-04690)

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government is taking to standardise the criteria for urgent referrals to child and adolescent mental health services for an assessment, in light of reports that it is currently a postcode lottery. (S6F-04690)

I thank my colleague Bill Kidd for securing the debate. Since my contribution is at this late stage in the debate, there will be some repetition in it.

As has been said, according to data from the House of Commons library, it is estimated that between 331,000 and 336,000 women in Scotland have been affected by what women against state pension inequality are campaigning about. Women who were born in the 1950s—as were three of my sisters, although I am old enough not to have been caught up in this—had their state pension age raised without adequate notification. Compounding the injustice, more than 4,000 WASPI women in Scotland have died since 2020 without receiving anything. Although former UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall apologised for the 28-month delay—that is a delay of more than two years—in sending letters warning of the pension age change, she said that there was no evidence of “direct financial loss”. Well, it depends how you define “direct”.

Women had planned their finances on the basis that they would receive their state pension at 60, as I did—I paid off my mortgage. That was especially true of women who were divorced, widowed or single, who had only their own income. They discovered, out of the blue, that they had better change their plans. It is not that they objected to their pension age being equalised with that of men; it is the way that it was done that they objected to. It was done without notice and not incrementally—there was simply a cliff edge.

In its final report in March 2024, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concluded that the DWP committed maladministration by failing to adequately communicate changes to the women’s state pension age, found that that caused injustice, including distress, and lost opportunities to plan, which I mentioned, and recommended that compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 be paid to the women affected. That is not a lot of money if a pension of several years has simply disappeared, but it was compensation only for the delay, not for pension loss. Now Labour will not pay even that small amount.

I give Anas Sarwar his due. Once upon a time, along with Labour colleagues, he said that the UK Government should pay up, but, as we know, what Labour says in here—what Anas Sarwar says—is dismissed by the UK leader. That reminds me of the words of Johann Lamont, who resigned as Labour leader in 2014, with immediate effect. She accused the UK party of treating Scotland like “a branch office” and said that she had “had enough”.

Anas Sarwar has obviously not had enough. He and Jackie Baillie have been publicly humiliated, but apparently not enough to make them follow in Johann Lamont’s footsteps. Put back in their box by Labour headquarters, lid firmly nailed down, they have betrayed the WASPI women. The images of them and Sir Keir Starmer standing shoulder to shoulder with WASPI women cannot be erased. The abandonment of the WASPI women by Labour and, before that, the Tories, after years of false promises, is a disgrace. I say to the WASPI women: don’t give up; fight for another U-turn.

17:37

I agree that decisions should follow clinical judgment. However, my question was prompted by a constituency case involving a child who, at home, exhibits extreme behaviour that is deteriorating. She masks the behaviour at school and in public, so the school will not and cannot make an urgent referral. At home, her increasingly violent behaviour to her family and her self-harm impact seriously on her twin sister, who is mimicking that behaviour. I am most concerned about her mother’s health as she has a heart condition and, to be frank, is at breaking point.

The girl has waited since June 2023 for a CAMHS assessment, but after three years she is now further down the waiting list. That cannot be right, and hers might not be the only such case. Does the First Minister agree with me that in this case urgency should be created by her behaviour, which consists of self-harm and harm to others, and not the locus, although it appears to have been determined by the locus here? As I have anonymised and abbreviated the circumstances in her case, may I send more details to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care so that he can look into it?

I thank my colleague Bill Kidd for securing the debate. Since my contribution is at this late stage in the debate, there will be some repetition in it.

As has been said, according to data from the House of Commons library, it is estimated that between 331,000 and 336,000 women in Scotland have been affected by what women against state pension inequality are campaigning about. Women who were born in the 1950s—as were three of my sisters, although I am old enough not to have been caught up in this—had their state pension age raised without adequate notification. Compounding the injustice, more than 4,000 WASPI women in Scotland have died since 2020 without receiving anything. Although former UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall apologised for the 28-month delay—that is a delay of more than two years—in sending letters warning of the pension age change, she said that there was no evidence of “direct financial loss”. Well, it depends how you define “direct”.

Women had planned their finances on the basis that they would receive their state pension at 60, as I did—I paid off my mortgage. That was especially true of women who were divorced, widowed or single, who had only their own income. They discovered, out of the blue, that they had better change their plans. It is not that they objected to their pension age being equalised with that of men; it is the way that it was done that they objected to. It was done without notice and not incrementally—there was simply a cliff edge.

In its final report in March 2024, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concluded that the DWP committed maladministration by failing to adequately communicate changes to the women’s state pension age, found that that caused injustice, including distress, and lost opportunities to plan, which I mentioned, and recommended that compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 be paid to the women affected. That is not a lot of money if a pension of several years has simply disappeared, but it was compensation only for the delay, not for pension loss. Now Labour will not pay even that small amount.

I give Anas Sarwar his due. Once upon a time, along with Labour colleagues, he said that the UK Government should pay up, but, as we know, what Labour says in here—what Anas Sarwar says—is dismissed by the UK leader. That reminds me of the words of Johann Lamont, who resigned as Labour leader in 2014, with immediate effect. She accused the UK party of treating Scotland like “a branch office” and said that she had “had enough”.

Anas Sarwar has obviously not had enough. He and Jackie Baillie have been publicly humiliated, but apparently not enough to make them follow in Johann Lamont’s footsteps. Put back in their box by Labour headquarters, lid firmly nailed down, they have betrayed the WASPI women. The images of them and Sir Keir Starmer standing shoulder to shoulder with WASPI women cannot be erased. The abandonment of the WASPI women by Labour and, before that, the Tories, after years of false promises, is a disgrace. I say to the WASPI women: don’t give up; fight for another U-turn.

17:37

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government is taking to standardise the criteria for urgent referrals to child and adolescent mental health services for an assessment, in light of reports that it is currently a postcode lottery. (S6F-04690)

I agree that decisions should follow clinical judgment. However, my question was prompted by a constituency case involving a child who, at home, exhibits extreme behaviour that is deteriorating. She masks the behaviour at school and in public, so the school will not and cannot make an urgent referral. At home, her increasingly violent behaviour to her family and her self-harm impact seriously on her twin sister, who is mimicking that behaviour. I am most concerned about her mother’s health as she has a heart condition and, to be frank, is at breaking point.

The girl has waited since June 2023 for a CAMHS assessment, but after three years she is now further down the waiting list. That cannot be right, and hers might not be the only such case. Does the First Minister agree with me that in this case urgency should be created by her behaviour, which consists of self-harm and harm to others, and not the locus, although it appears to have been determined by the locus here? As I have anonymised and abbreviated the circumstances in her case, may I send more details to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care so that he can look into it?

I thank my colleague Bill Kidd for securing the debate. Since my contribution is at this late stage in the debate, there will be some repetition in it.

As has been said, according to data from the House of Commons library, it is estimated that between 331,000 and 336,000 women in Scotland have been affected by what women against state pension inequality are campaigning about. Women who were born in the 1950s—as were three of my sisters, although I am old enough not to have been caught up in this—had their state pension age raised without adequate notification. Compounding the injustice, more than 4,000 WASPI women in Scotland have died since 2020 without receiving anything. Although former UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall apologised for the 28-month delay—that is a delay of more than two years—in sending letters warning of the pension age change, she said that there was no evidence of “direct financial loss”. Well, it depends how you define “direct”.

Women had planned their finances on the basis that they would receive their state pension at 60, as I did—I paid off my mortgage. That was especially true of women who were divorced, widowed or single, who had only their own income. They discovered, out of the blue, that they had better change their plans. It is not that they objected to their pension age being equalised with that of men; it is the way that it was done that they objected to. It was done without notice and not incrementally—there was simply a cliff edge.

In its final report in March 2024, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concluded that the DWP committed maladministration by failing to adequately communicate changes to the women’s state pension age, found that that caused injustice, including distress, and lost opportunities to plan, which I mentioned, and recommended that compensation of between £1,000 and £2,950 be paid to the women affected. That is not a lot of money if a pension of several years has simply disappeared, but it was compensation only for the delay, not for pension loss. Now Labour will not pay even that small amount.

I give Anas Sarwar his due. Once upon a time, along with Labour colleagues, he said that the UK Government should pay up, but, as we know, what Labour says in here—what Anas Sarwar says—is dismissed by the UK leader. That reminds me of the words of Johann Lamont, who resigned as Labour leader in 2014, with immediate effect. She accused the UK party of treating Scotland like “a branch office” and said that she had “had enough”.

Anas Sarwar has obviously not had enough. He and Jackie Baillie have been publicly humiliated, but apparently not enough to make them follow in Johann Lamont’s footsteps. Put back in their box by Labour headquarters, lid firmly nailed down, they have betrayed the WASPI women. The images of them and Sir Keir Starmer standing shoulder to shoulder with WASPI women cannot be erased. The abandonment of the WASPI women by Labour and, before that, the Tories, after years of false promises, is a disgrace. I say to the WASPI women: don’t give up; fight for another U-turn.

17:37

I agree that decisions should follow clinical judgment. However, my question was prompted by a constituency case involving a child who, at home, exhibits extreme behaviour that is deteriorating. She masks the behaviour at school and in public, so the school will not and cannot make an urgent referral. At home, her increasingly violent behaviour to her family and her self-harm impact seriously on her twin sister, who is mimicking that behaviour. I am most concerned about her mother’s health as she has a heart condition and, to be frank, is at breaking point.

The girl has waited since June 2023 for a CAMHS assessment, but after three years she is now further down the waiting list. That cannot be right, and hers might not be the only such case. Does the First Minister agree with me that in this case urgency should be created by her behaviour, which consists of self-harm and harm to others, and not the locus, although it appears to have been determined by the locus here? As I have anonymised and abbreviated the circumstances in her case, may I send more details to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care so that he can look into it?