Seòmar agus comataidhean

To prove Christine Grahame right, there is an issue with the request-to-speak buttons.

Does Tess White agree that, to best help the WASPI women, we should try to focus on what we agree on? In the Parliament today, we agree on justice and fair compensation for the women. Rather than pick out individuals who could say or do more, we have given examples of where our Labour colleagues are doing their very best. We know that we have a long way to go, but does she agree that we should focus on what we agree on and unite to speak with one voice for the WASPI women?

Presiding Officer, I am grateful to you for calling me to speak. I did not know that I was going to get six minutes, so I might not take up all of that time.

It was important for me to put on the record my support for the WASPI women, because it really matters to my constituents in central Scotland, to WASPI women across Scotland and the UK, and to the people in all our constituencies and regions.

I will add my words of welcome to the WASPI campaigners who are in the public gallery. I am sorry that they have to continue the battle.

It is an understatement to say that it is disappointing that the debate is necessary, but here we are. We are here because women who are affected by state pension inequality deserve justice, and no one today has argued against that.

There can be no justice without fair compensation. Although an apology from the UK Labour Government is really welcome, it is not enough and it is not good enough. It is undeniable that the Labour Government has been handed a tough inheritance after 14 years of Tory chaos, but 1950s-born women are not to blame for the constraints on public finances, and the UK Government is not powerless to act.

The purpose of today’s debate is not to explain or justify why the WASPI women should be compensated. Those arguments have been won, but this is a moment for the Scottish Parliament to unite, and that is what we are doing today. Everything that I have heard today tells me that we are united. After decision time today, when, I hope, we will speak with one voice, UK ministers must play their part. They must listen, reconsider and work with us towards a just outcome for the women.

We have heard some really good contributions from colleagues in the chamber today. We heard a frank but fair speech from my colleague, Beatrice Wishart, who spoke in the recent members’ business debate in support of the WASPI women. To Beatrice Wishart and other colleagues who are wondering, it is not just Labour women who are furious and frustrated. Labour men are, too, among our members and supporters. We are not here to get a pat on the back for speaking with our colleagues today, but to show that party democracy is as important as the democracy of the country. It is good that we have space in our Parliament today to come together to debate the issues. No one is saying that it is easy to find a way to get the compensation in place, but we have to act fairly and act fast.

I follow the contributions of Labour colleagues including Katy Clark, who, as colleagues know, is heavily involved in the cross-party group on WASPI and can speak from experience about development of Labour policy in the past. We have knowledge and insight that we can lean into. In the debate last week, my colleagues Carol Mochan and Mercedes Villalba made excellent comments.

I hope that I am putting across the fact that this is very much a live debate and discussion within the Labour Party. That is why my local Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse Labour Party organised an emergency meeting on 6 January—the day when most people were returning to work after the Christmas and new year break. At that meeting, an emergency motion was agreed to. It is very clear that the decision that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced on 17 December is not the right decision. The motion is clear that the women should be “suitably compensated”. The text of the motion also references a motion that our local authority, South Lanarkshire Council, passed in November. I make those points to show that there is widespread support for the WASPI campaigners.

We have to step aside. There is much that we can debate in the chamber about what the UK Government is getting wrong, what the Scottish Government is getting wrong and what we would all like to see all parties do better on. However, on this one issue we can come together.

Today, on behalf of my constituents and my local Labour Party members who have asked me to speak up on the matter, I say that although no Government gets everything right, the UK Government is in entirely the wrong position on WASPI.

My plea today is not to think again about what the women deserve but to recognise that the Government is getting it wrong and that it is not too late to act. Today, I will vote for the motion and for the Scottish Labour amendment. I hope that we will continue to use every opportunity to speak out and to call for action, because the UK Government must do the right thing.

I support the cabinet secretary’s remarks so far. I hope that she is right that the Parliament will speak with one voice today. Will she give an update on discussions between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on the matter?

I am grateful to my colleague Paul Sweeney for securing this important debate. I pay tribute to him for all his support for Marie Curie. Recently, 2,500 people in Central Scotland have emailed me to stand up for hospice care, and I know that colleagues have had many similar emails. Does he share those people’s fear and mine that, if the Scottish Government does not do more to fund and support our amazing hospices, it will be the poorest people in Scotland who suffer the most?

[Made a request to intervene.]

Will the minister take an intervention?

I join colleagues in expressing my sincere condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Keith Rollinson.

A lot has been said in the debate already, and it has been good to hear lots of points of agreement. I will try not to be repetitive, but it is good that we realise the seriousness of the challenge. Too many of our bus drivers and other front-line workers are experiencing abuse and violence, which is not acceptable. It affects those in the workforce and people who want to get on the bus to get to work, access education, go to see their friends or spend money on our high streets. It is a serious issue, and it is good to see that there is a lot of agreement in the chamber.

I thank Unite the union for its role in lobbying MSPs and getting people to take the issue seriously. I remind members that I am a member of Unite the union. I also declare an interest as the parent of a child who has a young person’s bus pass and uses it regularly. I want her and all young people to feel safe when they are travelling on public transport up and down the country.

However, listening to our constituents and to people who have raised concerns, we hear that not everyone feels safe. That cuts across different ages and backgrounds. We need people to feel confident about using public transport, and we need people to feel that we are on their side.

I again draw attention to Unite the union’s 15-point plan. There are some really good points in it. Sue Webber talked about CCTV, and Mark Ruskell mentioned the plan. It offers solutions, and there is stuff in it that bus operators could get on and do. My colleague Alex Rowley made some important points that I hope the Scottish Government will reflect on, such as on conditionality and the fact that many operators receive public funds.

It is not just about bus travel; it is also about the wider public transport network. I am thinking about Hamilton, where the rail and bus stations are co-located. I am concerned about ScotRail’s proposal to reduce the hours of operation of our ticket offices. My colleague Richard Leonard raised that issue, but it also concerns me and other colleagues. We have to look at such things holistically. We are in a climate and nature emergency, and we need to get our economy working for our communities. Every pound that we invest in public transport makes a difference, and we all care about that.

I am grateful to Mark Ruskell, who talked about gender-based violence. Colleagues are aware that we are now in the 16 days of activism to end violence against women and girls. Misogyny, sexism and sexual assault happen on our buses, at bus stations and across our public transport system.

I looked to see what young people are saying. Members of the Scottish Youth Parliament say that they want safer public spaces and transport. Part of the solution is early intervention through better education, and not just in schools, but through youth work, too. Colleagues have not pointed the finger only at young people, because we would not want to do that. We have to look for holistic solutions. My colleague Martin Whitfield proposed a member’s bill on youth work. We need to ensure that we do not demonise young people and that we do not defund public services. We need to invest in our young people, and that includes investing in youth work.

I am grateful to Fulton MacGregor for bringing this important issue to the chamber. I have now signed the motion.

I am glad that he mentioned his expertise in social work, as I am keen to understand what additional training he believes would be important and how that could be taken forward in Scotland.

Scottish Labour will also support amendments 6, 11 and 12. The amendments align with our aims to increase parliamentary oversight, to improve transparency and, as Mark Ruskell mentioned, to get the extra detail that we felt was perhaps going to be lacking otherwise. We will therefore support the amendments.

At stage 2, we were a little unsure about the wording of Patrick Harvie’s proposal, so we appreciate the further work that has been done since last week. For that reason, we are content to support amendment 13.

Douglas Lumsden asked a fair question about the definition of a major capital project. It is a question that we had, too, but I think that the wording of the amendment is reasonable. There will be proposals in the plan. The principle behind the amendment is welcome and we can support it.