Jamie Hepburn
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“We have a full week left next week. The committee could request that witnesses give evidence on a day when it does not normally sit— that is entirely possible. Jamie Hepburn: I was going to come on to that. I recognise that point, and it was considered, given Ms Hamilton’s concerns.”
“The member will appreciate that the Government cannot compel a committee to undertake scrutiny that it does not want to undertake, and I do not think that Parliament would want the Government to do that.”
“The timing of the bill’s introduction—it was after the Scottish Parliament elections and during the period of Government formation—was always going to be challenging, but that has been compounded by the lack of prior engagement from the UK Government, despite its intent to expedite the passage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill…”
“I recognise that it is regrettable that I must stand before Parliament today and ask that it suspend standing orders to allow the first motion on legislative consent in this parliamentary session to come straight to the chamber. By way of background, the UK Government introduced the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill on 14 May 2026.”
“I believe that all of us in public life strive for that and that we have all been motivated to enter politics for those reasons. Maybe that is a reminder of the point that David Linden made about the common ground that exists between us all.”
“We should recognise the challenges that we face, but Adam Harley made an important point: that the general experience of being involved in politics is a good one. Just as he spoke of, I like nothing more than to engage with the constituents I represent in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. By and large, that is a positive experience.”
The complete record
Every one of 471 lines we hold for Jamie Hepburn, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“I had not intended to speak, but I was prompted to do so because I was not able to intervene on Jeremy Balfour. This is a very important part of the bill, because it is fundamental to the central motivation behind legislating in this area, and is predicated on the notion of the autonomy of the individual to exercise a decision. If that is what it is predicated on, it should be incumbent on the individual to raise this issue. It should not be viewed as essentially another treatment option that the doctor could raise in the same way as other forms of treatment when a person has a terminal condition. That would fundamentally alter the nature of the dialogue that a doctor might have with their patient.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Stephen Kerr to speak to amendment 192, in the name of Fergus Ewing, and other amendments in the group.”
“I do not want there to be a situation in which a junior member of a legal team is asked to do something by a senior member of the firm that would go against his or her conscience and feels that they have to do it because refusing might affect their legal career—I appreciate that that would happen only infrequently. I understand that the issue relates to employment, so I seek clarification from the cabinet secretary that it will be part of the negotiations with the UK Government, if the issue cannot be addressed in the bill. For the reasons that I have set out, I strongly urge members to support amendment 190, if not amendment 191, to ensure that there are absolute safeguards in place to protect everyone.”
“I am genuinely open-minded on the issue and understand the point that has been made, but I wonder whether amendment 191 is strictly necessary, as there is nothing in any area of law that requires a solicitor to act on behalf of a person if they do not want to. I presume that, at any stage, a solicitor could refuse to do so, as they are not required to do so. Therefore, I am not entirely clear about the necessity of amendment 191. Jeremy Balfour: That is a fair point, but I am seeking to introduce a safeguard. Several decades ago, when I was a trainee solicitor, I would be passed a file and told to go and do something by a partner or another senior member.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how much has been invested in schools in the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth constituency through the schools for the future programme and the learning estate investment programme. (S6O-05638)”
“The second declaration should, and must, be an assessment to see whether anything has changed since the first declaration and it should, and must, be recorded properly.”
“We can tighten one bit, but that just exposes issues elsewhere. Lorna Slater: Will the member take an intervention? Sue Webber: I will not, thank you, Ms Slater. A six-month prognosis provision has been introduced, but there is no mechanism for solving the issue if that prognosis changes at the second declaration. Even that small, simple amendment throws up a huge number of issues about coercion, benefit, the involvement of professionals and what happens if another doctor’s opinion is different from that of the first. None of those situations are rare and none are unusual. I lodged amendments 91 and 92 to try to tighten up just one small flaw. By doing that, we open up other issues.”
“If the prognosis has changed, there must be a mechanism to deal with it. As we have just heard, we must ensure that people are not able to doctor shop and that they can be given a decision quickly and clearly. Colleagues, you can see how complicated all this is. The member in charge is keen for you to believe that it is the simplest thing in the world, that other countries have done it easily and that there is nothing controversial in the bill. That is simply not the case. Every time we scratch the surface of this bill, we open up another load of questions and issues. What happens if the prognosis at the second declaration is different from that at the first? What are the options for the doctor and the patient? There is no panel to adjudicate on decisions, such as the one under the Westminster bill. This is a flawed bill.”
“Scott Murray, emeritus professor of palliative care at the University of Edinburgh, in correspondence with members of the Scottish Parliament, pointed out that accuracy rates in prognosis were as low as 23 per cent. Writing in The Times, he said: “While those facing death cannot access the high-quality palliative care they need, such legislation risks becoming a simple and dangerous cost-saving measure.” Those are chilling words from those who are working on the front lines of our health service. Given that, as we heard earlier, prognosis is so flawed and inaccurate, it is vital that a further assessment is made at the second declaration. If it is found that the individual is doing better, that treatment is working or that palliative care is giving a better quality of life, the process should be halted and referred to a panel.”
“My amendments 91 and 92 seek to reinforce the safeguards that exist earlier in the bill. They are not there to serve as any form of obstacle. I note that the Parliament has agreed to redefine terminal illness—or to refine the definition—to include only those who are expected to die within six months. That amendment has consequences that should be reflected elsewhere in the bill. It is imperative that, at the second declaration, the doctor once again considers that prognosis. We have heard from colleagues just how arbitrary the six-month timescale can be, and we all have friends and family members who have outlived the timeframe that doctors have given them. Indeed, Esther Rantzen, who has campaigned vigorously for the similar bill to pass in England, has had a much longer life due to new treatments becoming available.”
“It would mean that, when disagreements arose, no further action could proceed until the matter was reviewed by an independent panel comprising a medical practitioner with expertise in end-of-life care, a legally qualified professional and an ethicist who specialises in end-of-life decision making. The panel would provide a written determination within 14 days. Taken together, amendments 184, 196 and 307 would safeguard vulnerable adults, reinforce professional accountability and provide a structured and transparent framework for resolving disagreements. They would ensure that refusals were respected, that professional concerns were independently reviewed and that the process was rigorous and consistent. I ask members to support them. Sue Webber: First, I thank my colleague Stephen Kerr, who spoke to my amendments in group 2 yesterday.”
“Amendment 196 would complement my proposal by introducing additional clarity through notification requirements and an oversight mechanism. It requires the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner to notify all assessors, witnesses, proxies and legally authorised representatives within 24 hours of a statement being made. That would ensure that the professionals involved were informed promptly, reducing the risk of miscommunication or oversight. Importantly, amendment 196 would provide a formal pathway for assessors to record in the individual’s medical records any concerns about eligibility.”
“I agree with Mr Johnson that his amendments would at least take us further down the right road than what is in the bill at the moment, and, if members are not willing to support my amendments, I hope that they will support his. Bob Doris: After Mr Balfour’s exchange with Ms Slater, I want to put on the record—I am sure that members will agree—that, irrespective of our views on the bill, we respect the professionalism of doctors, irrespective of whether they got off on the wrong foot with someone. Doctors are professionals and they will simply do their job. Jeremy Balfour: As always, Mr Doris is absolutely right—[Laughter.] Well, not always, but in this case he is. I am glad that, as he would say, we have put that on the record.”
“Jeremy Balfour: I think that Lorna Slater is advocating that the person should find various doctors until they get the decision that they want— that it does not matter whether they have a terminal condition, have the appropriate capacity or any of that, and that they should just keep going until they find the doctor who will give them what they want. As Lorna Slater said, there could be doctor 2, doctor 3, doctor 4 and doctor 5. That is simply misusing the system, and it is not what I— Lorna Slater: That is not what I said at all. Jeremy Balfour: Let us see what the record says at the end of the day. I do not want to delay us longer, but I will make a couple more points.”
“They might not want to take months to die slowly, gasping, at an unknown time; they might want to do it peacefully and at a time of their choosing. However, maybe they do not vibe with the first doctor they talk to—perhaps they got off on the wrong foot with them—but they are still desperate. They are still perhaps months or weeks away from dying, yet they are now being told that the choice is taken away from them because they did not get off on the right foot with that doctor. Of course they should be allowed to go and talk to a different doctor and see if they can have a refresh of that conversation. The second or third doctor they talk to will have the same level of qualifications, and they may understand the person’s situation better.”
“Does he note that my amendments would require that, if a subsequent decision were made that was contrary to a previous decision, it would need to be explained? Might that compromise be acceptable to the member? Jeremy Balfour: I fully accept that doctors get it wrong on occasion. However, what concerns me is that, without the 12-month rule, we could still end up with individuals shopping around until they find somebody who agrees with them. Lorna Slater: I am slightly horrified by the scenarios that the member is maybe inadvertently bringing into play. Imagine that someone is dying and is suffering badly, even with excellent care, and they might be at risk of losing their capacity at some unknown time because they are so very ill.”
“There will be situations in which people survive longer than the six-month period that Parliament agreed to include in the bill, and that is why I think that we still need the 12- month rule. Daniel Johnson: I understand the intention behind the member’s proposal—indeed, in some ways, it is similar to the amendments that I have lodged. However, I worry that the 12-month stipulation is overly burdensome, particularly because, although he is correct to say that the six- month rule is not definitive—I would describe it as more of a yardstick—we are nonetheless dealing with people who probably have only months to live. The member is right that we do not want doctor shopping, but we must acknowledge that doctors’ opinions are fallible and that, therefore, it is not unreasonable for someone to ask for a second opinion.”
“I want to come in on that point. I appreciate that Mr Balfour lodged his amendment before we agreed to insert a six-month prognosis provision. However, I wonder how he can reconcile a 12- month period for reassessment with the fact that we have now accepted that the bill should include a six-month provision in terms of when it is likely that a person will die. 17:15 Jeremy Balfour: What we agreed last night was a time period within the realms of six months. My older brother, who has just retired as a GP, is getting tired of me telling this story, but, a few years ago, a person walked into his surgery with a very serious condition and asked, “How long do you think I have to live?” It was late summer, and my brother said, “Well, you won’t see Christmas.” I am pleased to say that that person is still alive and playing golf today.”
“Without clarifying the definitions, we would simply be relying on two lines of legislation. I note that that is considerably less than in most of the pieces of legislation in international jurisdictions that are available for comparison, if members choose to look at them. I move amendment 136.”
“In addition, the fundamental definitions of “terminal illness” and “progressive” in the bill would similarly require legal interpretation. I acknowledge that, in many ways, I would prefer that the definitions had been looked at further—indeed, much of the bill could have done with a great deal more deliberation and scrutiny. To go back to the amendments that I have lodged, amendment 136 would introduce the concept of intolerable suffering. I stress that that would be in addition to the two conditions already in the bill with regard to having a terminal illness that is progressive. Amendment 1 would provide the expanded definitions, because I believe that clarification is needed, not only of the meaning of intolerable suffering, but of what the terms “terminal” and “progressive” mean.”
“I think that we would all be drawn to the notion of making intolerable suffering part of the criteria—certainly, I am drawn to that—but we are doing more than just legislating for a form of words; it must have a legal interpretation. I see that an attempt is being made to do that in amendment 1. Mr Johnson has referred to legislation from other parts of the world, but is there anything that can be drawn from law here in Scotland in relation to the notion of intolerable suffering? Is there anything else in Scots law that relates to that? Daniel Johnson: I would simply draw on the legislation in the two jurisdictions that I mentioned for comparison, both of which have similar or comparable forms of wording.”
“However, we are seeing changes across the banking sector, with charges being introduced for accounts that are held by small charities and community groups, which previously had no such charges. For organisations with annual incomes that are often measured in only a few thousand pounds—indeed, sometimes less—even modest monthly fees and transaction charges can represent a significant proportion of their available resources.”
“We also have Cumbernauld and Carbrain community hub, Cumbernauld community memorial peace garden and the Kilsyth environmental group, and there are many sports and arts organisations in my constituency, along with various community councils. All those organisations are built on the backs of the efforts of local people, and they all deserve support. Those organisations, and the many thousands like them throughout Scotland, rely on every penny that they receive. They do not operate on the basis of having large reserves—they often depend on volunteers, modest fundraising efforts and the goodwill of local people. Any diversion of funds away from their core purposes, even if it is felt to be small, diminishes their ability to support those who most need and rely on the services that they provide.”
“Local groups such as Cumbernauld and Kilsyth Care, which operates a school uniform bank, a baby bank and a clothing bank, provide practical help for families in need by pooling community resources to support children, carers and parents in very real ways. I should say that my wife was involved in establishing that charity, and I saw clearly, at first hand, how much effort went into that. Another organisation is Watch US Grow, which, from its own dedicated garden in Palacerigg country park, works with and supports adults with additional support needs, creating opportunities for them to acquire new skills, to grow in confidence and to be able to live more independent lives.”
“I am pleased to speak in support of the motion that Jackie Dunbar has lodged on an issue of importance to communities the length and breadth of Scotland. My Cumbernauld and Kilsyth constituency is no different in that regard. I value the immense contribution that charities, voluntary organisations, community councils and not-for-profit organisations in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth make day in, day out. In my area—I am sure that this is the case for every MSP—we are blessed with an abundance of fantastic community organisations, which are often reliant on volunteers doing tremendous work for our local community. That is a vivid demonstration and reminder of the great sense of community spirit that we have in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth.”
“That should be looked at, and I thank Gillian Mackay for bringing the debate to the chamber. 19:03”
“I see that I do not have much time, but I will touch briefly on ticket costs. Something needs to be done about that, although I recognise that it is not within the gift of this Parliament to legislate in that area. The figures that were cited for the upcoming old firm Scottish cup quarter final are, to be frank, staggering. I have to tread carefully, as a west of Scotland MSP, speaking in such a vein rather than as a Partick Thistle fan per se, but I would recommend other Glasgow football teams to people who want to be able to go and watch a game. Nevertheless, that amount of money is ridiculous, and something should be done. The football authorities should be considering the notion of a price cap—it seems to me that £25 is still a little bit too much, but there certainly should be a cap.”
“In my own area, which is part of the Central Scotland region, we see that as part of the core activity of grass-roots football clubs, and that core activity is, in and of itself, a social good. There is a commitment to ensuring that people have an outlet for leisure and sporting activity, and those who volunteer their time are drawing good from it. I see that with the various amateur and youth teams in my area, and with the four teams in the area that are part of the Scottish football pyramid and some of the activities that they undertake. Cumbernauld United play Cumbernauld Colts in a Cumbernauld cup game every year, which raises funds for local charities. I have seen those clubs taking part in food bank collections and in safety awareness campaigns with Network Rail for their young players.”
“I did similar when I was Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health, in the dim and distant past, and I was very heartened to see what was being done. The sum total of the activity of those foundations and trusts—I am sure that someone has quantified it; I might have been able to testify to that back in the day—is significant. The figures in relation to Motherwell alone, which Gillian Mackay talked about, show that the impact on Lanarkshire is significant, and we should reflect on that. I see that with my own team through the efforts of the Partick Thistle Charitable Trust and the activity that it undertakes in north Glasgow, and through jags for good, which is an informal organisation in which supporters have been raising funds for local food banks and initiatives to welcome refugees to the city.”
“As an aside, I commend to all members my motion recognising the 150th anniversary of Partick Thistle Football Club—if colleagues have not yet signed it, I would urge them to do so. I declare an interest as a member of the Jags Foundation, which is part of the fan-owned nature of the club. I will focus most of my remarks on what is given back by football fans. It is important to reflect on that because, all too often, we hear negative reporting in that context, but an awful lot of good does happen. The Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy and Sport will be able to testify to that, given her role; I am sure that she will have engaged with many of the trusts and foundations out there.”
“I thank Gillian Mackay for lodging the motion for debate. This is the third debate in which I have taken part in recent weeks on the value of Scottish football—I see some regular contributors to those debates, including Mr Adam and Mr Whittle, in the chamber. I see nothing wrong in that—it speaks to the centrality of football as part of the lived experience of many of us in Scotland. For my part, I very much enjoyed being at Firhill on Saturday, watching Partick Thistle beat Airdrie 1- 0—I always enjoy watching Airdrie lose against Partick Thistle, it has to be said. I am looking forward to being at St Mirren in a couple of weeks’ time, where I will watch my team defeat Mr Adam’s team in the Scottish cup quarter final.”
“I want to focus on one area that I particularly welcome, which is the additional support for general practice. We know that GP services are under pressure. The additional £531 million over three years for general practice to recruit more GPs and improve access is something that we should all welcome, as is the £36 million for new walk-in GP services. Those are already being rolled out, and I am keen to see them rolled out to my constituency—I have picked that up with NHS Lanarkshire and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. Those are just some of the reasons why I believe that we should support the budget today. This is a budget to be welcomed, and it is a budget that should be supported today. 17:15”
“Picking up on my colleague Kevin Stewart’s point, I very much support the significant additional investment in colleges. It is right for us to be proud of the 10 per cent uplift in college funding. I see at first hand the excellence in college delivery. I see that Mr Kerr is shaking his head at the point that I am making about excellence in college delivery in Scotland. I would have thought that he would agree that there is excellence in college delivery in Scotland. [Interruption.] No, he is still saying that there is not excellence in college delivery in Scotland. I say that there is excellence in delivery in colleges in Scotland, including in New College Lanarkshire, which is in my constituency. The extra funding is welcome. There is much more that I could say about the budget, but I do not have much time.”
“I found much to agree with in Ross Greer’s remarks about the context in which we talk about entitlement to social security. Just today, Social Security Scotland published research that shows that, although 91 per cent of people who responded to the survey agreed that anyone could find themselves in circumstances in which they need financial support, there is significant concern about the stigmatisation associated with the claiming of social security benefits. Seventy-five per cent of respondents said that they believed that a contributory factor was the type of rhetoric that they hear from politicians and the media. I know which politicians they are talking about— they are over there on the Conservative benches. I am proud of the record that we have on social security. I mentioned university.”
“Another issue that I want to focus on is the increase in the Scottish child payment to £28.20 per week, with some families receiving a premium payment of £40. The First Minister set for his Government the challenge of trying to eradicate child poverty. We know that child poverty is going in the right direction in this country, and we should be proud of that. I regret that some members in the Parliament want to undo that approach. We have heard about the Scottish Conservatives’ plans to cut back entitlement to the Scottish child payment. I see that Mr Hoy is nodding. He thinks that that is something to be proud of, even though we know that the Scottish child payment is making a positive contribution to bringing down the levels of child poverty in Scotland.”
“We know that there is medicine avoidance happening in the rest of the UK, whereas here in Scotland there is no taxation on medication. I also welcome the maintenance of no university tuition fees. The Labour Government has just announced that, south of the border, tuition fees will go up to £9,500 from the next academic year. I could not have contemplated going to university if that had been what I had had to pay. I am proud that we have a system in which no tuition fees have to be paid. In addition, I welcome the new universal breakfast club provision for primary school children and children with additional support needs, which will benefit some 25,000 children in North Lanarkshire.”
“The doing away with peak rail fares had already been announced, but the funding in the budget also provides for a freeze in rail fares for the coming year. I represent an area where a considerable number of people—thousands of people—have to commute to work each and every day. The freezing of rail fares will make a real difference to them. I also continue to welcome the absence of prescription charges and the maintenance of free eye examinations, which Kevin Stewart mentioned. That comes against the backdrop of a press release that the UK Government put out on 21 November, in which Wes Streeting celebrated the fact that it had kept prescription charges under a tenner, as if that was something to be proud of.”
“However, given the meagre turnout of Conservative and Labour members, it seems that they are not even willing to be here to take part in the process. They are not willing to be here, at work, to take part in the process of deliberating on Scotland’s budget. Maybe they are just getting ready for, and getting used to, the number of members that they will have after the election, which will amount to a meagre level of representation. I want to make a few points about the budget, some of which I set out in the stage 1 debate. I make no apologies for reiterating them, because they relate to measures that are particularly welcome. First, I will look at those that will help with some of the cost of living challenges that people are facing.”
“I think that this is a budget to be welcomed and one that delivers for people in this country. I commend Shona Robison for delivering, in her last budget, a very fine one indeed. As far as the position that others have taken is concerned, I had—naively, perhaps—hoped that we might see a degree of reconsideration between stage 1 and stage 3 on the part of those who have turned their faces against the budget. Alas, that has not been the case. I commend those who have contributed positively to the budget process and who have achieved a positive outcome in the form of some of their priorities being reflected in the budget. I remind all members that that opportunity was available to each and every one of them. Frankly, to remove yourself from the park and not even play part of the game is a dereliction of responsibility.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any benefits brought by the banking hub model that is operated by Post Office Ltd and funded by Cash Access UK. (S6O- 05552)”
“It sustained its proud industrial tradition and heritage. It did so because its people possessed a resilience forged in adversity and a determination that their community would not be defined solely by destruction. As we mark and commemorate this 85th anniversary, we should pay tribute to those who lost their lives and to all those who were injured and displaced. We commend the bravery of those who saved others in those dark days and who laboured in the long years of rebuilding that followed. To remember is not merely to look back, but to honour sacrifice and reaffirm our commitment to peace, community and solidarity. We remember Clydebank. 18:56”
“Contemporary accounts describe families walking towards Glasgow, carrying what little they could salvage, with smoke still rising behind them. We also know that the immediate aftermath brought scenes of extraordinary courage. We know that firefighters—many drafted in from surrounding areas—battled flames that lit up the night sky. Rescue workers and volunteers dug through rubble in search of survivors. Churches and halls became shelters. Neighbouring towns opened their doors. That is a salient reminder that, in the face of incomprehensible hardship, anger and sadness, solidarity prevailed. The suffering did not conclude with the last bomb. Displacement, overcrowding and trauma persisted for years. The psychological toll was borne quietly by a generation. Despite that, Clydebank endured. It rebuilt its homes and its civic institutions.”
“Marie McNair has laid bare the horrors of the Clydebank blitz. In two nights, more than 400 Luftwaffe bombers dropped more than 1,000 bombs, and 528 people were killed and 617 seriously injured. In the retelling of the history of war, there is often a tendency to use numbers like that, but they are not just abstract figures. Among the dead and injured were mothers, fathers, children, sons and daughters, workers and neighbours. As has already been said, of the roughly 12,000 houses in Clydebank, only a handful—seven— escaped any form of damage, which is quite a staggering thing to imagine, and more than 4,000 were completely destroyed. By the morning after the second raid, there were not only the dead and the injured, but tens of thousands of homeless people.”
“I see that Jackie Baillie is due to speak, and she will probably speak more about this, but we know that Dumbarton was targeted on the same night as the Clydebank blitz. Thankfully, it suffered nowhere near the same devastation as Clydebank. Of course, a few months later, there was another bombing raid on Dumbarton, but, because of the experience of the previous raid, various mitigations had been put in place, including the misdirection measures and decoy targets that were installed on Lang Craigs moor, so the town was spared a similar fate. Indeed, I recall my grandmother telling me that her father, who was an inspector at the Garshake waterworks and was required to check on those waterworks the next day, said that, if those decoy measures had not been put in place, Dumbarton would definitely have suffered the same fate as Clydebank.”
“I am grateful to Marie McNair for lodging her motion, which gives us the opportunity to mark the 85th anniversary of the Clydebank blitz—two nights that left an indelible mark not only on Clydebank and Clydeside, but on all of Scotland. I grew up in Glasgow, a city that, through gaps in tenements that are now largely filled but that were there when I was a child, bore the scars of wartime bombing. However, I was driven to speak in the debate today mainly in memory of my grandparents’ generation and, in particular, in memory of what my grandmother told me of her experience of home-front living in Dumbarton, not too far down the river from Clydebank. We know that the river was a vital artery of the war effort, which made its communities a target.”
“The injustice that WASPI women have faced must be recognised and remedied, and that hardship must be addressed. The women who worked, contributed and played by the rules should not be forgotten; they should be compensated, as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has said they must. 17:10”
“To compound that inequality with administrative failure and then to refuse any form of redress, despite that being recommended, is quite simply indefensible. Before the most recent general election, countless senior figures in the Labour Party rushed to stand beside WASPI women. Tweets were sent, photographs were taken and promises were implied. Yet, once power beckoned, those same voices fell silent. WASPI women were abandoned. I believe that it is time for Anas Sarwar to account for his actions in endorsing and championing a Labour Government—despite his new-found protestations about the Prime Minister. He and all those other senior Labour parliamentarians who promised to stand by WASPI women should apologise for abandoning them.”
“She is self-employed and cares for her brother, who has severe epilepsy. She received only two years’ notice of the change and rightly feels that that was not sufficient notice to make up for the loss of six years’ pension entitlement. Another constituent, born in 1953 and a widow, spoke of the difficulties that she has faced despite already having downsized, and of facing challenges with paying utility bills and cost of living challenges. Those are real lived experiences of women from my constituency, and their anger today is justified. They were led to believe that justice might finally be forthcoming, only to see hope withdrawn at the last moment. As Age Scotland has made clear, the gender pension gap, which stands at 39 per cent, already leaves women approaching retirement with significantly less security than men.”
“Let us remind ourselves that too many of the women who were affected are no longer with us and have no prospect of justice at all. WASPI campaigners have fought tirelessly for years, many of them from my constituency. Many of them have been in touch with me, and I want to offer a small sample of what just some of them have told me. One constituent, who was born in 1956, told me that, despite having lived at same address for over 24 years, she had no notification of the changes. She told me of feeling aggrieved, saying that, after she had paid into the system since she was 18 years of age with only a few years of childcare break, her pension entitlement was removed. Another constituent, who was born in 1957, told me she has been working and paying into the system since she was 16.”
“We should remind ourselves that the concerns about injustice are borne out by the clear, careful and unequivocal findings of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Maladministration occurred and women were not properly informed of changes to their state pension age. As the WASPI campaign briefing reminds us, the ombudsman found that DWP officials were aware that numerous women who were affected by the changes were unaware that they were coming— and, I might add, modest compensation was recommended. The UK Government has chosen to ignore those recommendations, however—recommendations that were made independently of any form of political or external interference. In doing so, it ignores the lived reality of countless numbers of women who have faced financial insecurity, anxiety and, in too many cases, real hardship.”