Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not think that I have a supplementary question, as the cabinet secretary has answered my question. I thank her for her very full answer, and I am glad that we have progressed a bit towards appointing a project manager. I also thank her for the recent upbeat meeting with parties, including my colleague Rachael Hamilton and representatives of Scottish Borders Council. I think that we made progress.

I think that the issue with your amendment is that you seem content—

First, I commend the WASPI women in Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale and across Scotland for their resilience and their determination to see justice for all women who have been affected by the unilateral changes to the state pension. I lodged a motion on the issue in March. I will truncate it, but it said:

“That the Parliament ... recognises the report’s findings, which reflect on failings by the DWP ‘to provide accurate, adequate and timely information about changes to the State Pension age for women’; acknowledges what it sees as the significant detrimental impact that the DWP’s failure to communicate effectively has had on the affected women’s ability to plan for their retirement and the financial implications that this has created; believes that women ... have been ... deprived of the pension that they rightfully deserve, and further believes that their fight for justice is taking far too long to be adequately addressed; urges the UK Government to acknowledge the DWP’s failings as highlighted in the ... report, issue an immediate apology and deliver fair compensation”.

I want to be consensual, but I note that nobody from Labour, the Tories or the Liberal Democrats signed that motion, which I do not think is a hostile one.

I consider it a fact that the provision of the state pension is a contract between the Government and the people, so the unilateral variation of the terms of that contract should not have been implemented. I think that, as times have moved on, we all agree on the equalisation of men’s and women’s eligibility for the state pension, but the manner in which the age of eligibility for the state pension was increased was at best clumsy and at worst brutally unjust. The latter view is supported by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report.

That brings me to the yawning gap between the compensation level that is recommended in the report, which is between £1,000 and £2,950, and the claim of the WASPI women for £10,000, which I do not consider to be over the top. Maggie Chapman rightly drew attention to the situation in which a woman who has lost seven years of pension might have seen their pension pot lose £40,000 in value. Even the £2,950 figure is derisory, as the moving finishing line of the retirement age has left and will leave many in financial difficulties. The recent announcement that a failed asylum seeker who volunteered to be transported to Rwanda was given £3,000 in cash and had other expenses paid puts that in even more context, showing what a slap in the face that recommended compensation level is to the WASPI women.

A survey of 8,000 WASPI women that was carried out in the autumn of 2023 found that 25 per cent had struggled to buy food in the previous six months. What a condemnation.

I say to Beatrice Wishart that, unfortunately, I was born in the 1940s. I had planned my finances on the basis that I would retire at 60, when I became eligible for the state pension—I did not know that I was coming to the Parliament. That was especially timed for paying off my mortgage, having divorced in my late 50s. Divorce is not uncommon in older people these days, and it adds to the financial pressures on women who may have been relying on a partner to support them and on them mutually financing each other.

UK ministers must set up a compensation scheme that provides full and genuine compensation for the women concerned. I ask members to look at the figures that I quoted. So far, neither the UK Conservative Government or the Labour Opposition has come forward with such a scheme. It is time to walk the walk. There should be no more talking about it. We know the position. It has fallen to the SNP people, such as Patricia Gibson, to push for justice. I have to say—perhaps this is not the kindest of notes on which to end my speech—that that may be why no Labour or Tory MSP signed my motion in the first place.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My gadget would not connect. I would have voted no.

Will the member give way?

—that the maximum level of compensation is £2,950. Surely the member cannot think that that is a reasonable offer.

There is a well-established business in West Linton that supplies log-burning stoves and accessories. I am very concerned that, after 30 years, the business may very well be under threat. I understand that clean, eco-designed wood-burning stoves that use locally supplied wood can be used in conjunction with other renewable energy heating options, and that that position is supported by a Government study that was done a few years ago. Will the First Minister ask the appropriate cabinet secretary to revisit that study, as the issue may affect other small rural businesses?

Will the member take an intervention?

The cabinet secretary already knows my position on juryless trials, so I will not reprise that. However, I would like clarification that the proposal is for a pilot of juryless trials for rape cases rather than serious sexual offence cases. I do not want the lines to be blurred. Can I have clarification on that?

I am not on the committee, and I do not understand section 65(1), which says:

“The Scottish Ministers may, by regulations, provide that trials on indictment for rape or attempted rape which meet specified criteria are, for a specified period, to be conducted by the court sitting without a jury.”

What are those specified criteria?