Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I am surprised that the shadow Secretary of State is championing the lines of the SNP. GB Energy is headquartered in Scotland. In fact, it is headquartered in the region that he represents in Scotland, it is capitalised with £125 million and it will bring valuable jobs to his constituency. I suspect he might want to go back to his constituents this weekend and explain why he does not want those new jobs and industries of the future in his constituency.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the adequacy of Government support for women pensioners in Scotland.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the adequacy of Government support for women pensioners in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)]

The Labour Government’s choice to protect the pension triple lock means that millions of women pensioners will see their yearly pensions rise by up to £470 in April, and by up to £1,900 over this Parliament. That stands in stark contrast to the Conservative party, who cut the state pension of over 1 million Scots. The Conservatives are still in chaos, announcing policies on the hoof that would mean a raid on pension pots. Meanwhile, this Labour Government are taking tough decisions and action to clean up the Tories’ economic mess.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Do the Minister and the Secretary of State agree with Labour MSPs that WASPI women deserve compensation?

[Kirsty McNeill]

I appreciate that campaigners are disappointed, but the hon. Lady has got herself in a bit of a fankle and is eliding two separate issues: a decision about the legality of the changes and the question of compensation. The ombudsman’s findings showed that the vast majority of WASPI women knew that the state pension age was changing. It is therefore difficult to justify up to £10 billion for a compensation scheme and conclude that that is a fair, proportionate and good value-for-money use of public funds.