Sentencing White Paper

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for their campaign to make sure that the law properly reflects the damage that can be caused to the national consciousness and the wellbeing of communities when war graves, religious graves and important memorials are desecrated. In the White Paper, we have committed to taking up his challenge, and we will reform the law in the year ahead.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]]

Thirteen-year-old Jack Worwood was walking along the pavement on his way to play football with his friends when he was struck by a vehicle driven by an uninsured driver at nearly three times the speed limit. The driver, Liam Wilson, fled the scene and Jack died the next day. Liam Wilson was sentenced two weeks ago and is likely to serve in prison only two years of a six-year sentence. Jack’s family members in my constituency are devastated by the lack of justice. I am glad the Government are finally acting to ensure longer sentences in these cases, but can the Lord Chancellor tell me when he expects these changes to come into force, and what reassurance can he give Jack’s family that the Government will look again at the leniency of the sentence in this case?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady raises a tragic and appalling case. I would need to know a little more about the index offence. It may well be a matter that the family can refer to the Attorney General under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, if the offence is within the purview of that scheme. I know that she will not hesitate to advise the family of that. On the general point she makes, it is important for us all to remember all the victims of those who cause death by dangerous driving. I think today of Violet-Grace Youens, whose parents have assiduously campaigned for a change in the law. Even if they cannot bring back their beloved daughter or turn back the clock, their campaign has achieved a change in the law that I believe will give greater justice to future families. This law will be changed with legislation that will come during this Session. I can make the commitment now that we will make the necessary change in tribute not just to Violet-Grace, but to all the families and those who have suffered so much.

Women and the Vote

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

And in 1997, when we had all-women shortlists.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for that intervention. I know how hard she has worked in her own party to bring forward advances for women. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has also just mentioned the advances made in 1997.

Women did not just have to fight for the right to vote; they had to fight for the right truly to be themselves, whatever that means. They had to fight, as we have to fight, for the right to exist as others do, and to make choices about how to realise our ambition and serve our country. So what holds us back? Well, for a start, let us look at this EU referendum. It is a decision that will affect us all, but the debate has too often been dominated by male voices. It has been a debate in which the ever-changing opinion of one male Tory Back Bencher seems to take precedence over the views of a whole host of women in the Cabinet and shadow Cabinet. I am not going to make many friends among Tory Back Benchers this evening—at least not on the male side.

On representation, we may have parity of votes, but we certainly do not have parity of voice. Public debate too often excludes women or shouts them down. The point is that we may have made huge progress over the last few decades on the number of women MPs, on women in the Cabinet and on all sorts measures, but there is so much still to do, because not everyone is able to realise their true value and—even worse—there is still violence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

I will give way in a moment. Last year, 44% of new public appointments went to women.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Caroline Dinenage]

I will in a moment, but first let me say this. I am delighted that, in my local council of Gosport, nearly 40% of our councillors are female, and I pay tribute to every single one of them.

[Caroline Dinenage]

Yes, absolutely. That is very much to be celebrated.

[Barbara Keeley]

I hope the Minister will join me in paying tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). She has been a remarkable leader of this party at times and has almost got to the role. She certainly played her role in Prime Minister’s questions. I hope we can think of her as we applaud these other remarkable women.

[Caroline Dinenage]

Absolutely. The right hon. and learned Lady is also very much to be celebrated. It is a shame that she is not here so that I can thank her personally.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

At the last Budget, the Chancellor happened to find £27 billion extra in tax revenues, which was a very handy little windfall to find down the back of the sofa, but the WASPI women will have heard that he did not spend a red cent of it—not a penny—on them, as he could have done. If he continues to play the WASPI women for fools and continues to take our pensioners for granted, then, as Baroness Altmann has told him already, he will live to regret it.

That is a sentiment that we can share right across the House. It is why not a single Conservative Member chose to vote against either of the previous calls for transitional arrangements in any of the debates we have held. It is why so many Conservative Back Benchers have pledged their support to the WASPI campaign. It is why this issue will not go away without action from the Government.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Owen Smith]

I give way to the doughty campaigner from Eccles.

[Barbara Keeley]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way at this point because I want to make sure that we are not given the same excuses by the Minister, when he speaks in a moment, that he has previously given. We heard:

“Equalisation was necessary to meet the UK’s obligations under EU law”.—[Official Report, 2 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 145WH.]

Conservative Members have been writing that out, but it is not true. I have raised this in a number of debates. The interesting thing in relation to changing previous legislation is that Poland is now introducing legislation to reverse its previous reforms. Its Government clearly realised that they had got it wrong, just as this Government have got it wrong.

[Owen Smith]

Poland has realised that it had moved too fast. France has done the same, as has Germany. Countries across Europe, Governments across Europe—including right-wing Governments in parts of Europe—have acknowledged that they made a mistake and are backtracking. Only this Government refuse to acknowledge any mistake, and refuse to acknowledge that they have any culpability or responsibility.

This issue will not go away, and when the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box in a moment, he should offer a glint of sunlight and some hope for the WASPI women that the Government have heard their campaign and will do something about it. If the Government do not, I will urge all Back-Bench Members to do so on their behalf.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in this debate because I have heard in so many cases how the changes brought in by the Pensions Act 2011 affect the lives of millions of women born throughout the 1950s. They are unfairly bearing the burden of the personal costs of the Government’s increases to the state pension age, because many find themselves without a job, without a pension or pensioner benefits, and without money to live on, and that must focus our minds. Many of the 1950s-born women affected by the changes are living in real financial hardship.

In our last debate on this, I asked the Minister where the work or suitable support is for women affected by the state pension age increases that his Government have brought in. There are 2.6 million women born in the 1950s affected by the Government’s changes, but finding suitable employment in our 60s is not the same as looking for work in our teens and 20s. The experience of my constituents is that suitable work or support programmes do not exist. These facts were known about in 2011 when the legislation went through.

The Minister was pilloried even by MPs of his own party when he read out a list of benefits available to 1950s-born women affected by the Government’s changes. I say to the Minister that he does not realise what it means to have to go to a jobcentre or to be pushed on to the Work programme or to have an assessment for ESA. My constituents have told me how they feel about having to go to jobcentres; they feel there is no dignity in having to do that as women in their 60s, after a lifetime of working, bringing up children, and paying national insurance contributions for 40 years or more. One of my constituents told me she was pleased they had taken her off ESA

“because it is making me ill to keep dealing with them...the way you are dealt with.”

I have a constituent who is forced to attend the Work programme. She feels that it fails to take into account her previous experience, which is a very common feeling. She is worried about being “parked” on a programme where she has to work for free or face sanctions.

WASPI campaign supporters have shared other stories about poor practice by Work programme providers when working with 1950s-born women. One 62-year-old woman with a full work history has reported being escorted by staff of the provider Seetec around a shopping centre with a CV to make speculative applications to managers in shops there, but the woman involved did not recognise her CV because it had been changed by the Work programme provider to disguise her age by removing her date of birth and full work history. That raises legal issues as such misrepresentation can make an employment contract void, but putting them aside we see that the Government’s acceleration of state pension age changes is pushing some women who become unemployed into such situations.

Women affected have described the whole process as “degrading”, being “frogmarched” with a falsified CV around a shopping centre and constantly under observation. It was also humiliating for women on this programme when the same provider offered inappropriate incentives such as sweets or chocolates to “encourage” the women to apply for jobs. Women fear they will be subject to sanctions if they refuse to participate.

We should be ashamed to have a system that treats women born in the 1950s in this way when they have worked all their lives. I have asked before why the Government have not considered different schemes to support people in their 60s. The Government have changed the situation and they should do that. Why have they not looked at a bridge pension scheme, or offering concessionary travel, or winter fuel payments?

Throughout their lives, 1950s-born women have been disadvantaged in terms of pay and pensions. They deserve better after a lifetime of work than being frogmarched around shopping centres or offered sweets to fill in job applications. They deserve proper consideration of a lifetime of work and NI contributions: they deserve fair transitional arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)]

I am sorry that the limited time available prevents me from paying credit to all the Members who have spoken today. There has been real passion, and well thought out and measured responses on both sides of the House, drawing on the challenges we face, the concerns raised directly by residents and the work of the WASPI campaign, to which many Members are paying close attention.

I pay credit to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and to the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper), who made the shortest speech today and gave some people some extra time. I understand the challenge that my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) have found themselves in. It is a difficult decision, particularly to go against our own Government. My hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) set out in great detail the wider issues and challenges we face. The key to that was eloquently put by my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) and for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).

The Opposition have set out six options, which are very attractive. How simple life would be if we could simply say yes to all six, or any number of those six options. However, the challenge is that not a single one has been costed. Not a single one has suggested what we should not be doing. There is occasionally vague guesswork on what could pay for something. I was in two debates yesterday in Westminster Hall. The same vague ideas were expressed on how things could be paid for.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Tomlinson]

Because of the lack of time, I will not give way.

We have to look at the acceleration of state pension age equalisation, which is being introduced by this Government in order to achieve gender equality in state pension provision and to provide a sustainable system that can work for future generations. Often that is forgotten. It is always about now, not those future generations, our children and our children’s children, to whom all too often politicians have bequeathed yet more debt.

In recent years, because of higher life expectancy and the difference in state pension ages, women on average have been receiving considerably more state pension over their lifetime than men. Not only was equalisation necessary to meet the UK’s obligations under EU law, but it provides the foundations for a fairer state pension that treats men and women equally.

Police Grant Report (England and Wales)

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey]

Indeed. I pay tribute to somebody who was a great parliamentarian and who has been a great police and crime commissioner. The work that Vera Baird has done on domestic violence and, more generally, on violence against women and girls is admirable and first class. My hon. Friend is right. As I shall say later, Northumbria, like the West Midlands force, has been hit twice as hard as leafy Tory shire police forces down south.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of our police forces are stretched just by the crime that they are currently dealing with? In Salford we have had 19 shootings in a period of 19 or 20 months. On some weekends there have been four shootings on the same day. Protection of the public is important, but should our police force be so stretched in Greater Manchester when they have that to deal with?

[Jack Dromey]

There has been an £8.5 million cut in real terms, contrary to what was said at the Dispatch Box. After a generation of progress, and despite the heroic efforts of the police and crime commissioner, Tony Lloyd, and the Greater Manchester police service, we are seeing profoundly worrying signs of crime starting to rise once again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jack Dromey]

I am going to conclude my remarks, because I have been—forgive me if I say so—generous with interventions, and I want hon. Members to have the maximum time to make contributions to this important debate.

The Home Secretary does not seem to understand the challenges to the modern police service or its complexity. Despite massive and growing challenges, not only are police budgets being cut, but the funding formula fiasco in which the Home Office misallocated hundreds of millions of pounds of police funding means that the doomed review of the unfair funding formula has been delayed for another year. We have a stop-gap settlement of only a year, with more uncertainty and more unfairness. My force—West Midlands—and Northumbria face cuts that are double those that Surrey will receive.

As I was saying earlier when the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) intervened, we have had the tradition of Robert Peel, but there has also been the tradition of Harold Macmillan: a tradition of noblesse oblige, of care, of meeting need, and of serving the national interest in one nation. Macmillanites are increasingly an endangered species in the Conservative party, because both in this settlement and in the local government settlement that will be debated later, there has been a grotesque unfairness of approach where need has been ignored in favour of political heartlands being looked after.

I want to ask the Minister three questions. First, on an important detail, where exactly is the funding for the international capital city grant coming from? Why, in the published information, is it not included in the core police settlement figures? Secondly, when will he finally replace the broken funding formula and give forces the long-term certainty they need to modernise and address the challenges of the 21st century? He expects to implement the new formula in the 2017-18 financial year, but we will need a new formula by the end of this year, at the very latest. Will he even begin to make progress on that in the near future? Thirdly, when will he stop this financial rollercoaster and finally be frank with the public and police about the cuts that he and the Home Secretary intend to impose?

Yes, we will vote against this police grant settlement, because for Labour Members the first duty of any Government and of any Parliament is the safety and security of their citizens. Yes, we will vote against it, because that is what is at risk if we continue down this path of remorseless reduction in the numbers of police officers. Quite simply, the time has come to put public safety first and to cut crime, not cut cops.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. We now move on, your having encouraged everyone to do so, to the debate on the police grant.

I am very pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) in his place, because when he was Policing Minister, additional funding was provided, and the House therefore voted in support of every one of the motions that he put before it.

May I, like others, pay tribute to my local police force? Tomorrow, the Leicestershire police force will celebrate its 180th anniversary at a ceremony in Leicester cathedral and then at the Guildhall. I pay tribute to my chief constable, Simon Cole, for the excellent work that he does, and to Sir Clive Loader, the police and crime commissioner. I want to say how sorry I am that Sir Clive will be standing down at the next election, because he has made a great contribution, on an all-party basis, to tackling crime in the local area. They have made a great team.

We need to acknowledge, as others have done, what happens at a local level. Here we are in Parliament talking about global figures, but policing is about what happens to local people and what happens on the front line. We in the Home Affairs Committee are conscious of that fact when we discuss some of the big issues. As I have said to the Minister, the police funding formula means that my area is £5.6 million a year less well off than equivalent authorities, such as Derbyshire. The police and crime commissioner has recommended an uplift of 1.99%, which is the maximum amount permissible without a local referendum. On behalf of my local area, I welcome the fact that we see no further cuts in the figures that have been provided. However, as has been said, there are 17,000 fewer police officers than there were when the Government took office, and that is a matter of concern.

As I have said to the Minister, I welcome the fact that he has decided to tackle police funding and to look at the problems with the formula. He came before the House and, in his own words—he was modest, as always—ate “humble pie”. He recognised that the whole funding formula procedure was a bit of a “shambles”, as the Select Committee stated in its report. I know that the shadow Minister would like to claim credit, on behalf of the Labour party, for stopping the Government in their tracks, but he should remember that the Home Affairs Committee conducted a thorough inquiry into the matter. One of our members, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), is here following her astonishing assault on Assange during Prime Minister’s questions. I am not saying that the shadow Minister should not take a little bit of the credit, but he is not a Liberal Democrat; he does not have to take all the credit. The Select Committee had hearings, we considered evidence and we concluded that the process was, in the words of the report, a “shambles,” that needed to be looked at again. The Minister came before the House and agreed. It took Andrew White, the chief executive to the office of the Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner, to tell the country that the formula was wrong; senior, learned and intelligent people in the Minister’s Department were unable to do so.

I wrote to the Minister on 1 February to ask him for an update on the consultation on the police funding formula. He began an important process by agreeing to consult, and the Committee set out in our report the procedure that we thought he should follow. In our 10th recommendation, we even suggested a number of organisations that could be part of the process. I know that he respects the work of the Committee, because he has said so on a number of occasions.

The Minister has told me that he wrote to me yesterday, but that letter has not arrived. When we discuss changes in policing, we talk about investment in IT, and I wonder whether the Minister’s private office might invest in email, because emailing me the letter would have been a quick way to ensure that I received it before the debate. We are all watching our emails and waiting for this letter, which was supposed to have been sent yesterday. I know that several of the Minister’s officials are here today, and perhaps nobody is in the office sending out emails. I would like to receive that letter, so that I can share it with other members of the Committee. I do not know what it will tell us, but I hope that it will say that the consultation process is about to begin. We do not want to run out of time.

I believe the Minister when he says that he wants the widest possible consultation. He is right to say that he met me and every other Member who came to see him, and that is the right thing to do. However, unless we start the process and consult the chiefs, the police and crime commissioners, the National Police Chiefs Council and other interested parties, including Members of the House, we will not reach a final conclusion. Perhaps the letter will arrive before I finish speaking. We do not know, but we would like it to come as soon as possible.

[Barbara Keeley]

My right hon. Friend is making a thoughtful and effective speech. As part of the consultation, will he and the Home Affairs Committee take on board the fact, which I raised earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), that some police forces are peculiarly stretched by a local crime surge? In Salford, we have suffered from 21 shootings over 18 months. The hollowing out of neighbourhood policing, which we have talked about in the debate, is serious when the police have so much more to do because of crime surges such as the one we have seen in Salford. That really ought to be addressed.

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have visited her constituency, and I know that the issues she talks about are important. At the end of the day, we need to give the police the resources that they need, but decisions about such things have to be handled locally. She is right to say that the problem needs to be addressed and monitored.

I hope that the Minister might cover, in his closing remarks, the extension of the contract of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. It is important that we do not get into a position similar to that with water cannon, where the Mayor of London waited a whole year for a decision to be made on whether they should be used. The commissioner is due to appear before the Select Committee on 23 February to discuss that and other matters, and I hope that, by the time he appears, the Home Secretary will have written back to the Mayor to give some indication on the subject. Such stability and security at the top of the Met, which represents a fifth of our country’s policing budget and numbers, is extremely important. I remind the Minister that such decisions need to be made, in the interests of the policing service, the commissioner and Parliament.

I want to raise some final points. The first is the wider issue of what exactly we want the police to do. One of the recommendations in our report was that the Government consider the question: what are the drivers of crime and police demand? Of course, we live in tough times, and the Government will blame the Opposition for what they did in government, but the issue remains that Parliament and the Government will always look carefully at resources. The police service needs to know exactly what the Government are prepared to fund. Are they prepared to fund more work on immigration? Police officers nowadays act as though they are immigration officers, because they have to deal with many issues that they did not deal with previously. The Minister and the House know how many cases that reach the custody suite involve people who are suffering from mental illness and should not be there in the first place, which means that police officers are being used as social workers. We know that meetings with local authorities and others, and big inquiries, take up a huge amount of time.

When we begin the consultation on police funding and the new formula, the Minister needs to tell police forces exactly what the Government are prepared to fund. I know that the Government have turned their face against the idea of a royal commission, which the Committee favoured in the last Parliament. We need to look at what we want our police officers to do. They cannot do everything, but that is what they are being asked to do at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

The constituents of north Wales and, I am sure, of Durham want a visible police force that engages with them locally, works with them locally and provides reassurance, as well as solving and preventing crime. The Minister has missed something extremely important. He has focused on crime falling in certain areas, which I accept it has—I will come on to the areas where crime has not fallen—but policing is about much more than solving crime.

[Barbara Keeley]

My right hon. Friend is making some very effective points. I have already raised the issue of gun crime, particularly in Greater Manchester. That will not be solved in any way other than through neighbourhood policing and working with the community. Our outgoing chief constable, Sir Peter Fahy, said before leaving his post that relationship building was needed with the community, so that people were confident to come forward and give the police information, without which the police cannot solve the gun crime that we have. In Moss Side, it took a long period of building such relationships to get that information out. That is the key point.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend makes her point very well. As she says, we need not just high-level policing but community intelligence and reassurance, and people who know their communities and who work at a local level.

The Minister made great play of efficiency. Nobody will deny that we can make the service more efficient. He is absolutely right about the sharing of buildings and about procurement. He knows about the air contract and the vehicle contract. Those are reforms that we should be making to save money. However, the bottom line is that those efficiencies are not compensating local police forces for the long-term reduction in central Government grant. My police force in north Wales has made efficiency savings of £19.65 million over the past four years, but that has not compensated it for the loss of grant.

The central point I want to put to the Minister, as I said in an intervention on him, is that the reductions in central Government grant are being compensated for by rises in the local precept. My local force area in north Wales has had a grant reduction of 18% over the four years. At the same time, there has been a 14.5% rise in the precept. My constituents are paying more in local taxes at a time when they are losing money in central Government grant.

The point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) understands, is that the poorest areas do not have the council tax base that richer areas have to raise that amount of resource. A 1% or 2% rise in—dare I say it?—the constituency or council area where we are now, Westminster, will raise a hell of a lot more than a 1% or 2% rise in a community such as mine in north-east Wales. When the grant is cut to forces such as North Wales police, and we are expected to raise the local precept, it means that my constituents pay more locally for something that should be provided as part of a national service, whereby richer areas contribute to crime reduction in poorer areas or, indeed, in higher-crime areas. It is important that the Minister recognises that it is not simply a case of reducing the grant and hoping that we can raise that local precept, which he did not mention in any detail today, but of having a fair settlement that meets the needs of poorer communities or areas where crime is higher.

It is important to place it on the record that, under the previous Labour Government, there were 18,000 more police officers than we have now. Crime consistently fell under that Labour Government. If we could look again, in the next three to four years while the Minister holds office, at how we respond to not only the efficiency agenda but the central Government grant agenda, he could do a great deal to help reduce crime and build reassurance.

The Minister mentioned crime falling but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, violent crime has increased by 27% in the past year. On victim outcomes, for half the offences recorded in 2014-15, the case was closed without a single suspect being identified. Hate crime, disability crime, sexual offences and violence against women are starting to increase. There has been a 36% increase in sexual offences. For historical reasons, the reporting of sexual offences is also rising. I accept that car crime, shoplifting and other forms of crime are falling. Good—I am pleased about that, and we want crime to continue to be driven down. However, the Minister cannot avoid the fact that the funding settlement will mean at least a standstill for some authorities, and at worst, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington mentioned, a massive cut, particularly for those authorities that have the highest crime, the greatest challenge and the lowest council tax base from which to draw the resources.

It is a little complacent of the Minister to say that all will be well because crime has fallen and forces are managing. My plea to him is to drive efficiency forward still further and perhaps even consider mergers, looking at some of the voluntary mergers that we have encouraged in the past, but not to pass on central Government grant cuts to areas that cannot meet the need, and need to raise money locally. The police service demands more. It is trying to do its best in a professional manner, but the settlement, given the new problems of increased terrorism, cybercrime, fraud and a range of other crimes, will not meet the challenge in the next four to five years. It will certainly not do so in the next year and I therefore support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington in asking the Minister to review it. I will cast my vote this afternoon to try to make him review it and I hope that others will join me at one minute past four.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Despite some of the scaremongering in the press, the police grant report is good news for police forces across the country and for the force that covers my constituency. I strongly welcome the significant increase in financial resources available across England and Wales and the fact that no police and crime commissioner will face a reduction in cash funding in the next financial year. Credit for that must go to the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister, whom I thank for investing in protecting my constituents from crime and disorder.

The police have had to bear a heavy burden, as the country has had to deal with the mess left behind by the Labour party. The report confirms that we are through the worst and that under a responsible Government we can once again afford to offer our police the support they need and deserve. The fact is that crime has fallen by more than a quarter under this Government. Crime has fallen across Lancashire, including in Pendle.

[Barbara Keeley]

I counsel the hon. Gentleman against talking about crime falling across the country. He is saying things that are not true for Greater Manchester, which has seen a 14% increase in recorded crime and a 36% increase in violent crime, but which is facing an £8.5 million cut. Will he please not talk about crime falling across the country, as he is not referring to Greater Manchester?

[Andrew Stephenson]

The hon. Lady is talking about reported crime. According to the British crime survey, crime has fallen across the country, and that survey has always been accepted on a cross-party basis as a more accurate reflection of crime rates across the country.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Andrew Stephenson]

I want to talk about rates of crime that have increased, so if the hon. Lady will allow me, I will make some progress.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham]

I will make a little progress first.

I agree with the WASPI campaign that it is clear that more should and could have been done on communication and that a lot of women have had a lot of difficulty as a result of that failure in communication. As I have said, there is still the philosophical question to address. What matters now is whether lessons have been learned by everybody involved and whether changes will be made that help people in future. So long as longevity projections continue to move upwards, the likelihood must be that the state pension age will also move upwards.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Graham]

Let me finish my point, and I will come back to the hon. Lady.

I believe that the Government have now accepted three major points, and it would be good to hear from the Minister that that is the case. First, there will be a review of the state pension age every five years—I believe a review is planned for 2017, which perhaps he will confirm. Secondly, whatever is decided as a result of that review, which should have cross-party consensus as far as possible, everybody concerned will be given a minimum of 10 years’ notice. That will address the most difficult point for members of the WASPI campaign, which is the shortness of the time in which they knew about the changes. Thirdly, and this is also important, the basis on which the new state pension age will be calculated is that all of us, men and women alike, should have a maximum of a third of our life on the state pension. That is important for the one fairness that has not been mentioned today, intergenerational fairness, so that those who are paying for the pensions of their elders are paying for us to spend only a third of our life as pensioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), the Chair of the Petitions Committee, for the excellent way she opened the debate. It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson. I thank the WASPI campaigners for the great job they do. I think that we should all thank them. I say to the Minister that I think it is shabby for another Minister to block people on Twitter who are doing such a lot of work to bring issues to our attention. That is a dreadful thing to do.

The former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, has said that the Government made “a bad decision” over the changes to pensions. His excuse was that Ministers had not been properly briefed. Despite the excuses, it seems astonishing that so many crucial issues were overlooked. Raising the state pension age creates a need for new jobs and new support for people if they are made redundant. For all the women no longer allowed to retire at 60, there has to be a job so that they can continue to work, or a scheme for financial support.

The Commons Library estimates that 3,200 women in Greater Manchester and 9,400 women in the north-west are affected this year alone by the increases in the state pension age. Across the 10 years to 2026, those numbers rise to 100,000 in Greater Manchester and nearly 300,000 in the north-west. Across the United Kingdom, a staggering 2.5 million women will be affected by 2026. Where is the work and the suitable support for all those women? Finding suitable employment when you are in your 60s is not the same as looking for work in your teens and 20s. The experience of my constituents who are unemployed or who took redundancy hoping to retire at 60 is that suitable work or support programmes do not exist. It seems to me that the issues were known about at the time.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

When I mentioned this afternoon the case of a constituent who is a widow and is severely affected by this issue, the Minister in his reply read out a long list of benefits that the lady could receive. Unfortunately, she cannot work. In a sense, having paid in all her life—for 35 years—why should she go cap in hand to the jobcentre?

[Barbara Keeley]

Absolutely. I know of a similar experience, which I will come to in a moment.

The impact assessment for the 2011 Bill showed the number of inactive women as 31% of those aged 55 to 59 and 65% of those aged 60 to 65. Four out of 10 of the women aged 50 to 59 were inactive owing to ill health or disability, and 24% stated caring at home as their reason. What plans did the Government make to give support to such women once they were over the age of 60, in terms of suitable jobs, financial support if they were ill or disabled, or financial support if they gave up work to care for family members?

Like the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I have a constituent who is forced to attend the Work programme. She feels that it fails to take into account her previous experience, and she feels that she is going to be “parked”, working for free for up to 30 hours a week, or face sanctions. It is difficult for her. She has mobility problems, but she has to pay her own parking costs when she attends the Work programme, because only petrol is paid for.

I have spoken to WASPI campaigners with similar problems in Greater Manchester: forced on to the Work programme at age 62, despite having more than 40 years of national insurance contributions—exactly the point that the hon. Member for Gainsborough made. I have another constituent of 62 who has worked since she was 15. She has osteoarthritis in both knees. She has had one knee replacement and is now waiting for a second. She cannot get her pension until 2019. She is on half pay from her employer and she had contributory ESA to top that up for a while. That seems fair, given that she has more than 45 years of national insurance contributions. However, after assessment she has been told she is fit to do some work and she must apply for jobs, despite having her second knee replacement scheduled soon, and despite being on sick leave from her job. She told me,

“I have been so upset with this whole procedure you are not able to get better... Can you believe it I was pleased they took the ESA off me because it is making me ill to keep dealing with them and the way you are dealt with.”

Government Members who talk about ESA and JSA, as some Members did in DWP questions earlier, should realise what it means to have to go to jobcentres, go on to the Work programme or go to ESA assessments.

We should be ashamed to have a system that treats women born in the 1950s in this way. They have worked all their lives, brought up children and paid more than 40 years of national insurance. Very few of them ever had equal pay, and certainly not equal chances of an occupational pension. So I want to ask the Minister why his Government did not consider different schemes for people who have worked all their lives and find themselves redundant or unemployed in their 60s. I can tell him that other EU states have done so.

Faced with the facts of the ill health of women in the 55 to 59 age group, why did the Government not introduce a different support scheme for women who became ill in their 60s after a lifetime of working contributions? Why have the Government not looked at a bridge pension scheme, as some other EU states have done? Why did the Government not look at allowing women aged 60-plus and living outside London to have concessionary travel, as the Mayor of London did for women—and men—with the 60+ Oystercard? Why did the Government not consider women born in the 1950s being able to qualify for winter fuel payments between the ages of 60 and retirement?

The Government are taking £30 billion off women born in the 1950s, which could mean as much as £36,000 per woman affected.

[Martin John Docherty]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for sponsoring this debate. We have talked about the amount of money that women will lose in terms of detriment. I hope that the Minister takes this on board, and I hope that the hon. Lady agrees with me. We heard earlier about women relying on their husbands to make up their income, but in the case of women who are married to women, both suffer detriment because of the changes in pension age.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. It is useful that he has done so, because it has not come up before. I hope the Minister will think about that, too.

Sometimes when we have debates, Ministers do not listen to the questions that are put. Some Members have said that life expectancy is still rising in this country, but it is not. The figures that were published in 2013 for 2012-13 show the first fall, which is possibly to do with how social care is being cut in this country. I want the Minister to think about the point I made earlier, which he did not seem to hear, about how female life expectancy is only 72 in parts of my constituency. If those women have to work until they are 66, they will have only six years of pensions, not 20 or 30 years as in more affluent parts of the country. Healthy life expectancy in that same ward in my constituency is 54, so why should women in Salford and in other deprived parts of the country bear the full cost of equalisation? The costs of support to women born in the 1950s via fair transitional arrangements would be transitional costs. It is the right thing to do and the Minister should agree to ask the Government to bring in those transitional arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Vara]

I will not give way; I wish to make progress.

As I was saying, we must also acknowledge the wider package of reforms that we have introduced to ensure a fair deal for pensioners.

On life expectancy, people now live longer and stay healthier for longer. I took on board what the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, but although she may have quoted a specific figure, other figures show that life expectancy is projected to increase for both men and women. In just a decade, the length of time that 65-year-olds—

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Vara]

No, I will not give way. A number of points have been made. I have listened very carefully for just under three hours and I am keen to put the Government’s views on record.

State Pension Age (Women)

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) on her outstanding opening speech, and the Backbench Business Committee on allocating time for this important debate. I am heartened to see the support from my Front-Bench colleagues, including my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), and my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—she is also my neighbour. I know that they all strongly support this campaign and the women in their constituencies who are affected by this issue. I congratulate the WASPI campaigners, who have worked tirelessly on this issue. They have now gained 107,000 signatures—perhaps 108,000 since the start of this debate.

The increases in the state pension age made by the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2011 have had a disproportionate impact on 1950s-born women. As we have heard, many received little or no notification of the changes, despite the Government saying that people must have 10 years’ notice of such changes. Indeed, the financial journalist Paul Lewis found that none of the 1950s-born women had been given 10 years' notice. In the worst case—we have heard about one of the worst cases from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman)—women were told at 57 and a half that their pension age would rise from 60 to 66. Women who expected to retire at 60 can now find themselves without a job, without a pension and without money to live on.

The former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, has admitted that the Government made “a bad decision” over these changes. His excuse was that Ministers had not been properly briefed. It appears that civil servants did do a poor job on this legislation; astonishingly, the impact assessment for the 2011 Act states in its conclusion:

“Overall…based on the available evidence, the change to the previous timetable will not have a disproportionate impact on any group compared to another.”

[Dr Huq]

The fact that my hon. Friend had a recent debate in Westminster Hall on this very subject should send a message to the Government that people want action on it. Does she agree with my constituent Linda Gregory, who was born in 1953 and points out that she has been working since the age of 15 and therefore is being penalised even more than people entering the workplace at the age, which is the normal standard nowadays?

[Barbara Keeley]

I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend says and I thank her for coming to that earlier debate.

It seems unbelievable that civil servants and Ministers could believe that taking billions in pensions away from a particular group, adding years to their state pension age and then not informing them in good time would not have a disproportionate impact on that group.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I raised these concerns, which had been brought to me by the class that left Foxhills comprehensive school in 1970, on Second Reading of the Bill that became the 2011 Act. When I did so, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said:

“I have had letters from the public stirred up by a number of people”—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 51.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just something being stirred up by a number of people, but a very real issue that we have known about for some time?

[Barbara Keeley]

I do agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for the work he has done on this matter since that Second Reading debate. These changes are having a disproportionate impact on my constituents and on his, and I have heard from WASPI campaigners who are also badly affected. As we have heard, many have health problems that stop them working and others have given up work to care. One of my constituents affected by the changes has worked for more than 44 years and has raised two children. She suffers with osteoarthritis and she tells me that she suffered the indignity of having to attend the jobcentre, where she was told that she was only entitled to six months’ jobseeker's allowance. Unable to find work, she has to use her hard-earned savings. She has said:

“I must watch my savings dwindle on living costs rather than enjoyment, I wish I had not bothered being frugal all my life, as by the time I get my pension I will be broke or dead.”

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the sterling work that my hon. Friend and others have done on this campaign. Does she agree that there is a particular problem here for women in places such as Blackpool who have only been able to work part-time for a long period and are nevertheless having to take on some of the carer and other issues that people have described?

[Barbara Keeley]

Before the 1995 Act changes, the independent Social Security Advisory Committee said that savings made on raising the state pension age should be spent on the most vulnerable groups, with help specifically for low-paid women, women returning to work and carers. That advice was not followed. Recently, a court in the Netherlands ruled that raising the state pension age could be considered a breach of the European convention on human rights. A woman in her 60s appealed against a two-year increase in her pension age because it created an “individual and excessive burden” on her. The court found in her favour. It is welcome that some Conservative Members who voted for the acceleration of the state pension age in 2011 are now supporting the WASPI campaign. However, other Conservative Members are blaming European legislation for the shabby treatment of the pensions of 1950s-born women—but the facts are against them.

When the Minister answered the debate on 2 December, he said:

“Equalisation was necessary to meet the UK’s obligations under EU law to eliminate gender inequalities in social security provision.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 145WH.]

The same point has been made to WASPI campaigners in replies from Conservative MPs. However, research done by the House of Commons Library and my own research show that that is not the case. EU law allows countries to have differences in their state pension age, and it also allows lengthy transitional arrangements to be made.

Library research notes that directive 79/7/EEC requires

“the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security.”

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the fact that we need to reach a level of equality on this issue, but she is absolutely right that it is the pace of change and the transitional arrangements that are so unfair. Does she not agree that the continual changing of the goalposts goes against the sense of fair play, justice and fairness on which this country should be based?

[Barbara Keeley]

Absolutely. Furthermore, this background of EU law is not really a cause of the problem. The directive allows for different state pension ages. Indeed, article 7 of the directive specifically states that the determination of the state pension age is the right of member states. A 2007 European Commission report confirmed that different state pension ages are allowed. Equalisation of state pension ages is therefore described as “an objective to be strived for”. The Netherlands, Portugal and France have no current difference in their state pension age, but Austria and Hungary are equalising the state pension age with long transitional arrangements. In other states, a difference in pensionable age is currently maintained, or changes are being made very slowly. State pension ages will not be equalised in Poland until 2040, or in the Czech Republic until 2044. Bulgaria and Romania are retaining different state pension ages. EU law therefore allows different state pension ages and long transitional arrangements, and the Government cannot hide behind it and use it to explain what I see as a £30 billion “pensions grab” from 1950s-born women.

Transitional protections were discussed during the debates on the Pensions Act 2011 but were not brought forward by Ministers. It is worth saying that other countries have had transitional arrangements, or have amended their legislation to help specific groups. The Netherlands has a bridge pension. Italy brought in extensive pension changes, but made exemptions for people who were made redundant or who had a defined level of contributions. Later, Italy realised that public sector workers with a contracted career exit pathway risked being left with no job and no pension owing to the reforms. It then legislated six adjustments between 2012 and 2015 to protect those workers, via special derogations. The UK can and should put in place additional transitional arrangements to address the unfair consequences of this Government’s Pensions Act.

One of the unfair consequences is having to continue to pay national insurance contributions even though many 1950s-born women have already contributed for more than 40 years. Unfair differences in pensioner benefits also exist at a regional level. In November 2012, the Greater London Authority restored to Londoners aged between 60 and the state pension age the free travel that had been lost under the Pensions Act 2011. Bringing in the 60+ London Oyster card , the Mayor of London said:

“Londoners who have grafted all their lives and expected to receive free travel on retirement, quite rightly felt cheated when the age escalator removed the Freedom Pass from their grasp.”

What about women living outside London who have “grafted all their lives” and who also felt “cheated” when the 2011 Pensions Act removed both retirement and free travel from their grasp?

The UK reforms cannot be justified on the basis that the previous system was unsustainable. Historically, the UK state pension has been one of the lowest in the OECD. EU law allows transitional arrangements, so the Government cannot justify their changes by hiding behind that law. The lack of transitional arrangements in the UK for 1950s women is due to decisions made by this Conservative Government. I urge the Minister to look again at the issue and at ways of providing adequate transitional protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

A lot of people want to speak, so let me carry on for the moment.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South was right to quote the previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, as saying that not everyone knew about this. He has accepted that, as I think we all recognise. None the less, the argument that no transitional arrangements were made—arrangements that Opposition Members are calling for—is wrong. A significant transitional arrangement and concession was made in 2011 that affected 250,000 people and cost the Government—the taxpayer—£1.3 billion, which was a significant amount of money at the time. That arrangement was made because the then Pensions Minister and the then Government recognised advice from the Department saying that the waiting time for some women born in the 1950s had increased to as much as two years, and they wanted to reduce it to 18 months to benefit those 250,000 people.

What is interesting is that while the motion calls for further transitional arrangements, it does not spell out, nor has any Member who has spoken so far spelt out, exactly what transitional arrangements are being called for. Were the intention—

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this Backbench Business Committee debate. I commend the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) for her opening remarks and pay tribute to the WASPI campaign, particularly to Marion and Anne and all the other ladies who helped campaign on this important issue. I have worked long and hard with them over the past few months. We have had meetings with my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). I lobbied my constituents with the WASPI group in Morrisons in Denton recently and I think that I was the first in this Parliament to raise the issue at Prime Minister’s Question Time. I am therefore glad that the subject has been brought to the Floor of the House for a full debate.

A very real injustice has been done to this group of women born in the 1950s. We can go through the history again: there have been two changes to their state pension age and, if that were not bad enough, the real injustice has been the acceleration of the process, which has left many women who were not expecting the changes having to make alternative arrangements. When it came to the private pensions of Members of Parliament, those within 10 years of their normal state pension age could remain on the old scheme, but the group of women we are considering have had no chance to put in place their alternative arrangements.

[Barbara Keeley]

Government Members have asked Opposition Members for our transitional arrangement suggestions. I made some. I gave examples from other countries: some have bridge pensions while others look after people who are made redundant. It is up to the Government, who have made the £30 billion pension grab, to come up with ideas.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is right. When the Pensions Act 2011 was debated in the House of the Commons, the current Secretary of State said,

“but we will consider transitional arrangements.”—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 52.]

Where are they? Those ladies are still waiting. It is about time the Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box and set out those transitional arrangements, because those women cannot wait forever.

We have already had the first U-turn from the former Pensions Minister, who said that he was not properly briefed. That says a lot about the calibre of Liberal Democrat Ministers in the former coalition Government. Now we have a Pensions Minister in the other place, who was a champion for those ladies until she took the Queen’s shilling. She now says that she cannot do anything about it. What utter nonsense. What is the point of having a Minister if she cannot do anything about it? It is time that Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions got off their backsides and did something to help those women.

Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), I will give the Minister some friendly advice. I appreciate that it is not his area of responsibility but that of the noble Lady at the other end of the building who speaks on pensions. My hon. Friend likened the WASPI ladies to wasps. Wasps can be pests and nuisances. They cannot easily be bashed away and, when that happens, they get angry and come back. If they are really annoyed, they sting and, unlike bees, they can sting more than once. Let us have some justice for these ladies; it is long overdue.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) on managing to secure this debate, which has attracted many Members on both sides of the House. I also commend all the colleagues who have taken the trouble to come here and speak today. I will try to address as many of their points as I can in the limited time available to me.

I should like to begin by reminding the House of the rationale for reforming the timetable. For our state pension system to function effectively, it has to be fair, affordable and sustainable. The changes made to the state pension age under the Pensions Act 2011 make an important contribution to achieving those aims. Gender equality is one of the main purposes of the changes to the state pension age. Under the previous system, women reaching state pension age in 2010 would spend on average 41% of their adult lives in receipt of the state pension. For men, the figure was only 31%, owing to the longer life expectancy and earlier state pension age of women.

It makes little sense for women to work to a pension age originally set in 1940 which does not reflect the employment opportunities open to them in a modern society. Changes were needed to take account of increased life expectancy and to ensure fairness for working-age people who would otherwise bear the cost of this longevity. Following sharp rises in life expectancy, the previous Government acted to address this and brought forward the timetable for rises in the state pension age. This was vital if we were to continue to meet the UK’s obligations under EU law to eliminate gender inequalities in social security provision and to ensure that the state pension remained affordable and sustainable. It is also important to look at the changes in the context of our wider pension reforms and what these mean for women.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister cannot have been listening to what I said earlier. A substantial proportion of what I said showed that that is not the case, although he and his colleagues are hiding behind that argument. We were not required to do that. Some EU countries are not equalising until 2040 or 2044, and some are maintaining a difference. Will he please stop hiding behind something that is not true?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Lady should respect the views of other people, rather than simply stating that what she says is right. We are bound by EU law, but it is also right and proper that we should have gender equality, irrespective of EU law.

Women and the Economy

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is right. I, too, have met the WASPI women. Just the other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) held a Westminster Hall debate on this very subject in which she pointed out the lack of notice to these women. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and others when the legislation was passed by this House in 2011.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Since that debate, the former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, has admitted that the Government made a bad decision over these increases in state pension age equalisation. He made the excuse that his Department had not been properly briefed, and he went into crisis talks with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to try to claw back billions. Those women are suffering because of that mistake and that departmental failure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

rose—

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Caroline Dinenage]

Give me a couple of minutes to make a little progress.

I want to talk about the motion. Where do I start? The evidence is deeply flawed. Unfortunately—I am sad about this—it is the typical back-of-a-fag-packet stuff we have come to expect from Labour Members. Frankly, they have made bizarre and outdated assumptions about how households divide their money. There is even an implication that lower fuel prices somehow do not help women. The pink battle bus may have run on something other than petrol, but the rest of us fill up in the normal way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Inheriting an economy that was riddled with debt did nothing for women in this country, and not tackling the deficit would have been the real crime and created an unacceptable risk for our economy and people’s lives and futures. Not tackling the deficit would have put at risk the very jobs and services that women depend on. It would have risked their children’s education and security, and for those of us who want to ensure that everyone is able to fulfil their potential, such risks are unacceptable.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister is talking about competence, and I have already quoted from a former Pensions Minister who admitted to a bad decision that cost millions of women who were born in this country in the 1950s £30 billion. That was a mistake. The Pensions Minister now admits that he was not properly briefed, and he added two years to the pension age of millions of women without even realising what he was doing. Does the Minister really claim competence for a Government who do things like that?

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Lady fails to recognise that in the new pension changes, women who have taken time out to raise children will now not be penalised by the system. She is being a little unfair. Thanks to the Government, we are able to increase support for childcare costs, and protect key Government services.

The commitment to supporting women in work is a priority for the Government, which is why the Prime Minister pledged earlier this year to end the gender pay gap within a generation. Let me be clear: there is no place for a pay gap in today’s society. That is why we committed to requiring employers to publish information on the difference between men and women’s pay and bonuses. We will shortly be consulting on the regulations needed for gender pay reporting, and I urge all employers to consider those carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The motion asks the Government to conduct an urgent cumulative assessment of the impact of their policies on women since 2010 and to take the necessary remedial steps to mitigate any disproportionate burden on women. Nowhere can this be seen as strongly as in the impact of state pension age equalisation on women born in the 1950s. In 1995, the then Conservative Government set out a timetable to equalise the pension age for men and women at 65 so that, from April 2020, women born in April 1955 or later would get their pension at 65.

In May 2010, the coalition agreement stated that a review of the default retirement age would take place

“to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women”.

This pledge was broken when the coalition Government decided to accelerate the planned changes—a move that particularly hit women born in the 1950s. The changes brought about by the Pensions Act 2011 affect the lives of millions of women. It is not the niche issue that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) talked about. Women born in the 1950s are unfairly bearing the burden and the personal cost of the increase in the state pension age, and I feel unashamedly political about standing up for them.

Speaking to “Channel 4 News” in May 2011 about the unfair consequences of the legislation, the director general of Saga said:

“We accept that the pension age will have to rise but it is the timing and the broken promise that we feel is unfair.”

She said that women

“may have made careful plans for retirement, only to have the Government pull the rug from under their feet.”

Ironically, she is now the Conservative Minister for Pensions. Earlier this year, she told me:

“I tried hard in 2011 but there is nothing more I can do I’m afraid. It is not in my power.”

Well, it is. As Minister for Pensions, she must recognise the injustice in the state pension age changes, which she well understood as a campaigner in 2011, particularly now that the former Pensions Minister has admitted that the Government made a bad decision.

During Second Reading of the Pensions Bill in 2011, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions repeatedly referred to “transitional arrangements”, but he never put in place any fair transitional arrangements. The financial journalist Paul Lewis has looked into this and other issues, including the question of when the women were notified. He has said:

“Millions of women had their state pension age delayed—in some cases twice and by up to six years in total—without proper notice. The Government did not write to any woman affected by the rise in pension ages for nearly 14 years after the law was passed in 1995”.

The former Pensions Minister now admits it was not made clear to him that some people would have to wait an extra two years for their pension.

[Jess Phillips]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. My mother-in-law is in this category—she was not told. She left her job at what she expected to be a pensionable age, but has been left waiting a further three years before she can receive her pension. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have put nothing in place to support those older women back into work?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed and I will come on to talk about their plight. It is amazing to me that the Pensions Minister realised what a bad decision he had made—he admitted that quite recently—but still more than 1.5 million women aged between 57 and 59 were not told until then that their state pension age would be rising. In the worst cases, women were told at 57 and a half that their pension age would rise from 60 to 66.

The Government have since said that anyone affected by a rising state pension age must have 10 years’ notice, while the Pensions Commission suggests 15 years’ notice. The journalist Paul Lewis concludes, however, that none of the 1950s-born women had even 10 years’ notice. Women who have planned for their retirement suddenly find, as my hon. Friend says, that they have to wait many more years—up to six years—before they can retire. They find themselves without a job, without a pension or pensioner benefits, and without money to live on.

Members have referred in the debate to the campaign group Women Against State Pension Inequality. They are not campaigning against equalisation, but they are opposed to the way the changes have been enacted and the lack of transitional protection for women born in the 1950s. My constituents have told me about how the changes are having a significant impact on their lives. Case after case that I have been told about shows how many women in their early 60s have health problems that stop them working, or that they need to give up work in order to care—we have talked a lot about care in this debate. I have a constituent forced to live off her savings after working and paying national insurance for 44 years; another is unemployed at age 61 and trying to live off £75 a week. I have spoken to women in their early 60s who have been forced on to the Work programme. They find this demeaning after 40 to 44 years of work. A WASPI campaigner called Marian contacted me. She told me she gave up work at age 62 to care for her mother and brother, both of whom have dementia. Her only source of income is a small private pension of £2,500. Her husband will now have to support her until she is 65.

The women I speak about today have worked hard and contributed to the system. Throughout their lives, this generation of women have been disadvantaged in the workplace in terms of pay because of their gender. Even now, women in their 60s earn 14% less than men. Now, they are once again being treated unfairly because of the way changes to the state pension have been enacted. Ministers must look at ways to provide adequate transitional protection. A number of Conservative Members have said that they support—I hope they do—the transitional protection that Ministers’ colleagues repeatedly mentioned in the debates on the Pensions Act in 2011.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

This has been an historic debate, because it has been a debate with women at the Dispatch Box, by women in the Chamber, chaired for most of the time by a woman—and we also had some contributions from men.

The first duty of a Government is certainty to protect economic and national security, extending opportunity and aspiration to every girl and boy, allowing every woman and man to fulfil their potential, and giving older people dignity in retirement. The Government are managing the economy and the public finances properly, and as a result, we are enabling job creation, increasing wages, increasing job security, cutting income tax and helping parents with more free childcare in an economy that is 12% larger than when we took office in 2010.

Do women have economic equality yet? They do not. Women in our country still earn less, own less and retire with less than men. We can agree that all political parties seek to make progress on those issues.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister recognises that women retire with less. That really affects the women we have heard about in this debate who were born in the 1950s, who had to wait six more years to retire and are now living on very little. Has she heard what has been said in this debate? Will she take it away and talk to colleagues about it?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I will, of course, come on to address some of the points raised in the debate. Although there is political consensus that we must make progress on women’s economic issues, our parties will approach that progress differently. My party will stress more equal opportunity, more aspiration, higher skills and higher standards in education, while the Labour party will seek to tax women more, borrow more debt on behalf of women, their children and their grandchildren, and create more welfare poverty traps for women.

Today’s Opposition motion shows why the Labour party can never again be trusted to run our economy. In their motion on the Order Paper, the Opposition assume that mixed-gender households do not share incomes. That is quite an assumption. They assume that spending less on public services invariably leads to poorer services—something that we have comprehensively disproved over the past five years. They even imply that the billions and billions of pounds of tax cuts that have led to lower petrol prices at the pump do not help women. I have heard it said before that Labour wants to take us back to the 1970s, but this is more like the Harry Enfield sketch about the 1930s. I will try to imitate him: “Women, know your limits and, for pity’s sake, don’t drive!”

At best, the motion shows unconscious bias. At worst, it shows the latent sexism of a sexist Labour leadership. The motion says, “Don’t invest in infrastructure, because it’s not women who build things.” Where do I start with that?

State Pension Age Equalisation

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of state pension age equalisation on women born in the 1950s.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who was the first MP to raise this issue in Parliament in this Session. The debate is about the effect of the changes to the state pension age imposed on women born in the 1950s by the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2011, and I will focus on three areas: the acceleration of changes to the state pension age; the lack of appropriate notification from the Government; and the impact of the changes.

State pension age equalisation started with the 1995 Act. The then Conservative Government set out a timetable to equalise the pension ages for men and women at 65. From April 2020, women born in April 1955 or later would get their pension at 65. In May 2010, the coalition agreement stated:

“We will phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women.”

That pledge was broken when the coalition Government decided to accelerate the planned changes, a move that would particularly hit women born in the 1950s.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that the people who are treated most iniquitously are those born in 1954? My constituent Michele Carlile of Hanger Hill says that an extra six years were hiked on to her pension age with no warning. That generation did not have the equal opportunities that created independent pension funds, and they did not have free nursery places; they had bad divorce settlements from men. This is another example of how this Tory Government have treated women shoddily.

[Barbara Keeley]

I agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for making those points so early in the debate.

The changes brought about by the 2011 Act affect the lives of millions of women born in 1954 and throughout the 1950s who are unfairly bearing the burden and the personal costs of increasing the state pension age. The changes were controversial at the time, and there was great debate about the need to address the unfair consequences of the Act. Speaking to Channel 4 News in May 2011, the director general of Saga said:

“Men won’t have any increase before 2018 and no man will have his pension increased by more than one year. Half a million women will. We accept that the pension age will have to rise but it is the timing and the broken promise that we feel is unfair. No money will be saved during this Parliament, so it’s got not about cutting the deficit. We don’t need to hurry this through to have a sustainable pension system…Many women are furious and desperate about how they are going to manage, particularly the more vulnerable women who may already have retired, who may be ill or be caring for someone. They may have made careful plans for retirement, only to have the Government pull the rug from under their feet. They can’t just work for longer, because they may have retired already.”

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing a debate on this important issue, which has crept up on many of us and affects many more women that many hon. Members will have appreciated. Does she agree that, whatever one thinks about raising the pension age, probably the most scandalous thing is the lack of notice given to women? The 650,000 women most affected by the speed-up were born between April 1953 and 1955, and they have effectively been told between the ages of 57 and 59, a matter of months ahead, that their pension age is now no longer 60. For them, planning is just not possible.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. I was going to come on to that, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will think back to the Government of 1995, who started these changes.

[Tim Loughton]

I haven’t been here that long.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman was here in 2011, when some of the affected women lobbied their MPs about the proposals in the then Pensions Bill. Saga commented:

“Putting pensions on a sustainable long-term footing does not justify the sudden increase being imposed on one group of women at such short notice”—

that is exactly the point he raises—

“especially when the Government knows that these particular women are more vulnerable than men and have little or no private pension wealth. Also, many are already out of the labour market and have made careful plans for their future, which are now in disarray.”

Ironically, the then director general of Saga is now the Conservative Minister for Pensions in the other place. When I wrote to her on behalf of a constituent earlier this year she told me:

“I tried hard in 2011 but there is nothing more I can do I’m afraid. It is not in my power.”

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. At the time, many of us pointed out the iniquities of the proposals. I commend her on continuing to try hard and on not giving up as quickly as the noble Lady appears to have done.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend spoke on Second Reading of the 2011 Pensions Bill, which I will address later.

Perhaps the Pensions Minister would benefit from understanding her powers. She was appointed after the general election, but her powers include the power to argue for changes needed to remedy injustice. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will focus on that injustice. The changes made in the 2011 Act were controversial, and hon. Members from all parties raised the particular impact that the changes would have on women born in the 1950s. As I have mentioned, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions repeatedly referred to transitional arrangements on Second Reading, including, I think, in answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). The Secretary of State said:

“I recognise the need to implement the change fairly and manage the transition smoothly…I say to my colleagues that I am willing to work to get the transition right”.—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 50.]

The changes were not managed fairly, and the Secretary of State did not put transitional arrangements in place, which is why I applied for this debate to discuss the issues caused by the changes.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. This is an important issue, and every day now we are seeing issues that disproportionately affect women in this country. I spoke to two wonderful people from the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign in my office on Friday, and they explained that they have not had any confirmation of any changes at any time. Surely that cannot be the case in this day and age. They should have received notification of the changes. This cannot be allowed to continue, and I am proud that my hon. Friend is continuing the fight on behalf of the Opposition to seek justice for these women.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for saying that. He is right that campaigners for Women Against State Pension Inequality are doing a great job of informing MPs.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I agree that a great injustice is being done. The lack of notice has been mentioned, but there is also a lack of information for pensioners’ groups. The pensioners’ parliament of Northern Ireland has recently visited the House of Commons, and it has held joint meetings with its equivalent in Scotland. The information is very light, and more consultation is needed. We need to do something about this.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the key points in the debate is that women born in the 1950s who are affected by the 1995 and 2011 Acts have had neither transitional protections nor appropriate notification of the changes that are now having such a significant impact on their lives.

[Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. In relation to people affected by the 1995 Act, Steve Webb said that

“I accept that some women did not know about it, and not everybody heard about it at the time. Although it was all over the papers at the time”.—[Official Report, 8 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 54WH.]

Inadequate notice was given, which is totally unacceptable.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for applying for this debate with me, so that we could get time allocated for it.

I turn to the conclusions of Paul Lewis, a financial journalist, on the notification of the changes undertaken by the Department for Work and Pensions, because notification is a key issue. He has investigated it thoroughly, alongside campaigners from Women Against State Pension Inequality. He has written:

“Millions of women had their state pension age delayed—in some cases twice and by up to six years in total—without proper notice. That is the only conclusion to be drawn from the details of how they were informed of the changes which have now been obtained from the Department for Work and Pensions.”

Paul Lewis reveals quite a detailed list of those changes, writing:

“The Government did not write to any woman affected by the rise in pension ages for nearly 14 years after the law was passed in 1995.

More than one million women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1953 were told at age 58 or 59 that their pension age was rising from 60, in some cases to 63.

More than half a million women born 6 April 1953 to 5 April 1955 were told between the ages of 57 and nearly 59 that their state pension age would be rising to between 63 and 66.

Some women were told at just 57½ that their pension age would rise from 60 to 66. Women were given five years less notice than men about the rise in pension age to 66”.

He goes on to say:

“The Government now says that in future anyone affected by a rise in state pension age must have ten years’ notice.”

Indeed, the Pensions Commission has said:

“We have suggested a principle that increases in SPA”—

that is, state pension age—

“should be announced at least 15 years in advance.”

However, Paul Lewis concludes that none of the 1950s-born women had even 10 years’ notice,

“nor did the men affected by the change.”

Women who have planned for their retirement suddenly find that they have to wait up to another six years before they can retire. Many find themselves without a job, without a pension or pensioner benefits, and without money to live on. Many of the 1950s-born women affected by the changes are living in real financial hardship, and they feel betrayed by the Government.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I am staggered to hear of the abject failure in notification and even more staggered to hear that the Pensions Minister does not feel able to do anything about it. Surely at the very least the Government should be able to ensure that these kinds of mistakes are not repeated in the future?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, but there is the very important question of the impact on women now—millions of women, many of them living in real financial hardship. We must learn lessons for the future, but we also have to think of the people who are affected now.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on raising this incredibly important matter. Does she agree that actually a political choice has been made? That political choice is that it is the women who will have to carry the entire burden of arranging their own transitional arrangements. For example, she mentioned that a comparatively small number of these women might have small pension pots. I have already had a number of women say to me that what they will do is use their pension freedoms to wholly draw down their pension, compromising their long-term future so that they can put in place their own transitional arrangements. That cannot be right.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right and I will come on to cases of how people are managing, citing my constituents and other people I have heard from.

Some of the women affected have been hit twice: by the original proposals in 1995 and by the acceleration of the changes through the Pensions Act 2011. Now they are angry and feel that they are bearing a disproportionate burden, as the hon. Gentleman has just said.

The acceleration of the changes to the state pension age can mean that women born just months apart, and who were possibly in the same class group at school, receive their state pension at very different ages. In some cases, a one-year difference in date of birth can mean a woman will receive her state pension three and a half years later than other women. The campaign group Women Against State Pension Inequality tells me that it is not campaigning against the equalisation of the pension age in itself; I think hon. Members will understand that that equalisation was going to happen. It is opposed to the way the changes have been enacted and to the lack of transitional protection for the women born in the 1950s who are hit hardest by the changes.

The women affected put their faith in a state pension system into which most of them had paid all their working lives. They expected that they would be treated fairly and that they would be told about major changes with sufficient notice. However, most of them were given short notice of these changes and some of them have received no information at all. The women affected believe that the Government have failed in their duty of care by not taking reasonable steps to ensure that they were notified individually and in a timely way. They have been left with inadequate time to plan for a major change to their financial circumstances, which has caused great uncertainty and worry for those who have been planning for retirement.

A number of constituents have given me examples that show the significant impact these changes are having on their lives. One of them has worked for more than 44 years and raised two children. She suffers with osteoarthritis. She tells me she that she suffered the indignity of having to attend the jobcentre, only to be told that she was entitled to just six months’ jobseeker’s allowance. Now she is unable to find work and has to use her hard-earned savings, which is a similar point to the one that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) made earlier. My constituent told me:

“I must watch my savings dwindle on living costs rather than enjoyment, I wish I had not bothered being frugal all my life, as by the time I get my pension I will be broke or dead.”

Another constituent, Christine, is 61 and has worked since she was 15. She has osteoarthritis in both knees and has had a knee replacement. She cannot apply for her pension until 2019 and she told me:

“I am one of those women you would say is ‘old school’. Worked hard all my life, no maternity leave, no help with child care, just got on with it. Carrying on working thinking you will retire at 60, but since then my retirement age has changed 3 times. There is no guarantee it will not change again. I will probably be dead before I am able to retire.”

Another told me:

“At the age of 61, I find myself unemployed…If the Government had not moved the goalposts, I would have been able to retire last year. How are you supposed to live on £75 a week?”

She tells me that she has a mortgage and her outgoings are double the size of her income.

A constituent of a colleague told me that she was born in 1954, which is similar to the case already raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), and that she was given only two years’ notice of the changes to state pension age. She is supported by her husband now, as she has no income of her own. She suffers mental ill health and has been unable to cope with the assessment process for employment and support allowance.

Case after case that I have been told about show how many women in their early 60s have health problems that stop them working, or that they need to give up work to care for someone else.

In an article on the gender gap in pensions, the Fawcett Society points out that the Chancellor appears to be delighted with the savings he made from his policy on state pension age equalisation, despite the really negative effects on women born in the 1950s, which I have been outlining. Speaking of the Government’s changes at the Global Investment Conference 2013, he said:

“These changes…the savings dwarf almost everything else you do, I mean they are absolutely enormous savings. You’re not necessarily reducing the entitlement of people who are retired, you’re just increasing the age at which that retirement entitlement kicks in”.

[Dr Huq]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government need to stop seeing people as just anomalies on a spreadsheet? The cases that she has highlighted are those of real-life individuals, and apparently there are 300,000 people born between 6 December 1953 and 5 October 1954 who have been hit twice by Tory pension changes, and these issues need addressing.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, and as I was just saying, the Chancellor made the comment:

“You’re just increasing the age at which that retirement entitlement kicks in”.

He went on to say:

“It was actually one of the less controversial things we have done”—

amazingly—

“and yet it has probably saved more money than anything else we have done.”

That relates to the point that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath made about “choice”.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

In view of the fact that in the autumn statement we heard the Chancellor crowing about all the money he had found down the back of the sofa, should we not just learn lessons for the future but demand that something is done for these women, particularly those who have been hit multiple times and who have had their retirement extended by six years?

[Barbara Keeley]

I agree with the hon. Lady.

As with the tax credit cuts that the Chancellor has just been forced to abandon, it is clear from a comment such as the one I have just quoted that he does not understand the impact of his policies on those affected by them. He does not understand what it really means to

“just increase the age at which that retirement entitlement kicks in”.

I have a constituent who is now forced to live off her savings after working and paying national insurance for 44 years, and another who is unemployed at the age of 61 and trying to live on £75 a week. Another constituent aged 61 has paid into national insurance for 44 years. She has been on sick leave, and when she moved on to half pay she was told that she had to start going to the jobcentre, where the staff treated her without dignity or respect. After 44 years, she still has to pay national insurance even though she is only on half pay. I have spoken to women who in their early 60s have been forced on to the Work programme. They find that demeaning after putting in a lifetime of work and contributions.

Other women have raised other important issues. Moving the pension age means missing out on pensioner benefits—even such things as a bus pass. That is difficult when an older partner has a bus pass and the 1950s-born woman does not and has to wait six years to get one. There is also no uniformity about concessionary bus travel, which is available at 60 in London, but not in other areas. The woman who told me that has to pay £7.50 to travel by bus to hospital. The women forced to wait until 65 or 66 for their state pension do not get free prescriptions either, and I have talked about the many health conditions which make that a key issue. Waiting up to six years for a state pension and other pensioner benefits will also hit carers who give up work to care. Carers UK tells me that women approaching pension age are much more likely to have caring responsibilities than men. One in four women aged 50 to 64 has caring responsibilities, compared with one in six men. A significant number of women with caring responsibilities decide or feel forced to retire early.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is talking about demographics. Does she agree that females in this age group are increasingly having to look after aged parents in their 80s and 90s, which would not have been the case 30 or 40 years ago?

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. As we are living longer, so the number of carers is increasing. A Carers UK survey this year found that nearly a third of the female carers who responded and who were aged 60-plus said that they had retired early to care. The problem for women who fall into that group is compounded because, as Carers UK knows, retiring early in itself has a long-term impact on family finances. Of female carers aged 60-plus who retired early to care, 36% said that they were struggling to make ends meet, and of those struggling 40% were using their own savings to get by. Marian, a campaigner from Women Against State Pension Inequality—or WASPI; it is remarkable how that is abbreviated—contacted me yesterday. She has given up work at the age of 62 to care for her mother and brother, both of whom have dementia. Her only source of income is a small private pension of £2,500. Her husband will have to support her until she is 65. Marian tells me she only found out about her changed state pension age when she looked it up online.

[Nic Dakin]

Is it not ironic that people like Marian are saving the state a lot of expense through the work they are doing as carers, yet the state is not keeping to its deal with them, which it made a long while ago?

[Barbara Keeley]

That is absolutely true. The two years’ notice is clearly an issue when someone is deciding to retire to care for two people with dementia, particularly when looking after two people with dementia saves the state a great deal of money.

There are many such stories and examples. By not providing adequate notice of the change and by speeding up the process without putting in place any suitable transitional protection, the Government are failing to support the women born in the 1950s who are affected by their policies. Having promised much during debates, the only concession the Government made was to ensure that the additional increase in the state pension age could not be more than 18 months, but that small concession is of little comfort to those women who were not even informed of the change until very close to the age at which they expected to retire. They have worked hard and contributed to the system.

Throughout their lives, this generation of women has been disadvantaged in the workplace in terms of pay because of their gender. Even now, women in their 60s earn 14% less than men. Many of the women do not have private pensions. Until 1995, women who worked part-time were not allowed to join company pension schemes, and others did not qualify because they took time away from work owing to ill health or a caring role. Very many have no other sources of income, and they now find that once again they are being treated unfairly because of the way changes to the state pension have been enacted and because they are women.

I urge the Minister to look again at the issue and to look at ways of providing adequate transitional protection —the transitional protection that his ministerial colleagues repeatedly mentioned in the debates on the Pensions Act 2011.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

There are six speakers, and I will be calling the first of the Front Benchers at half-past 10. Each speaker has around five minutes if everyone is to get in. I call Richard Graham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

That is a perfectly valid point that is clearly part of the WASPI campaign, and the Minister will want to comment on it. “Transitional arrangements” is both a comfortable phrase and something with significant financial implications, and he will want to discuss that.

[Barbara Keeley]

If the hon. Gentleman looks back at Second Reading of the Pensions Act 2011, he will see that the Secretary of State promised transitional protection again and again. It was not just mentioned in passing; it was how he dealt with a lot of the interventions about the issues.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady’s memory of that particular occasion is probably better than mine. Some transitional arrangements were agreed and introduced, but certainly not to the degree that I am sure the WASPI campaign would like.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing the debate. I recognise that the subject is hugely important and I commend all the contributors, who have spoken eloquently and passionately. It has caused a huge amount of correspondence for all of us as Members of Parliament. In the course of my comments over the next 10 or so minutes, I shall address as many of the points made by colleagues as possible.

The debate provides me with an opportunity to set out the Government’s position on state pension age equalisation, in particular regarding women born in the 1950s. The acceleration of state pension age equalisation and the increase to the age of 66 under the Pensions Act 2011 achieved gender equality in state pension provision, while also saving more than £30 billion for the state, thereby ensuring the affordability and sustainability of our reformed pensions system. It is important to recognise that we must have a pensions system that is affordable and sustainable.

It is also important to remember that gender equality was one of the main purposes of the state pension age changes.

[Barbara Keeley]

We have heard equality mentioned many times. The generation of 1950s-born women have not known equality in their lives, in pay or in pensions. Why should they carry the weight of the savings that the Minister has just lauded? Why should that group of women who have suffered so much inequality in their lives carry the weight?

[Mr Vara]

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I think even she would agree that in the 21st century it is right that there should be equality for all people, particularly in Britain.

[Barbara Keeley]

Not at that cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman speaks about fairness and transition arrangements, and I will come to that, but I repeat the point that there is a cost to all of this. I am trying to make this apolitical, but given that so much political comment has been made against the Government and the previous coalition Government that my party, the Conservative party, led, I gently remind all colleagues not to forget that between the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2011 there was the small matter of a 13-year Labour Government, which seems to have been conveniently forgotten in everything said about communication, concessions and so on.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vara]

I will also say that while this is an important subject, it is not something—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman has said nothing that had not already been said, and I will refer to issues as I progress.

Equalisation was necessary to meet the UK’s obligations under EU law to eliminate gender inequalities in social security provision. The five-year gap in men’s and women’s state pension age dated back to the 1940s and is not fair in a world where women’s employment opportunities have opened up and provisions are made for carers. I hope that all colleagues on both sides of the House agree with that.

The resources made available allowed the new state pension reforms to take place in the form that we have introduced, benefiting those women who would have had poor outcomes under the current system largely as a result of lower average earnings and part-time working. About 650,000 women reaching state pension age in the first 10 years will receive an average of £8 a week more in 2014-15 earnings terms owing to the new state pension valuation of their national insurance record.

To encourage and enable those who want to work longer is a priority for the Government. That is the real solution to ensuring a comfortable and fulfilling later life. People having fuller working lives would not only help our pensions system to remain sustainable but could greatly benefit the economy. Research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown that adding just one year to people’s working lives would add 1% to GDP a year.

Recent polling indicates that many people want to work longer. A YouGov survey has shown that 74% of people in their 50s who have not retired would like to be in work between the ages of 60 and 65. To help older workers in the labour market, the Government have extended the right of flexible working to all employees. In the same YouGov poll, more women than men said that they would prefer to work flexibly or part-time before retiring. Of course, working longer also provides the opportunity to build up a bigger retirement income.

We know that some people cannot work. For some, that is because they have caring responsibilities; others will suffer from disability, making the continuation of work difficult. We must remember that women affected will be eligible for the same in-work, out-of-work or disability benefits as men of the same age.

For those who cannot work because they have caring responsibilities, carer’s allowance will be available. Those who get carer’s allowance are also awarded national insurance credits automatically.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister needs to understand that the question is not whether women born in the 1950s need more national insurance credits. Almost every WASPI campaigner I have met has 40 to 44 years of credits already. There is no question of their needing to pay any more national insurance.

[Mr Vara]

I do not think that the hon. Lady speaks for everyone. I am sorry that she derides the additional benefits that the Government have sought to introduce; I am sure that some women out there will appreciate the fact that, in 2011, credits were introduced to help grandparents and other adult family members who look after a child under 12 to help working parents. It is noteworthy that independent analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that the rise in women’s state pension age since 2010 has been accompanied by increases in employment rates for the women affected.

The reforms would leave more of those women, and their male counterparts, who really need the state pension better off than if we had retained the current arrangements. That is a better use of taxpayers’ money than spending on transitional arrangements, which will inevitably prolong gender inequality. I am minded to say that removing state pension age gender inequality is right.

When the first contributory state pension was established in 1926, men who reached 65 could expect to live for another 11.3 years. In 2014, however, a man who reached 65 could expect to live for another 21.5 years. Importantly, the Government listened to concerns expressed at the time of the 2011 Act and shortened the delay that anyone would experience in claiming their state pension, relative to the 1995 timetable, to 18 months. That concession, which came after the speech by the Secretary of State on Second Reading that has been referred to, benefited almost a quarter of a million women who would otherwise have experienced delays of up to two years. A similar number of men also benefited from a reduced increase. The concession was worth some £1.1 billion in total, and, as a result, 81% of women affected will experience a delay of 12 months or less.

It is argued by some that these women were not given adequate notice of state pension age equalisation. I do not accept that. Following the 2011 Act, the Department for Work and Pensions wrote to all those directly affected to inform them of the change to their state pension age, using the address details recorded by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs at the time.

I am conscious of time, I so will conclude. The decision to increase women’s state pension age is designed to remove the inequality between men and women. The cost of prolonging this inequality would be several billions of pounds. Parliament extensively debated the issue and listened to all arguments both for and against the acceleration of the timetable to remove the inequality. The achievement of this by 2018 was considered and approved by Parliament and there are no plans to make any policy changes.

[Barbara Keeley]

I have only a minute to say what I want to say. A concession that affects only 250,000 women and saves £1 billion is nothing when there are £30 billion of savings and millions of women affected. A concession for 250,000 is not enough.

We have talked about the millions of women born throughout the 1950s living without pensioner benefits and often without income, so they are often working through their savings. Carers are hit very badly. Does the Minister think that he could live on carer’s allowance? I am sure he could not. There is opposition from all parties on the Opposition side, who will continue to fight this campaign. The Government must not close the door on 1950s-born women in the way they are seeking to do.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rob Marris]

My hon. Friend, like me, is a solicitor, and she will know that professionals commonly give advice on a balance of probabilities. That is the same for medical professionals. On the gross statistics, when errors in prognosis occur for the terminally ill, it is usually an overestimate of life expectancy.

The second point is that the patient must be aged 18 or over and ordinarily resident in England or Wales. The patient must be of sound mind, and must voluntarily sign a declaration that they wish to embark on this process. Then the attending doctor, as defined in the Bill, countersigns the declaration—

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Rob Marris]

I will not. The patient’s attending doctor countersigns the declaration—

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I do not support the Bill. We should maintain the clear principle that this Government, the justice system and the medical profession have upheld for many years—that we do not encourage or help people to commit suicide, and that we should work to prevent all forms of suicide. The Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill would be a departure from that principle, and I believe that we would start to see people in very difficult circumstances becoming even more vulnerable if the Bill were passed.

Clearly at present—we have heard a former DPP, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), lay out the current situation—committing suicide is not illegal but encouraging someone to commit suicide is illegal, and I firmly believe that that protects us all, and that that basic principle against suicide should be upheld. Wednesday was world suicide prevention day. Many moving messages appeared on social media about the importance of preventing suicide, so it is ironic that we should today be debating a Bill that drives our society in the opposite direction.

I have significant concerns about the detail of the Bill, and whether any regulatory regime surrounding the introduction of assisted suicide would be fit for purpose. I would argue, as others have done in this debate, that making assisted suicide legal creates a pressure on people to take their own lives rather than giving them greater choice, because it creates a fundamental shift in people’s perception—that our society accepts suicide. One of the major risks in the Bill has been eloquently outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), and it is that people will feel under pressure to take their own life if they feel they are becoming a burden to their family or society. That would grow from an illness-related reason to encompass financial ones and even mental health reasons. People in my constituency have written to me about their concerns, saying:

“If this Bill is passed it will put greater pressure on vulnerable people, the elderly and the sick, who will increasingly see themselves as a burden to society. I don’t want to see that.”

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

rose—

[Barbara Keeley]

If we are to live in a society that values and cares for each individual regardless of the state of their health and disability, it is difficult to see why we should be relaxing our stance on suicide. The Not Dead Yet UK network of disabled and terminally ill people tells us that not one organisation of disabled people supports assisted suicide, and Richard Hawkes, the former CEO of Scope, has said:

“Why is it that when people who are not disabled want to commit suicide, we try to talk them out of it, but when a disabled person wants to commit suicide we focus on how we can make that possible?”

The campaign to legalise assisted suicide reinforces deep-seated beliefs that the lives of disabled people are not worth as much as other people’s.

We must also consider the question of the involvement, through the Bill, of the doctors who would have to assess the person and administer the drugs to assist their suicide. The British Medical Association has a clear policy against physician-assisted suicide and the Bill before us, as do the college of GPs and the college of physicians. The BMA says that it opposes all forms of assisted dying, supports the current legal framework, which allows compassionate and ethical care for the dying, and supports the establishment of a comprehensive, high-quality palliative care service. Many of us here today have spoken very strongly about our support for palliative care, and the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) have given us their reasons, as a former GP and former surgeon.

I want to end on that point about social care, because much of my work here has been focused on social care and carers. I believe I agree with the hon. Member for Totnes: improving palliative care is a real alternative to the Bill. We should bring in free social care at the end of life, because the denial of care should not be driving people to take their own lives.

I want to make a final point about the last implications of changing this law. At the moment, it is clear that we want to prevent people from committing suicide and that society should help and support those reaching the end of their life. Passing the Bill would change that and set a dangerous precedent.

Police

Baroness Keeley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I can certainly tell the right hon. Gentleman that this is not the end of police reform. I will set out the reasons for and some of the effects of the reforms that we have made so far. It is a very radical programme of reform and there is more to do.

Before I go further in, I hope, enlightening the House about that wider point, it is important to recognise the achievements of our police officers. The unacceptable actions of a very small minority of officers have recently challenged the reputation of the police, but I hope the House will agree that this is not representative of the outstanding day-to-day work that the vast majority of our officers carry out in fighting crime and protecting the public. Indeed, we need look no further than the incredible job that police officers and other emergency responders are currently undertaking to support the families and businesses that have been so badly affected by the flooding.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

May I take the Minister back to his point about allocations? Also in December, a protest started against exploration for shale gas in my constituency, which is now tying down 150 Greater Manchester police officers, with the cost being met out of Greater Manchester police budgets. That amounts to £40,000 a day for the 150 officers who are being deployed, and the cost could mount to £4 million, as it did in Balcombe when there was a protest there. Does the Minister agree that there should be some support for that? Why should Greater Manchester’s population suffer a much greater thinning out of our police force, especially given that we have already lost 1,000 officers? There is no consideration of this when a controversial issue like shale gas is dumped down somewhere—the Government are keen on shale gas exploration; I am not—and the local police force and taxpayers have to support the whole deployment.

[Damian Green]

If there are special individual circumstances that affect a particular force, that force has the opportunity to apply for a special grant.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Damian Green]

Before the hon. Lady rises to her feet again, let me deal specifically with fracking. She and I clearly disagree about the benefits of shale gas, but that is a debate for another time. The first anti-shale gas protests in Balcombe obviously affected the Sussex police, and they have applied for a special grant. I have to take evidence from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary before I decide whether the full grant or part of it should be given—that is the correct way to deal with taxpayers’ money—but that procedure is there for precisely this sort of event.

[Barbara Keeley]

I raised this issue in the very first week and I have also raised it with the Home Secretary. This deployment is an enormous distraction from policing in Greater Manchester, and at great cost, and there is no help in the short term. I have been told by the gold commander responsible for the force that only if the costs go over 10% of the police budget, which would be £5 million in the case of Greater Manchester, would we get any support at all, and the Minister is saying that it would come at the end of the process. The local police force in Balcombe took the whole hit of the £4 million costs. This is of great concern to us in Salford, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who is here, would agree. The force’s deployment is detracting from our day-to-day policing.

[Damian Green]

This is precisely why successive Governments have had the special grant arrangement to deal with unexpected events that may have a particular effect on a particular force. Since the hon. Lady clearly supports the protesters and I clearly do not, I gently suggest to her that the reason there has to be all this police activity is that if people are demonstrating in a way that requires a huge police presence, as peaceful protests need not—

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Damian Green]

May I finish my sentence before I give way to the hon. Lady for the third time? I urge her to urge those of her friends who are so against shale gas in the area to make sure that they are conducting their protest in a way that does not put unnecessary pressure on police resources.

[Barbara Keeley]

I have to say that I feel the Minister goes too far in what he says. He has no idea what my views are. I am supporting the local population, our local police force and our police and crime commissioner. This is a very unsatisfactory situation. The Minister’s comments about me are incorrect. I am supporting my constituents, who want our police force to be used for policing in our community.

[Damian Green]

The hon. Lady did say that she supported the views of protesters, but if she is saying that she does not support how they are protesting, then good, we are on the same side of that debate. That is sensible, because people obviously have the right to protest peacefully, but they should do so peacefully, not in a way that puts unnecessary pressure on both police resources and local communities. I have every sympathy for local communities in those conditions and, as I have said, the special grant procedure has been there for a long time for precisely such types of event.

To return to the subject of the wider grant, the achievements of police forces in this time of austerity and funding cuts are evident. Overall crime has fallen by more than 10% since this Government came into office. England and Wales are now safer than they have been for decades, with crime now at its lowest level since the independent crime survey began in 1981.

It is important to set the funding debate in the wider context. When this Government came into office in May 2010, we inherited the largest peacetime deficit in history. Borrowing increased to unprecedented levels under the previous Government, without due consideration for the long-term economic health of the nation. We are proud of the progress that we have made in addressing this most fundamental of issues. Borrowing as a percentage of GDP is down by a third, and our economy is growing. On 22 January, it was announced that unemployment had fallen by 167,000, representing the largest ever quarterly increase in the number of people in work in our country. However, we cannot rest there. Although the Government have made strong inroads into addressing the deficit, more needs to be done. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last month that further cuts will be required into the next Parliament. That means that difficult decisions need to be made, which we must not and will not shy away from.

Despite that overall context, we have pushed to secure the best possible deal for the police, and have again protected them in 2014-15, this time from the further cuts announced to departmental budgets in December’s autumn statement.