Ian Blackford debates involving the Department for Work and Pensions during the 2019-2024 Parliament

Valedictory Debate

Ian Blackford Excerpts
Friday 24th May 2024

(6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Wallace Portrait Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

We do not have time for me to share all my anecdotes about my experiences during my 19 years of being a Member of Parliament. I could tell the House about my trip to Iran with Jeremy Corbyn and Jack Straw, which was like something out of Monty Python—I turned out to be the most pro-European of the three, and it was a certainly an extraordinary experience—or about the touching and important time when, as the Security Minister, I joined the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) on a visit to a mosque in her constituency. She has campaigned against antisemitism for years and years, and she has represented the very best of Labour’s position on Jewish communities and the Jewish members of her party for many decades. As an MP, those kinds of things touch you and go with you in your memories.

I would first like to thank my family. The people who make the real sacrifices for us to be in this House are not us; they are the wives, the husbands and the children, who put up with bullying, separation and all sorts of concerns. In today’s world of social media, they put up with hate as well. Without them, none of us could be here at all.

I will mention the staff in my office. I am very privileged that Zoe Dommett has worked for me since three weeks after the day I was elected 19 years ago. Some of us have colleagues who seem to get through staff like a rotating barrel but, luckily, Zoe, Alf Clempson, Susan Hunt and Una Frost have worked for me for many years. Alf Clempson was my sergeant in the Army, and he is still working for me today.

I turn to the staff of the House. Without the Clerks, the waitresses, the maitre d’s and the Doorkeepers, none of us would be able to our jobs. Long after the debates have got interesting, they still have to hang around this House when many of us can go home or elsewhere. They are absolutely key. They do everything for all of us, without judgment or party political bias, and, in my experience, they are never anything other than polite and supportive. I thank them all the way.

I was going to list all my civil servants—not all 240,000 from the Ministry of Defence. I have been very privileged in this House to serve in government and to govern. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for giving me the chance to be her Security Minister. Our job is to represent all our constituents, but it is to govern on their behalf as well. That is a true privilege and it is also luck.

I used to see colleagues who would think it was their right to govern and that only they were the special people. We are chosen by Whips and Prime Ministers, often at random, but we are not special, not “the one” and should never take it personally. We may have months or years—although, let us face it, in the past few years in this Government, it could be weeks. I felt incredibly lucky to govern on behalf of my constituents and the constituents of this Government, alongside the team that is the Government—that is what it is: a team. I never voted against the Government—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] There are the Whips. Luckily, the smoking ban legislation never made it or I might have been voting against that part of the Bill, so my unblemished record will remain.

It is a team; we should not forget that what allows us to govern are our civil servants—hundreds of them. My private offices and my private secretaries put in hours and hours, unknown, unnamed and often blamed by some colleagues and the media for things not going right. If it does not go right in government, it is because the Minister is not governing right, is not a good Minister, is not doing the extra hours needed, is not making themselves clear and is not taking an interest in how they govern. We govern not just by brand, declaration and policies; Ministers govern by using process, the right people and policies, and by communicating. Those who are good govern across the House as well.

The House was at its best during discussions about Ukraine. It was at its best when I worked with colleagues in all parties, including the then leader of the Scottish National party at Westminster, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and when I could sit down and talk to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) about secrets and threats to our constituents. It was at its best when we had a Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, who knew security, and took the hours and days needed to read the intelligence and treat it with the severity it needs.

Ian Blackford Portrait Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
- Hansard - -

The right hon. Gentleman is making an outstanding speech. I thank him for the role he played as Defence Secretary and the courtesy he showed to Members across the House, including the Leader of the Opposition, the then leader of the Liberal Democrats and myself. He was gracious enough to ensure we were briefed on a bi-weekly basis, because there are times when the House must come together over matters of national security. What an example the right hon. Gentleman set, and I thank him for the role he played during that time.

--- Later in debate ---
Ian Blackford Portrait Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

It is a real privilege to speak in this debate and listen to all the reflective speeches from right hon. and hon. Members right across the House. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock). I do not know whether he recalls the engagement we used to have when he was at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I actually regret that he moved on to the health portfolio because at the time we had had an important meeting about support for Gaelic broadcasting. He was generous in recognising the strength of the argument that I had put about increasing that support. What happened? He left, and the moment was gone.

I cannot help reflecting on my engagement with another Government Minister, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), when he was the Secretary of State responsible for agriculture. We were having some debates about support for Scottish agriculture. It was a typical, feisty Scottish debate. There was a lot of passion, and perhaps some surprise among the officials in the room. But it ended up with the right hon. Gentleman asking me to come with him to the Treasury to make the case. I thought, “Hang on! You’re the Government Minister—you’re supposed to be doing this.” But I am glad to say that in that case we were successful in getting the convergence uplift money to Scottish crofters and farmers. That is a good indication of when this House is at its best—when Members of Parliament across the House can come together and we can achieve decisions for the benefit of our constituents.

It is an honour and privilege for every Member to serve in this House, but for me there is something particular about representing a remote and rural constituency—the largest in the United Kingdom: at 12,000 square kilometres, it is the same size as Northern Ireland. Engaging with constituents is so important. My one regret about the election coming this early is that I have had to postpone my summer surgery tour. Those who know the west highlands—I can see smiling around the Chamber—will be aware that that is a three-week tour, visiting many islands: 32 different places to hold constituency surgeries. I spent yesterday unravelling all my plans for that, and I wish my successor every success.

My last constituency engagement was on Tuesday, when I was up in the Isle of Skye celebrating 50 years of the Gaelic college in the presence of the Duke of Edinburgh. I am glad to say that the college continues to flourish. But we all have the important role of representing our constituents. Many other right hon. and hon. Members have talked about the importance of coming here to serve. We all do that because we believe in public service—we all believe that we are here to try to make our constituents’ lives better. But of course we come from different political persuasions. In my and my party’s case, although we respect this place and the job we are here to do, our aim is, as Winnie Ewing famously said, not to settle down but to settle up and make sure that we advance the cause of Scottish independence.

When we come out of this Chamber and pass through those doors, we leave the arguments behind, because in the end we are all here to do the same job of representing our constituents. Members on the opposite Benches are not our enemy; they are our colleagues. We should remember the importance of having respectful debate and dialogue. Like other Members, I regret the polarisation we see in society and the toxicity of our social media. Each and every one of us, including those in the media, has a responsibility to ensure that we show appropriate leadership and get to a better place. As was said earlier, young people need to feel encouraged to come into Parliament and politics and must not be put off. I am sad to say that many people today will question whether they want to serve.

I was elected to the House in 2015, making my maiden speech on 28 May 2015. It was one of my shortest speeches, at only 11 minutes—though I will not attempt to detain the House too long this afternoon. I quoted Donald Stewart, the first SNP Member of Parliament to be elected at a general election, who said:

“If I stray into controversial matters, they will, in a sense, be impartial controversies, since as a Nationalist Member I shall be in controversy with both sides of the House from time to time. For that reason, if I stray I hope that it will be less objectionable to the traditions of the House.”—[Official Report, 2 December 1970; Vol. 807, c. 1345.]

I can remember giving my maiden speech, and I have to say that, when the 56 SNP MPs arrived, we were made to feel very welcome by many colleagues across the House, not least by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who I see is in his place up at the back. Having given my maiden speech on the second day, and with the SNP having to respond early to every debate, we found very quickly that we were being asked to speak on subjects I knew little about. I will not say what the subject was, but I took some advice from the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole when I asked him, “Andrew, what am I supposed to do?” He said, “Ian, it's easy. Just attack us.” That was the best advice I was given, and I hope I have been true to it over the last nine years, but in a constructive manner.

The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is no longer in her place, spoke about never having voted against the whipping advice. Early in the 2015 Parliament, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) moved a ten-minute rule Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said to me, “Go into the Aye Lobby and I’ll offer to tell for the hon. Lady.” I went through the Lobby only to find out that the whipping advice had changed and we were abstaining, so I became the first SNP MP to rebel in that Parliament. I didn’t keep it up, and I suppose I was giving the whipping advice for most of the period after that.

Let me come back to 2015. When 56 SNP MPs and only one Conservative MP, one Labour MP and one Liberal Democrat MP were elected in Scotland, it was almost a complete whitewash. That came several months after the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. It is worth gently and politely reminding the House that we had just had the Smith Commission and were told at that point that Scotland was to lead the UK and that it was a partnership of equals. I have to say, with regret, that that has not often proven to be case over the last few years.

With respect to the result of the 2014 referendum, it is our right to continue to put the case for Scotland to be an independent country in elections to Westminster and to the Scottish Parliament. I say to the House that that constitutional question has yet to be resolved. There is a fundamental question, given that this is a Union of equals, as to how Scotland is permitted to leave that Union if it chooses to do so. I make that point because in the election to the Scottish Parliament in 2021, there was a majority of independence-supportive Members. What mechanism is there—this will have to be addressed at some point—if the people of Scotland show through the election of Members of Parliament here or elsewhere that they have a desire to achieve a different solution? I accept that, for the SNP and those who believe in independence, we will win that argument only if we can win the economic argument by showing that Scotland can, should and will be a prosperous country. We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) about everything that is happening with green energy. We are faced today by many challenges, but, my goodness, what an opportunity we have with the potential for wind, solar and tidal. That will become an opportunity for us only if we can command the supply chain and drive the investment we need into that industry.

Of course, that desire to achieve economic growth ought to be for a purpose, and that purpose is ensuring that we can improve our public services. I say to Conservative Members respectfully that when we have that debate about the future—whether it is here or in Scotland—we need to have that engagement with everybody.

Let me quickly reflect on economic growth. It would be my contention that ever since the financial crisis in 2008, we have struggled to create the circumstances of sustainable economic growth. Indeed, this morning I was looking at statistics showing that growth in the US economy since the pandemic has been 8.9%, but relative growth for the United Kingdom over the same period has been 1.7%. Now, we can discuss Budgets, financial statements and all the rest of it, as we do, but we need to have that debate about the fundamentals. How do we up our game? How do we drive up investment? How do we drive up productivity? All the pressures that we have, along with the talk about tax cuts and the talk about investment in our public services, will be addressed only when we consider the fundamentals of how we deliver sustainable economic growth in this country.

We had, if I may say so, the disastrous premiership of the previous Prime Minister, which exposed weaknesses in our mortgage market from us not having long-term fixed mortgages, for example. We can talk about the fact that, yes, there are some encouraging signs with the economy, but when it comes down to real people, we know that 5 million households have been exposed to rising mortgage rates since the beginning of 2021. Analysis by the Bank of England shows that, given where we are now—and even with, I hope, the prospect of some reduction in interest rates over the coming period—another 5 million households will still be exposed to rising interest rates over the coming period. We can stop and think about what that means—it means that, on average, people are paying 40% more for their mortgages than they were prior to the rise in interest rates.

If I may, let me quickly reflect on what has happened over the course of the past nine years and, my goodness, the pace of change with Brexit, covid and, of course, the situation with Ukraine and now Gaza as well. I accept that, across the United Kingdom, people voted for Brexit. In Scotland we did not; we wished to remain in the European Union. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) talked about the three votes that she lost in this House. If I have one regret from all of that period, it is that as I think back to the 2015 to 2017 Parliament, or indeed the 2017 to 2019 Parliament, I would contend that in this House there was a majority for staying in the single market and the customs union. It is a pity that we did not come together across the House. Yes, we could have allowed the Brexit that people in the United Kingdom voted for. That did not mean that we had to come out of the single market and the customs union. I regret the economic self-harm that we have had as a consequence.

I am glad about the progress that has been made this week on infected blood and on Horizon. My one regret is that we have not yet successfully dealt with the WASPI women. I know that will fall to the new Government, but I hope that, on a cross-party and consensual basis, we can recognise, accept and deliver justice, as we must, for the WASPI women who faced an increase in women’s pensionable age that simply was not communicated in the right manner.

I see the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work on the Front Bench. I say respectfully that she will know that the other issue I want to see resolved is footballers with dementia. We think about the suffering that they and their families are going through. This needs to be classified as an industrial injury, and I hope that in the next Parliament there is some closure on that issue.

I will begin to wind up, Mr Deputy Speaker. For much of my time in this House, I have had the privilege of being not just the MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, but the SNP Westminster leader. I am grateful for the opportunity that I was given by colleagues and, I have to say, for the relationships that I had across the House in that period. I have talked about the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) and his engagement with others, which is an example of the co-operation that needs to happen when we face the situations that we do. Indeed, we reiterate today that all of us will stand by our friends in Ukraine. We must see Russia pushed back and see liberty, freedom and security delivered to those people.

I do regret that the House has not been able to come together to the same extent over Gaza, because we are all watching the humanitarian crisis that is taking place there. I hope that we can show leadership on that issue, agree on the need to bring peace and security to the region, and recognise the importance of delivering a two-state solution so that both communities can live together, and the responsibility on this House to show leadership to make sure we can get to that point.

Finally, let me thank the staff in the House of Commons, who work day in, day out to make us feel welcome and to support us—the security staff, the Doorkeepers and the catering staff—and also the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, for the roles they play and the courtesy they have always shown me. I want to thank my constituency staff and the leadership staff that I had at Westminster. The job that we all have as politicians, we only do because of the abilities of those who tirelessly work in support of us all.

Leaving this House is a bittersweet moment for all of us who are departing. I thank everyone for their co-operation, and for the arguments that we have sometimes had as well. We should remember that all of us come here to serve. What a privilege it is for each and every one of us. I thank all the voters of Ross, Skye and Lochaber. It has been the privilege of my life.

Finally, I first came to this place in 1980. I came with my partner, who is sitting in the Under Gallery, so there is a sense of closure. Having come here all those decades ago, today we will be leaving. Thank you for the opportunity to serve.

Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report

Ian Blackford Excerpts
Thursday 16th May 2024

(6 months, 1 week ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford Portrait Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

It is a considerable pleasure to follow my friend, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). We have worked together on many issues over the years. I remember the debate in Westminster Hall that he mentioned, and the revulsion when it was said that 1950s WASPI women should go on apprenticeship schemes. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and the Backbench Business Committee have secured this debate.

It is worth reflecting that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has asked Parliament to find a remedy for the WASPI women who have suffered injustice; it strongly doubts that the DWP will provide a remedy. Let us just consider that. The ombudsman has proclaimed that maladministration has taken place, so it would be fair to expect the DWP to accept its moral and ethical responsibility to the women affected and their elected parliamentarians, and to bring forward effective remedies for that maladministration.

The report was published a couple of months ago, but we had the interim report three years ago, so the report is not a surprise to any of us here. The Government knew this day was coming, and must now act with haste to bring forward remedies for the WASPI women.

The Government, if they are meant to be anything, are supposed to be rooted in fairness, recognising their duty to citizens, and when a judgment is made that there has been maladministration, they should respond in an appropriate and timely manner. It is a damning indictment that the ombudsman has no faith in the Government to provide the remedy, and has therefore taken the unprecedented step of asking Parliament to intervene. It means that we parliamentarians must in effect do the Government’s job for them. Collectively, Members from right across the Chamber have to rise to that challenge. All of us here, every single Member of Parliament, has a responsibility to their constituents, many of whom will be looking at us today, whether from the Gallery or on television, waiting for us to take action. We cannot have any more procrastination. We need to take action.

Let us remind ourselves that there were 3.8 million WASPI women—1950s-born women who were affected by changes to the state pension age. They suffered from poor communication, which adversely affected the life choices that they were forced to make. This issue must be resolved by this Parliament. It must not be kicked down the road until after the election. The Scottish National party Westminster group commissioned a report on potential financial remedies for WASPI women, which was presented to the UK Government as long ago as June 2016 but which, sadly, was ignored. If the Government need advice, they might want to turn to Landman Economics, which produced that report.

Parliament has, of course, debated this issue many times, in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall, and the work of the APPG should be commended. On 29 November 2017, I opened an SNP Opposition day debate on a motion calling on the Government to improve transitional arrangements for women born on or after 6 April 1951 who were adversely affected by the acceleration in the increase in the state pension age. There was a vote at the end of the debate; 288 Members voted for the motion, and none against. The voting was cross party: five Conservative Members voted for the motion. If the Tory Government had accepted that proposition, we would not be here now. Why did the Government ignore that instruction from Parliament?

Kirsten Oswald Portrait Kirsten Oswald
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does my right hon. Friend not think that that was, regrettably, typical of the attitude of this UK Government to the WASPI women? The Government hope that they will simply go away if they are ignored. That is heaping insult on indignity, and it is wholly unacceptable. The lives of constituents such as mine have been destroyed by the UK Government’s inability to see what needs to be done. They deserve so much better from this Government.

Ian Blackford Portrait Ian Blackford
- Hansard - -

Of course they do. We have heard today from a great many Members in all parts of the House about the 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 WASPI women— more, in some cases—in every constituency. We have all heard the heartbreaking stories of those who simply could not afford to carry on working, and who were not given adequate notice of the increase in the state pension age. It was an injustice, and it needs to be dealt with.

I should emphasise that this was never about the equalisation of men’s and women’s pensionable ages; we all accept that there had to be such an equalisation. However, some of us will remember the 2016 Cridland review of pensions. Cridland said that there should be no more than a one-year increase in anyone’s pensionable age in every decade. The problem was the pace of the increase in women’s pensionable age. Let us also remember that this is about women who paid national insurance in anticipation of receiving a pension, and who were hit with the bombshell that their pensions were being deferred, in many cases by up to six years, with, in some cases, only 15 months’ written notice. A state pension should be seen as a right, but the Government changed the terms and conditions of that right without consulting those who were paid their pensions.

Some time ago, thanks to freedom of information requests, we learned that the Department for Work and Pensions did not begin writing to women born between April 1950 and April 1955 until April 2009, and did not complete the process until February 2012. Despite the need to inform women about changes to legislation dating back to 1995, the Government did not start the formal notification period for 14 years. What were they doing? Where was the responsibility to the women affected? Taking 14 years to begin informing women that a pension that they had paid into was being deferred is quite something. Can we imagine the outcry if a private pension provider behaved in such a way? There would be an outcry in this House, and no doubt there would be legal action.

Given that entitlement to a state pension is earned through national insurance contributions, with many women having made contributions for more than 40 years, that is quite staggering. A woman born on 6 April 1953 who, under the previous legislation, would have retired on 6 April 2013 would have received a letter from the DWP in January 2012 with the bombshell that she would not get a pension until July 2016.

Think about receiving such a letter. You think you are on the verge of retirement, and the rug has been pulled from under you—no wonder there is a need to pay compensation to those affected. The new pensionable age was three years and three months later than such an individual might have expected. With just 15 months’ notice, what she thought was a contract that she had with the Government was simply ripped up. The implications of all this have left women with no time to put alternative plans in place, despite many having looked forward to imminent retirement.

Then we have the issue of the change supposedly being phased in gradually. We were dealing with a three-month increase in women’s pensionable age for each calendar month that passed. It was simply scandalous that women’s pensionable age was rising so rapidly. That is why today we have the moral duty to immediately correct a wrong. This has gone on for too long. As has been said, sadly, 288,000 WASPI women have died since the campaign started. Another dies every 13 minutes, and a number have no doubt died while we have been having this afternoon’s debate.

We have the ombudsman’s report, and we have to put in place remedies now. The DWP has to play a part in bringing forward proposals for a financial redress scheme before the summer recess, and those proposals must be amendable. Most importantly, any scheme must clear the parliamentary process before the summer recess. We do not have long—less than nine weeks of parliamentary time. This means that within days—I have respect for the Minister, as she knows—the DWP must come forward with proposals. Will the Minister respond appropriately to that demand?

It is now nearly two months since the ombudsman’s report, and we cannot wait any longer. So many of the WASPI women who have suffered as a result of maladministration should have received financial remedy, which is why we must now take action, and this must not be a party political matter. It ought to be about all of us recognising a wrong that needs to be righted, and I appeal to Members from right across the Chamber to recognise our responsibility to do the right thing. Let us make sure that the WASPI women get an apology and get compensation.

--- Later in debate ---
Chris Stephens Portrait Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to follow my good friend and comrade, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing and leading this debate. She started with some very hard truths that have to be heard, including the simple fact that we would not be debating this subject today if the Government had allocated their own time to discussing the report and how we go forward, which is exactly what should have happened.

I am getting good at the game of anticipating what is in the Government’s prepared text. We will no doubt be told that the pension changes were made for the great cause of equality—that if we punish people equally, it is a great stride towards equality. The simple and brutal dynamic is, however, that women born in the 1950s have been discriminated against throughout their life. It started with growing up and not having a cheque book or being able to hire a television unless they had the express permission of their father or husband. There was the expectation that if they fell pregnant, they were to leave their employment and give up their careers to raise children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said, if they were divorced, the expectation of the financial settlement was that their pensionable rights would be there at the age of 60.

The discrimination against 1950s-born women has been going on for a long time. To say to those women with very little notice, as if it is an episode of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”, “We don’t want to give you that. We want you to work an additional six years in the name of equality,” is frankly ludicrous. We need to recognise the injustices and discrimination that many 1950s-born women suffered throughout their life.

We also need to recognise that this change was not about some magical equality formula; it was to make women work longer. We need to have a serious debate about the huge difference between someone’s working age expectancy and their life expectancy, because they are two entirely different things, particularly for women whose work involves hugely physical tasks, as in the care sector and the NHS.

Ian Blackford Portrait Ian Blackford
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend is making an important point. I want to go back to the Cridland report; I remember meeting Cridland at the time. On the issue of healthy life expectancy, to be told that the DWP did not hold such information because that was the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Care shows the dysfunctionality and the lack of concern about people’s healthy life.

Chris Stephens Portrait Chris Stephens
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My right hon. Friend is right. I have always been told that there is joined-up Government here—[Interruption.] Well, I am often told that by Members on the Government Benches, but all too often, hon. Members on the Opposition Benches meet that with the surprised and quizzical look that I just got from the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on the Labour Front Bench when I said that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is correct that we need to consider such things in future, because someone, particularly a woman, who works in a physical environment such as the care sector, the NHS or any other line of work, will not be able to work until they are 66. That is a brutal dynamic.

Several hon. Members, including my good friend the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, mentioned the former Pensions Minister who rose to his feet in the great Westminster Hall debate that was packed to the rafters and said that one of the solutions was for women to apply for an apprenticeship in a new phase of the economy. Those were the most ludicrous comments that I have heard—I have heard many ludicrous comments in my time in this place, but that was No. 1 on the list.

I pay tribute to the WASPI campaigners in Glasgow and Lanarkshire, particularly the great Kathy McDonald and Rosie Dickson, who have campaigned rigorously and vigorously over the last few years, including after the 2019 election, when many people thought that this issue was finished and was not getting anywhere. Those WASPI campaigners—the 1950s-born women who have campaigned consistently on this issue for the last five years in particular—should be commended in this House.

This Parliament has issues to grapple with. Next week we will discuss the report on infected blood; we will have a piece of legislation—rightly so—for the postmasters; and we have the issue before us. I agree with everyone who has spoken so far that we need to conclude this matter before the summer recess, so that we can all say, as a Parliament, that we know and accept the cost. Then we can debate matters going forward. I am very clear about justice for the 1950s-born women, the infected blood community and the postmasters. Those groups should not be blamed for a lack of investment in public infrastructure. The country badly needs those things, and we should not use those wonderful campaigners as an excuse.

I mentioned the great Rosie Dickson. She contacted me earlier with a quote from one of my favourite political philosophers, the great Jimmy Reid, who hailed from Govan, in my Glasgow South West constituency. He said:

“From the very depth of my being, I challenge the right of any man or any group of men, in business or in government, to tell a fellow human being that he or she is expendable.”

The view of many 1950s-born women is that this Government have viewed them as expendable. I want to send a clear message to the House on their behalf, as many of us have today, that they are not expendable. They deserve justice. If justice is delayed, the price tag will go up; I hope the Government recognise that. I hope the Ministers will confirm today that we will see action and justice for those wonderful, brave 1950s-born women.

--- Later in debate ---
Paul Maynard Portrait Paul Maynard
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Members raised questions about changes to the state pension age. As I said, the ombudsman’s report is clear that it cannot consider the impact of changes in the law on state pension age. The changes are set out in primary legislation and, as such, were agreed by Parliament. The announcement in 1993 of the equalisation of the state pension age addressed a long-standing inequality between men and women. The changes were also about maintaining the right balance between the sustainability of the state pension, fairness between generations and ensuring a dignified retirement.

Changes to the state pension age were made in a series of Acts by successive Governments from 1995 onwards, following public consultations and extensive debates in both Houses of Parliament. From the 1940s until April 2010, the state pension age was 60 for women and 65 for men. The decision to equalise the state pension age for men and women dates back to 1995. It was right to address a long-standing inequality between men’s and women’s state pension age. The report of the Pensions Commission in 2005 recommended that the state pension age should increase in a staged way to 68 in the three decades following the completion of equalisation in 2020. A broad consensus on that was achieved largely due to the commission’s evidence base, which showed that state pension age should follow increases in life expectancy to help ensure the affordability and sustainability of the state pension.

Legislation passed in 2007 introduced a series of increases, starting with a state pension age of 66 between 2024 and 2026, and ending with an increase to 68 between 2044 and 2046. As has been observed, the Pensions Act 2011 accelerated the equalisation of women’s state pension age by 18 months and brought forward the increase in men’s and women’s state pension age to 66 by five and a half years, relative to the previous timetables. The changes in the 2011 Act occurred following a public call for evidence and extensive debates in Parliament. During the passage of the Act, Parliament legislated for a concession worth £1.1 billion. The concession reduced the proposed increase in state pension age for more than 450,000 men and women, and meant that no woman saw their state pension age change by more than 18 months relative to the timetable set by the Pensions Act 1995.

Ian Blackford Portrait Ian Blackford
- Hansard - -

Will the Minister give way?

Paul Maynard Portrait Paul Maynard
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Sorry, I won’t.

During the course of the ombudsman’s investigation, state pension age changes were considered by the courts. In 2019 and 2020, the High Court and Court of Appeal respectively found no fault with the actions of DWP. The courts made clear that under successive Governments dating back to 1995, the action taken was entirely lawful and did not discriminate on any grounds. During those proceedings, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court was entitled to conclude as a fact that there had been

“adequate and reasonable notification given by the publicity campaigns implemented by the Department over a number of years”.

We recognise the importance of providing information in good time about the state pension age to help individuals to plan for their retirement. Since 1995, the Government have used a range of methods to inform people about the increases in state pension age, including the provision of detailed and personalised information. The methods have included leaflets explaining the legislative changes, pensions education campaigns, press advertising and direct mailing exercises to millions of people. People have been able to request personalised state pension information since the 1980s.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Blackford Excerpts
Monday 13th May 2024

(6 months, 2 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Churchill Portrait Jo Churchill
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

Happy birthday! I am sure my hon. Friend’s family and small children will be wishing him well from Stoke.

As has been outlined, there is great work going on. I met the Skills Minister only last week to discuss the better join-up that is happening, and we are really focused on allowing people to progress in work. Allowing them to move up and move on, and to stay and succeed in work, is just as important as getting that first job.

Ian Blackford Portrait Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

On 14 September 2023, I led a Backbench Business debate in this House, supported by the hon. Members for Moray (Douglas Ross) and for Easington (Grahame Morris). We asked the Government to take action on footballers with brain-related injuries. The Minister who responded spoke warmly, and the then Minister at DWP, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), indicated that there would be a meeting for the three of us, on a cross-party basis, with the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. I wrote to the Minister on 18 January and 13 March, and there was a Westminster Hall debate on 24 April, but nothing has yet happened. Can we get that meeting with the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to make sure that we get footballers with brain injuries the support they need?

Mims Davies Portrait The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have already met the chair of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in my role as the Minister for Disabled People, and I will continue to engage on whatever is required. To be clear, the council is considering any connection between neurodegenerative diseases and professional sportspeople, and will publish its findings once the investigation is complete. I have also met the Sports Minister and will be keen to share this issue with colleagues. I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.

Women’s State Pension Age

Ian Blackford Excerpts
Monday 25th March 2024

(8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride Portrait Mel Stride
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

That is once again a question about the timing, and I have given a clear response on that. I have given an assurance to the House that there will be no undue delay in our approach to these matters. That is the answer to the hon. Lady’s question.

Ian Blackford Portrait Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

May I say to the Secretary of State that he needs to read the room? Let us remember that the ombudsman has said there has been maladministration. There is consensus across the Chamber that compensation should be paid. This is about women who paid national insurance in anticipation of receiving a pension, who were hit with the bombshell that their pension was being deferred—in some cases, by up to six years—with only 15 months’ written notice. Can we imagine what would happen in this place if it was announced that private sector pensions were being put back by six years? Rightly, there would be outrage, and there should be outrage about what happened to the WASPI women.

This was an entitlement taken away from women, who had a reasonable expectation of retiring denied to them. The Government should have recognised the failings and should have compensated those 3.8 million women years ago. Now that we have the determination of maladministration, let us ensure that this is not another Horizon or contaminated blood story and that the Government come back at pace with firm proposals that the House can discuss after the Easter recess.

Nigel Evans Portrait Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. Can people focus on their questions, please? That would be really useful.