Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Angela Rayner

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right, and as neighbouring MPs we know the impact that temporary accommodation and children being homeless has on their life chances. She is absolutely right to raise the issue, and to highlight the excellent work of Dr Laura Neilson, who is supporting us to develop a cross-Government homelessness strategy. All children should have a safe and secure home. That is why I am so proud that we have confirmed the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation. We are getting on with the job, after the mess that the Conservatives left behind.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

My colleagues and I identify with the comments around de-escalation in the middle east.

I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will condemn recent disorder on the streets of Northern Ireland, as the Prime Minister and my colleagues have done. Does she accept that the Windsor framework, although sold to this House as a trade issue, is fundamentally impacting the ability of this sovereign Parliament to legislate on a UK-wide basis on matters of immigration? Will she commit to ensuring that the Government continue to challenge robustly the expansionism that is currently before the courts? If not, will she legislate to ensure that we as a country can control our own borders?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

First, I do condemn the violence on the streets. Provisions in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement referred to in article 2 of the Windsor framework sought to address the long-standing and specific issues relating to Northern Ireland’s past. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is assured that we are appealing on a number of the laws relating to article 2 in the courts, including the Supreme Court. I hope he will also be assured by the reality that the Government have consistently applied and enforced immigration law on a UK-wide basis. The Government will take all necessary steps to defend that position, just as we will remain committed to protecting rights across the whole UK, as it should be Parliament that makes rules on immigration.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Angela Rayner

Monday 1st February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, during my first appearance on the Front Bench in this Chamber. I debated with the Minister in Committee last week, and I welcome him back to what is no doubt the first of many exchanges here. I reassure anyone tuning in late that the broken elbow and rib that I am sporting predate this debate, and that our discussions, although heated, have been civil, although I did fear at one point for the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham).

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for opening this debate with a fantastic speech, and the Petitions Committee for ensuring that we could have it. Above all, I congratulate the women of the WASPI campaign, and all those who signed the petition, on their work to get us here. Their numbers are impressive, but we have revealed that the numbers affected by the issue are even greater, at more than 2.5 million nationally. Around 3,500 of those are in my constituency and, like many here, I have heard their concerns directly.

Hon. Members have made some excellent points and we can tell the level of concern from the number of contributions from both sides of the Chamber. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) for their tireless campaigning, and all hon. Members who have contributed today. There are too many to mention in the time I have, but I will write to them all independently.

People listening to contributions made outside this Chamber may have heard the Minister for Pensions say this morning that the WASPI campaign wants to return the state pension age to 60. Let me put it on the record, as others have done, that that is not the case and it has never been advocated in my hearing. Opposition Members are not arguing for that or against equalisation of the state pension age. I hope that, instead of following such red herrings, the Government will listen to the women who are affected, and act. That is what we want to hear from them today.

Opposition Members have shared concerns about the impact of the acceleration under the Pensions Act 2011, the adequacy of the transitional protections and the communication of the changes to retirement ages generally. At one point, those concerns were shared by the Minister herself. She described the last Tory Government’s 2011 Act as a decision

“to renege on its Coalition Agreement, by increasing the State Pension Age for women from 2016, even though it assured these women that it would not start raising the pension age again before 2020.”

That is still live on her website www.rosaltmann.com. After the passage of the Act including the concession that the Minister will no doubt repeat shortly, she said that the Government

“seems oblivious to the problems faced by those already in their late fifties, particularly women”.

Will the real Ros Altmann please stand up? Apparently, she now prefers to stand up for the Government than for those women. That is a pity because the issues at stake are real and the Government give every impression of simply refusing to engage with them. Instead, we have heard repeatedly—most recently a few hours ago at Question Time—that the 18-month cap is their start and end point.

Let me set out my start point. We must take into account that many of the women who are affected by the changes have also been victims of gender inequality for most of their working lives.

[Gavin Robinson]

Will the hon, Lady give way?

[Angela Rayner]

I will not give way because I do not have much time.

The Equal Pay Act was not introduced until 1970 so many of these women began working even before the first legislative steps to ensure gender equality at work. Before I was elected to this place, I was in a traditionally low-paid, largely female workforce in social care. As an active trade unionist I fought for many years to improve pay and conditions, but even now we are a long way from achieving decent, let alone equal, wages in much of that sector.

Some of the women we are discussing today will have entered work before the 1968 strike in Dagenham. They will have been paid less than men simply because they were women. Those who are likely to have entered work earliest—those born between 6 April 1951 and 5 April 1953 —will not be eligible for the new single tier pension.

Another cohort, those born later in 1953, will have found their retirement age change twice: in 1995 and 2011—