Draft Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Civil Partnership and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Judgments) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2019 General Committees

[Lucy Frazer]

As always, Sir David, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The two draft instruments form part of the Government’s preparations for the event that the UK should leave the EU without a deal. They relate solely to our no-deal preparations.

The Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations relate to the arrangements in family law that will apply when we leave the EU. They deal with the rules that determine which court should hear a family law matter, and they cover co-operation between the courts in the recognition of the judgments of EU courts. They will repeal the EU rules, because the reciprocity of those rules across member states will be lost when the UK leaves the EU; EU member states will no longer apply them to cases that involve the UK. The relevant matters will be governed instead by existing international conventions and a combination of new and pre-EU domestic rules.

Before I go into the detail of the draft regulations, it may be helpful if I outline the existing arrangements in the EU in respect of the law on this area. There are two applicable EU regulations: the Brussels IIa regulation and the maintenance regulation. The Brussels IIa regulation provides the rules that determine which court has the jurisdiction to hear various family cases—for example, whether a divorce hearing in a case with a cross-border element should take place in the UK or in another EU member state. The regulation covers divorce and matrimonial disputes; parental responsibility disputes, such as disputes between parents over the residence of their child or contact with their child; and care proceedings. It also provides for the recognition and enforcement of one member state’s judgment in all member states. Similarly, the maintenance regulation sets out rules about which EU member states’ courts have jurisdiction in cross-border cases that concern family maintenance, and about the recognition and enforcement of judgments.

What will change if we leave the EU without a deal? Without an agreement to cover these matters, the Brussels IIa regulation and the maintenance regulation will no longer operate effectively between the UK and the EU. Even if the UK tried to apply those rules after exit, the EU27 would no longer be obliged to apply them in relation to the UK because we would be a third country. For example, they would not be required under the regulations to enforce or recognise decisions of courts in the UK. In the light of those circumstances, the draft regulations will revoke the Brussels IIa regulation and the maintenance regulation, but that does not mean that we will be left without rules on international co-operation.

The UK is a contracting state to a number of Hague conventions in the field of family law that cover many of the same areas as the Brussels IIa regulation and the maintenance regulation. In particular, the 1996 Hague convention covers similar ground to the Brussels IIa regulation in respect of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments and co-operation between authorities in matters of parental responsibility. All EU member states are bound by that convention: the UK and all EU member states are contracting parties, so it applies between us and each of them.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I am confused by paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory memorandum to the draft family regulations, which states that the

“instrument amends domestic law so that the 1973 Hague Convention…will again operate between the UK and those EU Member States party to them where appropriate.”

Are all EU states party to the convention, or are there cases in which certain countries are not?

[Lucy Frazer]

There are the Hague conventions of 1970 and 1996. All EU member states are party to the 1996 convention. In addition, we have the 2007 Hague convention, which contains similar recognition and enforcement rules and provisions on co-operation between authorities as those in the maintenance regulation, and which applies to all EU member states except Denmark.

We have ensured that the UK will, in the event of a no-deal exit, be a contracting state under the 2007 Hague convention after exit. We will continue to use the wide rules in the Family Law Act 1986 for the recognition in the UK of overseas divorces, and those in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 for the recognition of such dissolutions. There will be some gaps in coverage and the potential loss of effectiveness and efficiency. In particular, there is no Hague convention covering the grounds of jurisdiction for divorce or maintenance.

For jurisdiction in maintenance cases, the draft statutory instrument makes provision to return, therefore, to the rules of common law or statutory rules that operated before the maintenance regulation and other relevant instruments came into force. We will also amend our common law in relation to the jurisdiction for divorce cases. The Brussels IIa jurisdiction grounds presently apply to all cases, regardless of whether there is any overseas connection or whether any overseas connection is to an EU member state or to a state outside the EU.

Those grounds have applied for a long time and will have the benefit of familiarity, having been tried and tested. We will replicate in domestic law the applicable Brussels IIa grounds for England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and make a further ground of sole domicile applicable to all cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black]

I am grateful to the Minister for indulging me. To be absolutely clear, does this mean that there will be some EU states with which we will not have a framework for the recovery of such payments, or is it a blanket framework that every EU country will be under?

[Lucy Frazer]

I understand that all member states sign up to the Hague convention. In fact, the EU signs up to the Hague convention, and therefore the member states are signed up as parties under the umbrella of the EU.

There are a number of additional matters to raise. In relation to the first statutory instrument, we are very grateful to family law practitioners for raising two issues about maintenance that we are urgently considering. Both are technical and complex. The first relates to jurisdiction and remedies under the Children Act 1989 and whether, in returning to the pre-EU position, the instrument has inadvertently narrowed the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts and the type of financial awards they can make. The Government’s position is that the current position is appropriate, and there is no intention to reduce or narrow the provision available to families. The Government will bring forward a further SI to address that.

The second issue relates to whether, post exit, an English or Welsh court will have the power to rule on pension-sharing arrangements in cases where a person does not have a connection to England or Wales but is unable to bring the claim elsewhere. Although only a small number of cases will be affected, we will consider whether that issue should be addressed.

I shall now deal with the draft Civil Partnership and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Judgments) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The UK Government’s position has always been that we will apply the same rules on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement to same-sex divorce and civil partnership dissolution as we do to opposite-sex divorce.

As Brussels IIa does not apply in relation either to civil partnership dissolution or to divorce between same-sex couples, our domestic law mirrors the relevant provision for those cases. It is entirely appropriate to take a similar approach to determining jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement as that taken for opposite-sex couples. That is what the regulations will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black]

I want to start by saying that I appreciate that the instruments are very dense and technical. Will the Minister write to me to clarify a couple of things? The part that particularly concerns me is child maintenance. I would like clarification that child maintenance comes under the Hague convention and that there will be no EU member states where we do not have a framework in respect of child maintenance in particular. I appreciate that that is something that the Minister can go away and find out.

I am keen to find out exactly when it is intended that the full impact assessment will be published, as was said by the hon. Member for Cardiff North. If we do not have a date for the full impact assessment, I would appreciate the reasoning behind why we are ploughing on ahead when we have not had the chance to review things properly.

At the moment, I am still going to vote against the motions, for the simple reason that I find it incredible that neither of the instruments has been subject to formal consultation, when we have such an unprecedented event about to happen. That is the first thing that is a real red flag for me.

I also find it incredible that there are no plans to issue any guidance. The explanatory memorandum to the draft family regulations says that the Government have spoken to

“law stakeholders and leading family law practitioners”,

but at the bottom of the same page it says,

“rules on divorce etc…and parental responsibility legal aid will require relevant businesses, charities and voluntary bodies to familiarise themselves and adjust their administrative arrangements to deal with the new rules.”

The Government themselves recognise that the regulations will have a huge impact on many bodies that people are incredibly reliant upon.

[Mr Goodwill]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point on consultation. However, the Government are surely trying to maintain the current situation. Governments consult when changing things, but the Government are currently endeavouring to ensure that, following Brexit—whether with a deal or without a deal—people can maintain their rights and maintain the same opportunities to bring cases, whether on child maintenance or divorce.

[Mhairi Black]

I fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and I have to say that, in essence, I agree. It is the job of Government to try to think of things that will actually work. However, with the greatest of respect, the Government have had the last two years to organise all this. To be doing it at the last minute, without providing enough information, is not good enough. The attitude is almost, “This will have to do,” because we are near the deadline. I find it hard to see how the Government can assure us that the statutory instruments will have a positive impact, when their one reason is that there will be workable rules. That is like saying, “Och, at least we have something.” I am really unimpressed with what has been provided. It is certainly not enough to change my mind at this moment in time.

With the greatest of respect, the Government are not exactly renowned for their transparency or for keeping their opinion the same on everything. With that in mind, the draft instruments do nothing to inspire me with confidence. They are not good enough and they are not adequate to fill the gap, so I will have to vote against them.

[Lucy Frazer]

Thank you for the opportunity to reply, Sir David.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East was absolutely right to identify the importance of this area. Three million EU nationals live in this country, and the EU has recognised that if we move forward with a deal, it would be interested in co-operating in this area, such is the importance of family law.

I will touch on a couple of important points that were made by Members from across the Committee. On guidance, the Government released a technical notice last September dedicated to civil judicial co-operation that set out what will be our approach in the event that we are unable to reach a deal, so people have had some time to analyse our approach and to think about it carefully.

There has been the suggestion that we have not done a formal consultation. I assure Members and the public that my Department has engaged fully with legal practitioners and the judiciary to understand these complex areas. We have a Brexit Law Committee that advises us, comprised of professional lawyers—both barristers and solicitors—and representatives from the City and the judiciary. It has sub-committees, including a family sub-committee, which regularly meets my officials. I have also done a roundtable on family law matters, to ensure that the difficult issues we face are dealt with.

[Mhairi Black]

I appreciate the Minister’s giving way; she has been very kind to me throughout our proceedings. However, we can only go by what is in front of us. I have no doubt that the Minister has a jam-packed diary, but the explanatory notes to the draft family regulations clearly say:

“There has been no formal consultation on this instrument.”

Given the importance of the kind of stuff we are talking about, we need more than that to be able to support the draft instruments.

[Lucy Frazer]

I understand what the hon. Lady says. While there might not have been a formal consultation, in the governmental sense, I assure her that we look at these issues with professionals, internally and externally, to ensure that we take the right course.

There are impact assessments. They are published online with the draft instruments themselves. I am happy to share those with any Member. My officials have undertaken a full impact assessment for these draft instruments, which found that we should expect a cost increase for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, because we expect case volumes to increase and there might be the risk of parallel proceedings in other EU countries. However, we are taking steps in relation to those matters.

On the point the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South made about the 1970 Hague convention on divorce and legal separation, it is true that only 12 EU member states are party to it. The convention was implemented in the UK by the Family Law Act 1986. Its rules allow generous recognition provisions for overseas divorces to be recognised in the UK, whether or not the country in which the divorce was granted is a party to the 1970 convention, providing minimum criteria are met. We have been clear that, regardless of the outcome of Brexit, we will support developing the scope and coverage of international family law conventions, including the 1970 divorce recognition convention.

To assuage the concerns of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South about Scotland specifically, Scotland is not necessarily taking the same approach as England, Wales and Northern Ireland to all such matters. The draft family regulations revoke Brussels IIa for England and Wales and Northern Ireland; it does not revoke it for Scotland, except for the provisions of Brussels IIa relating to the child abduction override—otherwise, Scotland is making its own provisions. The instrument revokes the maintenance regulation for all parts of the UK, except in relation to ongoing proceedings. Obviously, the Hague convention issue will apply across the UK.

I hope that I have dealt with the points that have been made. If any remain, or if there are others, I am happy to write to Members. I therefore recommend that the provisions of the draft statutory instruments become law.

Question put.

Draft First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) (amendment) order 2018

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 General Committees

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

This is not really my patch; I am covering for somebody else today. I have two questions. First, does the Senior President of Tribunals already have to consult the Lord Chancellor, or is that being newly introduced? Secondly, the Ministry of Justice has already stated that a range of quantitative data will be collected following implementation of the order. It would be sensible to have an impact assessment in a year’s time to see how the change is going. If the Minister could reassure us on that, I do not think we have much to complain about.

[Lucy Frazer]

On the first point, the Senior President of Tribunals does not currently have to consult the Lord Chancellor. This measure will bring the tribunals into line with all the other courts, where the Lord Chancellor is consulted on changes to the composition of panels. On the point about a review, I am confident that there will be an impact assessment.

[Mhairi Black]

If the Senior President of Tribunals does not have to go to the Lord Chancellor already, what is the logic in introducing the change just now? The impartiality of the Senior President of Tribunals might be called into question if he is suddenly having to justify things. Would the impact assessment be within a year’s time, or is it two or three years away?

Pensions Uprating (UK Pensioners Living Overseas)

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for securing this debate.

It is fair to say that, given my youthfulness, prior to last year I did not have a great understanding of pensions. But the more I look into the different issues, the more bizarre the world of pensions seems to get. I thank the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for mentioning the fact that we are not at the WASPI meeting because we are in this Chamber debating this issue. He made an interesting point, which is in fact one reason why I find this debate incredibly bizarre. He said that the Government claim to have received legal advice that raises fears that people will be able to claim for back payments. But legal advice received by the International Consortium of British Pensioners from Blackstone Chambers contradicts that.

The Minister said that many pensioners overseas whose pensions are frozen are compensated through means-tested benefits in their country of residence and implied that unfreezing those pensions would make savings for foreign Governments at the expense of the UK taxpayer. But again, when we look at the facts, the ICBP’s recent review of the countries with the largest numbers of British pensioners with frozen pensions shows that that is simply not the case. The vast majority of pensioners would benefit greatly from an uprating in full.

That brings me to the person who my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned, Anne Puckridge, the former college lecturer, who is now 91 years of age. She worked in the UK all her life, then moved to Canada to be with her daughter and grandchildren. Fourteen years on, Anne, who served as an intelligence officer in the Women’s Royal Naval Service during the second world war, is struggling to live on a frozen pension of £75.50, which is what she was entitled to when she moved. As my hon. Friend pointed out, she now fears that she will be forced to move back to Britain to be able to survive. He gave us some telling quotes. She has said:

“It’s the small things, and the injustice, that is really getting to me…I value my independence, but I can’t go on living on the breadline and I don’t want to inflict this on my family.”

That is telling. She is not asking for millions here—she does not want to raid the bank. She is asking for the extra 20 or 30 quid that she is entitled to after she paid into the system all her working life. Anne went on to say—this is perhaps the part that gives us most insight:

“As well as ever-increasingly poverty, I feel a sense of stress and shame, which is affecting my health.”

I looked through the various briefings on this issue and the previous debates there have been, for years now—as the Minister rightly pointed out, this debate has been going on since probably after world war two. In 1981, the line from the Government was not far off what the Minister said today. They said that they could not, unfortunately, unfreeze the pensions because that was incompatible with the Government’s policy of containing the long-term cost of the social security system to ensure that it remained affordable. This is an incredibly cynical point—I am getting used to those in here, so I thought I may as well join in—but it concerns the real lunacy of the argument about cost. Instead of giving people who have paid into the system all their life the £20 or £30 extra that people in the UK get and to which they are entitled, we are saying, “We’re not going to give you that money, but you can go and live abroad, make yourself ill through poverty, worry and the stress of having to come home. When you are forced to return to Britain, don’t worry, we’ll foot the bill for the NHS and everything else.” The argument about cost does not stand up—costs will increase when pensioners who have been made ill through stress or whatever, have to come back in order to survive.

[Alan Brown]

Yet again, my hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Does not another nonsense argument about cost concern the reciprocal arrangement that is needed, given that Canadians in this country can get the full state pension from their country but British pensioners cannot get it in Canada? This is not about protecting social security in this country, because a reciprocal arrangement could easily be put in place. We are supposed to have the best social security system in the world, so the argument about cost is nonsense given that the Canadians can afford to pay for their citizens in this country.

[Mhairi Black]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and I will touch on our relationship with Canada in a minute. My argument is supported by a 2010 study by Oxford Economics, which used Government statistics to show that a pensioner who permanently leaves the UK saves it £4,300 a year in NHS usage and other social security benefits. We are placing an increasing workload and cost on to the NHS and other public bodies—the very bodies that we are simultaneously using as part of the argument to continue with frozen pensions. It makes no sense.

The third reason often given by the Government for this measure is that there could be some sort of legal or political backlash, but that is not the case. This issue has been debated for years, and Annette Carson made a legal challenge against the Government on the basis of discrimination. She said that because she was in South Africa, which does not have a reciprocal deal with the UK, her pension was frozen, whereas if she had moved to an EU country—or a country with such a deal—she would have had an uprated pension. The judge ruled that she lost the case and that there was no discrimination, but he noted just how ludicrous the system is, and how much confusion there is about it. He ruled that it was a political, rather than judicial, decision, which shows how crazy these plans are—the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) used that word previously.

Any pensioner who moves within the EU or the European economic area gets an increase, and the UK has reciprocal agreements with 16 countries. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) pointed out, our agreements with Canada, New Zealand and Australia do not allow for uprating, yet those three countries are home to 80% of overseas residents who do not receive upratings.

I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said about choice and how that has to work both ways with the Government. The Minister said that pensioners can choose whether to go to country A that has a deal, or country B that does not, but that does not add up. Surely true freedom would allow someone to choose freely where they want to go, knowing that they have paid in all their life and will now get that back. It is not for the Government to put a hindrance on where people can choose to spend the pension that they have built up over their lifetime.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The hon. Lady has not put forward this idea directly, so perhaps I should say it out loud. Perhaps if New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Canada and others applied to join the EU, people would get that uprating and we would solve the problem.

[Mhairi Black]

That is an interesting point, but we will wait and see how things go in the summer.

Everything that has been mentioned in this debate touches on a deeper, more fundamental problem within pensions as a whole under this and previous Governments—that of inconsistency. We tell people to pay national insurance for a pension and to save for a fulfilling, free and happy retirement—but only in certain places. We tell people that we will give them greater freedom, that they can be trusted with their pensions, and that we will give them greater choice and allow them to take their pensions early—but we will not give them the freedom to move anywhere with that pension. Deals are made to uprate pensions in some countries, but not others; people are given the vote in some countries, but the Government are not prepared to pay out for their pension. It does not make sense. Everything seems to be convoluted and conflicting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned what the Chancellor said about being supportive of change when he was in opposition, but the House of Commons Library shows that the then shadow Pensions Minister explained that the Conservatives had “considerable sympathy” with those affected. The Prime Minister stated in a letter that the Government do not feel that they can change anything in times of austerity—“How can we unfreeze those pensions when people in the UK are being asked to make sacrifices?” However, in the wake of recent events—whether the saga of the Panama papers or the shambolic deal with Google—it is clear that the Government are asking the wrong people to make sacrifices, and it is worth reminding the Minister that all the sympathy in the world will not pay the bills.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Several Members have asked the Minister to speak again, so with leave of the House I call Mr Vara.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

When I heard that we were to debate this issue again, I thought, “What am I going to talk about?” Everything is already on the record. We have already discussed how the new single tier state pension is irrelevant to the women in question and will not solve the problem. We went to great lengths to explain how nobody disagrees with equalisation and nobody is calling for Acts to be repealed.

Then I came across a document that was sent by a Conservative MP to a woman affected. On the front page it says that the Government cannot do anything because WASPI is campaigning for all women born after April 1951 to be given their state pension from age 60. No, that is not what WASPI is asking for. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) talked about misleading people. That is misleading. Nobody is against equalisation.

On Monday I attended a media training course, where we were taught how to look at the camera, where to put our hands and so on. One of the guys taking the course said, “If you, as politicians, ever find ourselves in a difficult situation where you realise you’re in the wrong and you need to get through an interview, just start talking about what you want to talk about.” It struck me immediately that that is what this Government are doing; every single time we talk about this, they start talking about things that are completely irrelevant.

The second page of the document states: “The national insurance credits are available for many people to help them build entitlement towards state pension. National insurance payments also impact on entitlement to a range of other benefits.” Pensions are not a benefit; they are a right. One of my constituents described them as a contract, and that is exactly what they are. Let me make this very simple. Everybody here has a phone—in fact, some of us are sitting with our iPads right now—and we all have contracts for those. If O2, Virgin or Three were to change the terms and conditions of our contracts, we would have something to say about it. If they waited 14 years to tell us about those changes, we would definitely have something to say about it. If they said, on top of that, that we would be forced to live off our life savings as a result of those changes, we would be up in arms about it, and rightly so. So why are pensions any different?

We hear all the time, “Where is the money going to come from for that?” The truth is that this comes down to austerity, and it is austerity of choice. Those on the Government Front Bench can roll their eyes all they want, but this is a choice. I am yet to hear a general or a Defence Minister say, “We can’t bomb that country because we’ve exceeded our budget.” When we want to bomb Syria, we can find the money. When we want to refurbish Westminster, we can find the money. But when it comes to giving our pensioners their pensions, we cannot find the money? I just do not accept that.

This debate reminds me of the tax credits debate. We were making all these arguments about how unfair the situation was, and the Government responded with exactly the same argument: “We don’t have the money.” Then, when the heat was turned up and political pressure was put on them, all of a sudden they put their hand down the back of the couch and said, “Okay, we can afford it now, so let’s just do a U-turn,” and rightly so.

That brings me to my last point. How can we ignore the will of this House? We have debated this matter in this Chamber and voted by 158 to 0. How can we ignore that? We debated it in Westminster Hall, which was packed to the gunnels, and almost everybody who spoke was against the Government. They cannot continue to ignore the will of this House. I am no fan of Westminster—that will come as no surprise—because I think it is more about ego than it is about issue, but the truth is that even the most politically savvy minds must be able to see that this is not party political. We have a chance to come together and do something that will earn us respect. I think that the Government should take that chance and act.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham]

Thank you, Mr Stringer; I am doing my best to take interventions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) made a very reasonable point. The previous Labour pensions spokesman said that, in the four months in which he was in the role, he was

“grappling with how best to work out the transitional provisions.”

I hope that we hear more about what the Labour party intends to do in practice.

One of greatest difficulties in this debate is about the word “fair”. Over the weekend, a lot of WASPI campaigners were tweeting me back and forth about various issues regarding the debate and their e-petition. One of the most interesting views came from a woman born in early 1960 who made a point about what would happen were the main WASPI campaign ask to be given—that is, if everybody born in the 1950s were backdated as if they had been born before 1950. She asked why she and her contemporaries should bear the burden on behalf of those who would effectively be given an exemption from the changes, and who were born only a few months before her.

The problem is that whenever a change is made, some will always be relatively better off and some will be relatively worse off. I strongly support women born in the 1950s—as I hope I made clear from the fact that my wife and sisters are both girls of the 1950s—but to imply that somehow they must take preference over those born a few months before or after is a different kind of potential unfairness.

The second point of the debate is all about communication. Communication is at the heart of what many of the campaigners feel is unfair about the changes made in 1995 and 2011. However, it is simply not true that nobody knew, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) claimed in the debate in the main Chamber. In 2004 the then Labour Government estimated from their research in the Department for Work and Pensions that 75% of those affected had been told. A separate study by the DWP—not yet referred to in debate, but unearthed by the pensions correspondent at the Financial Times over the weekend—demonstrated that seven out of 10 people spoken to knew about the change in the pension age. The truth is that we will never know the precise figure. We will never know exactly how many people knew, did not know, and might have been told about it but ignored it because it was all a long way in the future—20 years away.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing this intervention. Does he not find it strange that thousands upon thousands of women from different careers, different backgrounds and different classes are all coming together to claim exactly the same thing, which is that they were not told? The DWP has conflicting records on what letters were sent out and when, so we should be careful when addressing the point that people were told.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we can be sure that not everybody knew and that not all of those who were told took the information to heart. We can be sure that some people were not told—there is no doubt about that. The pensions correspondent at the Financial Times told me:

“I dispute the evidence given to the Committee… by Lin Phillips, that ‘There was not much in the newspapers, only maybe a little bit in the business pages.’”

The correspondent has done a detailed study that will be presented as written evidence to the Select Committee, and she went on to say that she has looked at coverage from 1993, when the changes to equalise the state pension age for men and women was first mooted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). She says that, from 1994 to 2006, there were hundreds of mentions of the state pension age in the news sections and the personal finance pages, as well as in the business pages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I shall be as brief as possible.

On 7 January, I was happy to lead a debate on the issues raised by Women Against State Pension Inequality. We heard, first, how consecutive Governments did not give women enough information or notification; and secondly, how, owing to the acceleration of equalisation, women were not given enough time to make appropriate financial arrangements for themselves. A motion was tabled calling on the Government to consider new transitional arrangements; it was overwhelmingly passed by the House, with 158 votes for and zero votes against.

Despite all that, I am still no further forward in understanding whether this Government have any intention of considering new transitional arrangements. Instead, I have been met with the same three rebuttals over and over—we heard some of them in the previous speech—given by the Government to justify doing absolutely nothing. I know that many colleagues will, as previous speakers have done, mention personal stories and examples showing the human cost of the issue, but I shall focus on the three rebuttals continually given by the Government.

First, we hear that the single-tier pension will solve all the problems these women face, but the reality is that they will receive the higher rate of the new state pension only if they have paid national insurance for 35 years. That means that many individuals who have had low-income or part-time jobs, or who have been in and out of work because they have cared for children, elderly parents or disabled family members, will not meet the 35-year contributions level. It is important to note that approximately 80% of those in this category who will not qualify for the higher rate are women. The idea that the single-tier pension is the answer to the problems that these women face is absolute nonsense and totally irrelevant.

It is also incredibly damaging to continue sending that message. Only this month, The Telegraph reported inaccurate communication from the Department for Work and Pensions to pensioners, after thousands of workers were told that the number of years needed had been reduced to 30, when the new scheme will actually require 35 years. Similarly, and rather embarrassingly, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions raised concerns about the Prime Minister’s misleading claim that the new single-tier pension will start at £150. The Pensions Minister, Baroness Altmann, had to explain:

“That is the full new rate for someone who starts building up from April 2016. That is where there has been so much misunderstanding”.

The whole reason why we find ourselves with this problem in the first place begins with poor communication between the Government and those affected, and it seems that this Government have not learned any lessons from that poor communication. They cannot continue to imply that the single-tier pension will solve the problem, because it will not.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case, but will she concede that thirty thirty-fifths of the new single-tier pension are still worth more than the old pension?

[Mhairi Black]

I accept that point, but how is it relevant to what these women are facing?

It would seem that this is not the first time that the Government have misled people, or certainly gotten their facts wrong. The Pensions Minister gave inaccurate information to the Work and Pensions Committee when she said that WASPI was calling for the Government to undo the Pensions Act 1995—in other words, to reduce the pension age for women back to 60. That is strange, given that she was so involved with WASPI before being employed by the Government.

That brings me on neatly to the second reason why the Government think that nothing should be done: the principle of equality. We hear time and again that this is about equality, which is why we cannot repeal the 1995 Act and why the women affected should just put up with it. Let me set the record straight for the Government and for the Pensions Minister so that there can be no more confusion or inaccurate information: no one is calling for the 1995 Act to be repealed. No one is against the principle of equality. Neither I nor my colleagues nor the WASPI women—nor anybody in this room, I think—are against the principle of equalisation; it is about the speed of it, and the inadequate time and information given to the women affected. I truly hope that when the Minister responds to this debate, we do not hear at great length why equalisation is important. That is agreed. We want the Government to address specifically the speed at which it is being implemented.

The third and final reason commonly given to justify doing nothing is that the issue has already been debated, in 2011. That is correct. The changes were previously considered, and the concerns being raised now were raised then, which is why the Government rightly recognised that the initial transitional arrangements were not appropriate and responded, “Do you know what? We’ve listened, and you’ve got a point,” and changed the waiting period from two years to 18 months.

But if colleagues speak to Pensions Ministers or pensions experts, as I hope they do regularly, the Ministers and experts will say that quite often they do not fully know or appreciate potential problems with pensions until they experience them, and it is then that they have to respond appropriately. So yes, although this issue was debated in 2011, we are returning to tell the Government that in fact the initial six-month concession is not enough. It is not working out, so they have to consider something else that works better.

I have outlined why the Government’s responses have been completely inaccurate and often irrelevant. I do not want to hear that the new single-tier pension is the answer, because it is not; I do not want to hear speeches about the concept of equality, because it is irrelevant; I want to hear a genuine response from the Government on this matter. I said during the last debate that I did not believe that the policy was vindictive or deliberate, but with the knowledge of everything that is happening, it will become deliberate. That is not something I want tied to my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Miller]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point but we are today debating a petition and I am just trying to focus on that. There is so much debate in the Chamber about exactly what we are talking about, and it is important that we consider the petition as it is written rather than as we might like it to be written, which is what he is talking about. Considering the petition is important, because so many people have supported it, but we also need to consider how any changes that would be made, in the way that is being suggested, would be financed. To ignore that and to simply try to pretend that that is not the case would not be fair on those who have created the petition and those who have signed it, because they are pretty clear what they want.

I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who will respond to this debate, will be clear about what the exact elements of the petition would mean. Equally, however, I hope that he will be clear about some of the other issues that hon. Members have raised, particularly the notification of those who have been affected by this change, which I will focus on in the remaining few minutes that I have.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) is absolutely right when she says that there appears to have been a great deal of communication —no doubt, extremely expensive communication—over a great many years but very little understanding of what has actually come out and been given to people. It is regrettable that the Pensions Act 1995 did not contain a requirement to communicate effectively with those who were affected by it. Although a leaflet was published at the time, I have no doubt that it was entirely ineffective.

Lord Willetts, who was a Member of this House at the time, pressed the issue back in 2002 in parliamentary questions. The hon. Member for Warrington North is absolutely right to say that at that point there was potentially a gross dereliction of duty at the DWP in not ensuring that there was more effective communication, but I guess that we could also look at the fact that the Department undertook research that clearly showed that three quarters of the women affected were aware of the increase in the state pension age. Perhaps that is why the then Labour Government did not do more at that point.

[Mhairi Black]

I just want to set the record straight. I am trying to draw attention to the poor level of communication and to the miscommunication, and I hope that the Government will learn from that.

[Mrs Miller]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that that is exactly the point I am making—a great deal of money was spent on things that clearly did not work. Otherwise, we would not be here today.

We know that the women who are affected were written to on numerous occasions. Clearly, they were not communicated with in an effective way, and some of the research I have referred to may well have been misleading in the impression it gave to the then Labour Government and the coalition Government that followed.

What I would like to hear from the Minister today is exactly how he will ensure that not only will the women currently affected by the situation really understand the true position that they are in following quite complex mitigation but that we never, ever find ourselves in this situation again.

State Pension Age (Women)

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House, while welcoming the equalisation of the state pension age, is concerned that the acceleration of that equalisation directly discriminates against women born on or after 6 April 1951, leaving women with only a few years to make alternative arrangements, adversely affecting their retirement plans and causing undue hardship; regrets that the Government has failed to address a lifetime of low pay and inequality faced by many women; and calls on the Government to immediately introduce transitional arrangements for those women negatively affected by that equalisation.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the time to debate this important issue. I especially want to take a moment to thank the WASPI team— Women Against State Pension Inequality. Pensions are incredibly complicated, as most people would imagine, but these ordinary women have taken the time to sift through all the information and have drafted one of the most comprehensive and articulate briefings that I have seen since being elected. I thank them for articulating their arguments so well.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a very important statement, given that the former Pensions Minister has admitted that he made a bad decision, based on inadequate briefing. Is it not therefore only right that the House considers this decision today, takes it seriously and reaches the right decision, with the right information before it?

[Mhairi Black]

That is why the debate is so important, and we should call on the Government to act. However, because pensions are so complicated, it is important, not just for the benefit of some Members, or people in the Gallery, or those watching at home, to try to explain why those women have found themselves in the position that they are in.

To do that, we must go back to 1995, when the Pensions Act increased the female state pension age from 60 to 65. The purpose of that was to equalise the pension age so that women retired at the same age as men. That is fair enough; it makes sense and I do not think anybody would disagree with that principle. The Turner commission recommended that 15 years’ notice be given to individuals if their pension arrangements were to change to give them adequate time to respond appropriately. The 1995 Act technically did that. The equalisation—the changes—was not to be brought in until 2010, which technically gave women 15 years’ notice. The problem is that nobody knew about that. As late as 2008, fewer than half of women knew that they would be affected. The National Centre for Social Research stated in 2011 that only 43% of women were aware of the planned change.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about people not being aware. It would seem that Government Front Benchers are not aware: there is no Equalities Minister here and there is no Department for Work and Pensions Minister here. That is greatly concerning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I am.

[Mhairi Black]

It is noticeable, and a pity, how few Conservatives have turned out.

It is important to highlight that the Government did not send out a single letter to women. There was no official correspondence between the Government and the individuals affected, alerting them to the changes that were going to happen to them. Even the previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, recognised that not everybody knew that the changes had happened in the 1995 Act.

A response to a freedom of information request states that the Department eventually wrote to individuals affected and that

“Mail campaigns took place between 2009 and 2013.”

That is 14 years after the 1995 Act. Women were not personally notified by anybody official until 14 years after the changes came in. That is 14 fewer years that women have had to prepare and to try to make alternative arrangements.

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

The hon. Lady is making an important point. In a nutshell, is not the injustice to that set of women the fact that they have had not one but two changes to the state pension age, that the process has been accelerated and that there are no transitional arrangements in place? Is not that the real unfairness?

[Mhairi Black]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying. I am glad that she agrees that the need for equalisation is generally accepted and that it is right and proper. Does she think that it might be sensible to urge the Government to look at the sort of 10 to 15-year transitional arrangements that were made in public sector pensions reform? Would that be a constructive way forward?

[Mhairi Black]

As I said, I do not think that anybody here has a problem with the principle of transitioning towards equality. However, we are talking about women’s pensions, and it is important to bring the discussion back to that.

Many constituents who have written to me said that the information in the letters that they did receive was conflicting. They were getting different information. In one case, a constituent was told that they had enough contributions to receive their full state pension at 60, which was a few months away, only to receive a further letter three weeks later telling her that she will not get her pension until she is nearly 66. Many of the letters did not even get to the people they were supposed to reach. Some people were told by MPs and Ministers that they must have given the DWP the wrong addresses, but those women had been living in the same house for more than 20 years, so I find that difficult to believe.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mhairi Black]

I want to make some progress.

Some people say, “You should not have to be written to. It’s your pension, you should be keeping an eye on it. You should be looking out for reports and things, and take responsibility.” But when giving evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, financial journalist Paul Lewis told us that after researching this himself he could barely find any reporting of the issue at all in 1995. There were a few small press cuttings from the business pages at the back of some newspapers. A freedom of information request revealed that the Government did fund “broader” awareness campaigns, which ran in waves between 2001 and 2004, but that these campaigns

“did not focus on equalisation in particular”.

In fact, only one of the press adverts in those campaigns was focused on this issue—one press cutting roughly seven years after this had already been passed into law. It is quite evident that this whole thing became a total mess. I do not know whether it was not reported deliberately, for political reasons or fear of ramifications, or whether it was a genuine accident, but what I do know is that women were not notified. It was not reported and they were not given enough time to be able to make appropriate arrangements.

This brings us on to the Pensions Act 2007, which increased the equalised state pension age from 65 to 66 between 2024 and 2026. It gave all affected people 17 years’ notice. That is fair enough, but then we come on to what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned, the Pensions Act 2011. That came along and said, “Forget the 17 years’ notice, we’re going to rush this through. We need to do this right now.” The 2011 Act accelerated pension age equalisation for women and the subsequent increase to 66, effective from October 2016 onwards, meaning that affected women had only five years’ notice to try to remedy life plans that had been in place for years.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and I welcome the debate she has brought to the House. Does she agree that many of these women have had a lifetime of low and unequal pay in low-paid jobs? They have had broken careers, because they have brought up children. Some may have got divorced or separated. Their whole life plan has been disrupted, destroyed and impoverished by this awful change.

[Mhairi Black]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman and I will touch on that point later.

The 2011 Act made women wait an extra year to a year and a half to claim their state pension. However, we have to remember and take into account the context which is women did not know about the initial 1995 Act. We have a situation where there is a whole host of women who read about the 2011 Act and went, “Oh, God. Okay, I am going to have to be working an extra two years. I’d better start making plans. Oh no, wait a minute, I’m working till I’m 66. Where did that come from?” There is a whole host of women who have been given a double whammy. The Government have not and are not giving women enough time to prepare alternative plans. There have to be better transitional arrangements.

The Conservative ethos is to encourage independence and responsible choice, but how can that happen if we do not give people the time to make the responsible choices? By continuing this policy at such a high speed, the Government are knowingly and deliberately placing another burden on women who are already trying to deal with consequences of an Act passed 21 years ago that they have only now found out about. To put that into context, I am 21—that’s how old this is.

One of my constituents told me that she began working at 17 and chose to pay the full rate of national insurance on the basis that she would retire at 60. Other options were available to her, but she said, “I want to retire at 60 so I’ll pay the price, through national insurance, my whole working life.” She put it in a way that I think is a very good and accurate description of what is happening. She has now found out that she is not retiring until she is 66. She says:

“The coalition and this present Government have stripped us of our pensions with no prior warning and with no regard to the contract we all entered when we were 17.”

She uses the term “contract”. That is an important point, because pensions are not benefits; they are a contract. People enter into them on the basis that if they pay X amount of national insurance they will receive Y at a certain age.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

That is also the case for my constituent who at 57-and-a-half realised she would no longer be able to retire at 60. She is a care worker doing an extremely physically demanding job. She now has to work until she is 66. She has had a low income throughout her life working as a care worker and now has to carry on doing this demanding job for a further six years.

[Mhairi Black]

I could not agree more. Every Member, if they contact their constituents, will recognise that this problem spreads across the whole of the UK and affects women of all classes, from different backgrounds and with different jobs.

In criminal law, if we want to send someone to jail, it has to be agreed beforehand how long that person is going away for, and if that needs to change, there are appropriate measures to deal with it. In civil law, if we enter into a contract, there are terms and conditions stating, “If you want to change this contract or break out of it, there will be a price to pay.” Why are pensions any different? This is a contract people have entered into, but it is now being broken and nothing is being done to allow them to transition. These women have done exactly what was asked of them—they have worked hard all their lives and paid their national insurance—but it is now being taken from them behind their backs.

What is worse, if the Government choose to continue with the policy, they will be completely ignoring the years of gender inequality these women have lived through. Another constituent of mine, Kathleen Birney, explains that she worked until her children came along. Her husband could no longer work because of a disability, but she was determined not to depend on state benefits, so she studied and became a primary school teacher. She cared for her husband and her children, and she never claimed a penny. She has based all her life plans and financial plans on the basis that she would be retiring at 60. She has now found out that she cannot retire until she is 66. Unpaid carers are the unsung heroes of our economy. They have saved consecutive Governments an absolute fortune time and again. Sadly, women in our society have had to live with years of performing gender roles, meaning that the vast majority of unpaid carers are women. They are the type of people this policy is hitting: people who cannot afford to go another six years without a pension. Some women, such as Kathleen, are being left penniless. They have nothing and are being forced to turn to the state for benefits. How does that fit into the logic of reducing public spending?

We will most likely hear the Government say, “It’s all okay because women will do better under the new single-tier state pension”, but there is a campaign called CARIISP—the collection against real inequality and injustice of the state pension—which is a collection of women rightly pointing out that a person only receives the higher rate of the new pension if they have paid 35 years of national insurance, but many women have not had the chance to build up that level of contribution. It is a separate issue; I mention it, first, to raise awareness and, secondly, in the hope it will earn a debate on its own merits.

The Government have said:

“The policy decision to increase women’s state pension age is designed to remove the inequality between men and women.”

That is a strange definition of equality: I am being shafted and short-changed purely because of when I was born and because I am a woman. That is not my definition of equality.

To conclude, there are two problems at the heart of this. First, there is the poor communication over the years, but all we can do is learn from that. I accept that the 1995 Act has happened, and all we can do is reflect on the mistakes made and not repeat them. The second issue, however, is the 2011 Act and the rapid changes the coalition and this Government have made. We can do something about that. Unlike most things that come from this Government—I mean this sincerely—I do not believe that this policy was vindictive or done in the knowledge that it would hurt people. I genuinely think we have ended up in this mess purely because of mistake after mistake, but any mess can be cleared up. If they continue with this policy, however, in the full knowledge of everything that has been and will be outlined, it will become vindictive and deliberate, and it will be done in the full knowledge that people will be hurt.

I understand that we have to work in tandem and with responsibility when it comes to the economy, but that does not mean punishing people who are about to retire. Every topic we speak about in this Chamber comes down to: “Where are you gonna find the money?” I understand that, but the answer is always austerity, no matter how brutal or who it affects. In this Chamber since I was elected we have had a go at people on low wages, the disabled and women, and now we are having a go at pensioners. We can afford to send airstrikes to Syria and to pay for nuclear weapons, but we cannot afford to look after our pensioners? I just do not buy it. The women up in the Gallery right now did not cause the financial crash, they are not responsible for the state of our economy and they did not make the irresponsible decisions that got us here. I understand the question, “Where are you gonna find the money?”, but I refuse to accept or believe that it has to come out of the pensions of older women.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I know she has led a campaign in her constituency to that end. Ideally, we will hear such a statement from the Minister. I believe pension changes require 10 years’ notification and that 15 years’ notice was given for the 1995 changes, but, as she mentioned, the notice period for the 2011 changes was eight years, and even down to five years. As I was not in this place at that time, I am certainly very keen to find out more from the Minister.

Where I have issues with the motion is that although I agree very much with the concern raised, I do not ultimately see a remedy. I stood on a manifesto commitment that pledged us to deliver a budget surplus by 2020, which means that compensation for this matter would have to be paid for by another group of my constituents.

I have real concerns about another age group in my constituency—those in their 20s and 30s. They are sometimes referred to as the packhorse generation because they are saddled with debts from university, which I and many others of my age group and those older than me did not have to endure. They are not in receipt of occupational pension schemes. They are paying high rents and struggling to afford a home of their own, and they are likely to be the subject of pension changes in decades to come if life expectancy continues to increase.

[Mhairi Black]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Huw Merriman]

No. With respect to the hon. Lady, I will make some progress, if I may.

I am keen for the Government to assess what more can be done to help the women impacted by the pension changes, but I am conscious that, before my election to this place, they conducted a review and allocated more than £l billion to mitigate the impact on the worst affected. Further mitigation, if introduced, would then reveal the next age group to be impacted, and we would never be able to move on. If my Government’s manifesto is to be enacted, such further mitigation will have to be paid for by others in the form of increased taxes.

The issue of pensions is becoming increasingly vexed. It is undoubtedly the case that post-retirement life expectancy is now much greater than was envisaged when pensions calculators were put in place. Additionally, with the advances made to allow those in their 60s to remain fit and active, many people in their 60s and beyond are working in a manner that was not envisaged when those pensions calculators were put in place. This is a general change in life and working age expectancy—we all rightly celebrate it, because it shows that people are living longer and leading fitter lives in their advanced years—but it means that there is a funding gap. To avoid placing a financial obligation on those in their 20s and 30s, who are currently struggling to get on, that gap has required the country to revise the pension age to take into account the changes in life and work expectancy.

[Mhairi Black]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

I will take one last intervention as this is the hon. Lady’s debate.

[Mhairi Black]

Does the hon. Gentleman not see that by forcing such women to continue to work until they are 66, he is contradicting himself? One of the reasons why people my age cannot get work is that it is being done by those trying to secure some income until they reach the pension age.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, but I do not agree with her. The reality is that if the change had not been implemented, £30 billion would have had to be found from elsewhere. I think there is an additional £8 billion in tax revenue to be found as well. Where would that money come from if not from the generation that she knows well?

[Mhairi Black]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

I will continue to make progress. To me, it is a complete contradiction to say, on the one hand, that something needs to be done, but, on the other, that it will not have an impact on any other taxpayers over the generations.

Finally, I have the greatest sympathy for those caught by the changes who have had to revise their plans accordingly. This, however, is a settled matter, and I worry about what the impact will be on others if changes are now made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to listen while he was preparing his question, he would know that that is what I said, except that I used different words. He might want to check the Hansard record tomorrow morning. In this place, it always helps to listen before speaking.

The Government listened to the concerns expressed during the passing 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 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 £1.1 billion in total, and as a result 81% of women affected will experience a delay of 12 months or less.

[Mhairi Black]

To me, the concessions that were given show that the Government recognise that the transition was not appropriate. Given that the wording of today’s motion is clear in asking the Government to reassess the transitional arrangements, will the Minister confirm that he will do so if the motion is passed, be it unanimously or with a vote—yes or no?

[Mr Vara]

Much has been made of what was “promised” on Second Reading. What I say to the hon. Lady and others is that this concession was made after it was said that this would be considered, and that the concession is worth six months and £1.1 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black]

First, I wish to congratulate the House on having such a good quality debate. What has been striking is that this is an issue that clearly crosses party boundaries and constituencies. The Minister said that it had already been thoroughly debated, but that was in 2011. All the evidence that we have heard today shows that this matter needed to be debated more, which it has been, and we have found that the accommodation reached in 2011 did not go far enough and is not good enough. Despite my intervention in this whole debate, I am no further forward in understanding whether, if this motion is passed, the Government will commit to reassess the transitional arrangements.

The Minister has spoken at great length about equalisation. Nobody here disagrees with the principle of equalisation. What we are concerned about is the transition, and that has not been addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) quite rightly pointed out that this matter is about priority; everything that a Government decide to do is about priority. I am still not clear what the priorities of this Government are, and for that reason I wish to press this matter to a vote.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I put the question, may I remind the House that Members who shout, “Aye” cannot then vote no, and Members who shout “No” cannot then vote aye. I hope that is clear.

Question put.

Women and the Economy

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

We have heard multiple times throughout this debate how the Government have achieved record high employment rates, especially for women. However, that assertion only scratches the surface, because hidden beneath it is the existence of entrenched gender inequality. It is a problem that exists throughout the whole of the UK. Although employment may have gone up, the quality of work has not. We know that women still take up the majority of low-wage, part-time, temporary work, which is why the welfare reforms and the cuts announced in the Budget are so concerning.

The Budget announced £12 billion of cuts to social security. One fifth of women’s average income includes social security payments. Quite rightly, the Chancellor did a U-turn on tax credits. He abandoned that particular cut once he realised how damaging it would be. However, he did not abandon his pledge to make £12 billion of cuts. Although those cuts might not be coming through tax credits, they are still coming, and they will be off the backs of single parents, unpaid carers and low-wage part-time workers, most of whom are women.

The Fawcett Society has raised particular concerns about sanctions on lone parents, 92% of whom are women. I am aware that safeguards are in place that supposedly allow some flexibility for lone parents who are looking for suitable jobs. Such safeguards used to be written into regulation, which made them very clear for advisers and claimants, but the Government have decided to replace that advice with guidance. There is a very important distinction there. Whereas advice is legally bound and someone can be held legally responsible if the wrong advice is given, guidance completely removes that safeguard as nobody is accountable for incorrect information being given to claimants and the subsequent false sanctions that may arise from that. The very fact that 40% of decisions to sanction lone parents are overturned suggests that women are being sanctioned incorrectly in the first place. Sanctions are meant to act as a deterrent, but that seems impossible to achieve if people are unaware or unclear about how they qualify for a sanction in the first place.

My final concern relates to the rhetoric that is being used and the direction in which the Government are travelling when they speak about issues relating specifically to women. The cuts to women’s services have been substantial, and the use of the revenue raised from the tampon tax to fund charities is

“a drop in the pan compared to the cuts these services have suffered since 2010.”

I know that I am not the only one who shares a deep discomfort and concern over the use of that money simply to fund women’s charities, especially charities that deal with domestic violence and rape. Although I will always welcome any money that goes to such charities, the discomfort comes from the fact that, symbolically, this proposal implies that tackling domestic violence and rape is the responsibility of women, and not the responsibility of all.

The lowest and most disturbing proposal of this Government is the demeaning idea that they will only pay for a third child so long as it is the product of rape. Is that really where we are now? How dare we ask a woman who has been through such an horrific ordeal to stand in front of some cold ministerial body to discuss that rape and prove that crime?

The other point is that we have still not heard how that policy will be implemented. Will there have to be a conviction for rape, or just a claim? Will a medical certificate be needed? Nothing has been made clear on that. It is even more worrying given that only on Monday my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how the policy would be implemented and received a vague and concerning reply. I am sure that nothing untoward was intended, but the fact remains that the use of the word “choice” in a vague answer to a question specifically about rape could raise concern. I genuinely urge the Secretary of State to clarify exactly the point he was making and prevent anything untoward from being suggested.

My final point is that although the Government will argue that these savings and reforms are necessary and that the cuts will play a massive role in cutting the £1.5 trillion of public debt, they have completely ignored the incredible rise in personal household debt, which, at £1.5 trillion, is almost exactly the same amount. It is not that people have more money in their pockets or that their quality of life is dramatically improving. The problem of the debt is still there; it has just been shifted from the public purse to the private purses of individuals. People are being forced to turn to loans and private debt companies because this Government are failing them. The Government are being deliberately and strategically quiet on the looming catastrophe of personal and household debt, which will come crashing down at some point, and it will crash on the backs of the most vulnerable people in society and the people who are already struggling most, most of whom are women.

[Several hon. Members rose—]