Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report

Debate between Paul Maynard and Ian Blackford

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

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]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Maynard]

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.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Debate between Paul Maynard and Ian Blackford

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. We should all, whether we be men or women, reflect on the unfairness. It is an issue that we should see as simply wrong, and we should deal with it, whether we be male or female.

Let us dwell on the point. Someone born in 1953 has now retired, while someone born in 1954 has to wait until 2019. Where is the fairness in that? Let me ask Conservative Members who among them is going to defend it. I ask a Minister, a Back Bencher or any Conservative to rise to defend what the Government are doing. Why should some people have to wait so long?

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman seriously believe, given that my constituents in Blackpool North and Cleveleys want me to be here, that I should leave the Chamber and not participate in the debate because I am a man?

[Ian Blackford]

I am sorry to hear that approach taken by the hon. Gentleman. I was looking for someone to defend the Government. I provided the opportunity for a Conservative Member to do so, and the hon. Gentleman failed. Everyone in this Chamber has the right to defend the interests of their constituents—we would all support that.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Debate between Paul Maynard and Ian Blackford

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a shame that four minutes will not be enough to do justice to this issue, but I will try to focus on some of the other points of view that we have heard today. First and foremost, the shadow Leader of the House, who is no longer in his place—possibly also in the Tea Room, if the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) is to be believed—offered us “a voice but not a veto”. It is worth explaining why that is not good enough and why it is a pig in a poke. He wants to have an England-only Committee that will reach England-only views but which can then be overturned, just like that, by the House as a whole. He presented this as though it is the Labour party’s preferred solution, but that cannot be all that Labour Members have come up with.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) made a thoughtful contribution and although I did not agree with all of it, I did agree with his point that our proposals for devolution at a local level here in England will mean that there will be more questions to answer as time goes on. Most importantly, England has to have a voice and a view, and the opportunity to offer its consent when it is being legislated upon by the wider House as a whole.

We hear from the SNP an interpretation that what I am seeking is in some way devolution for England—I believe that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) used that phrase—but I dispute that. I am not seeking devolution for England; I am seeking devolution for Blackpool, Lancashire and the north-west, but not for England. I say to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) that this was the No.1 issue on the doorstep during my general election campaign. I represent a constituency with very strong links to Scotland. Many of his countrymen are staying in my constituency right now to enjoy the illuminations. Glasgow week is a key part of that—

[Ian Blackford]

rose—