All 1 Debates between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Shailesh Vara

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Debate between Roberta Blackman-Woods and Shailesh Vara
Wednesday 24th February 2016

(8 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shailesh Vara Portrait Mr Vara
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I wish to make a little progress.

Shailesh Vara Portrait Mr Vara
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will give way, but I first wish to make a little progress.

Hon. Members will be aware that the women’s state pension age was changed in 1995 to equalise it with the state pension age for men. Equalisation was then accelerated in the Pensions Act 2011, following extensive debates in both Houses of Parliament. Those changes were about bringing gender equality to pensions for the first time, about reflecting rises in life expectancy—it continues to rise for both men and women—and about taking spending on pensions to more sustainable levels.

Roberta Blackman-Woods Portrait Dr Blackman-Woods
- Hansard - -

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I wanted to point out to him that the audience today is the huge number of women across the country who are adversely affected by the changes. One of them wrote to me:

“When equalization for pensions was first introduced in 1995 I was informed I could collect my State Pension at 64…however this was changed again in 2011 to…66. This is very unfair to me and the many other women it affects bearing the brunt of the changes twice”.

Labour has recognised that, which is why we have tabled a motion calling for transitional arrangements. Why is the Minister not backing us and the WASPI women on this?

Shailesh Vara Portrait Mr Vara
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As far as the hon. Lady’s question—or her speech, which had a question at the end of it—is concerned, I will address those issues later in my speech. However, she is absolutely right that the audience for this debate is the women concerned. In my speech, I intend to address the substance of the subject, rather than the politics of it, which we heard earlier.