10. United Kingdom Independence Party Debate: The Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 6:48 pm on 18 April 2018.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Julie James Julie James Labour 6:48, 18 April 2018

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In rising in this debate, I'm delighted to do so. I'm actually very grateful to UKIP for bringing the debate forward. It's a matter of extreme importance to all of us. I too also need to make a declaration of interest as I am one of the women affected, having been born in the 1950s. Fortunately, like Caroline Jones, I'm still in work and so not so badly affected by it, but a very large number of my friends, family, constituents and colleagues are affected by it. Many of them are now enduring hardship and poverty as a result of the changes, about which they knew nothing. This cannot be right and should not be allowed to continue. Many of the women in this age group will have worked in part-time and low-paid roles, or taken time off work to look after children or elderly relatives, and been subject to gender inequality for much of their adult life, as these are the women that were most affected by those changes that were brought in by the women's movement immediately following the second world war. So, it's somewhat ironic that they're the group that are most affected by this. 

Nick Ramsay actually asked me why were changing 'work with' to 'urge', and I will tell him very simply: it's because we've found it impossible to work with the UK Government on this. I wrote to Guy Opperman, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions and Financial Inclusion, at the end of February to reiterate our concerns, and urge them to reconsider transitional arrangements, having first written to the UK Government back in 2016 to express our concerns about the way in which the transition to equal state pension aid was communicated and implemented. I've also added my voice on many platforms and rallies in my own constituency and elsewhere in Wales to those urging the UK Government to reconsider the transitional arrangements without delay, in order that the system is fair to all and does not compound gender inequality for a minority of people. His response cites increases in life expectancy, affordability and sustainability as reasons why the UK Government has no plans to revisit the policy and does not intend to make any further concessions. So, I fear that I do not see the point of working with somebody who has set his face so against a campaign for justice, and that's why I've changed the motion to 'urge', because we continue to urge strenuously that they do indeed change their mind and revisit the transitional arrangements that many Members have pointed out the need for in this Chamber today. In Plenary on 6 March, I reiterated my commitment to raise again the concerns of the Welsh Government and of this Chamber with the UK Government, and I renew that commitment again today and I will write immediately expressing our views following this debate.