Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I am pleased to propose this motion on behalf of Plaid Cymru, the Party of Wales, and on behalf of the 138,600 women in Wales born in the 1950s deprived of their pensions without due and proper notice.

Now, I want to be clear here that we are not opposing the equalisation of the pension age. That is entirely just, it's entirely proper. But the issue is not equalisation, but the lack of notice and the catastrophic way in which this has been carried out. These women were denied the right to change their plans and to make preparation. The Department for Work and Pensions has acknowledged that many of these women were never informed, until the point that they actually turned up and applied for their pension, aged 60. So, it is not about opposing the equalisation of the pension age, but it is about opposing the way that the women were treated.

Now, the facts, Llywydd, are well known. Legislation to gradually equalise the pension age was passed in 1995, and that was unexceptionable—except that the women who were to be affected were not appropriately told. Years later, in 2011, the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition decided to escalate the timescale. Now, on this occasion, some of the women were told and some were not, and some of those who were informed were given just a year's notice of a six-year delay in their access to their pension. Women have been left without a basic income that they were expecting. This is not money that enables our fellow citizens to live in the lap of luxury. This is about having a reasonable standard of life. Some of those women have had to carry on working in roles that they are no longer physically strong enough to undertake safely—for example, caring—and I have seen doctors' letters to women advising them not to carry on with that kind of work when they have no choice. Some have been forced to rely solely on partners for support, and in many cases that's all right, but in some cases that leaves women vulnerable to financial abuse and to having to stay in abusive relationships because they have no money to go elsewhere. Many of them are living on their limited savings, and many of those savings are now gone. All are poorer than they expected to be after a lifetime of work, paid or unpaid. Some have been plunged into serious poverty.

Let me tell you about Rose. It's not her real name. She is happy for me to share her story, but she is much too proud to allow her neighbours, let alone her children, to know how hard things are for her now. Rose lives in a rural community in Wales. She worked in an office in the late 1960s and early 1970s for a few years, but had no opportunity—in fact, was not allowed, as a woman in those days—to contribute to the occupational pension scheme that was available to her male colleagues. She married and she worked at home for many years, looking after her children and contributing to her community in numerous voluntary capacities. When she returned to paid work in her late 40s, she made a point of, in the language that we would use, ‘topping up her stamp’, so that she would be entitled to her pension. And she went without to be able to afford to do that.

Well, after a few short years back in paid work, Rose once again found herself needed at home, first of all to care for her mother, and then for her older husband, who sadly passed away. As well as taking a huge emotional toll, this has affected Rose's health. She tells me, ‘I’m not as strong as I used to be.’ Rose was 59 when she was widowed. Her husband’s private pension did not make provision for dependants. Rose found some part-time work and dipped into her small savings pot. She thought she’d be okay—her pension would come in in a few months’ time when she was 60. Nobody had told her that she would have to wait. She made her application and that was the point at which she knew her pension was not due for some years.

So, Rose keeps working. Her savings are gone. She takes as many hours in her part-time job as she can manage, but it is not enough. There are days when the main meal of the day is tea and toast so that she can put petrol in her car to enable her to get to her part-time work. She dreads the car breaking down or the house needing repair. She saves hard for Christmas gifts and birthday gifts for her grandchildren, and it really upsets her that she can’t give them more. This is not how she expected to live and this is not what she deserves. Presiding Officer, Rose and the thousands and thousands of other women like her are looking for us today in this National Assembly to stand by her and speak up for her. Of course, these matters are not devolved, but that does not prevent us from expressing solidarity and support.

In bringing my introductory remarks to an end, I would ask Members to reject the Conservative amendments. Amendment 1 removes all meaningful content from this motion. Amendment 2 is factually incorrect and I would invite the Conservatives, in that context, to consider withdrawing it. The Department for Work and Pensions has admitted that many of the women were not contacted at all, and many of those who were contacted were contacted much too late for them to be able to make any meaningful adaptations to their arrangements. The High Court this summer will determine the extent to which the Department for Work and Pensions operated unlawfully.

And I would invite the Conservatives today, Presiding Officer, to have the courage of their lack of convictions, and if they are unable to support the WASPI women in the wrong that’s been done to them, if they are unable to stand up against this injustice, then withdraw your amendments and just vote against the motion, because we know that’s what you mean. I look forward to the contributions of all Members to this debate, and I hope that, at the end of that, we will feel able, as a National Assembly, to stand in solidarity with Rose and all the other women.