Here we go: the Tories trying to blame somebody else again, when the Tories did all the motions. It's about time they took responsibility for their actions, and they're not doing that. Let's look at this reality. As I said, there's a Rose in every community. Let's get serious about this. It's known that 33 per cent of men may end up only on the state pension, but 55 per cent of women will end up relying on the state pension—disproportionately affecting women again. 

We have a situation with the age-barrier issue. A woman who was born in May 1953 will have had a pension in November 2016, a loss of some £2,000. A woman born in May 1954 will not get a pension until January 2020, a loss of some £20,000. For the sake of 12 months, a huge difference. That is not fair. Also, let's go on to this, because the third problem we have is the notice. The women up there will tell you: the notice. My wife will tell you she didn't get notice. This is a big issue. And, when you do get notice—three years—what can you do in three years to prepare for your pension changes? Nothing. That is totally inappropriate and totally ineffective. You are putting these women in a position where they cannot make alternative arrangements, they cannot live on the income they're going to get, they cannot prepare, and that is unfair. 

I go back to a couple of points here: ages. We talk about negativity, but let's be honest about it—when I tweeted this about 1950s women, I was told off. I was born in 1960. I know the Member who was on the radio this morning will be in the same category. I was born in 1960. What about me? She will be affected as well, because we are thinking only in the 1950s because they're coming up to their pension age now, but this is going to affect women for many, many years. And why should we be debating it? It's not just about supporting women, because this Government will have to pick up the pieces for those women. There will be a demand upon social needs. Those women are now carers very often; whether they're caring for older relatives or grandchildren, they become carers. If they have to work, who's going to be the carers? Who's going to pick up the bill for the carers? The people in the front row here. It affects the Welsh Government. It affects everything we do, and what's more important, it affects the women out there. It's the real situation. 

Some are able to have occupational pensions, but I think Helen Mary highlighted this: they came from an age where they weren't entitled to occupational pensions; they weren't included in that. Some of them didn't start work until later in life, because of the tradition in those days where they started looking after the family and then came in to work later on, sometimes part-time and built them up. That results in any occupational pension that they did have being very small anyway. And everyone—everyone—relied upon the concept of, 'Well, I'm going to have a pension at the age of 60, and that's my calculation, that's what I'm working towards—a pension at the age of 60, so I can retire and help with the caring needs of my family.' That's been shot, because they now have to work because they can't have the income when they would have retired.

And some of those are working in jobs that are physically demanding, and it's going to make them ill as a consequence of that. It's going to make them probably have demands upon social services, social needs, because of that condition they will then get because they're working those extra years. What are we doing as a society, putting that upon women? It's about time we took our responsibilities and treated these women fairly, and the transitional period, thrown out of the window by the Tory Government. These women have been put on the scrapheap. It's about time we stood up and represent these women, and told the Tory Government, 'You have a duty to these women; deliver that duty.' [Applause.]