The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Darren Millar.

Which brings us to the next item, which is the Plaid Cymru debate: women against state pension inequality campaign. I call on Helen Mary Jones to move the motion.

Motion NDM7000 Rhun ap Iorwerth

Supported by David J. Rowlands

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Recognises the continuing women against state pension inequality campaign.

2. Calls on the UK Government to make fair transitional state pension arrangements for all women born on or after 6 April 1951, who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the state pension age (SPA) with lack of appropriate notification.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to make representations to the UK Government in support of the WASPI campaign.

4. Calls on the Counsel General to consider what action the Welsh Government could take in relation to the expected litigation against the Department for Work and Pensions for the alleged mishandling of raising the state pension age for women born in the 1950s.

Motion moved.

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.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendments 1 and 2 tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Mark Isherwood.

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Delete points 2 and 4 and renumber accordingly.

Amendment 2—Darren Millar

Add as new point at end of motion:

Notes that successive UK Governments have communicated with affected women since the changes to women’s pension ages since the Pensions Act 1995 and Pensions Act 2007 and that a public consultation exercise and extensive debates were undertaken in Parliament in relation to additional increases to the state pension age in 2011.

Amendments 1 and 2 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. The change to state pension age, announced in 1993, followed equality legislation and various cases in the European courts. Changes in life expectancy were also being considered. Equalisation was initially brought about by the Pensions Act in 1995, when an EU directive prompted the UK Government to equalise retirement age for men and women—then 65 and 60 respectively. The UK Government chose to level it at 65, with staged increases in women’s state pension age between 2010 and 2020.

Following the 1995 Act, actual and projected pensioner population growth continued faster than anticipated, due to increasing longevity. The then Labour Government, therefore, decided that a state pension age fixed at 65 was not affordable or sustainable, and introduced the Pensions Act 2007, increasing the state pension age to 68 in stages between 2024 and 2046.

The coalition Government set out further changes in the Pensions Act 2011, which accelerated the equalisation of women’s state pension age and brought forward the increase in equalised state pension age to 66 by 2020. However, this included a concession so that no woman would see an increase to her state pension age of more than 18 months, relative to the 1995 Act timetable, at a cost to the Exchequer of £1.1 billion. 

The Pensions Act 2014—

Are you taking an intervention, Mark Isherwood?

I wasn't aware there was a—. Yes, certainly.

Thank you for taking the intervention. Do you accept, though, that the crux of this issue is that many, many women were not notified of the changes, and that that's where the injustice lies? And if that is proven to be correct, then the UK Government should be compensating those women. Do you agree with that? [Applause.]

I'm coming to that, but I'm aware this is a matter of live litigation.

Can I just call on members in the public gallery, who I know are very interested in what we're discussing here—if you can allow the Members in the Chamber to carry on their contributions, for them to be heard. They are elected representatives of all the people of Wales and they need to be heard. If you clap, clap right at the end, and not during the debate. But I'm not urging you to clap, before anybody criticises me for saying that. [Laughter.] If you can allow all Members to be heard during their contributions, that would be very gratefully received. Mark Isherwood.

That's very kind, thank you. I'm conscious, because this is live litigation, I'm trying to avoid expressing an opinion and rather focusing on the actual history behind this. 

So, the Pensions Act 2014 then increased state pension age to 67 between 2026 and 2028, and introduced regular reviews of the state pension age, the first of which was the 2017 Cridland review, to ensure that the system remains fair, sustainable and affordable for taxpayers on an ongoing basis.

We can't ignore the issue of life expectancy. Back in 1926, when the state pension age was first set, there were nine people of working age for every pensioner. The ratio is now 3:1 and is set to fall closer to 2:1 by the latter half of the twenty-first century. Life expectancy at 65 has increased by more than 10 years since the 1920s, when the state pension age was first set. The first five of those years were added between 1920 and 1990. The next five were added in just 20 years, from 1990 to 2010. The number of people receiving a state pension is expected to grow by one third over the next 25 years and, by 2034, there will be more than twice as many people over 100 as there are now. Life expectancy at age 65 in the UK is now projected to increase to 26.7 years for men and 28.7 years for women between 2014 and 2064. Speaking in Westminster last November, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Guy Opperman, said,

'The Government have gone to significant lengths to communicate the changes to ensure that those affected were fully aware of their rights...including communication campaigns, information online, and individual letters posted to approximately 1.2 million women who were directly affected by the 1995 Act changes. A further 5 million letters were sent later to those affected by the 2011 Act changes between January 2012 and November 2013.'

He concluded,

'Between April 2000 and the end of September 2018, the Department for Work and Pensions provided more than 24 million personalised state pension statements, and we continue to encourage individuals to request a personalised state pension statement.​'

I move amendment 2. Last December, the work and pensions Secretary stated that revising the 2011 changes would cost over £30 billion by 2026, that returning to age 60 for women would cost £77 billion by 2021, and that creating a new inequality between men and women would be dubious as a matter of law. The High Court subsequently granted permission for judicial review of the impact of these matters on women born in the 1950s. The case is listed to be heard on 5 and 6 June. It's clearly inappropriate for the DWP to investigate a matter that is being considered by the High Court and they have therefore suspended action on related complaints until a final decision has been taken by the courts. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has also suspended consideration of related cases on the same basis. As Guy Opperman said in January,

'I stand here defending the actions not just of this Government but of the coalition Government, the Labour Government of 1997-2010 and the preceding Government, all of whose actions are effectively the subject matter of the judicial review.'

As the DWP has also said, it does not comment on live litigation—a protocol that this Assembly has previously adopted, but which this motion appears to breach. I move amendment 1 accordingly.

My colleagues and others have already established what the issue is here. To recap, the UK Government changed the rules to equalise the pension age for men and women without any consideration that men and women born in the 1950s faced a very different environment, with women facing considerable legal restrictions on their ability to achieve fair pay and access to pension funds. They then failed to communicate these changes to those likely to lose out—a communications effort so poor that there's been speculation that those in charge of women's pensions ended up running the Brexit campaign three years ago. [Laughter.] I may joke, but when it's been pointed out, the injustices and hardship that this is causing to these women, the UK Government has just ignored them. In fact, worse than ignored: it's imposed an additional hardship on mixed-age couples by denying many of them pension credit benefit and switching them onto the lower value universal credit.

And isn't it interesting timing, how we heard yesterday from a House of Commons committee that has seen evidence to suggest that, as a result of 86 per cent of the austerity cuts that have hit women, some of those women are turning to sex work? We can't just assume that this is only an issue for younger women. How many WASPI women, I wonder, have been forced to take this route?

All of this has really been a catalogue of poor decision making and trivialising the concerns of people that's been undertaken by a Government that, time and time again, demonstrates that it cares very little for the financial well-being of women. It makes numerous changes that disproportionately affect poorer women, and this is one of them. And people wonder why we need to make the apparatus of government, both political and administrative, more reflective of the society that it serves. Put simply, more women in senior decision-making roles in Whitehall and Westminster, and, of course, this is unlikely to happen, but if it had happened, this issue would have been addressed far sooner and it would not have been dismissed as a niche issue. So, our motion here is simple: let's support this incredible campaign and correct an injustice. [Applause.]

Can I start by declaring an interest? Members of my family were born in the 1950s. I actually live with one, and she gave me permission to mention it, so I'm okay. I was going to start differently, but I've just spent six minutes listening to the Conservative spokesperson and not once in those six minutes did I get any empathy for these women. Not once in those six minutes did I get an apology for these women. The Government has actually rejected the implications for these women, and that's disgraceful. It's about time they sat down, and stood up, maybe both together, to actually listen to the voices of these women—and it's been heard from Helen Mary Jones already this afternoon—to actually identify the differences and challenges faced by these women. Rose is not just one woman; every community we have has a Rose. 

Will you take an intervention?

I'd be more than happy to. 

I've got family members affected by this, as I'm sure other people have here. And I can assure you I have every sympathy for some of the individuals who have been affected. But will you accept that there was a Labour Government that could have changed these arrangements and did absolutely nothing to change them? Do you accept that that is the case?

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.] 

I'm going to declare an interest in this, and I'm also going to inform Darren Millar, who has put this amendment down, that it's wholly and absolutely inaccurate, because I know that I didn't have a letter. Don't tell me I had a letter and I didn't read it: I didn't have a letter, I couldn't read it, and that's the same for those people up there. We had the initial warnings when the Labour Government said they were going to change things. The accelerator letters, I don't know where they went, but there must be a postbox full of them somewhere, and it must be in the ether, because it never landed in people's letterboxes. So, you need to remove this and you need to face some facts, and you need to be honest about it.

So, I went out there—. I've spoken many times on this debate that we've had today, and I've met many, many people. I met somebody outside today who was telling me that it's physically impossible for her to do her job at the age that she's expected to do it. There's almost an understanding that men very often do physically demanding work, but it doesn't somehow translate and get read across that women do physically demanding work. Cleaning, for example, is physically demanding work. Nursing and caring is physically demanding work. You would need to try it. I suggest you try it, and then think about the fact that you will be expected to do it at the age of 60.

This takes us back to Victorian times. When we very first had to have pensions, it was at 70. The age was 70, and there were caveats within it that you didn't do this, or you didn't do that, because if you weren't of good character you couldn't have a pension. We're going backwards at a rate that has never been seen before.

Joyce, will you give way?

Yes.

Joyce, thank you for giving way. I wonder how you'd respond to a constituent from Bridgend, Jocelyn from the WASPI Bridgend and Valleys group, who said to me when I asked her, 'What would you say if you were able to speak in this debate?' And she said, 'Huw, what I'd say is that 1950s women have suffered enough through inequality all of our lives. We now live a life of induced poverty, uncertainty, illness, homelessness for some, debt and sadness, and are treated like second-class citizens. Equality is not equality for us born in the 1950s.' Would you agree with that?

I absolutely agree with it. And the other issue that I would like to raise, again, and I raised it yesterday, is that anybody that tries to find employment at the age of 65 plus—and we're talking about people having to work beyond 65—they're more likely to die, according to Prime Cymru's figures, before they get a job than they are likely to get a job.

And we also need to be aware—because it's going to affect this age group as well, again, and women, again—that the pension credits from May this year are going to be paid once the youngest person becomes entitled to that pension credit. So, it isn't only now that they're going to be affected, which they clearly are, but by increasing this age before they can receive their pension, it also moves it further along the way before they can actually get pension credits. And that has been sneaked through without any notification in the chaos that is Brexit. Well, you haven't hidden that news, we won't let you hide that news, and I won't actually accept this amendment, because I know personally that this is absolutely inaccurate. [Applause.]

I have to declare an interest at the outset, because I am a WASPI woman. I'm a woman unfairly affected by state pension age changes and one of the Women Against State Pension Inequality.

In 1995, the then Conservative Government introduced a new Pensions Act that would have raised the age of retirement for women to 65—the same age as men—by 2025. This would have given women 15 years to change their retirement plans; 15 more years of savings to help meet the shortfall in their pension funds. However, the Conservative and Lib Dem coalition Government changed these plans. The Pensions Act 2011 sped up the changes, meaning that women’s state pension age would increase from 63 in 2016 to 65 in November this year. The Act also stated that both men and women’s state pension age should increase to 66 by 2020.

I, like thousands of my compatriots, was not personally notified of the changes. I received no letter, I received no explanation, and no-one told me my retirement plans would have to change.

But unlike many other women in this situation, I am fortunate, I am still in employment and I am not facing destitution. Sadly, many women have been badly affected by these changes, and I have read of at least one women who took her own life as a result of the financial black hole she found herself in.

Nobody disagrees that men and women's retirement ages shouldn't be the same. However, these changes shouldn't have been introduced without decades of notice, years to plan, and time to make additional financial arrangements. As it stands, the changes to women's pensions were introduced too fast and too haphazardly.

I only learnt of the changes via an offhand remark from one of my friends who delivers parcels. She told me that she was looking forward to becoming part-time delivering parcels because her legs were not what they used to be. And she was going to go part-time. Unfortunately, due to these changes, she'd now found she had to deliver parcels for a further six years on a full-time basis. So, that's how I found out. And women are being made to suffer because of a lack of foresight and planning by successive UK Governments.

Unfortunately, we can't correct past mistakes, but we can mitigate the effects those mistakes are having on women born in the 1950s. Twelve months ago in this Chamber, I brought forward a motion calling for a bridging pension that supplies an income until state pension age, which is not means-tested; compensation for the absence of a bridging pension to those women who have already reached their state pension age; compensation to all of those who have not started to receive a bridging pension by an appropriate date, which would be sufficient to recover lost monetary interest; and compensation to the beneficiaries of the estates of those who are deceased and failed to receive a bridging pension. Therefore, I call on the Welsh Government to demand justice from the UK Government. We owe it to thousands of Welsh women, women who have paid their dues, to pay them their state pension. [Applause.]

The Deputy Minister and Chief Whip, Jane Hutt.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Welsh Labour Government. I thank the movers of this motion for putting forward this debate today. It highlights the issues faced by thousands of women in Wales who were born in the 1950s who've had their state pension age raised without effective or sufficient notification, as we've heard about this afternoon. We believe that, in fact, Helen Mary, it amounts to 195,000 women in Wales. I can say today that we support this motion in full.

Although pension matters aren't devolved, the Welsh Government has made strong representations about the impact of the pensions Acts of 1995 and 2011 disproportionately affecting women who've had their state pension age raised significantly without effective or sufficient notification. The Welsh Government has written to the UK Government to raise our concerns about the impact of the increase in the state pension age and we'll continue to make those representations, strengthened by the debate today, to the UK Ministers who remain responsible for these matters.

The poor and untimely communication to those women most disproportionately impacted by the changes is unforgivable, and it's been clearly highlighted in the debate today. We know women affected by the changes are now enduring hardship and poverty as a result of changes that they knew nothing about, as Members have said today.

Thank you. I welcome the fact that you want to write on this non-devolved issue, but we just sat in a debate prior to this where the Minister for international affairs said she couldn't intervene because is was a non-devolved issue. How can you intervene on this non-devolved issue but you couldn't intervene on the previous non-devolved issue?

I welcome the opportunity today to bring some consensus about the representations that we can make on behalf of the women in Wales who are so adversely affected by these changes. Many women in this age group will have worked part-time, often in more than one part-time job, in low-paid roles, taking time off work to care for children or elderly relatives. Many have experienced  inequality, as Huw Irranca-Davies said, throughout their lives and were expecting to have some rights in their pensionable times. They've worked, they've paid their national insurance contributions, they've contributed fully to society, but now they find themselves once again being directly disadvantaged as women.

So, we pay tribute today, and this is an important strong voice from this Chamber, to campaigners in our constituencies. I particularly want to pay tribute to Kay Ann Clarke and Theresa Hughes, who I met on the steps of the Senedd today. There are several campaign groups campaigning for justice—Women Against State Pension Inequality, BackTo60, Shoulder to Shoulder, We Paid In You Pay Out—speaking across the land about their campaigns. I think we must pay tribute to the accomplishments of these groups. They've got the message over into the mainstream media, and to politicians. They've formed groups across the country in our constituencies. They've also been instrumental in the formation of the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women.

As a result of their campaign, women from across the country submitted complaints of maladministration against the Department for Work and Pensions. The High Court has granted permission for a judicial review, due to take place on 5 and 6 June. So, we will continue to monitor developments and raise our concerns with the UK Ministers who are responsible for these matters. I will say, in response to your motion—[Interruption.]

Thank you for taking the intervention. It's really an opportunity to correct what I thought was misleading information on the position of the DWP that was made by the Conservatives. There is no reason at all, when there is a judicial review, why the DWP can't comment, because it's about process and procedure. If the DWP recognises that the women have been treated unfairly, they can say so. All they have to do is withdraw their opposition to the judicial review, and then enter into negotiations and discussions as to how they rectify what has been a rather serious mistake—a gross mistake that they've made. [Applause.]

Absolutely, and I can assure you and assure this Chamber that if litigation is commenced, the Counsel General and Welsh Ministers will consider what options are available to us in this Welsh Government to respond. So, I conclude with a very powerful statement made by Philip Alston from the UN, a special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. He said last year that women born in the 1950s have been particularly impacted by an abrupt and poorly phased-in change to the state pension age, so that the impact of the changes is such as to severely penalise those who happen to be on the cusp of retirement.

We will, Llywydd, support the motion in full and oppose amendments 1 and 2. It is the UK Government that has a responsibility towards these women and to put a wrong right; they can do it now, as Mick Antoniw has said, and ensure that women's equality is supported and promoted. And, as David Rees said, that rally I think he attended in Port Talbot last Saturday—they were there to call for our support and for the UK Government to 'give us back our dignity, our self-worth and our lives'. That's what women campaigners are calling for. We back them all the way—Welsh Government and Labour AMs back them here today in support of this motion from Plaid Cymru. [Applause.]

Helen Mary Jones to reply to the debate. Helen Mary Jones.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Thank you very much. And can I thank most of the Members who've contributed to this debate? I can't possibly respond to all the points that have been made, but we've heard some very moving individual testimonies, people speaking either for their friends, colleagues or for themselves.

I think the points made particularly by David Rees and Leanne were about women's different life experiences, about how much more they depend on the state pension. It was literally not possible for my constituent, Rose, to save in an employer's pension scheme, because she wasn't allowed because of her sex. Those women's lives have been very different and we owe them something for the unpaid work that they've done, for the caring that they've done, for the volunteering in their communities.

I'm extremely grateful to the Welsh Government for their support for this motion and I really hope that they will look at ways in which they can practically make representations on behalf of the women so affected. And now, Llywydd, we come to the cognitive dissonance that is Mark Isherwood. I mean, we all know what a very nice human being he is, but how on earth can he hold the values that I believe he genuinely does hold and then talk such nonsense? Mark Isherwood has explained to us—[Interruption.]—I'm sorry, Mark, no, I don't have time. I normally would, but I don't have time—

Yes, you do, Helen Mary.

All right. If he wants more rope to hang himself with, then I'm happy to provide him with it.

No, no, no. Mark Isherwood.

Because this matter is under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere, I stuck to historic facts and quotes from the record; I didn't express a view and we do not oppose a judicial review. But because of the circumstance, I did not feel it appropriate to risk a sub judice contribution.

Your point is made, but your point is incorrect. Unless you disbelieve Joyce Watson, Caroline Jones and others who have said in this Chamber that they did not receive a letter, amendment 2 is factually incorrect, and I invite you again to withdraw it, because it is just wrong. The Department for Work and Pensions have said that there were many women who were not corresponded with.

Now, Mark Isherwood, you speak in one way and then the amendments that you're placing are contradictory, in a sense, to what you've said. You've described to us what you said was a historical case, you've described to us what should have happened, and on all of the points of legislation, yes, you were correct, but the issue is not the legislation, the issue is not equalising the age—the issue is that women should've been told when they had time to plan. And far be it for me to defend the Labour Party, because, as you know, this is not my habit, but on this occasion, it is not their fault. Goodness knows it often is—[Laughter.]—but on this occasion, it is not their fault. 

To draw my remarks to a close, Llywydd, I again invite the Conservatives to withdraw their second amendment, because it is factually inaccurate. I urge this Assembly to oppose both their amendments. And my final message, Llywydd, is to all the women so affected. I urge every single woman in this age group who did not get a letter to register your complaint with the Department for Work and Pensions. Every one of those, if Jane Hutt's figures are correct—and I relied on figures from the House of Commons, so I suppose it's not surprising that it's an underestimate—every single one of those almost 200,000 women: register your complaint. By doing so you become by implication part of the process that's subject to judicial review. I would urge you to go and talk to your Assembly Member or MP to get some assistance with that process. You may consider that that isn't a very sensible thing to do if your Assembly Member or MP is a Conservative. I urge you, all these women, to demand your rights, and the majority of us will stand with you as you do. [Applause.]

The question is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, I defer the vote until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.