State Pension Age (Women)

Debate between Nic Dakin and Barbara Keeley

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley]

I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend says and I thank her for coming to that earlier debate.

It seems unbelievable that civil servants and Ministers could believe that taking billions in pensions away from a particular group, adding years to their state pension age and then not informing them in good time would not have a disproportionate impact on that group.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I raised these concerns, which had been brought to me by the class that left Foxhills comprehensive school in 1970, on Second Reading of the Bill that became the 2011 Act. When I did so, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said:

“I have had letters from the public stirred up by a number of people”—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 51.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just something being stirred up by a number of people, but a very real issue that we have known about for some time?

[Barbara Keeley]

I do agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for the work he has done on this matter since that Second Reading debate. These changes are having a disproportionate impact on my constituents and on his, and I have heard from WASPI campaigners who are also badly affected. As we have heard, many have health problems that stop them working and others have given up work to care. One of my constituents affected by the changes has worked for more than 44 years and has raised two children. She suffers with osteoarthritis and she tells me that she suffered the indignity of having to attend the jobcentre, where she was told that she was only entitled to six months’ jobseeker's allowance. Unable to find work, she has to use her hard-earned savings. She has said:

“I must watch my savings dwindle on living costs rather than enjoyment, I wish I had not bothered being frugal all my life, as by the time I get my pension I will be broke or dead.”

State Pension Age Equalisation

Debate between Nic Dakin and Barbara Keeley

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman was here in 2011, when some of the affected women lobbied their MPs about the proposals in the then Pensions Bill. Saga commented:

“Putting pensions on a sustainable long-term footing does not justify the sudden increase being imposed on one group of women at such short notice”—

that is exactly the point he raises—

“especially when the Government knows that these particular women are more vulnerable than men and have little or no private pension wealth. Also, many are already out of the labour market and have made careful plans for their future, which are now in disarray.”

Ironically, the then director general of Saga is now the Conservative Minister for Pensions in the other place. When I wrote to her on behalf of a constituent earlier this year she told me:

“I tried hard in 2011 but there is nothing more I can do I’m afraid. It is not in my power.”

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. At the time, many of us pointed out the iniquities of the proposals. I commend her on continuing to try hard and on not giving up as quickly as the noble Lady appears to have done.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend spoke on Second Reading of the 2011 Pensions Bill, which I will address later.

Perhaps the Pensions Minister would benefit from understanding her powers. She was appointed after the general election, but her powers include the power to argue for changes needed to remedy injustice. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will focus on that injustice. The changes made in the 2011 Act were controversial, and hon. Members from all parties raised the particular impact that the changes would have on women born in the 1950s. As I have mentioned, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions repeatedly referred to transitional arrangements on Second Reading, including, I think, in answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). The Secretary of State said:

“I recognise the need to implement the change fairly and manage the transition smoothly…I say to my colleagues that I am willing to work to get the transition right”.—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 50.]

The changes were not managed fairly, and the Secretary of State did not put transitional arrangements in place, which is why I applied for this debate to discuss the issues caused by the changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. As we are living longer, so the number of carers is increasing. A Carers UK survey this year found that nearly a third of the female carers who responded and who were aged 60-plus said that they had retired early to care. The problem for women who fall into that group is compounded because, as Carers UK knows, retiring early in itself has a long-term impact on family finances. Of female carers aged 60-plus who retired early to care, 36% said that they were struggling to make ends meet, and of those struggling 40% were using their own savings to get by. Marian, a campaigner from Women Against State Pension Inequality—or WASPI; it is remarkable how that is abbreviated—contacted me yesterday. She has given up work at the age of 62 to care for her mother and brother, both of whom have dementia. Her only source of income is a small private pension of £2,500. Her husband will have to support her until she is 65. Marian tells me she only found out about her changed state pension age when she looked it up online.

[Nic Dakin]

Is it not ironic that people like Marian are saving the state a lot of expense through the work they are doing as carers, yet the state is not keeping to its deal with them, which it made a long while ago?

[Barbara Keeley]

That is absolutely true. The two years’ notice is clearly an issue when someone is deciding to retire to care for two people with dementia, particularly when looking after two people with dementia saves the state a great deal of money.

There are many such stories and examples. By not providing adequate notice of the change and by speeding up the process without putting in place any suitable transitional protection, the Government are failing to support the women born in the 1950s who are affected by their policies. Having promised much during debates, the only concession the Government made was to ensure that the additional increase in the state pension age could not be more than 18 months, but that small concession is of little comfort to those women who were not even informed of the change until very close to the age at which they expected to retire. They have worked hard and contributed to the system.

Throughout their lives, this generation of women has been disadvantaged in the workplace in terms of pay because of their gender. Even now, women in their 60s earn 14% less than men. Many of the women do not have private pensions. Until 1995, women who worked part-time were not allowed to join company pension schemes, and others did not qualify because they took time away from work owing to ill health or a caring role. Very many have no other sources of income, and they now find that once again they are being treated unfairly because of the way changes to the state pension have been enacted and because they are women.

I urge the Minister to look again at the issue and to look at ways of providing adequate transitional protection —the transitional protection that his ministerial colleagues repeatedly mentioned in the debates on the Pensions Act 2011.

Independent Living Fund Recipients

Debate between Nic Dakin and Barbara Keeley

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nic Dakin]

Absolutely. It is the services that matter, but any change in structure needs to guarantee people’s independence in future. Tinkering with structures and risking people’s futures is not something that anyone can do at the drop of a hat. I very much agree that what matters is services, not structure, but why change the structure if it is delivering, creating all the uncertainty and concern that is around?

According to Scope, £2.68 billion has been cut from adult social care budgets in the past three years alone, equating to 20% of net spending. That is happening when the number of working-age disabled people needing care is projected to rise by 9.2% between 2010 and 2020. In a recent survey, 40% of disabled people reported that social care services already fail to meet their basic needs, such as washing, dressing or getting out of the house, and 47% of respondents said that the services they received do not enable them to take part in community life. It is not surprising that people are desperately worried about their future.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Barbara Keeley]

Thank you, Mr Robertson. I am glad that that is clear now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) is making an excellent speech on behalf of people who are worried about those vital resources, which will not be ring-fenced. Does he agree that there is an issue, as he has pointed out, about devolving to local authorities? My local authority is cash-strapped; 1,000 people will lose their care packages this year. Will the change not simply put a burden on unpaid family carers? Is that not a double burden, because people with the most difficult physical problems might be hard to lift and move—except by trained carers—which risks injury or fracture to them, as well to the carer doing the lifting?

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right. She speaks with a lot of experience and insight into the issue, which she has campaigned on for a long while. She is right that the other group of people who might find themselves under significant pressure are the family carers of those now in receipt of ILF.

The worry, as my hon. Friend has indicated, is that the continued underfunding of social care will mean that the care system will simply not be able to support disabled people to live independently. The lack of reference to independent living in the definition of the well-being principle in the Care Act 2014, which local authorities will need to take into account when providing care, further fuels that anxiety.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Nic Dakin and Barbara Keeley

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who was hyperactive and animated in his contribution. On balance, I feel that he protesteth too much about most things on this particular occasion.

The Chancellor can certainly talk the talk. The question the country is asking is whether he can walk the walk. In his Mais lecture on 24 February 2010, the then shadow Chancellor argued that there were a series of benchmarks for the policies of the next Parliament

“against which you will be able to judge whether a Conservative Government is delivering on this new economic model.”

He also said:

“I have set out the benchmarks against which we can be held accountable”;

that

“we will maintain Britain’s AAA credit rating”;

and:

“We have to deal with our debts”.

We can mark the Chancellor against his own benchmarks. He has lost the UK’s triple A credit rating because he has failed to deliver growth and to reduce the deficit. The lack of growth has resulted in more, not less, borrowing. It is up £254 billion. Today’s Financial Times has a graph that demonstrates that the deficit is getting wider and that debt is going up. The headline says, “Things are worse and Plan A is off course.” It is now forecast that national debt as a percentage of GDP will not start falling until 2017-18.

In a sense, the Chancellor has supervised his own deficit expansion programme. Nice work by the Chancellor! But it was all too predictable. At least one learned commentator gave a warning in 2010—the Business Secretary who spoke from the Dispatch Box earlier. He said:

“Slashing spending now could push the economy back into recession and inflict further structural damage on the UK that will make it harder to sustain our credit rating.”

He said of the then shadow Chancellor:

“He…fails to appreciate that what the markets are looking for is a credible plan to reduce the deficit, not a willingness to slash regardless of economic conditions. In the current climate, it is essential that decisions about the speed and timing of tackling the deficit are based on the state of the economy, not political dogma.”

There we have it: decisions made from millionaires’ row and in yesterday’s Budget are affecting ordinary, hard-working people in my Scunthorpe constituency, and they are not making a difference for the better.

People are suffering from the removal of the education maintenance allowance, tuition fees, the rise in VAT, short-term working, tax credits being taken away, rising energy bills, fuel bills still going up despite the welcome move in the Budget, and the bedroom tax; and they are £381 a year worse off than they were in 2010. This Budget prefers a bedroom tax to a mansion tax, and it prefers giving a second home subsidy to those who can take advantage of it to building homes for those who need them. This is a Budget for millionaires, not hard-working people. It is a Budget of desperation and exasperation rather than aspiration, and another omnishambles.

[Barbara Keeley]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There has been lot of confusion over the last few hours about the Government’s new mortgage guarantee scheme, and while we have the opportunity I would like to ask those on the Treasury Bench to clarify whether second home owners are eligible for the scheme. Can the scheme, which can be used for new builds and other types of housing, be used in that way?