Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Debate between Paul Farrelly and Helen Jones

Monday 1st February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

Many women are losing out on their pensions in all sorts of ways, not least because of the change in the retirement age. One woman who wrote to me has, like many of those I have heard from, worked all her life. She suddenly found out that rather than her retirement age being 62, it was going to be 65. She said:

“I am really annoyed with the Government’s lack of respect for those of us that have worked hard all our lives.”

The phrase “lack of respect” sums up the situation. There has been failure to give proper notification—sometimes there has been no notification—a failure to understand that many of the women affected were working in low-paid jobs all their lives, a failure to understand that women could not change their plans at short notice and that many of them would have to rely on their husband’s pension, and a total failure to see the impact of the legislation on those real people. Many of these people are now living in poverty or working for longer in low-paid jobs, while many were made redundant in their early 60s and cannot get other employment.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Helen Jones]

I will give way once more and then make some progress.

[Paul Farrelly]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech. Has she been able to obtain from the Treasury an estimate of the saving to its coffers due to this acceleration of equalisation? It seems to me and many others that, alongside measures such as the restriction to the lifetime allowance, this is part of the Chancellor’s great raid on the pensions of people around the country.

[Helen Jones]

The Chancellor’s financial calculations are always a little opaque, but I think that we are talking about something like £30 billion.

The Government have consistently undervalued these women and their contribution to the country through work, caring and childcare. These women are being forced into poverty, and they are angry, as they have every right to be, because they have been treated appallingly. Frankly, blaming the EU for the fiasco, as the Government have tried to do, will not work. I know that many MPs are being told to blame the EU in the standard letters that they send back. It is common for some Ministers to blame the EU if it rains three days in a row but, in this case, that is not correct.

EU directive 79/7/EEC promoted equal treatment in social security matters, but it specifically recognised that progress towards equal pensions would have to involve transitional arrangements. In fact, the European Commission’s 2007 report made it clear that it expected transitional arrangements to be made. What are other EU countries doing? Austria will equalise its state pension ages in 2033. France is doing that earlier—in 2020—but it is equalising them at 61. In fact, many European countries have a long transitional process in the move towards equalisation. The European Court of Justice judgment that is often cited applies to occupational pensions, not state pensions, which are specifically exempted under paragraph 1(a) of article 7 of the directive to which I referred.

The real reason behind this, as we heard earlier, is to save money. Again, the current Minister for Pensions agrees with that, because in an article for the Yorkshire Post—again, this was before she became Pensions Minister —she wrote:

“increasing state pension age saves significant sums, as millions must wait longer before their pension starts, but for many this is causing real hardship. Surely Ministers should be sensitive to the damage done to older people’s lives”.

Well, Ministers are not sensitive to that damage. The new Pensions Minister in particular is not sensitive to that damage, because she wrote to a member of Women Against State Pension Inequality—I congratulate it on its work—to say:

“there is no basis for me to demand spending public money when due process was followed.”

Well, let me ask this: who contributed to that public money? Many of those contributions came from women who have worked hard all their lives and have relieved the state of huge burdens through their caring responsibilities.

Defamation Law

Debate between Paul Farrelly and Helen Jones

Thursday 15th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Benton.

We have had an interesting debate. I congratulate the members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on their contributions to the debate; they have done an enormous amount of work on this issue. I was pleased to hear the Minister set it out clearly that, although he wants to take action to reform the libel laws, that is a complex matter and a delicate balance that has to be struck. He set out clearly the need to protect academic and scientific debate and investigative journalism, and the problems in respect of the costs in civil proceedings, particularly libel proceedings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) also stressed the need to get the change right, and I think all hon. Members would agree. He also touched on the role of corporations in defamation cases and the possible damage to investigative journalism that can result from that.

The Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), set out clearly the state of the law and the damage that can result from that, particularly the problems that we are dealing with in respect of success fees and costs.

All the contributions to the debate reflect the real concern about the state of the law and the complex nature of the reforms that are needed. The Select Committee report on press standards, privacy and libel made a useful contribution to the debate. Others have made useful contributions, too. For instance, a number of early-day motions have been tabled in the House, and English PEN and Index on Censorship produced reports, leading the then Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), to set up the Ministry of Justice working group on libel, which produced a report last year.

We all face the problem that any reform of the law needs to do a number of different things: protect the right of free speech, particularly following the Singh case; protect that right in free scientific debate and inquiry; and protect the rights of campaigning investigative journalists who publish articles that are in the public interest. But it also needs to ensure that those who are defamed, particularly those of modest means, have recourse to the law to protect their reputation. The hon. Member for Maldon mentioned the libels suffered by Mr and Mrs McCann. I do not think that any hon. Member in this Chamber would suggest that people in such a position ought to be debarred from having recourse to the law because they are not wealthy.

We face difficulties in drawing up a new law, but I am pleased that all parties are now committed to doing so. The Labour party manifesto for the election committed us to changing the law to protect the right of defendants to speak freely. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats also committed themselves to reform. I genuinely do not believe that this is a party political issue and I say that as someone who is normally a tribal politician. The House needs to scrutinise this issue carefully to get the balance of the law right.

It is clear that so-called libel tourism is causing real concern. In fact, English PEN and Index on Censorship argued that English libel law imposes unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on free speech, and that the effect reaches throughout the world. Many of us might not go as far as that, but it was clear when the Select Committee considered the matter that restrictions may be necessary on claimants whose primary place of residence or business is not in the UK, and that they should perhaps face additional hurdles before being able to bring a case here.

It is also clear that the scope of the defence of public interest set out in the Reynolds and Jameel cases needs clarification. I hear what hon. Members have said about the risks of putting that defence into statute—I am minded to go down that route—but we must consider the rule on multiple publication, particularly in the age of the internet. The Select Committee suggested a limitation period of one year, with the courts having discretion to extend that. Again, it was clear that a balance must be struck between allowing individuals to protect their reputation, and ensuring that newspapers and other organisations are not forced to remove articles from the internet simply because the passage of time made it difficult and costly to defend them.

The report for the Ministry of Justice set out two options: a one-year limitation rule, or retaining the rule on multiple publications but allowing exceptions—perhaps the extension of qualified privilege or a similar freestanding defence.

[Paul Farrelly]

Lord Lester’s Bill addresses qualified privilege. Does my hon. Friend agree that the law on qualified privilege is not now working to provide protection as it should and was intended to do, particularly of the work of non-governmental organisations? They often feel constrained, for example, in referring to United Nations reports or reports from overseas bodies that make allegations because they fear a libel suit in which they must prove all the allegations themselves rather than relying on the report of otherwise august bodies?

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I hope that we can examine the issues in detail when the draft Bill is before us. I want to state clearly that by focusing on, for example, libel tourism and cases brought by wealthy individuals, we are sometimes in danger of forgetting that others must also have access to the law. We all agree that justice is not justice unless everyone has access to it.

That leads me to what is frequently described as the elephant in the room—costs and conditional fee agreements. The Constitutional Affairs Committee considered the matter in the previous Parliament, and received a large number of submissions from media organisations indicating that they are particularly affected by the use of CFAs. The Committee said that one of the main issues for defendants in libel cases is costs. When Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers gave evidence to that Committee, he highlighted the problem of costs in defamation actions, and expressed many people’s concern that fighting and winning a case could incur substantial costs that a defendant might not be able to recover. That is a valid point, but the Committee pointed out and we must bear it in mind that while it received many submissions from media organisations, it is much more difficult to receive submissions on behalf of claimants because they are not in organised groups that can give evidence to Select Committees.

We all know that the balance is delicate. The previous Government sought to deal with the costs of defamation actions before taking action on Lord Justice Jackson’s report by limiting the uplift in CFA cases to 10%, but that did not find favour with the Committee that scrutinised it in the House. I remember that very well because I was the Whip on the Committee, and it was the only one I have ever lost. Since then, some wise heads have suggested slightly higher limitations and other ways of capping costs.

[Paul Farrelly]

As other hon. Members have said, we made a distinction between limiting the uplift in defamation cases and limiting recoverability. Does my hon. Friend agree that in such cases the issue is reputation, and that damages should be secondary? It should be possible for claimants to share damages with solicitors in part to contribute to their costs. That would not be limited by capping recoverability from the other side.