UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Neil O’Brien – 2023 Speech on Sudden Cardiac Death in Young People

    Neil O’Brien – 2023 Speech on Sudden Cardiac Death in Young People

    The speech made by Neil O’Brien, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for securing this debate on such an important issue. I am extremely sorry to hear about Nathan and about Stephen and Gill and, indeed, about the constituents of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). I would very much welcome the meeting that my hon. Friend described with her constituents, and we will set that up.

    We recognise, though it is hard to understand, the devastation caused to families by the sudden cardiac death of a young person. Sudden cardiac death is an unexpected and sudden death that is thought to be caused by a heart condition.

    The implementation of genomic laboratory hubs across England provides an opportunity to explore the systematic introduction of post-mortem genetic testing for SCD. Seven NHS genomic medicine service alliances play an important role in the support of genomic medicine. Those NHS GMS alliances are supporting several transformation projects, including a national project with the NHS inherited cardiac conditions services, the British Heart Foundation and the country’s coroners.

    The project will test the DNA of people who died suddenly and unexpectedly at a young age from a cardiac arrest, and their surviving family can also be offered genetic testing to see if they carry the same gene changes. In addition, a pilot project based in the NHS South East Genomic Medicine Service Alliance is aimed at people who have had an unexpected cardiac arrest and survived. They will be offered a genomic test to enable access to treatment, and further genomic testing will be offered to identify immediate family members at risk if a gene change associated with a heart condition is found.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe mentioned, screening programmes in England are set up on the advice of the UK National Screening Committee. These are not political decisions; they are decisions based on the best currently available evidence, and they determine whether the introduction of a screening programme would offer more good than harm. As my hon. Friend said, in 2019 the National Screening Committee reviewed the evidence to provide general screening, and concluded at that time that there was not enough evidence to support the introduction of a national screening programme.

    Research showed that the current tests were not accurate enough to use in young people without symptoms, because incorrect test results can cause harm by giving false reassurance to individuals with the condition who may have been missed by the screening test, while individuals without the condition may receive a false positive test result that could lead to unnecessary treatments. The review found that most studies for SCD were in professional athletes, whose hearts of course have different characteristics from those of the general population. Tests can work in different ways in different groups of people. That is why it is very important that research is gathered in a general population setting, as to base it on athletes would not provide a good indication of what would happen if we tested all young people under the age of 39.

    The UK NSC was due to review SCD in 2022-23, as my hon. Friend mentioned, but has been unable to do so for a variety of reasons to do with covid and competing priorities. I am unable to confirm this evening when the regular review of SCD will take place, but I am assured that it will take place as soon as constraints allow. I will write to my hon. Friend setting out more details very shortly, because I know how urgent it is to understand when that will happen.

    In 2022, the NSC’s remit was expanded to set up a research sub-group to keep abreast of ongoing research related to screening, and to identify research requirements and advice on mechanisms to address them. The committee has encouraged stakeholders to submit any peer-reviewed evidence it may have on incidence for review by the NSC via its early update process, but so far it has not received anything. My hon. Friend asked a series of detailed questions and made a series of very helpful suggestions about how we change the process. The NSC will doubtless have heard the issues that she has raised in this House, but I also undertake to raise directly with the NSC all her very constructive points.

    The consensus at present has been to focus on rapid identification of sudden cardiac death and automated external defibrillator use in people who suffer a cardiac arrest, in line with the NHS long-term plan. The Government continue to encourage communities and organisations across England to consider purchasing a defibrillator as part of their first aid equipment, particularly in densely populated areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) mentioned some of the excellent work that has been done in his local area on this front. At the end of last summer, the Government announced that all state-funded schools across England will receive at least one AED on site, with more devices delivered to bigger schools, boosting their numbers in communities across the country. In December, we also announced the community defibrillator fund, which gives communities matched funding and aims to install about 1,000 more defibrillators across the country. I know that many hon. Members in this House will want to take up that offer and are spearheading work to get more AEDs out into the community.

    To conclude the debate and start the process that we will be going through, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe for raising this hugely important issue. We have heard some truly heartrending stories this evening, and I thank all those involved in The Beat Goes On and other similar organisations for their hugely important work. I promise that this issue will continue to get our utmost attention as a Government.

  • Holly Mumby-Croft – 2023 Speech on Sudden Cardiac Death in Young People

    Holly Mumby-Croft – 2023 Speech on Sudden Cardiac Death in Young People

    The speech made by Holly Mumby-Croft, the Conservative MP for Scunthorpe, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak on a genuinely important issue. What I am about to speak about was brought to my attention by my constituents, Stephen and Gill Ayling, who are in the Public Gallery today. They experienced the very worst thing that could ever happen to a parent when, sadly, their son Nathan died at the age of 31 in February 2019. While I was not fortunate enough to have known Nathan, we were close in age and we both went to the same local school.

    Nathan lost his life to young sudden cardiac death after a problem with his heart went undetected all his life. Before his death, Nathan appeared fit and healthy. He played football and rugby regularly, and lifted weights and cycled. Stephen and Gill have previously described how they will never, ever be able to escape from the memory of when they found their son, who had died in his bed. As a parent myself, I cannot begin to grasp how utterly shattering that moment must have been. My condolences go out to them and to their family, and to all who knew and loved Nathan.

    In the wake of Nathan’s death, Stephen and Gill became involved with the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young, which provides heart screenings—I will come on to this later—for young people. Stephen and Gill founded a community group, The Beat Goes On, which is a wonderful name and a wonderful tribute to Nathan. As part of the group, Stephen and Gill raised £10,000 to fund private screenings on 10 and 11 January this year, providing tests for 186 young people in our community. Ten of those young people have been referred for further cardiac investigation. I commend them for all their hard work and put on the record my thanks, and the thanks of many in our area, for all they have done for our community in Scunthorpe.

    Last summer, I tabled a written question to ask the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care what steps his Department was taking to increase the diagnosis rate of cardiac conditions in people aged 14 to 35. Once those conditions are diagnosed, it is often possible for them to be treated, either with pharmaceutical or surgical intervention or through lifestyle changes.

    In the Government’s response, I was informed:

    “Since July 2021, we have launched community diagnostic centres (CDCs) to increase diagnostic activity and reduce patient waiting times. CDCs offer checks, scans and tests in community and other health care settings and delivered over 880,000 diagnostic tests…This will support Primary Care Networks to increase the detection of conditions such as heart valve disease.”

    While that answer is good news for some people, I would welcome any assessment the Government have carried out of how helpful those diagnostic centres are in relation to heart conditions in young people specifically.

    I was also told:

    “The diagnosis of cardiac conditions is based on the presentation of symptoms, rather than the age range of the patient”

    or their genetic risk factors. That is a crucial point, and for young people it takes us to the crux of the problem. Research has shown that in 80% of cases of young sudden cardiac death, there were no prior symptoms of a heart defect; no opportunity was presented to step in and intervene and potentially save a young person’s life. As a result, families have lost sons, daughters, brothers and sisters—someone they loved.

    Doctors have raised with me their concerns about a completely symptom-focused approach to young people. Aside from the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who have this condition do not exhibit symptoms, my understanding is that the symptoms that GPs are trained to look for are breathlessness, heart palpitations, dizziness, chest pain and losing consciousness. Those are common symptoms that can be attributed to other ailments, many of which will be more common in young people. As such, GPs could potentially misdiagnose a heart condition, perhaps providing medication—for anxiety or depression, for instance—that could aggravate an undiagnosed condition.

    The best approach to take in healthcare is always a preventive one—a process that intervenes to stop someone suffering or dying. In cases involving young people, the best way to do this may be through proactive screening. The majority of conditions—but not all—associated with sudden cardiac death in the young can be identified on the basis of an electrocardiogram, or ECG, abnormality. That is the type of screening that Stephen and Gill, and other parents like them, and CRY fundraise and campaign for, sometimes resulting in follow-up tests. Approximately one in 300 people screened by CRY will be identified as having a potentially life-threatening condition, and one in 100 will be identified as having a condition that could cause significant problems by the ages of 40 or 50. Those conditions need to be monitored every three to four months, so that action can be taken when most appropriate.

    As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, in 2019 the UK National Screening Council recommended against a systematic screening programme for cardiac conditions in the young. There is set to be another review by the end of this year. I would like to speak briefly first on the previous review, and then on the future one.

    One of the reasons cited for not rolling out a screening programme was the continuing uncertainty over the true incidence rate of sudden cardiac death. To say that there was not a consensus on what that figure was would be a gross understatement. I cannot stress enough how important it is that we have accurate data on that issue, especially if it is influencing clinical or policy decisions.

    In preparation for this debate, I spoke to representatives from CRY. They said that, just on the basis of the number of autopsies they are performing at their centre for cardiac pathology each year, we are disastrously underestimating the full extent of the problem. I want my language to be very clear, so I repeat that they say that we are disastrously underestimating the full extent of the problem.

    In order to shed light on the issue, one of the stakeholders contributing to the review stated that it would be

    “very helpful if the review outlined more specific research recommendations, providing potential researchers with a framework of the characteristics of a project that could address the uncertainty.”

    I have spoken to others involved with the review, who advised me that that framework was not in place. I would be grateful if the Minister could urge the UK National Screening Council to provide clarity, so that we can get reliable data that we can use to make policy decisions. Without that, we risk having an unhelpful fog shrouding this issue; if we do not dispel it, we may lose more lives to undiagnosed heart conditions.

    Similarly, there are questions about testing accuracy. Some stakeholders have asked for more specific research recommendations. In particular, it is really important to specify the test, or group of tests, that would enable simultaneous screening for all the potential causes of sudden cardiac death. Again, I ask the Minister to push for those recommendations to be laid down, so that the scientists can get on with the job that they do best.

    Looking forward to the next review, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed a timeline for when this will be completed and when we should expect the findings to be published. It is important to note that several other countries are steps ahead of us when it comes to proactive screening programmes, and, although I appreciate that these might be out of scope of the review, I do think it would be a missed opportunity not to raise them. Several American sporting bodies—

    Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)

    I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. My goddaughter, Sophie Pearson, passed away in 2006 at 12 years of age from cardiomyopathy. Sophie’s parents spent many years helping to raise awareness and raise funds. I congratulate the hon. Lady on the work that she is doing and hope that the awareness that she is raising today will go some way in supporting families and avoiding unnecessary deaths of young people.

    Holly Mumby-Croft

    I am terribly sorry to hear what the hon. Gentleman said, and I thank him for his intervention.

    Let me continue on the sporting aspect. Italy has introduced pre-participation screening. Although I appreciate that there are issues with extrapolating the data to the non-athletic population, one study in 2006 did show that screening led to an 89% fall in sudden cardiac death in that cohort.

    I know that every Member in this House will be united in wanting to reduce the number of young people dying from undiagnosed cardiac conditions, and expanding access to the screening available will help to reduce that.

    Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)

    I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and pay tribute to her constituents who are with us today for doing so much to raise funding for screening in our area. She is talking about the important issue of screening, particularly in relation to young people and sporting activities. Is it not also important that we ensure that sports facilities have access to defibrillators for when cardiac arrests take place? She will know that, through North Lincolnshire Council, scores of defibrillators have been funded across our area. With the Government announcing a £1 million fund to expand defibrillators, is it not important that that fund also takes into account sporting clubs and the issue around young people and sudden cardiac arrests?

    Holly Mumby-Croft

    I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that he is very well placed to have a view on this matter through his work as a first responder in our community—something that he has been doing for a number of years—so I listen very carefully to him when he raises points around health and care.

    I would be grateful if the Minister pushed the points that I have made in relation to the review, with scientists and stakeholders calling for more research to be done. I would also be immensely grateful if the Minister found time—I know that he is incredibly busy—to meet Stephen, Gill and myself to talk about this issue. That would be very much appreciated.

    That takes me to the last point that I wish to make, which is once again to thank Stephen and Gill for the work that they have done. Their experience, and Nathan’s experience, was a tragic one. Despite that, they have managed to do fantastic work in our community. I know that, along with me, everyone that they have helped through screening, such as those 10 people who have been referred for further testing, will be extremely grateful to them. I often say in this House, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we have many people to be proud of in Scunthorpe. The work that Stephen and Gill are doing puts them very firmly in that category, and I want to be clear today that they have both my support and my thanks.

  • David Lammy – 2023 Speech at Chatham House

    David Lammy – 2023 Speech at Chatham House

    The speech made by David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, at Chatham House in London on 24 January 2023.

    Thank you, Chatham House, for hosting me here today.

    This institution is an encapsulation of Britain in the world — at its best.

    A trusted force for good.

    Universally respected.

    Globally networked and influential.

    But we meet at a time when Britain feels lost and disconnected in a world that is more divided than at any time since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    Three major trends are shaping the foreign policy landscape the next Labour government plans to inherit.

    The first is that we are in a new age of geopolitical competition.

    We see it in the bloody war on our continent.

    We see it in a world economy splitting into blocs.

    As global competition between the United States and China shapes our century.

    And regional powers make the contest multipolar.

    From the vast collective bloc of the EU to more assertive middle powers in the Middle East throwing their weight around.

    The second major trend is weaponised interdependence.

    The ties that bind us together are now also driving fragmentation – trade, industry, energy, migration, the internet.

    And new technologies from Artificial Intelligence, to Automation, Quantum and Biotech risk being used as tools of authoritarian power.

    Less a new order.

    More a new polarised disorder.

    Third is the trend I will focus on most today.

    There has been a blurring of the distinction between foreign and domestic policy.

    As President Biden has said, “there’s no longer a bright line” between the two.

    In a world this interdependent foreign policy has become domestic policy.

    And domestic policy has become foreign policy.

    We can see this in every village, town and city across the UK.

    Most of you know me as the MP for Tottenham in North London.

    But it is less known that I spent much of my childhood in Peterborough studying at a state boarding school.

    It is easy to see the impact of global trends in Tottenham.

    But the impact of the world on Peterborough has been just as transformative.

    I went back a couple of years ago to have lunch with Clive and Cathy, the parents of my school best friend.

    Over tea in their bungalow, they told me how at home they felt in Peterborough when they were young.

    Now, they feel powerless as their grandchildren struggle to find decent jobs.

    The industrial workplaces of the past not yet replaced by the green jobs of the future.

    They feel like their community has been eroded.

    As neighbouring families moved out.

    And they tell me they feel too insecure on their street to walk home at night.

    As the tentacles of international criminal gangs have reached into their neighbourhood.

    This is not just down to domestic policy failures in policing, housing and education.

    But a failure of the Conservative government to grasp the impacts of foreign policy, globalisation and economic change on all our communities.

    Leaving not only families, but us as a nation feeling lost — and disconnected.

    Principles

    To help communities like Peterborough, Labour’s foreign policy must adapt.

    And meet these three tectonic shifts fragmenting the world with three unifying principles.

    The first is that British foreign policy must seek to take back control.

    The Conservatives were right about that.

    But they were fundamentally wrong to think it means going it alone.

    In the modern world, we maximise our influence by reconnecting Britain with our allies and partners.

    The second is that our foreign policy must put pragmatism over ideology.

    Making decisions based on what will advance the British public’s security and prosperity.

    Not the ideological purity of the ERG.

    And the third is that our foreign policy choices must be made for the many, not the few.

    Putting the consumer, before the fossil fuel company.

    The small business owner, before the hedge fund manager.

    The NHS patient, before the tax exile.

    The test that lies behind each of these principles is simple.

    Will our choices help hard-working families in a more dangerous world where the borders between foreign and domestic policy are breaking down?

    Redefining the FCDO’s mission

    The lack of purpose in Britain’s foreign policy stems from both bad choices and institutional dysfunction.

    We have left the EU but not yet found a new, settled and confident place in Europe.

    Our country’s reputation for the rule of law has been badly damaged.

    Our leadership in development has been squandered.

    The foundations of our defences have been weakened.

    Our soft power has been corroded and our climate leadership forsaken.

    It is, I am afraid to say, a dismal record.

    I take no pleasure from saying that.

    We all have a stake in the success of our country.

    And a future Labour government will inherit the consequences of these choices.

    It will fall to us to rebuild the foundations of our influence in the world.

    My vision is of a “Britain Reconnected”.

    Secure at home and strong abroad.

    A confident country, outside of the EU but a leader in Europe once again.

    A reliable partner, a dependable ally and a good neighbour.

    NATO’s leading European power.

    A development superpower once more.

    At the vanguard of climate action.

    Driving forward the industries of the future for Britain.

    A diplomatic entrepreneur.

    And a country that keeps its word.

    In government, we will announce a new mission statement for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office designed around five clear goals.

    One – a Britain Reconnected to defend the UK’s Security, with strong armed forces and resilience against 21st century threats.

    Two – a Britain Reconnected to champion the UK’s Prosperity, and lead the industries of the future.

    Three – a Britain Reconnected for Climate Action, turning our response into an engine of growth.

    Four – a Britain Reconnected for International Development, helping to promote the UK’s security, health and jobs in the process

    Five – and a Britain Reconnected for Diplomacy, to re-establish the UK as a trusted, reliable and influential partner while protecting Britons abroad.

    Security

    Let me start with security.

    Whether you get your news from TV, or from scrolling through social media the public understand that we face a more insecure world than at any time since the heights of the Cold War.

    I visited Kyiv a couple of weeks before the invasion, to show our solidarity in the face of Russia’s imperialist threats.

    From the beginning of this crisis through to the recent decision to send Challenger tanks, the government has had Labour’s total support in providing Ukraine with the military, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian assistance it needs to defend itself.

    Britain is united on this.

    Whoever is in government, the UK will stand with Ukraine.

    For the long-haul.

    It was a Labour Foreign Secretary who was the driving force behind the creation of NATO 70 years ago.

    Today, as then, Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable.

    That is why I visited Stockholm and Helsinki last year to show our support for their NATO ambitions.

    Our commitment to Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is unambiguous.

    And we know the value in deepening our alliances beyond Europe too, be that with Australia through AUKUS or new defence cooperation with Japan.

    But it is in Europe – the first priority for our own security – where a Labour government would forge a new security approach.

    At present, our influence in Europe has waned.

    I felt this, recently, in Kosovo.

    Where I met with the Prime Minister, the President and the small group of British troops at the K-FOR base.

    From the Kremlin’s influence, to migration and organised crime — many of the forces threatening Kosovo are those threatening Britain too.

    But despite all the goodwill I felt towards Britain, from back when a Labour government led Europe in decisive action to stop ethnic cleansing — the Tories have left Britain on the sidelines.

    Locked out of a diplomatic process centred on the EU.

    There’s no doubt our heft could help.

    But to do that we must cement our traditional friendships.

    New initiatives like the European Political Community have real potential but they illustrate the way we have left others to do the running and take the lead.

    Europeans are more than just trading partners.

    We share security and fate in this changing world.

    In Kyiv, in Kosovo and with terrorism — right here at home.

    We need a Britain Reconnected for security.

    That’s why we will pursue a new UK-EU security pact to complement our unshakeable commitment to NATO.

    We will seek to institutionalise new cooperation across foreign policy through regular EU/UK summits and structured dialogue, both at the political and official level.

    And as my excellent colleague and friend, the Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey has said, we could negotiate new mechanisms for cooperation on hybrid threats between EU and UK defence industries.

    These specific areas of cooperation are a matter for negotiation.

    But from sanctions to energy security, and space capabilities and new technology, we can see how developing deeper connections with Europeans can make Britons stronger and safer.

    We need to think about security in a holistic way.

    Tanks, planes and ships matter as much as they ever have – but they are just the tip of the security iceberg.

    Today, conflicts are also waged by controlling energy prices.

    By using critical technologies or resources as bargaining chips.

    By cyberattacks and misinformation.

    By detaining foreign nationals.

    Threats are often in the grey zone.

    The Russian state murdering people on UK soil with a chemical weapon.

    Influencing operations against our democracy targeting Parliamentarians.

    These threats need a coordinated response.

    That is why today I am announcing that Labour will create a new joint FCDO-Home Office State Threats Cell.

    Working in partnership with the intelligence and security agencies to assess state threats, disrupt hostile actors, improve resilience in both government and the private sector, and coordinate with international partners.

    Labour will rebuild the foundations of our defence, lead in NATO, build new ties with Europe and strengthen Britain’s resilience

    Prosperity

    Next, I want to talk about prosperity.

    Because growing up poor in Tottenham in Thatcher’s Britain, I know the pain of living through a cost-of-living crisis.

    Every week I meet constituents still suffering from a lack of opportunity.

    And the indignity of choosing between eating and heating.

    Keir Starmer’s Green Prosperity Plan will reindustrialise the UK, supporting the creation of over 200,000 jobs over the next decade.

    But we are not alone in wanting to accelerate into green industries.

    China, the US, and the European Union taking steps to become green superpowers.

    China already has the largest market share in every stage of solar panel manufacturing.

    And the US has passed the landmark Inflation Reduction Act.

    I welcome efforts by other countries to accelerate along the path to net zero.

    But if we do not use our power smartly, we risk falling behind.

    That is why our £28 billion Green Prosperity Plan will help our many strengths such as our position as a world leader in wind power and our renewable research base to build political, scientific and commercial alliances to grow prosperity in the UK.

    And we will make Britain’s prosperity more resilient.

    Successive crises – from the pandemic to war in Ukraine – have demonstrated the vulnerability of international supply chains.

    As the transition from fossil fuels accelerates, dramatic industrial shifts are creating new demand for technology critical materials like cobalt and lithium.

    But where is the new diplomatic drive to reflect this shifting resourcing economy?

    We need to move rapidly to reduce our exposure to volatility and our vulnerability to geo-economic pressure.

    But Britain is falling woefully behind.

    US CHIPS legislation will provide $52bn in subsidies for US chip manufacturers.

    The EU CHIPs Act will provide €43bn.

    But the UK has put aside just £700,000 to commission a research project.

    And it still has not published its promised semiconductor strategy.

    Labour will publish one within our first Parliamentary session.

    Unconstrained globalisation has played a part in the turbulence we have seen in recent years.

    You can see this in Peterborough today.

    However, we must not let this deter us from the opportunities that globalisation can bring.

    That’s what I want for Peterborough tomorrow.

    Labour will drive up trade across the UK and harness the power of our Green Prosperity Plan to fuel exports and growth.

    We will build global alliances and partnerships, strike deals that deliver jobs and opportunity at home, while promoting prosperity and fairness around the world.

    Good jobs, strong growth, and real opportunities.

    A framework business can trust.

    But we will also ensure that global corporations pay their fair share.

    It is why Labour has led calls for a windfall tax on oil and gas profits.

    It is why we will bear down on tax havens and press other countries to put the global minimum corporate tax rate into domestic law.

    Any serious discussion about increasing prosperity in Britain must include the 15 trillion elephant in the room.

    The European market just across our shores.

    It has been a central principle of British strategy for centuries that we should never find ourselves isolated in our own continent.

    But that is exactly what this Government has done.

    It is time to put an end to what the Economist has called the ‘magical thinking’ of the Conservative Party.

    And that means, yes, recognising the damage the government’s bad Brexit deal has done to our economy.

    Investment down. Growth, sluggish or non-existent.

    45% of businesses say they are having difficulties trading with the EU.

    The number exporting to Europe has fallen by a third.

    In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, this is a scandal.

    And the Labour Party is not afraid to say it.

    Reconnecting Britain to Europe, while remaining outside of the EU, will be a top priority of the next Labour Foreign Office.

    Keir Starmer has been clear.

    With Labour, Britain will not rejoin the EU, the Single Market or the customs union.

    But within our red lines, there is real progress we can make to increase trade with our neighbours and deliver prosperity at home.

    We will aim to fix the Tories bad Brexit deal to increase trade with Europe.

    Including by:

    • Fixing the Northern Ireland protocol.
    • Reducing friction on food, agricultural, medical and veterinary goods.
    • Strengthening mutual recognition of professional standards and qualifications to unlock trade in services.
    • Unblocking participation in the Horizon scheme to unleash research and development.
    • Using the 2025 TCA review to reduce barriers to trade.
    • And improving links between our students and universities.

    From Paris to Berlin and Dublin to Warsaw, we will rebuild bilateral relationships with key European partners.

    A modern Britain in a changing world must invest in partnerships beyond our traditional allies in Europe, North America and the Commonwealth.

    We will develop a new initiative to build dynamic partnerships with African nations, recognising that by 2050 one in four people will be from the continent.

    A Labour government will build on the government’s new commitment to the Indo-Pacific.

    China’s rising economic and political power is the most significant change in global affairs in the last three decades.

    And by 2050 Asia will comprise more than half of the global economy.

    So this is not about ‘tilting’ one way or the other.

    It is an essential response of the shifting centre of gravity in world affairs.

    Maintaining serious, long-term strategic approaches to this vital region.

    Climate

    And we need a Britain Reconnected for climate action.

    The UN warned recently that the world is on course for a catastrophic 2.8 degrees of warming.

    This would deliver an era of cascading risks as extreme heat, sea level rises, drought and famine become more frequent.

    It’s easy to dismiss the climate crisis as a problem for other parts of the world.

    But try to tell that to the courageous mother of Ella Kissi-Debrah.

    A nine-year-old girl from South East London, who was killed, in part, by the unlawful levels of air pollution near her home.

    Climate action is deeply intertwined with protecting Britain’s prosperity and security.

    Decarbonisation is now a vital national security imperative.

    The faster we can transition to clean power, the quicker we can undermine Putin’s war effort.

    Every solar panel is a shield to Putin’s aggression.

    Every windfarm a defence against dependency.

    And in developing our homegrown energy systems we can build the green jobs and transformational industries of the future.

    Climate action is not just the ethical choice.

    It’s the economic choice.

    The pro-business choice.

    The choice for growth.

    The choice for jobs.

    The choice for security.

    And the choice for communities like Peterborough.

    I am proud that the next Labour government’s foreign policy agenda will be centred on the climate emergency.

    Labour will push for climate action to become a fourth pillar at the UN.

    We will argue for the creation of a new law of ecocide to prosecute the widespread and intentional destruction of the planet.

    And, as my friend and great colleague Ed Miliband has outlined, we will build a clean power alliance, an ‘Inverse OPEC’ of developed and developing nations committed to 100% clean power by 2030.

    Development

    Before Christmas, in a speech to Christian Aid, I outlined in detail how a Labour government will modernise development.

    I told a story about how I became the first UK politician to go to the country since the government’s disastrous withdrawal.

    I was sitting in a classroom in district 17 on the north-west outskirts of Kabul with a group of women helping children displaced by war.

    A woman told me she was considering selling a kidney so she could put food on the table for her family.

    I’ve never felt more conviction in my belief that development is vital in the modern world.

    Tackling poverty and climate change, improving health and education around the world is not only the moral choice.

    It is the strategic choice, and in our common interest.

    A way to make the British public safer and reduce the drivers of conflict and migration.

    Our development policy must still aim at reducing global poverty.

    It should be proudly feminist, prioritising women and girls.

    With climate action and solidarity at the aid budget’s heart.

    But it must also have a new focus on partnership, mutual respect and shared interests.

    Take the example of the fair distribution of vaccines around the world.

    While Europeans were vaccinated many times over, much of the world waited for a first dose.

    This cannot happen again.

    But our goal must be bigger: for intellectual property and manufacturing capacity to be shared around the world so that countries are producing their own vaccines, not waiting for our leftovers.

    Diplomacy

    As well as being proudly British and European, if I become Foreign Secretary I will not hide my trans-Atlanticism.

    The relationships I formed as the first Black Briton to study at Harvard Law school have matured into deep bonds with many who work in Washington DC.

    Back in 1997, when I was buried in legal textbooks, New Labour was just coming into office.

    There was deep excitement in the US about the UK.

    We were seen as a dynamic and forward-looking country.

    Most of all we were trusted as a reliable ally, which would uphold the rule of law and defend the international system.

    It pains me to say that when I visit the US these days, the chaos of the UK government is not seen as a joke, it is seen as a problem.

    What leaders in Washington think of the UK may seem distant for the public.

    But it matters to us all.

    It matters as we work with the US administration to maintain steadfast support for Ukraine and European security and tackle climate change.

    And it matters if we want a trade deal to benefit Britain’s economy.

    The final priority of the new Labour foreign policy must be diplomacy.

    Healing the rifts with the US that the Protocol fiasco has opened.

    Restoring our bond with Europe to counter shared challenges.

    Building on partnerships with a rising India and rapidly growing African nations.

    And the Commonwealth provides a unique framework to partner with the Global South.

    Visit the capitals of the developing world and it is glaringly obvious who is the key external driver of investment and construction: China.

    China’s rise is indisputably the greatest change in the global system in my lifetime.

    But China’s growth has been matched by greater repression at home and more assertive behaviour abroad – in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, Taiwan and the South China Sea.

    Meanwhile it has singled out allies – like Australia and Lithuania – for hostile treatment.

    And undermined the economic level playing field.

    The government is divided and inconsistent on China.

    Flip-flopping between tough talk and muddled actions.

    Labour will be strong, clear eyed, consistent.

    Beginning with a complete audit of the UK-China relationship.

    Based on a strategy of three Cs.

    Challenge, compete and, where we can, cooperate.

    Strong on national security. Standing firm on human rights.

    But engaging where it is in our interests to do so – on climate change, on trade and on global health.

    As a lawyer, and with a boss who is a lawyer, the rule of law will be at the heart of our approach to foreign policy.

    Britain’s record of respect for the rule of law has become tarnished.

    Through the Overseas Operations Bill, the Internal Markets Bill, the Protocol Bill.

    And two prime ministers fined for breaking the law.

    This record damages our moral authority and political credibility.

    It shows us as unreliable, making future agreements harder to reach.

    It serves the interests of those who want to weaken the rule of law.

    It is unbefitting of this great country.

    The rule of law is not a Labour or Conservative value.

    It is no exaggeration to say it is one of the great contributions our country has made to the world.

    No party owns it. No government should squander it.

    Britain should be a country that keeps its word.

    And let me tell you, with Keir Starmer KC as Prime Minister, it will be.

    International rules and multilateral institutions are needed more than ever.

    But these have come under growing strain.

    The UN Security Council hamstrung by the veto during perhaps the most blatant violation of the UN Charter since its creation.

    The WTO dispute settlement not functioning just as global trade becomes more contested.

    The World Bank failing in the face of the climate emergency.

    The WHO in need of reform before we face future pandemics.

    As we neglect multilateral institutions, China is intent on reshaping and in some cases replacing them.

    But I still believe that multilateralism – incremental and imperfect as it may be – remains vital.

    A Labour government will declare an open-ended campaign to reform the UN Security Council in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    Meanwhile at the G20, Labour will push to make this crucial body for our multipolar world more effective.

    But while we hope to re-energise these institutions, we need to be prepared to operate beyond them.

    Labour would invest in AUKUS. Support our deepening security partnership with Japan.

    We would build new networks and revive those we have allowed to drift, like the E3 with France and Germany.

    To deliver this international effort, we need a strong Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

    Yet this government have overseen the unmanaged decline of this Great Office of State.

    And left the FCDO without the economic and industrial expertise to help navigate the challenges Britain faces.

    Contrast this with France, where the French Foreign Ministry is growing its budget, hiring more diplomats and moving towards the 0.7% aid target, not away from it.

    We need an FCDO ready for the challenges of the future.

    And energised by a clear sense of purpose, to focus the efforts of our brilliant diplomats, development professionals and intelligence agencies.

    This is where I want to end.

    I want to show you what Labour’s new approach looks like in a single policy: the fight against kleptocracy.

    I know this is an issue where Chatham House has led the charge.

    But the past year has laid bare a decade of chronic inaction against dirty money from Russia and other authoritarian states that has infiltrated this city.

    Money laundering has seen London homes become the bitcoins of kleptocrats, pricing out our frontline workers from their home.

    Corruption, bribery, and even financing of terrorist organisations.

    Here in the UK.

    This is not just a job for the police.

    This is foreign policy.

    I felt this when I visited in Ukraine almost exactly one year ago, just before Putin’s tanks rolled in, as I sat with anti-corruption campaigners angry that Putin’s oligarchs could launder their dirty money in Mayfair.

    They want Britain to act.

    I see this in Brussels, where EU and UK officials have already been working together to coordinate sanctions policy. But are hamstrung by the Tories’ bad deal in how far they can cooperate.

    They want a Britain to work with.

    I hear this in Washington, where today my friends Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Senator Jeanne Shaheen are calling for the United States, Britain and the European Union to join forces to create a new Transatlantic Anti-Corruption Council to coordinate the fight.

    Labour will answer their call — not whistle the other way.

    We will reconnect Britain.

    But the work will start at home.

    Conclusion

    We passionately believe in Britain.

    But feel the frustration of its disconnection everywhere.

    We can restore Britain’s influence and realise our potential.

    We have so much to build on.

    World-leading universities.

    Scientists are at the cutting edge of future technologies.

    Vibrant cultural industries that shape the global conversation.

    And home to some of the most dynamic service sectors in the world.

    But we cannot build on these strengths by going it alone.

    Under Labour Britain will be:

    Internationalist.

    Confident.

    And facing the future.

    A Britain Reconnected, for security and prosperity at home.

    Thank you.

  • Laura Trott – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    Laura Trott – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    The speech made by Laura Trott, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for raising this important issue, and all the other Members who have contributed to the debate.

    The Government remain committed to ensuring that older people can live with the dignity and respect they deserve, and I absolutely reaffirm that the state pension is and will remain the foundation of state support for older people. As has already been pointed out today, changes in the state pension age have been made in a series of Acts by successive Governments from 1995—when the state pension ages of men and women were equalised—onwards, following public consultations and extensive debates in both Houses.

    The state pension age is currently 66, and will increase to 67 in 2026-28. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), Labour legislated for it to increase to 68 in 2044-46, but, following the Cridland review of 2017, the current Government policy is to bring the increase to 68 forward to 2037-39. That is the baseline; we are required under law to review it every six years, and that is what is now being undertaken.

    As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, the coalition Government of 2010 to 2015 were committed to the “core principle” that people should spend, on average,

    “up to one third of their adult life drawing a State Pension.”

    They were also committed to giving individuals at least 10 years’ notice of any changes affecting them. The first review of the state pension age following the Pensions Act 2014 was undertaken in 2017, informed by both the Government Actuary’s report and the independent report undertaken by John Cridland. As I have set out, Cridland recommended bringing forward the increase in the state pension age to 68 from 2044 to 2026, as set out in legislation, to 2037 to 2039.

    Sir Stephen Timms

    The two documents from 2017 to which the Minister referred were published four months before the Government’s announcement. Why have the Government not published the documents before their announcement this time around, and will she do so now?

    Laura Trott

    I had a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman might bring that up. As he rightly pointed out, I have written to him today to explain the rationale behind this, but I will confirm that both documents will be published in full. I look forward to discussing them with his Committee in due course.

    Sir Stephen Timms

    I just want to know why they have not been published. What is the public interest in keeping these things hidden?

    Laura Trott

    As I have said, they will be published in full. On the timing of publication, there is work going on in Government to undertake the review. Once it is finished the documents will be published.

    The 2017 review was based on a recommendation to aim for “up to 32%” as the average proportion of adult life spent in receipt of state pension. The review used 2014-based life expectancy data. The Government accepted those recommendations, subject to a further review, before tabling the requisite legislative amendments. The savings from bringing forward this rise to 68 have already been included in published fiscal forecasts.

    On 14 December 2021, the Government launched the second periodic review of the state pension age, and work is now under way to complete it, as required by legislation. The review must be published by May 2023, in accordance with section 27 of the Pensions Act 2014. At the autumn statement, the Chancellor committed to concluding the review in early 2023.

    As part of the second review, the Secretary of State is considering evidence from two independent reports. The first, a report from the Government Actuary, assesses the latest life expectancy projections from all regions of the UK. There has been a lot of talk about life expectancy today, so I want to put on record the fact that the most recent projections from the Office for National Statistics show a slower rate of improvement in life expectancy than those that informed the Pensions Act 2014 and the Pension Schemes Act 2017. Nevertheless, despite the slower improvement rate, ONS projections continue to show increasing life expectancy over time, and the number of people over state pension age is expected to continue to rise. I can also confirm for the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) that the review will consider the latest recommendations, as well as a wide range of other evidence, before reaching any conclusions about the state pension age.

    The second report that will be taken into account is an independent report by Baroness Neville-Rolfe, which will consider recent trends in life expectancy and the range of metrics that we could use when setting the state pension age, including the metrics mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. We will publish both documents in full. With respect to the question of whether Baroness Neville-Rolfe will appear before the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, that is a matter for the Committee and for her.

    Alongside examining the implications of the latest life expectancy data, the Government review is assessing the costs of an ageing society and future state pension expenditure, as well as considering labour market changes and people’s ability and opportunities to work up to state pension age, bearing in mind recent trends in life expectancy.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley highlighted the position of those who cannot continue to work. The review will evaluate the impact of previous changes to the state pension age for all individuals, including those with long-term health conditions or disability. The Government continue to provide substantial support for people who are unable to work.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) made some important points about age discrimination. The Government’s business champion for older workers, Andy Briggs, spearheads the Government’s work to promote the benefits of older workers and multigenerational workforces across England, influencing them strategically and by offering practical advice. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s points about discrimination are passed on to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

    The review will aim to keep the right balance between affordability, sustainability and fairness between generations. The review has not yet concluded—it is very important to emphasise that, given some of the comments today—and I will not pre-empt its outcome. The Government are committed to ensuring that older people have dignity and security in later life, regardless of where in the UK they are living. The Government introduced further targeted support, including cost of living payments of up to £900 for the most vulnerable households and an additional £1 billion, including Barnett impact, to enable the extension of the household support fund in England in the next financial year. Since 2010, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension has risen by over £2,300 in cash terms. That is £790 higher than if it had been uprated by prices, and £945 more than if it had been uprated by earnings. For the first time, from April 2023, the full rate of the new state pension is worth over £10,000 per year.

    Automatic enrolment is having a transformational effect on private savings. Over 10.8 million people have been automatically enrolled in a workplace pension, helping to deliver about an additional £33 billion into pension savings in real terms in 2021 compared with 2012. The hon. Member for North East Fife mentioned the PHSO inquiry. She will know that that is ongoing, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it until it concludes.

    The Government are committed to ensuring that the state pension continues to provide the foundation for people’s retirement income and are proud of the support they have given pensioners since 2010. I welcome today’s debate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. As I have outlined, the Government take the setting of the state pension age very seriously. I look forward to being able to discuss this matter further—I am sure we will—when the Government finally publish their second review.

  • Matt Rodda – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    Matt Rodda – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    The speech made by Matt Rodda, the Labour MP for Reading East, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    Pensions are an incredibly important issue. People who have worked hard and contributed all their lives deserve a decent pension in retirement. The state pension has been a crucial part of all our lives in this country for a very long time. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing today’s debate, and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and Members across the House for their contributions.

    I am sorry to say that there has been a certain amount of unhelpful briefing in the media about a possible change to Government policy on state pension age. I urge the Government to stop that, and to raise issues in this House rather than in the media. If Ministers are serious, they should discuss the future of pensions policy with the public and the pensions industry in a proper public consultation. The current speculation fuelled by off-the-record briefings is hugely unsettling for people who are saving for a pension and trying to plan for their future. Ministers should remember that families and pensioners are living through an unprecedented cost of living crisis and facing huge pressures on household budgets. The last thing that people need is further stress and uncertainty.

    We are living in challenging times, with inflation rates that the country has not seen for more 40 years. To make matters worse, as the IMF reported earlier this week, the UK faces the worst economic outlook of any major economy. After 12 years of economic mismanagement by the current Government, we are stuck in a period of persistently low growth and, unfortunately, persistently high inflation. As a direct result of that mismanagement, the Government are now trying to cut public spending. They have reduced spending on the state pension before by failing to increase pensions in line with inflation until April this year. That means that pensions have failed to keep up with the huge rise in the cost of food and fuel that has hit pensioners in the last six months.

    Independent research by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association using data from Loughborough University showed the scale of the Government’s failure. It showed that the basic state pension has now fallen below the cost of living. The PLSA put the basic cost of living for a single pensioner at £12,800, more than £2,000 above the basic state pension, which will be £10,600 in the financial year 2023-24.

    The Government’s mismanagement of the economy and their desperate attempts to cut public spending form the backdrop to today’s debate. This is made even worse by Ministers’ disregard for pensioners, the House and the public. The Government’s pattern of behaviour is in stark contrast to the way in which Governments have conducted themselves in the past. As I mentioned earlier, there has been a long-standing convention that pensions policy is based on evidence and agreed by consensus. For example, when the evidence showed that life expectancy was increasing, there was a discussion about the impact on the state pension age, and it was agreed that it should be gradually increased. The UK already has one of the higher state pension ages among OECD countries.

    Following extensive consultation about the impact of increased life expectancy in the 2000s, the Government established the Pensions Commission to look into the issue. As a result, and after a great deal of discussion, it was agreed that the state pension age should be raised. The Pensions Act 2007 provided for it to be increased from 65 to 68 in stages over the period between 2024 and 2046. I should stress that those increases were agreed at a time of steady rises in life expectancy. The current situation is somewhat different, to say the least. As we heard earlier, there is clear evidence of a stalling of the increase in life expectancy. Data from the Office for National Statistics on healthy life expectancy between 2018 and 2020 shows a downward trend in most regions of the UK, and the situation for some pensioners seems to be even worse, with a fall in life expectancy among some groups since 2010. We have heard several examples of that today, and there are others.

    There is also clear and, in my view, deeply troubling evidence of local disparities, with gaps of about 10 years between the average life expectancy of some people—often those living in better-off areas—and that of their neighbours living in less well-off areas comparatively nearby. The full impact of the pandemic on long-term health is unclear, and there seem to be a growing number of older people of working age who are suffering from serious health conditions. That evidence needs to be considered carefully.

    I appreciate that time is limited. Let me end by saying that the Government are letting down both pensioners and people saving for pensions. They have broken with the long-standing convention that pensions policy is developed on the basis of evidence, through consultation and discussion. I hope the Minister will address these issues in her speech. I know that she does prefer to consult, even if some of her colleagues do not always follow that approach.

  • Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    The speech made by Patricia Gibson, the SNP MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I echo the appreciation of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for bringing the debate on the state pension age to the Floor of the House today. There is great concern that, according to reports, the UK Government plan to accelerate their current timeline for increasing the state pension age again, raising it to 68 by 2034. That means that those born in the 1970s or later could soon be told that a review of the increase in state pension age will further delay their retirement. If the Minister can tell us that that simply will not happen, we can all just go home and not worry about it, as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said. We would all be delighted.

    It is bad enough that the state pension age is due to rise again from 66 to 67 by 2028. It is even worse that the women born in the 1950s had their state pension age increased with little or no notice, a move that has robbed them of tens of thousands of pounds of their hard-earned and expected state pension, throwing many of them into deep poverty and unnecessary hardship. That is all bad enough, but now we face the prospect of the Government planning to bring forward the increase in retirement age from 67 to 68 from 2046 to affect anyone now aged 54 or younger.

    The Minister may say that no final decision has been taken, but how can anyone, having witnessed how women born in the 1950s have been treated, have any real faith that the Government understand how the increase in retirement age would have a disproportionate impact on those who have worked all their lives for poor pay? The UK already has one of the lowest pensions in Europe, and these plans will have an impact on millions of people, many of whom are already struggling financially. Age UK has said that

    “any Government decision to accelerate the rise in Pension Age will condemn millions to a miserable and impoverished run up to retirement—and often beyond too”.

    So many people are already in poor health by the time they reach their state pension and they are already suffering financial hardship.

    As the hon. Member for North East Fife said, probably every one of us has spoken to women born in the 1950s, and when we do they tell us that the biggest UK Government swindle in recent memory was robbing their generation of their rightful state pensions at the age of 60. Many discovered, often by sheer accident, that their anticipated pension would not arrive until years later, as there was equalisation with men. The anger, sense of betrayal and disappointment was only inflamed when UK Government Ministers bizarrely and insensitively insisted that this provided an opportunity for the women affected to train for new careers. Some of them then formed the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, which continues to campaign for the injustice against them to be recognised and remedied. They must be given the compensation that is their right and I applaud the work they have done, because those women faced delays of up to six years to access their state pension, one in four of them now struggle to make payments on crucial bills and one third are in debt, with single women the worst affected. So that we can avoid this happening again, will the Minister tell us what impact assessment the UK Government have carried out, or will carry out, on any further proposals to accelerate the rise in the state pension age to 68 by 2034 or, indeed, to accelerate it at all?

    It seems to the people outside this Chamber who are worried about this or who have experienced this, as the WASPI women have, that this Government have developed a taste for robbing people of their hard-earned state pension. The website Interactive Investor calculates that bringing forward to 2034 the increase in someone’s pension age to 68 could mean a lost year of full state pension of almost £17,000 for workers aged 46. Royal London insurance found that more than half of those aged 55 and over are likely to have the state pension as their main income, with 1.5 million of those in pre-state-pension years, and 31 % with no savings at all to fall back on. Many of them are also struggling with caring responsibilities as well as financial ones.

    Pensioners relying on state pension as their main source of income are more likely to have already undergone a working life of low pay, and they are more likely to have health challenges in retirement and a shorter life expectancy. They are also the pensioners who simply cannot afford to retire early, even when health problems occur. Raising the retirement age even further will therefore have a disproportionate effect on poorer older people who will enjoy fewer retirement years.

    A review of the state pension age in 2017 established that people should expect to spend one third of their adult life in retirement. As we know and as has been said, life expectancy in the UK is, at best, stagnating, which seriously undermines the case for raising the state pension age. I am afraid that those considerations will not have an impact on Government thinking and that the very logic they have used in the past for increasing state pension age—rising life expectancy—will not apply. If that is the case, I would remind the Minister that not only have life expectancy rates stalled across the UK, but they have actually fallen for the second year in a row in Scotland. Perhaps the Minister would like to factor that in when determining the state pension age. According to the UK Government’s own argument and the logic they have used so far, the state pension age should perhaps even be falling.

    The UK Government must abandon any further acceleration of the state pension age across the UK. I hope that all parties will oppose that and commit to continuing that opposition beyond the next election. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, if you keep tinkering with, accelerating and rising the state pension age, you create uncertainty and undermine the whole concept of a state pension, perhaps fatally undermining it for future generations.

    Even talk of accelerating the state pension age feels like a grubby smash and grab of people’s hard-earned pensions to try to fill the black hole in the UK’s finances, which is a consequence of 13 years of austerity. That austerity started under Labour’s Gordon Brown and has continued ever since, compounded by the damage of Brexit to which Labour is fully signed up, cynically and disingenuously pretending that there is such a thing as a good Brexit after all. Labour knows that, but it is so desperate to win seats in England, it will say anything. But the public are watching.

    To raise the state pension age further is bad enough. To raise it even faster than originally planned as a cost-cutting measure is unforgivable. People in Scotland were told in 2014 that the only way to protect the state pension was to vote no to independence. Here we are nine years later, and the state pension does not support the minimum standard of living. Pensioners have already been short-changed by £6,500 on average, due to the state pension underpayments to around 237,000 older people, and a further 100,000 potential underpayments that have been identified, which will take a year to correct. Let us not forget how easily the Government discarded their manifesto commitment to retain the triple lock, the abandonment of which means that current state pension payments are £520 less than they otherwise would have been.

    We must all learn from the huge injustice perpetrated on WASPI women—I applaud their campaign for justice—but we cannot permit even more people to be robbed of tens of thousands of pounds of their rightful state pension as life expectancy stalls or even falls in Scotland. Meanwhile, our Government desperately seek to fill their financial black hole because of their own incompetence, and therefore have decided to pick a fight over pensions. That is an outrage. In the dying days of this Government, as they thrash around seeking to pick the pockets of others to pay for their own economic mismanagement, we must say that enough is enough.

  • Wendy Chamberlain – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    Wendy Chamberlain – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    The speech made by Wendy Chamberlain, the Liberal Democrat MP for North East Fife, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing this debate. How to calculate the state pension age is an intensely technical topic, but it fundamentally impacts on people’s lives, and what we have heard so far this afternoon illustrates that, because there is a great deal of consensus across the Benches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) on her speech and the areas she covered.

    Obviously, it is our job on the Opposition Benches to scrutinise the Government, and I do not expect the Minister to pre-empt an independent review process, but I absolutely agree with the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) that we should be publishing any reports and looking at this issue before the Government make a final decision in the public space. This debate is an opportunity for the Government to make a political statement to commit to some of the existing methodologies we have used to date for the state pension age, and primarily that means keeping it based on life expectancy.

    We have heard significant concerns today that planned pension ages might be accelerated, and that does not fit with what we are seeing with life expectancy. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said in her intervention, life expectancy is not increasing. In fact, the evidence suggests it is falling, so far from seeing the retirement age going up faster, we should be seeing no change or at the very least a slowdown in planned increases.

    It is highly technical, looking at actuarial tables to work out statistics, but it is important that we do not forget the faces behind the figures. In fairness, the WASPI women have made sure that we never forget the faces again. I am sure that every Member here, including the Minister and me, will have spoken with WASPI women in their constituencies about what they have suffered as a result of process failures with previous age increases. I have met many of the representatives who come to Parliament on fiscal event days. They often stand in the cold and damp waiting all day to be heard. I urge the Minister and Members across the House to meet them, if they have not done so previously.

    Although this debate is about the future, I cannot mention the WASPI women without talking about their ongoing right for compensation. They have been waiting years now, and thousands have died without ever seeing a penny. The ombudsman is expected to report within a matter of months, but the only thing that has taken longer than their investigation is the Government’s inability to decide to do the right thing and to promise to follow the results of that report. I hope the Minister will make reference to that in her closing remarks.

    The Government must learn lessons from what has happened to the WASPI women. If we are going to see changes, they must be communicated early and fully. People must be able to plan ahead. Age UK suggests 10 years as the length of time in which people need certainty to plan for retirement, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley mentioned. I hope that the Government can continue to commit to that.

    I said it was important to remember the faces behind the figures, and it is vital that the Government remember that life expectancy is based on averages, and that all people are not alike. There are already people struggling to work to 66 through no fault of their own. Manual workers, whether farmers or factory workers, are just more likely to struggle to keep up as the impact of a life of labouring catches up with them. The fictional police sergeant Catherine Cawood of “Happy Valley” may hopefully be reaching her retirement from the police on Sunday night in the concluding episode of the series, but she will be 56 when she does so. That is because we accept that police officers are not necessarily physically capable of being able to chase offenders or fight or do any of the physical things we expect. We may hope, however, that Catherine Cawood, as well as going to the Himalayas, can also continue to contribute in a part-time work capacity elsewhere.

    Health problems for many mean that people cannot work full time. Part-time working is increasing, and many people have caring responsibilities. This is the generation of sandwich carers who take care of their parents, their children or grandchildren and, when needed, their partners. There is of course a benefit to the economy, and to older workers themselves, of continuing to work if they can. If that is the Government’s aim, I implore them to see that increasing the state pension age, when we are not seeing a corresponding rise in health and life expectancy, is not the solution. People might be living longer, but they are not necessarily doing so in good health.

    There are steps that the Government could take. I continue to champion the needs of unpaid carers, many of whom are in the pre-retirement age bracket. I welcome the Government’s support for my Carer’s Leave Bill, which will have its Third Reading on Friday, and look forward to their support as it passes through the Lords, but there is still much to do. Reforming carer’s allowance, securing flexible working as a day one right, offering more training and respite for carers, and investing in local services such as day centres would all help, as would more re-training, as the hon. Member for Dover mentioned, and a greater understanding of what is keeping older workers out of the workforce. We need to ensure that there is a social security net for people who have paid in and who, for whatever reason, cannot manage those final few years. That would be more effective at encouraging people to work longer, even past retirement age, than just forcing people somehow to soldier on.

    Of course, there is a balance to be struck. The pension age must be both effective and sustainable. I agree that it must realistically reflect how long people can expect to live after retirement. We all see adverts pop up on our social media about how to retire at 40, but we know the Government could not be expected to fund such a period. Knowing that there is a balance means also making the expectation of the state pension realistic. I want my children, and my children’s children, to have it to look forward to one day. Our younger generations have suffered the outcomes of Brexit, of covid and of the cost of living crisis. Owning a house is a dream, not a reality for far too many. Future generations deserve the same promises, the same security as those that came before. We must not pull up the ladder.

    I urge the Government to use this opportunity to reassure the House that they will follow the rules on determining retirement age by looking at life expectancy, protect those who struggle to work later in life and help those in work who can do so. Too often in recent years the Government have trailed potentially detrimental pension changes only to withdraw them later. Today’s debate gives them an opportunity to make sure that that is not the case in future.

  • Natalie Elphicke – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    Natalie Elphicke – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    The speech made by Natalie Elphicke, the Conservative MP for Dover, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). He is very knowledgeable about these matters, as his comments demonstrated; I thank him for them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for securing the debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it, because statutory pension age and pension amounts are of such importance to my constituents in Dover and Deal.

    For a person of my age, the statutory pension is like one of those Scottish mountains. It is an optical illusion: as we get ever closer, it seems that there is just that bit further to go. When I started my working life, my pension age was 60. When it was changed in 2010, I was already roughly two thirds of the way through my expected working life. Should the pension age be raised to 68, a woman of my age, at current rates, will have lost out on the equivalent of between £59,000 and £77,000. That matters because of the basis on which I began paying national insurance contributions when I started work.

    The first point that I would like to raise on behalf of all pensioners-to-be is that pensions are an unusual area because the rules on grandfathering rights that are usually applied are simply not followed. Surely it would be fairer to use the basis that applied at the point at which people started to work and started to pay national insurance contributions. If someone’s pension age is to be changed, it should be changed in the first third of their expected working life, not right towards the end. No one affected by a date change can go back in time to take out an ISA, top up their pension or use their income differently, as they might have done if they had known that such changes were due. People affected by the changes might have made different decisions if they had known that they would have to work for considerably longer, and it might have made a difference to their quality of life at an older age.

    Secondly, people might have made different career choices or made career changes if they had known that they would have to work for longer. Thirdly, the expected extra years of work—eight whole years, in the case of women of my age—may mean that people will need extra skills training and support during their working life. If the pension age is to be extended even further, budgetary consideration will need to be given to support for lifelong learning, with leave being given for skilling up and study being prioritised for people affected by the change.

    For many people, the ages of 60 to 68 represent a period in which, in the eyes of bosses or fellow workers, they may be considered past the peak of employability. I am pleased to say that that is not the case for contributions in this place, but age discrimination in our society is very real. I suggest that no further changes should be made to pension age unless such age discrimination is firmly and clearly tackled.

    If we want people to work later in life, we have to give them the tools, support and legal protection that they need to do so. That is all the more important because age discrimination in particular terms and conditions of employment is currently perfectly legal. If the pension age is to be extended, the law needs to be changed. Age discrimination, like any other form of discrimination, is humiliating, demeaning and damaging. We do not want to subject people to it by making them remain in work while such prejudice continues.

    I have a constituent, Stephen, who at the age of 66 —the current statutory pensionable age—is facing just such lawful age discrimination. He has worked for a very large Kent company for more than 30 years. He is an effective, respected and well-liked employee with a fantastic track record of work. When Stephen reached his 66th birthday, he did not get a birthday card from his bosses; he got a letter to the effect that it was not possible to sack him on grounds of age, so instead they were terminating his life insurance, his health insurance and all his other insurance benefits.

    Stephen was doing the same job at 66, at 66 minus one day and at 66 plus one day, but now he does not get the same money’s worth in relation to his contract of employment. If he falls ill, he cannot get the same access to speedy private healthcare that other people working for the company can. If—heaven forbid—he died, his wife would no longer have compensatory insurance. However, he is doing exactly the same job as someone else. It is the same job he did before, and the same job he will do the day after. The attitude demonstrated by the company communicates to him and to the wider employment community in Kent that it thinks a person who is older is worth less. We must tackle that issue if people are to stay in the workplace longer.

    I have looked into the policy considerations that are sometimes put forward. The first, essentially, is that an older person does not need to work. As a woman who has been in the workplace for quite a long time now, I remember a time when employers would say that a woman did not need to work, did not need to get the same bonuses as a man, and did not need to be offered overtime, because it was men who had families to feed. We have outlawed that, because equal pay at work is not about who is doing the work, but about what the work is. Allowing age discrimination, as we do now, sends a message that an older person is not worth the same as a younger one. The continual changes in the pension age also send a clear message that older people’s safety, stability and security in managing their own lives are not a priority.

    The second reason put forward is that it becomes more expensive for everyone—the premium for the company itself goes up—if older people are included in corporate benefits, or global benefits, beyond the statutory age. To apply that logic, would it be okay to disallow health cover in an employment context to someone who had a chronic condition that could give rise, or had given rise, to needing that policy? Of course not; we would say that that was discriminatory and wrong. At the heart of equalities law is the fundamental view that employers cannot discriminate between those they employ based on characteristics that are not relevant to whether they can carry out the job. By continuing a discussion of the type that has been happening about the pension age moving and whether people will be supported in older-age working, we are failing to address this absolutely dreadful discriminatory environment.

    The third and final reason given is that a disincentive to recruit older workers would be created, because the costs I have mentioned would be higher for the company. I agree that we do not want to create disincentives to employing older people, particularly if we are to require people to work for years and years more than they had expected, but the argument sounds awfully similar to the well-known discussion about whether the cost of maternity leave would dissuade employers from employing women who become pregnant. We outlawed that, and we know that a woman can still add value, be productive and be effective when pregnant, so why are we making people work longer? Why are we raising the statutory pension age and communicating from this Parliament that it is okay to discriminate against older workers? It is not, and it is wrong—all the more so if the pension age is raised from 66 to 68, because we would be raising it above an age at which employers are already discriminating against workers, as I have illustrated. Unless we tackle age discrimination, we will continue to have an environment in which it will be very difficult for people who are working in older age.

    As these pension changes are brought forward, I do not feel that enough has been done to support, encourage and incentivise employers to look favourably on an older workforce. For example, national insurance contributions could be reduced for older workers. Also, if people are excluded from benefits by reason of the current law, older workers should receive money or money’s worth in cash or vouchers to make up for the work benefits that have been removed from them.

    By way of conclusion, I am not persuaded by the arguments for increasing the pension age further or discriminating on the grounds of age. It is simply not acceptable. There is no justification for the treatment of my hard-working and loyal constituent Stephen with the discrimination he has faced in his workplace. If the pension age is to be raised again and we are going to keep making these changes, forcing people to stay in work for longer, age discrimination must be tackled first. We should be taking steps now to change behaviours in the workplace to make sure that older people who now have to work longer will be able to do so and will be treated fairly and equitably. We should be outlawing this outdated and discriminatory law against older workers.

  • Stephen Timms – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    Stephen Timms – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    The speech made by Stephen Timms, the Labour MP for East Ham, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing this Backbench Business debate, which gives us the chance to ask for the Government’s views on this topic of great importance and enormous public interest. I am delighted that the Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), and the former Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), are in their places on the Front Bench.

    I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Amber Valley said. The idea of spending a third of adult life in retirement is a sensible yardstick to run with. He made the point, in passing, about the importance of implementing the recommendations of the auto-enrolment review, and I agree with him that that is important. We are repeatedly told that it will be done in the mid-2020s, but time to implement it before 2025 is either running out or has possibly already run out.

    In my remarks, I will focus on the process we are in. I recall the wise words of David Cameron, who said:

    “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

    He argued—rightly, in my view—for a culture of openness in government. One of the results of his view was the 2010 protocol on publication of all Government social research, which was most recently updated last year. It states:

    “Principle 1: The products from government social research and analysis will be made publicly available”,

    and that research should be published “promptly”, within 12 weeks of completion.

    For a number of years, that was, to their credit, the Government’s approach. In 2017, when the first review of state pension age was undertaken for the Government by John Cridland—as the hon. Member for Amber Valley has pointed out—his report, and the report of the Government Actuary, were both published on 23 March 2017, nearly four months before the DWP’s own review was set out on 19 July 2017, shortly after the hon. Member for Hexham took up his former post as Pensions Minister in June 2017.

    I have often expressed great regret that the Department, for some reason or other—perhaps reflecting a different approach across Government—has abandoned the practice set out by David Cameron and instead now resists publication of research and analysis, or delays it for as long as it possibly can. Preventing public discussion no doubt has the benefit of allowing Ministers to avoid having to answer difficult questions, but it has the disastrous drawback of worsening policy outcomes. The policy cannot be informed by public debate before the decisions are made, because the evidence that would allow a debate is not available. The Government publication protocol was watered down a little last year, but its essential gist remains unchanged. It says, for example:

    “The primary purpose of social research commissioned and conducted by government is to inform…policy and delivery, but it also plays a role in wider policy debate.”

    That is quite right, but, as we have discussed in the Chamber on various occasions, in the DWP the requirements of the protocol are simply ignored. They are not being fulfilled.

    I have been hoping very much that the new ministerial team will turn over a new leaf and take a more enlightened approach. Indeed, the new Secretary of State has hinted that he is considering the advantages of greater openness. But here we have a flagrant example of his predecessor’s bad habits of hiding analysis and evidence until it is convenient to the Government to release them. Instead of publishing the evidence four months before the Government’s decision, as was done in 2017—around the time the former pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Hexham, was appointed—the Department is keeping the evidence hidden until it makes its announcement “early in 2023”. Presumably, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley has suggested, that will be at the time of the Budget next month.

    In my brief contribution to this important debate, I mainly want to press the Minister to publish now both the report by the independent reviewer, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, which the Secretary of State received on 16 September last year—more than four months ago—and the related Government Actuary’s report, which was submitted to Ministers on 5 October. Publish them now. Why have they not been published already? What possible benefit can there be in keeping this important work and evidence hidden for all this time?

    The Select Committee has published today an exchange of letters with the Minister on the subject. When asked why these reports are not being published before the Government’s announcement as they were for the 2017 review, the Minister, who is in her place, replied that

    “this is a different publication schedule to the last review, the issues are still under consideration and so we think this approach is more appropriate.”

    In other words, they appear to be saying, “We don’t want anyone to see the evidence until we have made up our mind. This is still under consideration, so we think it is not appropriate to publish the evidence.” Surely, there ought to be a public debate about all this before the Government make their decision, not afterwards. This instinct of hiding things, not disclosing them, and not complying with the requirements of the cross-Government protocol is very damaging to the Government’s ability to make good policy.

    Surely, Ministers should take advantage of public debate to inform their decisions, rather than refusing to show anyone the evidence until after the Government have made up their mind. What has become of David Cameron’s belief in sunlight? We are talking here not about confidential advice to Ministers—there is no requirement to publish that—but rather about expert analysis that will eventually be published, and which sets out the evidence that will underpin the Government’s decision. Publish it now so that everybody can see it. The protocol says that

    “analysis should be published promptly…as early as possible following agreement of the final output.”

    So it should be. The recent independent review was announced in December 2021. The terms of reference said that it should explore what metrics the Government should take into account when considering how to set state pension age. They stated that it should include a consideration of recent trends in life expectancy in every part of the United Kingdom; whether it remained right for there to be a fixed proportion of adult life that people should, on average, expect to spend over state pension age, and what metrics would enable state pension costs, and the importance of sharing those fairly between generations, to be taken into account.

    The Select Committee agreed months ago that once Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s review had been published, we would take evidence on it, including from her, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, before the Government announced their decision. Now that the Government are unwilling to publish the analysis before they announce their decision, we clearly cannot do that.

    The Sun has reported that the Government plan to raise the state pension age from 67 to 68 as early as 2035, which will affect everyone who is 54 and under, instead of 10 years later, as set out in current legislation. Is that the right thing to do? Well, we need to see the evidence. The key evidence is about future projections of life expectancy. As we heard from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), emerging evidence shows that the trend of rising life expectancy is not what it was before the pandemic.

    One of the expert witnesses at this morning’s meeting of the Select Committee said, “Mortality seems to have peaked, because one reason why there was increasing mortality was that the second world war lifestyle was ironically quite healthy for people, and the numbers are now going down quite a lot.” We were discussing something else this morning, and I do not know what evidence the witness was drawing on there, but I do not know what evidence the Government will draw on either, because it has not been published and it should have been. There should be no delay in publishing it.

    Cohort life expectancy statistics are produced every two years. A new set is expected this year. The latest, 2020-based projections show life expectancy at 65 still rising, but at a slower rate than in previous releases. Of course, the 2020 figures did not take any account of changes arising from the pandemic. The change in projection has prompted some commentators to call for the planned rises in the state pension age to be abandoned, or at least to be slowed.

    Lane Clark & Peacock took the latest Office for National Statistics life expectancy projections and reran the 2017 calculations of the Government Actuary’s Department. They concluded that any move from 67 to 68 would not be needed until the mid-2060s rather than the mid-2040s, and certainly not by the late 2030s, as suggested by The Sun. They also suggested that the move from 66 to 67, which is currently scheduled to be phased in over two years from 2026, could be put back until the end of the 2040s. They went on to argue that if further ONS statistics show relatively lower life expectancy growth, that could imply further delays to planned increases, and perhaps even abandoning the planned rise to 67.

    The former pensions Minister but two—I think— Steve Webb, who is now a partner at Lane Clark & Peacock said:

    “The Government’s plans for rapid increases in state pension age have been blown out of the water by this new analysis. Even before the Pandemic hit, the improvements in life expectancy which we had seen over the last century had almost ground to a halt.”

    Those are important public policy questions. They should be debated in Parliament and among the public before the Government announce their decision, so that that public and parliamentary debate can inform the Government’s decision. We should not just see the evidence after the Government have announced what they plan to do, because changing the Government’s mind at that point will not happen.

    A wide public debate should take place now, but it cannot happen unless the independent review and the Government Actuary’s report are published before the announcement is made. I ask the Minister to resist the temptation to keep the documents hidden for even longer and instead to remember the wise words of David Cameron, and to be open and publish those two key documents.

  • Nigel Mills – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    Nigel Mills – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

    The speech made by Nigel Mills, the Conservative MP for Amber Valley, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered the matter of raising the State Pension age to 68.

    I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing the time for this debate, and Members for staying here on what I know is a tricky day for travelling. Some people may have somewhere more exciting to get to later in the evening, and I suspect we will not be able to drag this out until 7 o’clock, but you never know. There is plenty to talk about on pensions, and we can but try.

    I wanted to hold this debate because the Government have recently received the periodic review of the state pension age from Baroness Neville-Rolfe. They have not yet published that review, but we have been seeing stories in the media suggesting that there may be an announcement in the Budget of a change in date for the increase in the state pension age to 68 from 2044 to sometime in the 2030s. I should probably declare an interest in that, depending exactly when that choice is made, it may change my own state pension date. That is on the record, but I have no idea what year the Government are thinking about.

    I hesitate to say it, but this is actually a really important decision that will have a very significant impact on a lot of people. It needs to be made very carefully, and with very careful consideration of the impacts on people of different genders, backgrounds and occupations and on those in different parts of the country. Its impact for a manual worker will be very different from that for a professional, or someone living in an area with much lower life expectancy than, say, in the south-east of this country, and it is the same for those who have had a high-earning career rather than a lower-earning one. So it is quite a hard thing to get right, as various studies have shown. The other reason to be very careful is that the whole success of the pension regime depends on certainty and predictability, and if people start to think that nothing is certain or predictable, then they cannot have confidence, the whole basis on which we save for our retirement starts to become unclear and people start showing behaviours that we would much rather they did not show.

    I actually support—I did support and I still support—the position the coalition Government got to in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament, in which we raised the state pension age to 66 in 2011 and brought forward the increase to 67 really quite considerably. That was based on the principle that we should get roughly a third of our adult life in retirement, and I think we should be very clear about sticking to that principle. However, it is right that, if life expectancy increases, that has to be paid for. If we are going to get longer in retirement, we have to find a way of paying for that. The inevitable impact is that we have to work a bit longer to pay for that. If there is a clear principle that we will spend about a third of our adult life in retirement, people can at least understand what the situation is and what may be coming down the line. I urge the Minister to not move away from that principle, to at least give people that understanding.

    I fully support all the other pension reforms introduced by the coalition Government, including the successful roll-out of auto-enrolment and the introduction of the single-tier state pension, which was designed to say to people, “You will get a state pension and it will be above the poverty threshold, so there will not be any means test. If you save more and have your own private pension, you won’t be losing benefits.” It is therefore absolutely worth saving for that pension. The success of auto-enrolment ties directly into that. Everybody is clear that it is well worth their doing that.

    Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)

    May I take the hon. Gentleman back to a point that he made a moment ago about raising the pension age because of increasing life expectancy? That has always been the justification that has been given. However, at best, life expectancy is now stalling, and in Scotland it has been falling for the past two years. Does he agree that, in that context, it seems bizarre to use that information to raise the age further and faster?

    Nigel Mills

    I will come to that point in my argument. If we accept that we should stick to the principle that we get roughly a third of our adult life in retirement, the reason why we would increase the state pension age is that we have seen a three-year increase in life expectancy, and that should give us two more years on the state pension age. So for every 12 months life expectancy goes up, people should effectively get four months of that in retirement and expect to work for eight months of it. The hon. Lady is right: the data does not now show, sadly, life expectancy increasing, certainly not at the rate that was forecast by all the actuarial calculations at the time of previous reviews. The data for the 2018 to 2020 reference period showed that male life expectancy had fallen by seven weeks compared with the 2015 to 2017 reference period, and female life expectancy had gone up by half a week, or something really quite insignificant.

    On that logic, we would be thinking, “Yes, we are due a periodic review and it would say that nothing has changed—in fact it has got a bit worse. There is nothing to see here, so let’s not make any more changes.” The Minister can intervene if she wants to say that that is what the review says, and we can all go home quite early, but I suspect that nothing is ever quite that simple.

    I suppose what we are asking the Minister to confirm later in the debate is whether the Government will stick to the principle of people getting a roughly fixed proportion of their adult life in retirement, and whether they will therefore be guided by that 33% figure. The hon. Lady’s point would appear to suggest that the position is, if anything, worse than that at the time of the Cridland review six years ago and we should presumably come to the same conclusion as that. That is not what the media stories are suggesting. They seem to be saying that the increase to 68, scheduled for the mid-2040s, will come forward to perhaps as early as the mid-2030s—possibly around 10 years from now.

    That leads me on to two keys asks of the Government, and I think they were principles that were previously set. First, increases in the state pension age should always come with 10 years’ notice, so we should never give people less than 10 years to have to change their retirement plans. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that there will be at least 10 years’ notice.

    Furthermore, we should make one of these changes only every 10 years; we should not be making multiple changes. Had the Cridland review been handled differently, we could have had the increase to 66 from 2011, the increase to 67 in 2014, and then the move to 68 a few years after that. That would have been far too much change too quickly for people to handle.

    Those key principles that we established were not that different from what the Labour Government did in previous pension Acts when they brought in pension age rises. It is overwhelmingly in the interests of a stable pension system that we keep those fundamental principles in place. We do not want to end up in another situation like we had with the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, where women—and I met many of them in my constituency—genuinely did not know that their state pension age was going up significantly until they tried to claim it or thought they were about to get it, only to in some cases find out that it was another five or six years away. That is why we need to ensure we have that certainty in place. I know that that was changed in the Pensions Act 1995, so everybody had at least 15 years’ notice for most of it, but people just were not told, or at least not in a way that they understood or noticed. We need a clear, stable pension architecture, as was established under the coalition Government, with a single-tier state pension above the poverty threshold, so that people could save for themselves and had predictability.

    This is not random conspiracy theory nonsense. Articles are occasionally written by people who just do not believe that when they get to retirement age, their state pension will be there, or that they will ever get to it. In fact, there was an article in the Daily Mail raising exactly that point. Reading other stuff around, we see that there is a general pervasive fear that people will never get to state pension age—that it will always be pushed just out of reach and they will never actually get there. That is why we need to be absolutely clear that that is not what we are trying to do here. We have a predictable and reliable state pension system that people can factor into their retirement savings and then use to plan for the later years of their life. I am sure the Minister will be able to reaffirm that that is absolutely the Government’s position.

    There is a question about whether the Government are minded to make a change. I think the Cridland review suggested that we could have brought the change forward to the late 2030s, at least, so it should not be a complete surprise if we think that 2044 is probably too late and would result in that figure of roughly 33% becoming a bit generous and people getting a bit longer than that. We need to set out the rationale for that pretty clearly and try to work through how we can help people who will be put in the most difficult position by that change. Intriguingly, the Cridland review said that if the Government are after Budget savings, increasing the state pension age is not a very clever way to do that. Instead, the review recommended abolishing the pension triple lock, which, I suspect, is not a view that has great support around Parliament. Hopefully this latest review does not re-recommend that, and the Government will not accept it if it does.

    There were, though, some sensible analyses and recommendations as to what we can do to help people who are out of work in their mid-60s because they are either not really fit for work or not realistically going to get a job then. How do we give them financial support when we cannot give them their state pension? Do we subject them to full universal credit conditionality, or can we find a way of giving them a better experience? The review recommended potentially allowing people to access the state pension a year early, having a benefit equivalent to the state pension at least a year early or having a tapering-off approach to UC or UC conditionality, in case people fall out of work at just the wrong point.

    I am not actually aware that the Government have ever really put in place any of those measures, so that would be another ask of the Minister. If the Government are thinking of making a change, while we do need the notice, can we also put in place a plan early for handling those who will be the worst affected by the change? I think we will need that for the rise to 67, anyway, which is coming up much sooner. It is just not realistic for people who fall out of work very late in their working life to get another job, and leaving them in financial trouble for those last few months before they get their pension seems to be a rather inefficient and cruel situation. Hopefully we will have made some progress on that before we get to the next pension age.

    I would also like to say that I do not think handling this sort of issue as part of the Budget process is necessarily sensible. This change will not affect the public finances this year or next year, or, actually, the next Parliament; it may not be until the Parliament after that, or possibly even the Parliament after that, when this triggers any financial savings. There is not, as far as I can tell, any real Budget sensitivity to how the Government make this announcement, so I do not think we need to have a shroud of secrecy over what the Government are thinking of doing.

    What the Government should do is publish the Neville-Rolfe review. It would be helpful if Baroness Neville-Rolfe could appear before the Work and Pensions Committee and explain the findings of her review. I think she has been brought back as a Minister in a different Department, so I am not entirely clear whether that would be permitted. Could we have a Minister from a different Department answering questions about a review they led before they were a Minister? I cannot think of any reason why not. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that the Government would be happy for her to come and explain the findings of her review. We could then have an open consultation about the content of that review and come up with a coherent policy, rather than it being dropped out by the Treasury and perhaps consulted on afterwards. The fear is always that once something has been announced, there is much less chance of it being changed.

    I hope that the Government will get the feeling from this debate that people are concerned about there being further rises in the state pension age before we have had a chance to assess fully the impacts of the rise to 66—let alone the rise to 67 that is coming. I think we all recognise that it is a difficult situation and that it is worse for different parts of the country, worse for people in different occupations and possibly worse for women than for men. It would be useful to understand those implications and how we can mitigate them before we make any further decisions.

    Fundamentally, if life expectancy data is not going as has been forecast, we should respond to the facts as they change and accept that our policy on expected changes to the state pension age can change as well, that we do not need the increases to come as fast and as often as we had thought, and that we should just leave things as they are. Let us hope that life expectancy starts to increase again. We can make these decisions then, rather than rushing into things that really hurt people, that bring uncertainty to the pension system—we do not need that—and that will probably not bring any financial savings for several Chancellors.

    I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Let me restate my point: our pension architecture and the foundations on which we have been trying to build the system are all still there and are robust, and we can all rely on them.