Oral question asked in the House of Commons, by Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Scottish National Party). It was answered on Thursday, 14 April 2016 on behalf of the Women and Equalities.

State Pension Age

Question: I thank the Minister for his response, but what is the purpose of the Department and, indeed, of the women and equalities ministerial role if they do not address the inequalities that exist? We have had four parliamentary debates on the issue, MPs have asked dozens of questions, 186,000 people have signed a petition and we voted in this House to agree that the policy is unfair, so after all that, why is the Minister still prepared to defend an indefensible position?

Answer: The hon. Lady was not in the House in 2011, but the issue, as I said, was heavily debated. A vote was taken after a Backbench Business Committee debate. As she knows only too well, a point of order was raised after that debate and the person sitting in the Chair at the time happened to be the first and former Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee. She made it abundantly clear that votes taken after debates tabled by the Backbench Business Committee are not binding on the Government.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 608 c501
Session: 2015-16
Oral question type: Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Commons chamber
Subjects: Age Women State retirement pensions Schools LGBT+ people Department for Education
Link: View this Oral question on hansard.parliament.uk