Good afternoon folks, Here as promised is my account of our latest trip to Parliament. The day began for us at 2am and at 4.40am John dropped me off in Birmingham to meet Iris Long for our trip down to London. After about 30 minutes our journey began to take on the flavour of the Thelma and Louise movie - an ominous and annoying noise was accompanied by a low tyre pressure warning on the dash of Iris' car. As a result of my past experiences of travelling to London on campaign business - an element of panic began to kick in. We pulled off at the next available services and after an extensive search we located an airline in a badly lit area behind the petrol station. Then began the rummage in pockets and bags to find a 50p piece. Using the light from Iris' mobile we ascertained the recommended pressure for the errant tyre and went to work rectifying the matter – go girl power. This was my 5th journey down to London since starting our campaign– on all previous occasions due to the volume of early morning traffic we have arrived with just minutes to spare having set off at 5am. This time for our meeting at 10.30am we arrived in London at - wait for it - 7.30! Iris remains unconvinced that commencing our journey 3 hours later as she had intended would have resulted in sitting for hours in traffic at the centre of the capital and missing the 11am Adjournment Debate entirely. Fortunately she agreed to bring me home and is still speaking to me...... Things didn't improve much when I was standing having a cuppa at a kiosk outside Westminster Abbey and a lady came charging through a door hitting me on the back and sending my remaining tea flying all over Iris. With Iris mopped down and me wincing now and again we set off to meet the other members of our party inside the Houses of Parliament. As Iris walks with the aid of a rollator we were allowed to move to the front of the queue waiting to pass through security. On our way into Westminster Hall we accosted 2 police officers and engaged them in conversation re our campaign and the 1987 police pension regulations. Jim Igoe turned up at that point and satisfied that the younger officer of the two does not go to bed on an argument and tells his wife and little boy that he loves them every time he leaves for duty – we moved on into Westminster Hall. Having rounded up the rest of our party and fortified by yet another cuppa we were met by Megan and Gurinder from Madeleine Moon's office and shown into the Adjournment Debate. Madeleine was already on her feet and presenting her argument. You can view the debate in its entirety by following this link: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/fb074384-90b5-4e21-bc70-f379f074cf1b Read the transcript via this link: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-03-15/debates/5191A272-F101-4B12-A3BF-DD8EC6D192C6/PoliceWidows%E2%80%99Pensions#contribution-8C033357-0D3D-4B29-A468-82F90B38CF8Ah You will see that the debate ended short of its allotted 30 minutes by a full 8 minutes – safe to say that Madeleine was more than a tad miffed; she voiced her discontent at a meeting of the Backbench Business Committee: Madeleine Moon Labour, Bridgend “I had a Westminster Hall debate yesterday, which a number families travelled from across the UK to attend. The debate was also attended by six MPs from majority parties throughout the House. We were debating police widows’ pensions, as the widows lose their pensions should they remarry or cohabit. It is basically a tax on love. Unfortunately, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service only gave a seven-minute response - including taking an intervention - in the 15 minutes that he had in which to speak. Can we now have a debate here in the main Chamber so that a further and fuller answer is provided to those families, who feel they are facing a terrible injustice?” The reply she received left me somewhat confused: David Lidington Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons “I am sure that the hon. Lady would acknowledge that the Minister, since he speaks last in such debates, only has such time as is available from the 90 minutes or 60 minutes that has been allotted for that particular debate. I am sure that she will be able to air her concerns further if she seeks the opportunity to raise this matter at Home Office questions, via the Backbench Business Committee or in an Adjournment Debate.” Mr Lewis had 15 minutes in which to speak – that should have been a clue that this was not a 60 or 90 minutes debate! I feel sure that Madeleine will not let the issue rest. I think the most important points that came out of the debate for me are as follows: 1. At every opportunity we must reiterate our objective i.e. to secure parity with the RUC widows of Northern Ireland and lifelong pensions for all police widows. 2. We must stop discussing at length the changes for the survivors of officers killed on duty as we have already achieved this part of our objective - it is diverting attention from the remaining issues and this is a gift for the government as they can continue to churn out old replies to questions that we already have the answers to. 3. The government is heavily reliant on the argument that changes made to survivor pensions in 2006 and 2015 were costed to be affordable, sustainable and fair: “When a new scheme is introduced, such as the 2006 and 2015 schemes, the cost of funding new benefits are considered when determining how the schemes should be funded. Unlike the 1987 Police Pension Scheme, the 2006 and 2015 schemes were costed to allow for survivor benefits to be paid for life in all cases.” I would argue that according to Police Pension Schemes (England and Wales) Actuarial Valuations as at 31st March 2012 - this is simply not true and may have led to officers in 2015 initially being 'overcharged' for lifelong pensions for their surviving spouse/partner or civil partner. Having travelled a long way to attend the debate (I hadn't travelled the farthest – Jim Igoe travelled down from Glasgow) I was determined not to let the Policing Minister leave the room without speaking to him however briefly; Richard Graham bless him – provided me with the opportunity by introducing me to Mr Lewis as he attempted to leave. It's hard to pass through a door with a determined police widow grasping your hand under the pretext of maintaining a warm handshake. I knew that I had brief moments to make a case and so my opening gambit was, “Let's cut to the heart of them matter – the money .....” Mr Lewis was clearly not willing to accept that with regard to the 22,000 widows currently receiving their pension any change resulting in lifelong pensions would in fact be cost neutral, so I ploughed on and referred to the following quote from the aforementioned Police Pension Schemes (England and Wales) Actuarial Valuations as at 31st March 2012: “There were only 131 reported remarriages of around 23,000 dependants (0.1% per year) over the four year period to 31st March 2012. Detailed analysis has not been carried out on the remarriage experience because remarriage on this level will have only a small impact on the evaluation results. Not allowing for remarriage will slightly overstate liabilities possibly resulting in an increase in the contribution rate of a 0.1% of salaries from 2015 compared to allowing for remarriage at its recent level (though note that additional contributions in the short term would be offset by lower contributions as small profits emerge on remarriage going forward). The impact on the standard contribution rate would be immaterial.” Matt Wood and Samantha Watts Government Actuary’s Department 11th December 2012 I made the point that 22,000 widows are being held to ransom on the slim chance that the government may continue to profit from an insignificant number of widows remarrying or moving in with a partner. It has always annoyed me that the government should seek to make 'savings' through the withdrawal of our pensions – to see these savings referred to as 'profits' leaves me incandescent. Mr Lewis said that he didn't have these facts available to him and would look into it – he turned and left hotly pursued by Dave Conroy armed with a copy of my briefing document complete with the references to the Police Pension Schemes (England and Wales) Actuarial Valuations as a 31st March 2012. Madeleine Moon's office is drafting a letter to the minister – in it they are asking for a further breakdown of the £50m 'cost' of lifelong pensions for all police widows; a breakdown of £10m for current widows and £40m for future widows is all the Home Office were able/willing to provide in reply to my second Freedom of Information Act request. I look forward to reading the reply. I know that some supporters have questioned the value of attending a 30 minute Adjournment Debate with all of the expense and planning, not to mention the travel that is involved – I hope that this update has helped to demonstrate that not only is our attendance useful but absolutely vital in moving our campaign forward. At the very least it was necessary on this occasion to demonstrate our gratitude to Madeleine for securing the debate and to those MPs that attended on our behalf. Madeleine's speech received BBC coverage on the day: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-39280999 Thank you so much to Diane and Rob Burns, Felicity Bonwick and partner Andy, Dave Conroy, Mick Hume PFEW, Matthew Griffiths and Lucia, Jim Igoe and last but not least Iris Long for being there to support me on the 15th – you guys rock. Until the next time...... Best wishes as always, Cathryn CathrynHall@outlook.com