Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation
(3 days, 22 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 700765 relating to compensation for women affected by state pension changes.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to introduce this e-petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank the petitioners for making this debate possible, and all the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—campaigners for their tireless efforts, especially Jane Cowley, Angela Madden and Debbie de Spon.
The Government’s refusal to compensate WASPI women is both shocking and disheartening. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found clear maladministration in the Department for Work and Pensions’ communication of state pension age changes and recommended that each affected woman should be awarded £2,950 as compensation.
The facts of the matter are that, despite a 15-year lead-in period, women were informed 21 years after the legislation passed, leaving many unaware of the impact on their retirement and life plans. Shockingly, some women never received any notification at all. The DWP has yet to explain why it concluded that written notification was necessary, yet failed to provide it. The ombudsman’s instruction for Parliament to ensure compensation is extremely rare, and the DWP’s refusal to comply with those recommendations is almost unprecedented, occurring in less than 1% of cases. More than 200 MPs have criticised the Government’s inaction, including 50 Labour MPs.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on opening this important debate. Some 74% of the public support fair compensation for WASPI women. What does it say about this place and our democracy if, when 74% of the public have that opinion, we as a Parliament do not act to give WASPI women fair compensation?
Dr Savage
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and I include that figure—that staggering amount of public support for WASPI compensation—later in my speech.
At least 80 Ministers previously pledged support for the WASPI campaign while in opposition but, somehow, that support has not survived the transition into power. The 160,000 people who signed this petition feel betrayed and, as already mentioned, it is worth noting that 74% of the public support compensation for WASPI women.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on opening this Petitions Committee debate. As the previous Chair of the Petitions Committee, I know that 160,000 people signing a petition shows the strength of feeling, as very few petitions reach that threshold. Does she agree that that is a testament to the commitment of WASPI campaigners?
Dr Savage
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady.
The assumption that affected women should have monitored their pensions is deeply offensive. Like most normal people, they were focused on their lives, their work and their families. The oft-cited statistic that 90% of women knew about the changes is misleading; it comes from a 2006 survey about the general awareness of possible future changes, not the specific impact on individuals, and only 5% of the respondents to that survey were 1950s-born women. The ombudsman, in fact, found that only 43% knew that their pension age was 65.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Does she share my concern that we are going down a dangerous path when, despite the ombudsman having made a recommendation, that has been rejected? Does that not shake faith in the entire system of ombudsmen?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The hon. Member is being generous with her time. It is not just the ombudsman in which faith could be shaken. The public are rightly concerned that dozens if not hundreds of Labour Members of Parliament previously supported the WASPI women but have turned their backs on them now that they are in government. This is not just about the ombudsman; this is about parliamentary democracy and our constituents having faith that what we say will actually happen.
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Now I will make some progress.
As a result of the changes, between 6% and 15% of affected women have fallen into poverty. Recent surveys show that 84% worry about energy bills, 76% worry about their financial future and, tragically, 71% avoid leaving their home to save money. I want to highlight the case of Marion Bond, one of my constituents in South Cotswolds. During a lifetime spent as a teacher, Marion made many sacrifices, including turning down promotions and working part time to care for her children while her husband worked long hours. Despite supporting his career, her divorce settlement was based on the assumption that she would receive her pension at 60. Instead, she unexpectedly faced a delay, losing six years of pension. The small compensation recommended by the ombudsman is a fraction of the £40,000 that she calculates she lost as a result of the lack of communication.
Marion’s story is not unique. A survey on Facebook that asked “What would you have done differently?” yielded over 1,500 heartrending stories as women shared how their lives would have been different with proper notification. The stories include escaping abusive relationships, continuing with much-loved careers rather than taking voluntary redundancy, and fulfilling care responsibilities for grandchildren or other relatives. Although men and women should have equal retirement ages, that is not the issue here. The issue is the communication failure. The mishandled roll-out of the change left many women stranded, facing unemployment and reliant on benefits. That in turn affected their mental and physical health and placed financial strain on their families, impacting childcare and the social and healthcare sectors.
There is a fundamental question about how we value women in our society. We must recognise that women face invisible financial penalties due to gender, including pay gaps and unpaid labour burdens.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful opening speech. She mentioned the gender pay gap, which is why we have a gender pension gap of almost 40%. Does she agree that that is another reason for looking again at WASPI women? The lack of notification that they had means that the money means so much to so many of them.
Dr Savage
I thank my hon. Friend for a good point very well made. Women such as Marion and the rest of the WASPI women have devoted their lives to raising the next generation, contributing significantly to our economy. Ministers’ claims that women experienced no financial loss are false. Women lost the opportunity to make informed decisions, leading to significant material losses. The compensation sought is not a benefits payment, but redress for an injustice. It should not be means-tested, following precedents set by other Government compensation schemes such as those for the Windrush generation and Post Office sub-postmasters.
This debate centres on a core principle of good governance. When a Department fails to fulfil its own policy, it has an obligation to those affected. The DWP’s refusal to engage with victims or to even consider compensation violates that principle. The DWP has not even provided a reason for refusing compensation, demonstrating a deeply offensive lack of accountability. For many years, the Liberal Democrats have pushed the Government to fairly compensate WASPI women in line with the ombudsman’s recommendations. I know that WASPI will continue to take all actions necessary to help 1950s-born women to achieve justice through compensation, but only Parliament can make that happen.
As we debate this petition, we must consider the role that the Government play in providing a safety net for the most vulnerable members of our society. I am sure we will hear many stories today of inspirational women who have served their community, family and country, and then been fundamentally let down by the British Government. The clock is ticking. More than 300,000 women born in the 1950s have died since this campaign began, with another passing away every 13 minutes on average. The solution is clear: the Government must act now to compensate WASPI women fairly and swiftly. These women have served their community, family and country, and it is time that we served them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. As we can see, a large number of hon. Members wish to take part, so if we are going to get everybody in, I must impose a five-minute limit on speeches. I ask Members to please refrain from interventions as much as possible.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Edward. I thank the Petitions Committee for arranging the debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her powerful opening speech. While I am in the business of thanking people, let me thank the tens of thousands of WASPI women who I have met around the country over the years, fighting for what they see to be justice. I agree with them. That organisation will not simply disappear, and the Government cannot simply ignore it—they will not be allowed to. The WASPI women have many friends and allies in this place on both sides of the House who will work with them to try to secure justice.
When I voted for the reimbursement of the WASPI women the other day, I did so with two thoughts in my mind. The first was that there is something going wrong with the way we govern our country. Our governing class has lost touch with the people in general. It is very important that we begin to think hard about why that has happened and what we do about it. The first step must be that politicians say what they mean and mean what they say. I told the WASPI women in my constituency, and everywhere else I have met them, that I would back them until they get justice. I will continue to do so.
Beyond individual politicians, the structures of our politics are no longer working properly. The ombudsman was set up especially to allow citizens who feel an injustice to go to an organisation separate from the state to pursue justice. How can that organisation, which is there to give voice to people, be ignored by a Government of whichever side? This debate should not be about finger pointing between the parties, but let us be clear that previous Governments introduced these measures and failed to implement the ombudsman’s report, so it is a problem for the whole House.
After thinking about changing our politics, my second thought was about social justice. It is not fair that women were told at the last possible moment, with the state sitting on a report for 28 months, that their financial arrangements would change. I had a look at what happened in Spain: the Government increased the retirement age to 67, but they did it over 14 years. That allowed people to make their own financial plans about their circumstances. Each person knew what was coming in due course. The British state, of course, because of the gap between the public and the governing class, failed to do such a thing.
Let me give one constituency case of a woman who came to see me. She was 58, had worked all her life and had saved a small amount of money, working hard and not earning very much. Her mum and dad were seriously ill, but she had enough money saved to get through to being 60, so she retired and went to look after them, only to discover to her horror that she would have to wait for years for the pension to come in. The money she had saved was not sufficient. Next, sadly, her mum and dad died, and she was left with no support or income of any kind—no carer’s allowance, nothing. She was left in total poverty, as a result of the state’s failure to say what would happen to her in her life.
The state cannot be allowed to make decisions that transform people’s lives in such a way through no fault of their own—people who have worked and paid tax all their life. Millions of women have suffered in their own individual way, and all of us will have heard lots of stories about that. There are 6,170 WASPI women in my constituency alone; my majority is 6,600. Members can work that out for themselves—look at the numbers. Each one of those women will have family members who feel a burning sense of injustice too. But it should not be about us and saving our seats; it should be about what is right, about justice and about a different kind of politics entirely.
It seems to me that options were available, but the then Government ignored them. There could have been a proper transition. Now we have an ombudsman’s report that has made clear recommendations and that imposes an obligation on us—every Member of this House—to implement them. We must do that. Let me make one final point—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. There is a five-minute limit—sorry, Jon.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Our greatest Conservative Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, said that
“power has only one duty—to secure the social welfare of the people.”
Being held to account cements the legitimacy that Governments derive from their democratic mandate. Beyond parliamentary accountability, over time other checks and balances have emerged. With due respect to the excellent Petitions Committee, and the Intelligence and Security Committee on which I serve, the ombudsmen, with their genesis in the late 1960s, perhaps in public terms best represent that kind of independence, accountability and scrutiny.
References to the ombudsmen for their considered deliberation are more than an ornament to our polity; they have become an essential component of it. Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum, represented in this debate, appreciate that just as things are not lightly sent to the ombudsman, neither should their judgments be taken lightly. In particular, a Government who attempt to brush under the carpet the fallacies, faults and frailties identified by the ombudsman are guilty not just of bad housekeeping but of concealing systemic failure.
Yet that is exactly what has befallen the WASPI women: those wives, mothers and grandmothers who toiled hard for Britain only to be told that their fair expectations of life after work were to be blighted, not just by the consequence of Government policy—the principles of which, by the way, they do not contest—but by its wholly inadequate implementation by a Government Department.
In the words of the ombudsman,
“maladministration in DWP’s communication about the 1995 Pensions Act resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control.”
The ombudsman’s remedy is to recompense on a scale—a series of levels from 1 to 6. The ombudsman recommended a level 4 response, which relates to
“a significant and…lasting injustice that has, to some extent, affected someone’s ability to live a relatively normal life.”
Few, if anyone, anticipated the current Government’s careless disregard of this just cause or of the ombudsman’s recommendations. It was surprising, because the Prime Minister himself had made it clear that he believed in “fair and fast” compensation. The Work and Pensions Secretary said:
“This injustice can’t go on. I have been a longstanding supporter of the WASPI campaign”.
The Home Secretary said:
“I’m backing the WASPI women…I’ll keep up our fight for a better deal for WASPI women.”
Even the Deputy Prime Minister said categorically that Labour “will compensate” the WASPI women as it is “their money”.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I have had about 100 emails from WASPI women in my constituency. The ombudsman found that there was a case to answer, and recommended five options for compensation, leaning towards option 4. Does my right hon. Friend agree that even if the Government will not grant option 4, they should at least give the WASPI women something?
Sir John Hayes
In working alongside the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for today’s debate, I met many WASPI women, and have since. They are not unreasonable, and they do not expect every line of their most ambitious desire to be met, but they did expect the Government to make some proper reference back to the ombudsman’s report and, consequently, to approach them with a proposal to settle their demands. I find it extraordinary that the Government did not do that. I am genuinely really surprised. The WASPI women are reasonable people, and they understand the constraints the Government are working within, but they expected greater respect for and greater reference to the independent scrutiny from the ombudsman.
Members might have thought, from all that I have read out about what Ministers said when they were shadow Ministers, that the Government’s position was clear, but it appears not. I say again, as I have before to the new Minister: change course. Few of those with power readily welcome criticism. Fewer still enjoy being chastised. But some—just some, and I hope that includes the Minister—correct mistakes, right wrongs and do what is just willingly. In so doing, they grace the very concept of political privilege by nurturing popular faith in the rightful exercise of power.
The challenge of meeting the reasonable demands of the WASPI women by simply implementing what the independent ombudsman recommended is an opportunity for those in the Government with responsibility to step up and dignify their office by doing what is right. The way the WASPI women have been treated is just not fair. When public faith in fairness is lost, to draw on the words of the great poet W. B. Yeats,
“The ceremony of innocence is drowned”
as it becomes clear that
“The best lack all conviction”.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. My mother is a WASPI woman and, as fortune would have it, today is her birthday. It would be wonderful if the Minister could give her the birthday present of changing the Government’s position on this issue.
The arguments have been well rehearsed and, indeed, the facts are clear thanks to the ombudsman’s report. Published in March 2024, it found that the DWP failed these women. The communication of changes to the state pension age was not just inadequate: it was negligent. Women were left in the dark, unable to make informed decisions about their financial futures. The impact of the failure has been devastating. Lives have been upended and plans have been torn apart. Women who worked hard, contributed to society and looked forward to a well-earned retirement were instead met with stress, anxiety, uncertainty and the harsh reality of financial insecurity.
The Government have rightly apologised, but I say gently to the Minister that it is somewhat intellectually incoherent to apologise but then also offer reasons—such as claiming that 90% of women knew—as to why compensation should not be paid. If they believe that, what are they apologising for?
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I wish the hon. Gentleman’s mother a very happy birthday. It is a great date of birth to share.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the ombudsman’s report concluded that there had been maladministration between 2005 and 2007, and that some women had suffered a loss as a result of that maladministration. The Government accept that there was maladministration. The ombudsman has left it to Parliament to decide how to make sure that those who suffered loss get properly recompensed. What would it say about us as a Parliament if we decide that yes, the maladministration is there and the loss is there but, frankly, we are not going to do anything about it?
Mr Brash
I agree with the hon. Member, who makes the interesting point that it is down to Parliament, rather than Ministers, because we are talking about the parliamentary ombudsman. I have to point out, though, that it would have been helpful if the ombudsman’s report had not been kicked into the long grass by the previous Administration.
I continue to believe that options were available to Ministers other than simply saying no. Other options include looking at those most in need—we have already heard about those WASPI women who are beneath the poverty line; or looking at staged or interim payments based on age; or just engaging in dialogue about the ombudsman’s findings at all. I urge Ministers to consider those options.
Rather than rehearse arguments that have been made many times, I want to talk more broadly about the impact of this issue on our politics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) mentioned. We cannot leverage votes on an issue when in opposition, only to turn around and say no when we are in government, because that risks disenfranchising our voters. Recent history tells us that disenfranchisement does not lead voters to vote for no one. It leads to them voting for anyone. This country faces that danger right now, in terms of the level of trust in politics. Voters’ trust is rightly hard won, but very easily lost.
During the general election campaign, on countless doorsteps and in numerous emails and conversations, I was challenged by Hartlepool voters on the WASPI issue. I pledged my support to every single one of them. I stood by them as they campaigned and told them that if I became their Member of Parliament, I would always stand up for them. I will not renege on that promise. I remember being joined on one doorstep by a senior member of the then shadow Cabinet. The voter, fixing the shadow Minister with a stare, gestured to me and said, “But how can we trust him?” The reply came from the shadow Minister, “Well, Jonathan is Hartlepool first, country second and party third.” I am happy to say that that remains the case.
I am not here to bash my party or my Government. Politics is not binary. Although many will disagree, I believe that standing up and saying when you think something is wrong is a profound act of loyalty to my party. It is my duty to stand up for WASPI women. That is the promise I made to them and, no matter the consequence, that will never change.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.
The latest figures suggest there are over 6,000 WASPI women in the Moray and Highland region, and they are an active and vociferous group. Of the 650 constituencies, my Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey constituency is in the top 25 for signatures on the petition. Women from my constituency regularly travel the many hundreds of miles to London to demonstrate and demand fair recompense from this Government and from previous Governments. Sadly, they are being thwarted at every turn.
All the while, every day over 100 WASPI women die having seen no justice. WASPI women have proven that the communication with them was dire—the ombudsman’s report made that very clear, after very thorough investigation —yet not even a hint of recompense has been given. It is an utterly appalling situation.
Let us be clear: the millions of women affected are of a generation of women who have been discriminated against throughout their working lives. They have been victims of getting lower pay than their male counterparts doing the same job, as has been well evidenced by equal pay settlements with numerous bodies. They have been victims of the glass ceiling, victims of both casual and overt sexism in the workplace, and victims of a patriarchal society that, although much diminished, still creates a major imbalance today. Women are far more likely to be worse off as pensioners than men and have, on average, much smaller pension pots when they come to retirement age.
Ministers continually refer to the £22 billion black hole left by the previous Government. I accept that the financial legacy they have been left is pretty grim, but let us be clear: that refers to recurring spend and absolutely not to what would be a one-off compensatory spend. Financial experts, professionals and auditors take a very different view on one-off spend compared with recurring spend. We need to keep that in context, and I hope the Minister will reflect on that. Justice is justice, and it must not depend on budgets for it to be served.
It is in that context that the vast majority of Labour MPs refused to vote in the recent Division on this issue that was forced by my party. I commend the small number who stuck to their principles and voted with us, and I urge the large majority who did not to consider their position on this matter seriously, and get back behind the campaigners they were happy to pose with for campaign photos in the run-up to last year’s election.
I am humbled by the determination and drive of those campaigners, as well as the dignified way in which they continue to make their point. Campaigners from throughout the UK are once again here in numbers, and I commend and fully support their efforts to get the fair and just compensation they deserve.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. My thanks go to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for an excellent opening speech.
Since the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made in December, Members of the House have become familiar with the findings of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I was appalled at the announcement when it was made, and I am no less so now. Like many Labour parliamentary colleagues, I have attended rallies and met many WASPI women. In opposition, these victims of injustice had our unwavering support. Now we are in power, they are still no closer to getting what they truly deserve.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I think it sets a dangerous precedent to go against recommendations commissioned from an independent ombudsman. However, those from all parts of Parliament are equally to blame in this, and it is slightly unfair to blame it all on the one Minister sitting on his own over there.
Brian Leishman
For the record, I certainly was not singling out any particular Minister. It is an issue—to be honest, an injustice—on which consecutive Governments have a stained record. Now that we are in power, it is on our desk, so we could actually make it right. The responsibility is with us in Government.
In January, I sponsored a ten-minute rule Bill and voted for WASPI women to receive the justice that they deserve, and my commitment to them is ongoing. Today, I urge the Government to recognise that the people who voted for us do not want the language of “tough choices”, because “tough choices” always seems to mean working class people becoming poorer. It is clear that status-quo politics is not the answer. Millions of people are disenfranchised, demoralised and desperate, and it is no wonder that people are sick of hearing about fiscal constraints after 14 years of austerity, a pandemic and a cost of living crisis that has increased inequality all over the UK.
Last July, the electorate voted for change from all of that, and there is no change in carrying on with failed Tory policies that serve to impoverish people. On this side of the Chamber, we all believe that the election of a Labour Government is about relieving the suffering of injustices, delivering social justice and fairness, making things better and building an alternative economy and society that works for the benefit of the many. The WASPI women are not asking for something that they are not due; all they are asking for is fairness and justice. Now that we are in Government, we would do well to live and deliver on our party’s true values.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on an issue that is incredibly important to thousands of women and their families in my constituency. I pay tribute to the WASPI campaigners who are in the Public Gallery, and all my constituents who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue.
This debate is about justice, fairness and doing what is right. Liberal Democrats have said all along that we support fair and fast compensation for all the women who were unfairly impacted by the changes to the state pension age. They include my constituent Mary; instead of retiring and receiving a pension in 2016 when she reached 60, as she had been expecting to do all her working life, she found herself having to live on virtually nothing for six years. Ill health following breast cancer, combined with the side effects of chemotherapy, left her too tired to do very much at all.
Then there is Karin. Karin’s life was upended when she took voluntary redundancy in 2016, believing she had three years until her state pension, only to discover that she had six years to wait. The unexpected delay left her struggling financially while caring for an elderly mother, a severely disabled sister and young grandchildren. Karin is deeply disillusioned with the Government’s decision to ignore the ombudsman’s finding, and frankly, who can blame her? She feels that lifelong injustices faced by women of her generation—from being denied equal workplace rights after having children, to the state pension age changes—have been systematically ignored.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Does the hon. Member agree that the WASPI women are right to use the word “gaslighting” to describe the Government’s suggestion that there is no problem here and that everybody knew? They are not standing by the pledge they made in opposition; it is as if that pledge was never made. That strikes harshly at women who have spent their whole lives facing other aspects of sexism, as she describes.
Liz Jarvis
The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and I will come on to that later. Mary and Karin, like so many of my constituents who were impacted by the changes to the state pension age, feel incredibly let down by the Government. After being ignored for so long by the previous Conservative Government, they really believed the MPs who told them that they supported their claim for fair and fast compensation.
The Government should be compensating these women because it is the right thing to do. Many of the women in my constituency who were impacted found themselves in dire circumstances with little to live on. They were forced to take low-paid jobs to make ends meet, and in some cases they turned to food banks. These are not wealthy women, and the unexpected loss of income and the fact that they had to work much longer than they were expecting has had a huge impact on their lives and those of their families. That is in addition to having to cope with the loss of the winter fuel allowance, which is particularly challenging when it has been so bitterly cold. Many of the women are also unpaid carers.
There is also the wider issue that these women feel that they do not matter to this Government—that because they are women of a certain age, they are somehow invisible. These women were born in the 1950s. They spent years working and raising families, and many of them will now have caring responsibilities. Frankly, the way that they have been treated by successive Governments is appalling. They deserve respect and to be treated with dignity.
This issue has been incredibly badly handled by the Government. We all recognise that the previous Conservative Government left the country in an absolute mess and that there are many issues that need fixing—including, most urgently, the NHS and social care—but that does not make this head-in-the-sand approach right. The parliamentary ombudsman said very clearly that there had been maladministration, and the Secretary of State and the Government accepted that. To then turn around and say, “We are sorry about what happened, but we just don’t have the money to compensate you,” is simply not good enough. These women feel betrayed. Telling them that 90% of them knew about the changes, when the ombudsman found that that was not the case, is gaslighting. Indeed, the ombudsman stated that 43% of the women knew; that is quite a difference.
If the Government continue to ignore the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s recommendation for compensation, it raises the question: what is the point of the ombudsman? Where else can people turn if they are victims of maladministration or wrongdoing and feel that no one is listening to them? Many women maintain that they did not receive letters at all, and the Department for Work and Pensions does not have a record of who it wrote to. I can believe that; if any Member has had dealings with the DWP, either as a private citizen or on behalf of constituents, they will know what a nightmare it can be. I suspect that if we asked many people, even now, they probably would not know the exact date when they could retire and receive the state pension.
I urge the Government to reconsider their response, and to look at providing a scheme of compensation starting with those on pension credit. We know that the Government are facing incredibly difficult challenges, but ignoring the voices of thousands of women is a huge mistake. This issue is not going to go away.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. It is right that this House should consider compensation for women affected by changes to the state pension age. Before, during and after the general election, I pledged my support to the close to 6,000 women of West Dunbartonshire affected by this injustice. It was right and fair to do so then, and I cannot and will not turn my back on them now. I continue to support West Dunbartonshire WASPI women, who are led by their inspirational co-ordinator, Elizabeth Daly.
In March 2024, the PHSO stage two and three report found clear maladministration in the way that the DWP communicated state pension age changes. It is clear to me, based on the communication I have received from my constituents, that they did not know that their state pension age was changing, or, if they did, that they received that information far too late to make the necessary adjustments to their retirement plans. The PHSO instructed all of us in Parliament to consider the findings—it took the rare, but necessary, step of laying the report before Parliament, not just the Department or the Government. It was for us to consider the findings, apologise and issue compensation.
For the very welcome apology for maladministration to be in any way meaningful, there must be redress for the injustice. There must be compensation—not a handout for hardship. It should not be means-tested; it should be on the same basis as all the other recently announced Government compensation schemes. I urge my Government colleagues to look again at the ombudsman’s report and its recommendations. Current national financial challenges should never be a barrier to awarding compensation. To ignore the ombudsman’s report not only undermines its important role and function; it is unprecedented in this context and sets us on a very dangerous path. There is nothing right and fair about the statement to the House of 17 December 2024. I ask the Government to please review and explore what scheme they can consider to offer financial redress to the over 300,000 1950s women in Scotland, including the 6,000 in West Dunbartonshire.
They include my constituent Elizabeth, whose story I have permission to share. She said:
“I left school and started working in the summer of 1971, aged 15. I was expecting to retire on my 60th birthday, which was December 2015.
In the summer of 2014, my husband took gravely ill and was in ICU for several weeks and hospitalised for 3 months in total. He was discharged with a walking frame and tube feeding, which I had to be trained to administer. I was given compassionate leave when required and allowed to temporarily reduce my working hours for 6 months. After that period, I had a maximising attendance review and had to decide to return full time or permanently reduce my hours to 17.5. I had to choose the latter, as he was still very weak and dependent. After he had a relapse and I was absent again, I had another maximising attendance review. It was during this meeting that I discovered I would not be able to retire at 60 after all. I was distraught. I had reduced my hours and the other half of my post had been filled!
When my husband died in 2018,1 was earning half pay. I continued to work and, in fact…finding myself on the frontline at 65…My mental health deteriorated again and I was absent from work during the winter of 2020…I made the decision to give notice of my retirement. I wouldn’t receive my State Pension until mid December 2021…Choices were removed from women! If we had known about this change in age, we could have made different decisions. Every decision I made up to 2014 was made on the assumption I would retire at 60. I feel I have been a victim of injustice, with the PHSO confirming that women born in the 1950s suffered maladministration from the DWP…We have waited long enough.”
They have waited long enough, and it is time to act.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for securing and opening this debate, the hundreds of thousands of people who signed this important petition, and the formidable campaigners. An estimated 6,500 women in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon have been impacted by this pension injustice. Many of them have contacted me to tell me of their feeling of betrayal by those who should right wrongs. For years, millions of WASPI women have fought for justice after being failed by successive Governments. These women worked hard, contributed to our society and played by the rules, only to have their pension age changed without proper notice, leaving many of them financially stranded.
The ombudsman’s ruling was clear: the Government’s failure to communicate the changes caused real financial hardship and those affected deserve compensation. Thousands of these women have died without receiving justice or redress, but what did we hear in December? We heard that the DWP is rejecting the ombudsman’s recommendation that compensation should be paid. Instead of standing up for these women, the DWP has turned its back on them.
Let us be clear—this is not just about payouts. This is about acknowledging the harm that has been done and about recognising the stress, the anxiety, the broken plans, the financial insecurity and the poverty that these women now face.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
WASPI women should be fairly compensated. Just this week, I spoke to a woman who lives in the village of Street in my constituency. She worked hard for 40 years, but has recently been made homeless—she has been evicted—as a result of not receiving fair compensation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should reverse their decision and give WASPI women the compensation they deserve?
Manuela Perteghella
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I too have heard of women who have had to keep working despite ill health, and who have had to use up all their life savings but still face poverty now.
The Liberal Democrats have long stood with WASPI women. We made a manifesto commitment to fight for fair compensation and we will not let this issue drop. The Conservative Government failed to implement the recommendations. This Labour Government had a chance to do the right thing, and they still have that chance. Please do so. We will not stop fighting until these women get the compensation they deserve. It is time for this Government to listen, to act and to deliver justice for WASPI women.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.
First, I offer an apology from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Normally he would have been here for this debate, but he is chairing a meeting on disability cuts as we speak.
More than 5,000 women in my constituency of Liverpool West Derby are affected by these pension changes. I have sat down with many of them. Their lives have been changed forever by a political decision. They have had to scrap their plans and many of these proud women have been forced into poverty.
The Minister who is here today cannot brush aside the fact that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report on this issue, which was published in March 2024, vindicated the WASPI campaign’s assertion that WASPI women had been unjustly treated and had been denied money. The report made it clear that the DWP should acknowledge its failings and apologise for the impact that those failings had on the complainants and others affected. The ombudsman also ruled that compensation is owed, but because it cannot order compensation it was for the Government to determine the terms of redress. At last, we had a ruling that reflected the injustice and Parliament was given a clear instruction by the ombudsman to fix this mess.
It was the expectation of many people, including myself, that the new Government would right this historical wrong and deliver compensation as a matter of urgency, in an amount that was fair and just. When the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions stood up and announced that no compensation at all would be paid to the WASPI women—women born in the 1950s—the shock and despair were felt across the UK. Those feelings were palpable, and the shock and anger felt by my constituents about this decision has been made absolutely crystal clear to me on a number of occasions.
On Friday, Minister, I am opening a Centre for Social Justice office in Liverpool West Derby; I am absolutely sure that many women over 50 will be coming through the doors to ask for help after suffering so many blows from political choices made in this place. From the pension changes to austerity to the winter fuel payment cut, it is endless and it feels endless for these women. This is simply an injustice that must be put right.
I told the previous Government in a similar debate last year:
“This is an injustice that needs to be addressed urgently. It is completely unacceptable that the Government have so far refused to take action to right this wrong. There is nothing to stop the Government taking immediate action to provide compensation”.—[Official Report, 12 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 27WH.]
Like many others in this debate, I have on a number of occasions pledged my support to the WASPI women and to women over 50. I stand steadfast by that pledge of support. I have been to Downing Street twice, most recently last month, to call for full restitution, as well as mediation with the groups. They have made an offer to work with the Government on how we can get out of this logjam. At Prime Minister’s questions in December, I asked the Prime Minister to let Parliament decide whether compensation should be paid. I call on the Minister today to ensure we have a free vote, so that we get a true reflection of the will of Parliament.
The current position is the wrong position, and I urge the Government to rethink their stance. It the ombudsman’s position, it undermines office of the ombudsman, and indeed it undermines faith in this place, which has been shaken to the core for so many of these women. I know from speaking to women in my constituency how much hurt it has caused and continues to cause. The sense of betrayal from politics, this place and our Government is absolutely palpable.
On behalf of the many Liverpool West Derby constituents affected by this injustice, I urge the Minister and the Government to rethink, to change course and to sit down with these women for mediation, so that eventually we can award compensation to all those affected by this grievous injustice.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the 160,000 individuals who signed the e-petition on securing this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening it with power and passion. We are here to address a grave injustice that has affected millions of women across our country, including in Eastbourne—known for being home to many a great pensioner.
The WASPI women were let down by successive Governments after an increase to the state pension age was implemented without proper communication or notice. As a result, these women, many of whom had worked for decades and paid into the system in good faith, found their retirement plans shattered, with little time to adjust. This scandal has left many women in financial hardship, forced to continue working or unable to retire with dignity. One of them is my constituent Yvonne in Eastbourne, who said in a letter to me:
“I was offered early retirement. I did my sums carefully as I still had a mortgage to pay and accepted the offer. Only after everything was signed and settled did I discover that the months were now changed into years. This meant having to find work for longer than I expected to and giving up the plans my husband and I have.”
Many more women represented by Members of all political parties could paint a very similar scenario.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My hon. Friend’s story of Yvonne reminds me of my constituent Christine, who had a long career in the NHS. She took a lower paid job in 2012 on the assumption that she would be able to claim her state pension in 2016. It was not until she contacted the DWP after she had left the NHS that she found out that she was not entitled to the state pension for twice the amount of time that she thought she would have to survive on a smaller income. This has been the experience of countless women in my constituency and across the country. They planned their retirement and future based on the wrong information. Does my hon. Friend agree that the continued betrayal of these women by successive Governments is disgraceful, and that ignoring the ombudsman’s recommendation sets a dangerous precedent?
Josh Babarinde
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and nor could the ombudsman. The ombudsman has been very clear that these women suffered maladministration and that they should be compensated—no ifs, no buts. It is therefore grossly unjust that the Government have ruled out compensation, despite apologising for the injustice.
Compensation is not just a political issue; in my view, it is a moral obligation. I urge the Government to act on the ombudsman’s findings and U-turn on their refusal to provide fair compensation to the WASPI women. The Liberal Democrats stand with the WASPI women’s continued fight for compensation. I am proud to stand alongside women like Angela Boas in Eastbourne to continue fighting for the justice that these women need and deserve.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
It is, as always, a pleasure to work under your chairmanship Sir Edward. I am pleased that the Petitions Committee has brought this debate to the House, especially given that as many as 160,000 signatures have been recorded, with some 266 of them from my own constituency. I thank all those who have written to me and all those who have campaigned and fought so hard over the years to try to bring the issue of WASPI women to a successful conclusion.
I should probably make a declaration—not one that is required by procedure, but one that is relevant to this debate. I am a WASPI woman, one of over 4,000 in my constituency. Clearly I am still working, and in a fairly privileged position as a Member of the House, but I have watched the various increases in the state pension qualifying age with great interest over the years.
I understand why it is necessary to equalise the pension age for men and women, but it is important to see that in context. In 1995, Parliament legislated to increase the pension age for women from 60 to 65 and bring it in line with the retirement age for men. That was meant to happen in stages between April 2010 and 2020, but in 2011, new legislation accelerated the timetable, meaning that women’s state pension age reached 65 by November 2018. The same legislation brought forward the increase in the overall state pension age to 66, which happened between December 2018 and October 2020 for both men and women. Many women of my age felt as though the qualifying age was becoming more and more distant the closer we got to our 60s. As we know, many women did not receive notification of the changes in the qualifying age, and many others did not receive it timeously enough to allow them to make adjustments and changes.
The ombudsman considered the case of the WASPI women and concluded that there had been maladministration between 2005 and 2006, with a 28-month delay before beginning a direct mail exercise to notify affected women. Personally, I do not know whether I ever got a letter about the raising of the state pension age. I tend to keep that kind of thing, but I do not have such a letter. I do remember a friend telling me about it. I went on to the website and looked at the online calculator, and I found out that I would get my pension at 66, but not everyone has the opportunity to do that. Not everyone has access to the internet, and not everyone is literate enough with IT to be able to make those calculations.
As the ombudsman said, such women lost opportunities to make informed decisions about their finances, which diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control. It seems to me that when an ombudsman records such findings and suggests a course of action, we should follow it, but the ombudsman clearly had an idea about the thinking within government—and I mean government in the generic sense, as the report predates this Government. I say that because the ombudsman concluded that it should lay the report before Parliament, and hoped that parliamentarians would implement its findings. That is what I hoped and expected would happen, and I cannot say how disappointed I am that it did not. But I say gently to the Minister that it is not too late to put it right.
I mentioned earlier that I am in a privileged position, and I am: I am privileged to have been sent here to represent my constituents, and I will continue to use that privilege to support and fight for WASPI women until such time as the ombudsman’s recommendations are implemented.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on opening this debate in such a powerful way.
I had to do some sums earlier on, because I seem to recall that the very first time I spoke as a Member of Parliament was in a debate, in this very Chamber, about this injustice to 1950s-born women. I was able to find out that I made that contribution on 5 July 2017. If I recall correctly, there was then, as there seems to be this afternoon, great consensus amongst Members that 1950s-born women have indeed suffered a great injustice. What has changed since then, however, is that we have had years of debates, petitions, demonstrations and an investigation by the ombudsman, who has also found in their favour.
Little could I have imagined back then—some eight years ago, now—that we would be standing here in this very Chamber debating and agreeing yet again that a great injustice had befallen 1950s-born women, yet also be arguing about a Government refusing to implement and honour the recommendations of the ombudsman. It would be easy to despair if it were not for the 1950s-born women of my constituency, who are an absolute inspiration. Thousands of women have spent the past eight or so years diligently attending meetings, organising petitions and offering support to each other. The impact of the maladministration has been severe, as others have mentioned: people have fallen into great financial hardship and distress, which has led far too often to strain on family relationships, as well as an impact on people’s health.
However, these women have stuck together, organised and ensured that they give each other support in the darkest of days. More importantly, they set about the task of diligently collecting the information and evidence required of them to prove their case as part of the ombudsman’s process. These women have done that. They have jumped through the many hoops of the various stages of the ombudsman process, with some compiling cases for the independent case examiner.
I agree with all those who have spoken before me: it is a real travesty for us to fail to offer those women justice after they have proven their case and had the ombudsman rule in their favour. I agree with others that that calls into question the integrity of not only the ombudsman process itself, but, more fundamentally, the whole democratic process that Parliament embodies.
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making a powerful and eloquent case. He is absolutely right that the issue goes beyond even the just case of the WASPI women to something more fundamental: how Governments are held to account and how they willingly deal with that—this is not something that should be extracted with pain and anguish. The Government should step forward, change their heart and their tune, and deliver.
Ben Lake
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, and I very much agree. We have an opportunity to right this wrong now. That would not only deliver justice to the 1950s-born women who suffered as a consequence of the changes—or the failure to communicate them—to the state pension age, but provide an important contribution to restoring faith in MPs, Parliament and the whole democratic process. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter.
However, I have to say—perhaps this is the cynic or the pessimist in me—that when we consider everything we have asked 1950’s-born women to do in recent years, such as jumping through all the various hoops and processes, coming up to London, which is quite the journey to make from west Wales, petitioning, demonstrating and organising, it is quite outrageous to ignore the ombudsman after it has proven, acceded to and accepted their case. On top of that, the Government are now, I understand, refusing to even engage with representatives of 1950s-born women in alternative forms of mediation. Perhaps worst of all, they are not giving Parliament the opportunity in Government time to vote on the matter. That is my one call and request of the Minister.
We have already heard this afternoon about the four options offered by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Give us that chance to express and voice the will of Parliament. I am confident that there is consensus in Parliament to see justice done for a generation of inspiring women, whom I feel incredibly honoured to represent.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. This very important debate greatly matters to all my constituents, particularly the 4,900 women in my constituency whom it impacts. As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) said in eloquently opening the debate, over 3.7 million women born in the 1950s have suffered grave injustices because of the changes to state pension age brought about in 1995, 2007 and 2011. Those changes were introduced without proper notice, leaving many in financial and emotional distress.
Those 1950s women worked hard all their lives; they paid their dues and contributed to the country and the economy, only for many of them to find that the retirement they had planned for was stolen from them without support or the basic courtesy of being informed in time. The Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign has fought tirelessly for over a decade to shine a light on that injustice, and I pay tribute, along with other Members, to its determination. I assure those in my constituency that it continues to have my support and solidarity.
The previous Government kicked the can down the road and delayed committing to anything that could repair the damage done to WASPI women. Their delay has meant that at least 300,000 WASPI women have died waiting for the justice they deserved. I will say that the current Government must not, and cannot, go down the same path. While I note this Government’s acknowledgment of the ombudsman’s report that failings happened, communication was inadequate and women suffered, I also note their commitment to ensure that the maladministration and delay in sending out notifications never happens again, both of which are welcome.
Frankly, an apology alone is not enough. Apologies do not pay the rent, put food on the table or undo years of financial struggle. Let me be clear: this is about the principle of Government decision making and the responsibility to communicate properly, so that people can plan their futures with confidence. Crucially, as has been said by many hon. Members, it is also about recompense and redress. In this case, a 28-month delay in notifying affected women meant that they lost precious time to adjust their plans. Some lost tens of thousands of pounds, while others lost their homes. That is time and money that they will never get back.
I say to the Minister that we must look again at the ombudsman’s recommendations for fair remedy. Words are not enough; we need action. I know that a High Court challenge could be on the way, but that should not be necessary. The WASPI women should not have to take their own Government to court to be heard. The point has been made, which I want to echo, that there is a reason why we have a parliamentary ombudsman, why we have inquiries and why we should follow well-made recommendations. I believe the Government seriously need to look at this case.
We must now ask: what more can be done to ensure that 1950s women receive fair treatment? I urge the Minister to address that question and to set out the next steps that the Government are taking to work constructively with campaigners, MPs and affected women to find a fair resolution. Whether it is through targeted support, a compensation framework or other measures, we must ensure that WASPI women are not abandoned once again.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the debate, and I pay tribute to the many women who have come along.
I would love to say that it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, but it is not. After eight years of taking part in debates, protests, meetings, all-party parliamentary groups and proceedings on private Members’ Bills about this issue, and waiting on the ombudsman’s report, it is above all frustrating that we have to do it yet again because the Government have failed in their responsibility to uphold the ombudsman’s recommendations.
For me, there is a particular irony in that. Last week, I was in New York at the Commission on the Status of Women, and I come back here and wonder exactly what this debate, and the situation that the WASPI women find themselves in, says about the status of women in this country. As has been said, this generation worked hard, and paid their taxes and national insurance; they are now finding that there is no compensation, even though the Government admit that they let them down.
Looking at the Labour Benches, I am also struck by hope: if so many Labour MPs recognise the failing in this Government’s stance on WASPI women, perhaps the Government will listen. They are not listening to the Opposition or to the WASPI women, but perhaps they will listen to their own MPs when they say, “You’ve got this wrong; you’re letting these women down,” and we will have an end to this.
I admit that when I was elected, almost eight years ago now, I did not know much about the WASPI women and their case. However, one of the first women who came to me after I was elected had been affected. Her letter from the DWP was late, and she had made financial decisions about her future before it reached her; she was less than two years away from retirement when she was told that she would have to wait an additional five years. Like many women, she lost out financially. Many women will also have been let down by this Government’s decision not to award compensation.
The previous Government were criticised for kicking the issue into the long grass, and they did, but this Government had an opportunity to overturn that. They have not taken it, despite the promises that many of them, including Cabinet Ministers, made before the general election. Instead, they turned their back on the millions of pension-age women who were wronged, through no fault of their own.
For years, we have pushed the Government to do something. I suspect that the WASPI women, not just in the Gallery but up and down the country, felt that a corner had been turned in July of last year: that the ombudsman’s report would be upheld, and that a Labour Government would stand by them. The time has come for the Labour Government to be as good as their word to the WASPI women, and take action.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Petitions are powerful tools for democracy that amplify people’s fight for a cause. Listening to these voices is just as important.
My sister is a WASPI woman, and I rise to voice my support for all WASPI women. These courageous and resilient women have faced an injustice. They have toiled throughout their lives, often battling against societal disadvantages. They are not just campaigners; they are our mothers and grandmothers—the pillars of our families and communities. The sudden and unexpected change to the state pension age plunged some women into financial despair, forcing them to struggle during what should be their golden years.
I am immensely proud to support a Labour Government who have tirelessly worked to rectify historic wrongs, from addressing mineworkers’ pensions to supporting LGBT veterans and compensating victims of the infected blood scandal. This Government have consistently stood against injustice, but they failed to recognise this one.
The WASPI women were not given adequate notice, nor time to prepare for these changes. Many had planned their futures based on the original pension age, only to have their lives disrupted without proper consultation or consideration. The Government must confront this injustice and provide fair compensation to those affected. It is time to right this wrong. We must learn from the past to ensure that no other generation endures this unfair treatment.
The DWP claims that 90% of women were aware of the changes to the state pension age, which means that 10% were left in the dark due to the DWP’s failure to provide timely information. The DWP’s communication failures affected the lives of WASPI women, particularly the most vulnerable. The parliamentary ombudsman found that the Department for Work and Pensions committed maladministration by failing to effectively communicate the changes in the state pension age and recommended that the Government provide compensation to the affected women.
It is impossible to quantify the financial hardship and emotional distress that these women have endured. But we must also recognise that this Government inherited a £22 billion financial deficit from the Conservatives, and we must consider the most judicious use of taxpayers’ money. Having said that, I implore the DWP and the Minister to revisit this issue with the urgency and compassion it deserves.
Standing here, I am reminded of Margaret, a constituent from Cumnock. She was a devoted single mother who worked tirelessly to provide for her children and uphold her responsibilities to society. In her words, “I paid my way.” I promised Margaret that I would fight for justice on her behalf. When the decision was made not to compensate, I returned to visit Margaret and reaffirmed my commitment to her. Now, by standing here, I want to amplify the voices of Margaret, Lynn, Francis and countless others like them. We need to share the story of the WASPI women, and in doing that, we need to push for justice.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the petitioners and the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for bringing this debate here today and leading it.
The claim the Government have made is that 90% of affected women knew of the changes to their state pension age. That survey was not representative of the affected cohort: around 200 women born in the 1950s were asked, out of a total sample size of 1,950 people. I ask the Minister, as the WASPI campaigners ask, is it fair to let the DWP mark its own homework? I also ask him to explain why the Government have taken the almost unprecedented step of ignoring the independent findings of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
Several hundred women in my constituency, along with thousands of other women in Scotland, signed the petition to introduce a compensation scheme—almost 160,000 women signed it across these islands. I am sorry if I sound angry on this auspicious day—and I wish everyone here, including you, Sir Edward, as well as people watching at home, a very happy St Patrick’s day—but I am angry, and I reflect the anger of the WASPI women. It is the human aspect of this decision that so sticks in the craw: pensioners seem to be singled out to take the hardest cuts of all. Many WASPI women have written to me talking of losing family and friends who never lived to see them get justice for their loss.
This was a Government elected—many of its Members in Scottish constituencies—on promises of change. Yet all we see is a series of broken promises: national insurance rises, the family farm tax, pensioners in fuel poverty, the Scotch whisky industry, energy prices and the two-child cap. Last July, SNP supporters lent Labour candidates their vote. They believed the promises that were made. “Read my lips,” said Anas Sarwar, “no austerity under Labour.” Yet what we see is attack after attack on the most vulnerable people. Here we have the WASPI women—people who many Labour candidates stood and had their photographs taken with, holding placards promising their support, and this Government have spurned them. Well, hell hath no fury; the WASPI women will not forget that, along with all the other broken promises.
I have heard many Scottish Labour MPs speak today, but when they had the chance to support our motion, only one voted with us. The 2026 Holyrood elections are just around the corner, and although 2029 may seem a long way off, voters—just like the WASPI women—will not forget Labour’s broken promises. I say to the Government: give the WASPI women the justice they deserve.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate.
I first want to acknowledge the tireless campaigning of the Barrow and Furness WASPI women. They have worked tenaciously to advocate for fairness and justice for all those affected. WASPI women did not ask for this change, and they had no say in how it was implemented, but they are the ones left to cope with the consequences: the financial strain, the anxiety and the uncertainty.
The issue is not about opposing pension reform. No one denies that we need a sustainable and fair pension system, but we must recognise that the way these changes were carried out was deeply unfair to those who had no ability to prepare. It is also important to recognise the context in which the Government find themselves. This mess was not created by this Government but, as in all too many cases right now, they have been left with the difficult task of clearing it up.
There is no easy solution, but the findings of the ombudsman’s report provided a critical assessment of the way the previous Government handled the pension age changes. The report confirmed what many of us had long suspected: that the communication of these changes was inadequate and misleading. Those findings underline the need for a fair and swift resolution to ensure that the WASPI women are not left to bear the consequences of these failures alone.
I commend the excellent work of the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women, and encourage Members across all parties to continue to work with it. It remains a vital forum for dialogue and understanding.
There is still time to deliver a fair and equitable compensation package for these women. This is the time to right this wrong. The way forward is continued collaboration, where Ministers keep the door open to those who have legitimate concerns and wish to find a fair resolution. Ongoing dialogue is essential to ensuring that the affected women are heard and that a fair and just solution is found. There are many WASPI women in my constituency. I pledged to back those women, and I will stand by that pledge until justice is served.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing this important debate before us today, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on her excellent opening remarks. In my constituency, there are almost 6,000 women in the age group affected by these pension changes. We have heard that only 43% of women knew that their pension age was changing. That translates to 3,416 women in North East Hampshire who were unaware of the pension changes, which impacted them significantly in the following years.
The Government at the time failed to inform women affected by changes to their pension age. As we have heard, many people have harrowing stories. One of my constituents, now in her 70s, was a victim of this maladministration. She is forced to continue working to supplement her income, due to the lack of notice regarding her retirement age. Like many others, had she received clear, timely communication from the Department for Work and Pensions, she would have been able to make informed life choices and plan accordingly. If a private pension provider failed to inform someone about when they could start to receive their pension, that person would rightly expect compensation for decisions made based on incomplete information—in this case, they would be budgeting with the wrong number. The situation should be no different for those affected by Government errors.
The Government should be ashamed that they have rejected the financial payouts recommended by the ombudsman. North East Hampshire has one of the most significant gender pay gaps, heightened by the fact that men work disproportionately more in full-time jobs than women. Inequality in salary and employment opportunities then worsens the disparity at the point of state pension. That has led to women being less financially independent and increasingly vulnerable in their later years.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
My constituent, Carol, worked as a learning assistant throughout her adult life and was planning for a happy retirement—until she found out, with just a few months to spare, that she had another five years to work. That caused significant mental health challenges for her, and ultimately a stroke, which she attributes to the stress she endured during that difficult time. Does my hon. Friend agree that 1950s-born women experienced dreadful workplace injustices throughout their careers, such as lower pay, which she just referred to, and that this Government have a unique opportunity to undo one of the injustices they face in their retirement?
Alex Brewer
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I absolutely agree.
Let us be very clear: this generation of women faced discrimination at work—more discrimination than women today, with a larger gender pay gap, more glass ceilings, fewer promotion opportunities, lower pensions and lower savings. This generation of women did the vast majority of unpaid housework and caring responsibilities, and worked more hours for less pay for their whole lives, only to find that the goalposts were moved at the worst possible moment. The ombudsman’s reports have rightly said that WASPI women should be compensated fairly.
As a member of the APPG on state pension inequality for women, I have been part of the calls on the Government to address this injustice. We should not be living in a society in which promises are a campaign tactic abandoned at the first instance of power. We saw Labour MPs meeting many WASPI campaigners and expressing their heartfelt support before July. We know that maladministration occurred and that WASPI women have been harmed by this injustice. It is now time for the Government to act.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her passionate speech. My friend, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), made a very pertinent point earlier: the fundamental issue here is Government accountability—the ability of this place and citizens to hold the Government to account when they get something wrong. What we are seeing today is that accountability mechanism—that framework —being demolished before our very eyes. If the mechanisms that have been developed to hold Government to account are rendered impotent, which is what has happened to the ombudsman, that damages the very heart of democracy itself. That is how important this issue is.
The ombudsman was clear: these women suffered injustice, and compensation was owed to them. It was also clear that the Government should act on that, and it made the very rare decision to place its report, not before the Department for Work and Pensions, but before this place. It did that because it felt that the Department—under all Governments, not just this Government—was not capable of delivering justice for the women affected. And it was right, because what we have seen is a complete dismissal of the injustice that these women have suffered. Now, I do not believe that that is the intention of the Minister or of the Government, but they have the opportunity now to change course.
There is a very real prospect of a High Court judicial review. That will result in significant legal costs on the part of the Government—legal costs that they will have to justify to the taxpayer, given that the ombudsman’s report was very clear that compensation was owed. So will the Minister now look again at the case for compensation?
[Graham Stringer in the Chair]
Sir John Hayes
I rise for two purposes. The first is to put it on the record that the hon. Lady, alongside others, has made an outstanding contribution to this campaign; she has been a notable figure in this process. The second is to make a suggestion that she might put to the Government: why do the Government not meet a small delegation of MPs from all parties with a group of WASPI women? Let us see if we can thrash this out in a way that allows the Government to get off the hook and allows the WASPI women to receive the satisfaction they so richly deserve.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I completely agree with the right hon. Member. The all-party parliamentary group on this issue has extended an invitation to the Minister. We will of course widen the invitation to include women’s groups in accordance with the right hon. Member’s suggestion. The invitation is there. That would be a very good starting place because ultimately the only justice that can be secured is justice that involves the women themselves. To listen to what they want to propose to the Government would be a good starting place.
I want to ask the Minister a few questions. Given the prospect of a High Court judicial review, presumably when issuing the decision not to compensate, the Government must have carried out, if they were acting diligently, a legal risk assessment of the prospect of the success of potential future legal action. If that is the case, will the Minister place before the House a copy of that legal advice so that we can see what the Government considered at the time? Does he accept the ombudsman’s proposal that Ministers and MPs intervene to ensure justice is delivered, and does he agree that it would be prudent for the Government to make time for a parliamentary debate so that MPs across this House can have a vote on the issue on a non-partisan basis, as was intimated by the ombudsman?
Finally, will the Minister look again at the case for compensation? As I have stressed, I do not believe it is his intention to undermine democracy; nor is that the intention of the Government. Given the prospect of legal action, now would be an opportune time for the Minister to meet the groups that are campaigning on behalf of women and look at the different compensation mechanisms and mediation proposals that have been suggested.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Last November, as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I asked the Secretary of State when we could expect to see a decision on compensation for WASPI women. She replied:
“There is lots of information to go through. We need to get it right but I want this resolved as soon as possible.”
I asked about a timescale and she said:
“If I gave you a date then I would have sorted it, and it needs to be sorted, but I will do it as soon as humanly possible.”
No one would have suspected that “sorting” the issue meant an outright refusal. So where did this shock handbrake turn of a decision come from? I suspect it has more to do with the Treasury than with any objective measure of fairness.
In justifying her decision, the Secretary of State made repeated reference to one particular statistic: the DWP survey from 2006 found that 90% of women understood that the pension age was rising. She repeated the 90% figure like a mantra in her presentation to the House and the media, but the survey was based on a tiny sample of perhaps 170 women who could not possibly be taken as fair representation of the entire female population.
Furthermore, the survey was contradicted by multiple other studies conducted both before and after. Research from the following year found that half of women whose pension age had in fact risen to between 60 and 65 still thought it stood at 60. On what grounds did the Secretary of State put so much faith in the 90% figure, rather than the 50%? None that I can see, except that it was cherry-picked to support the conclusion that she always wanted to reach in the first place. What is more, it is clear that the DWP itself attached far greater weight to a later survey. An internal memo from April 2007 described the research findings as “depressing reading”. It continued:
“we still have 50% ‘ignorance levels’ with three years to go. [The Ombudsman’s] first question will be what are you proposing to do about it?”
That turns out to have been a really prescient question.
To further justify their decision, the Government have argued that earlier warning letters would not have worked anyway, but writing letters is exactly how much of the Government communicate to this day. It is sheer nonsense to argue that the standard method of communication across all Departments would have been useless in this one circumstance of WASPI women.
I accept that there are financial pressures on the Government. They could have said: “We accept the ombudsman’s findings, but we are not currently able to respond,” or “not able to meet the full levels suggested.” What is not reasonable is to undermine the ombudsman, which is a highly unusual and constitutionally worrying move, and to pick through the evidence to support the conclusion that they always wanted to find in the first place. Fundamentally, it was neither safe nor reasonable for the Secretary of State to rely so completely on the 90% figure, to the deliberate exclusion of multiple other statistics, which showed a much lower level of awareness. In my constituency, 5,000 women have been affected by this decision; many more of course have been affected nationwide. I call on the Government to respect the vital constitutional role of the ombudsman and think again.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Both the ombudsman and the response of the Secretary of State back in December leave no room for doubt that the Government failed to adequately notify many 1950s-born women about changes to their pension age. This is maladministration and a scandal that has driven many to campaign for justice.
I invited the WASPI women in Falkirk to meet me after the statement from the Secretary of State, and the message I took from that meeting is that if we in this place believed that there was no injustice, compensation would never have been paid, regardless of fiscal circumstances, but if we recognise an injustice, as the Department has now done, we must deliver a form of the recommended redress of the ombudsman’s findings. On behalf of the WASPI women in Falkirk, I will ask some of the questions that were raised at that meeting back in December. I would like a response, if possible, from the Minister, for my constituents.
Why can the Government pick and choose when to implement ombudsman recommendations? Is the 90% figure derived from a study specific to women who would have been impacted by the pension changes? Is this decision based on cost or a genuine disagreement with the findings of the ombudsman? Further questions were asked, but those are questions on behalf of women who attended that meeting.
In the October Budget, the Government did not just promise, but delivered for victims of the Horizon scandal, of the infected blood scandal and of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and for LGBTQ+ veterans. That is a proud record. I put it to the Government that we should think again and deliver redress for the WASPI women as well.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on introducing the debate so powerfully.
WASPI women faced inequalities in the workplace and in finance. Many entered the workforce before the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which at least in theory introduced equal pay and made it possible for women to get credit cards, loans and other financial products without the support of a man. Statutory maternity pay was not introduced until after many had already had their children, and it was only in 1990 that their income was recognised for taxation purposes as their own, rather than their husband’s.
The principle of an equal pension age is right. The issue is the lack of timely notification, denying WASPI women the chance to plan their finances in an informed way. That is yet another injustice for the WASPI women generation, and it is one that has had real consequences. For example, one of my constituents, born in 1955, found out that her state pension age was increasing to 66 just before her 60th birthday. It was too late to plan any differently, so she ploughed on, but she was forced by leukaemia to retire just before her 65th birthday, leading to financial hardship.
This was also a generation where caring responsibilities overwhelmingly fell to women. That is illustrated by another of my constituents, who was aiming to retire at 60, in part to help to care for her elderly mother. She was denied that opportunity due to the failure to communicate clearly the state pension age changes. As a result, she missed out on being able to care for her dying mother due to needing to work for longer. She told me how she would have welcomed a letter giving her enough notice about the changes, as that may have allowed her to plan her finances further ahead, to allow her more time with her mother. The impact that the changes have had not only on WASPI women themselves, but on their family and loved ones—who these women often care for as they get older—is an often overlooked factor. That concern will only grow as time goes by.
To conclude, there is clear evidence of injustice, and I urge the Government to listen to the ombudsman’s decision and address that injustice as promised.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on her powerful opening remarks.
According to the latest figures, there are 7,160 women in Scarborough and Whitby affected by the various Acts that made changes to women’s state pension age. As a candidate standing in Scarborough and Whitby, I pledged to support WASPI women, and as an MP, I rise today to speak for them. I sympathise with their anger and frustration. In her statement to the House in December, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that most women knew that their state pension age was increasing. That may well have been the case—I have no way of telling—but I have been contacted by so many constituents who have told me that they were not aware of the changes to their state pension age, and the reasons are ones that I think we can all understand.
My constituent Kirsty was living in Spain when the letters were sent from the DWP, so was totally unaware of the pension age increase. Another of my constituents told me that she only heard about the changes through a friend while looking after her dad, who was suffering from dementia.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As the whole House is probably aware, Women Against State Pension Inequality has received 7,607 requests and raised £132,000 for the judicial review. There are 77,000 WASPI women in Northern Ireland, and 6,000 in my constituency, who want justice. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be in the best interests of the Government and the Minister to meet those women to finally negotiate a satisfactory outcome, avoid the costs of a judicial review, and ensure that justice can be given to the WASPI women, who richly deserve it?
Alison Hume
As always, the hon. Member makes a powerful point for his constituents, and I support his wider call for the Government to think again.
Returning to my constituent who was looking after her father who suffered from dementia, had she been aware of the changes she would have increased her personal pension contribution and saved more money to enable her to retire sooner to look after her dad, who has since passed away. The carer’s allowance was simply not enough to live on and pay for food and other essential bills. Her experience caring for an elderly parent is very common among women in their 50s and 60s; I have been there myself. It is extremely likely that many other women in that situation will have been preoccupied with coping with the day-to-day challenges that carers face and will not have known about the change to their state pension age.
Another constituent of mine had to sell her home of 36 years after she lost her husband, as she had planned for the future under the impression that she would receive her state pension at 60. Obviously, she acknowledges that even without the changes there is no guarantee that she could have remained in her home, but all the calculations that she and her husband did indicated that she would be all right. Many others had to work longer than they had anticipated or dip into their life savings and change their retirement plans after years of working hard and looking forward to life beyond work.
I acknowledge the action that the Government are taking to tackle the long-standing problems with carer’s allowance, which previous Governments failed to address. The increase in the state pension this April will make a tangible difference to the lives of many women in Scarborough and Whitby. I also acknowledge that the previous Government failed to set aside a single penny for compensation, and left behind a black hole in the public finances, which I appreciate constrains the ability of this Government to offer compensation.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the implicit argument of Ministers in this debate—that they would rather spend the money on other issues—is producing an incredibly slippery slope when it comes to delivering justice for Government maladministration? Does she agree that it gives the impression that we might be moving towards a situation where we means test justice?
Alison Hume
It is important that as a Labour Government we recognise the impact on people, including my constituents, of the DWP’s failure to communicate the change effectively. I urge the Minister to look again at giving compensation that will, in some way, acknowledge that WASPI women have lost out on so much more than money.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stringer.
Surely the abiding question that arises from this debacle is: what is the point in having an ombudsman if, when maladministration is found, it can be swept aside and ignored? Why have we an ombudsman? Governments make mistakes. Governments get things wrong. People think Governments get things wrong, so they want to complain. So what do we do? We set up an independent ombudsman. Why? Because Governments should not be judge in their own cause. That is the whole purpose and ethos of having an ombudsman. But in this case the Government want to be judge in their own cause.
We are not talking about some incidental, slight illustration of maladministration. Let us remind ourselves that the ombudsman found that
“some women lost opportunities to make informed decisions about their finances. It diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control”
and therefore led to injustice. We are talking about injustice—we are not just talking about maladministration —and injustice needs to be rectified. The Government say, “We apologise”—frankly, the sincerity of that apology is weighed in the balance of their refusal to compensate—but it is not just a matter of saying sorry. It is a matter of putting it right. That is what we do when we find an injustice: we try to put it right.
What have the Government done in this case? We had the most spurious attempt to repudiate the ombudsman’s findings. The Government told us, “Oh, well, only one in four people actually read unsolicited letters from DWP.” What was the point in sending them then? They might as well have saved the postage.
It really is pathetic and appalling that the Government have reached the stage of saying, “Nothing to see here; nothing to do here; we’re doing nothing about it” to women the independent ombudsman says were not just wronged but had an injustice visited upon them. I say to this Government: it is not a sign of weakness to admit that you are wrong; it is a sign of strength. The Government would rise in the estimation of many if, rather than hide behind their huge majority in the House, they exercised the strength of saying, “We’ve got this wrong.”
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an extremely powerful case about righting an injustice and about the importance for our parliamentary system of following the recommendations of an ombudsman. Does he agree that the Government revisiting this issue will strengthen our democracy? We have heard just how strong the cross-party consensus is; notably, that includes many Labour Members, as well as Members of other parties, referring to the pledges we made in the election. Is that not why it is so important that the Government think again to restore faith in democracy?
Jim Allister
This matter goes to the very heart of public confidence in our system of Government. I started by saying that Governments get things wrong, and people think they get things wrong, so the Government have an independent arbitrator. But we cannot have an independent arbitrator and then throw the findings in the bin, and that is what is happening here. It goes to the very heart of confidence in Government, whichever party is in power. If maladministration of this magnitude is found, there must be recompense for those against whom the injustice was wrought.
I say to the Government that many of their Back Benchers are saying loud and clear that it is time to rethink. It certainly is time to rethink, and in that there is strength. On behalf of the 77,000 WASPI women in Northern Ireland, who are with those in the rest of this United Kingdom, I say that it is beyond time for the Government to rethink. It is time to put right the wrong that was done to all these women.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
I thank all those who signed the e-petition that led to this important debate. I have long supported the WASPI campaign and will continue to offer my support. The WASPI women have been repeatedly let down by decisions made under Conservative Governments, so I welcome the Government’s apology for the maladministration that led to the delay in notifying 1950s-born women about the increase in the state pension age. Accountability and redress for those failings is essential.
A near-six-year investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found an urgent need for a remedy and took the rare but necessary step of laying its report before Parliament. It is in our hands. I recognise that this is a difficult issue for a Government who inherited a country in deep distress, with public services and the economy in dire straits, so I have sympathy with the Government’s argument that a flat-rate compensation scheme may not be justified. But I firmly believe there should be more effort to explore alternative remedies.
One of my constituents wrote:
“Acknowledgment and apology are of no use to us, and even less to the thousands of women who died during this process.”
After her pension age was moved once, she assumed that was the end, but in 2011 David Cameron moved it again, a year after she had planned to retire, and after she had already left work. The impact on her life has been significant, but WASPI women understand that any compensation would be for maladministration, not lost pensions.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
One of my constituents fully believed that justice would be done, to the extent that she planned to put the compensation money aside for her own funeral. Of course, compensation has not been given. I have more than 6,000 WASPI women in my constituency, and they all rely on me to speak up for them. I will continue to support them, look out for them and raise their stories in this place so that their voices are heard. Do you agree that we need to find a way to seek justice for these women?
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. It is not up to me, in the Chair, to agree with you or not.
Mohammad Yasin
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s views.
The WASPI women support pension equity, but not the disruption of their retirement plans by Government maladministration. There is a strong case for offering compensation to the worst-affected women, given the severe hardship many have endured as a result of this failure. The pension triple lock does not address the losses faced by many 1950s-born women, who, due to familial responsibilities, often do not receive the full state pension, and thus benefit less than men.
An injustice has occurred, and it is now a matter of principle to uphold the remedy recommendations in the PHSO report. There is room for debate about what a compensation remedy would look like, and the women in my constituency, who I have supported on this issue for years, are open to alternative solutions. For instance, some would accept compensation payments over time through a scheduling agreement.
The WASPI women have been respectful, resolute and very patient, even when they are at the stage in life where there is more time behind them than ahead. For many, it is too late. Let us revisit this issue and find a remedy by focusing on what we can do, not on what we cannot.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and her stellar speech to launch the debate.
This is the first debate I have spoken in that has been triggered by a petition. The fact is that the petition has been driven forward swiftly by the force of nature that is the WASPI women. One can only acknowledge what excellent campaigners they have been over many years. Their patience has been worn thin. As colleagues have alluded to, sadly a WASPI woman dies every 13 minutes. That means that during this three-hour debate some 14 WASPI women will have sadly died without receiving the compensation they so richly deserve.
In my Torbay constituency, there are 6,930 WASPI women who deserve the support that the Government could give them. Across the United Kingdom there are 3.7 million WASPI women—that is over half a million people more than the population of Wales. An enormous amount of people could be benefiting from compensation that they so richly deserve.
I was reflecting on the fact that many of us in the Chamber are new MPs. When I got elected—I am sure a number of Members have also reflected on this—the most important thing we needed to achieve was to rebuild trust between the public and politicians. We see elsewhere, in western Europe and North America, what happens when trust is broken and extremists take power, so we must rebuild trust. We saw what happened under the previous Government, when many of us stayed at home and did the right thing while others partied at No. 10. That broken trust needs to be rebuilt, and the issue before us today is potentially part of that rebuilding.
Throughout the debate colleagues have highlighted many heartbreaking stories from around the United Kingdom, and the time has flown by. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) highlighted how the Secretary of State picked on an issue that held no water at all. I hope the Minister will return to that when he reflects on the debate.
Pam in my constituency believed that she was set to retire at a certain age. She spent time supporting a husband who was dying from terminal cancer and a mother who was elderly and frail. She has been let down—as many women have throughout the United Kingdom.
Let me now reflect on the ombudsman’s report. People are currently queuing up to say that the DWP is broken and not fit for purpose, and the report highlights that that is the case. Quangos seem to be somewhat out of fashion with the Government at the moment, so is the ombudsman one that the Government will consider abolishing? If they are choosing to ignore it this easily, what is the point of it? I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurances on that. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions stood up in the Chamber, accepted that there was maladministration and apologised, but said she will not give compensation. That is bizarre in the extreme. We need to build trust with our communities again.
I am very much alive to the fact that, only this afternoon, WASPI women have lodged paperwork in the High Court for a judicial review on this very issue. That could take six months to come to fruition, or it could take 14 months, but why drag this out further? Let us not have the indignity of the Government being dragged kicking and screaming to the right decision. Do the right thing now, Minister.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), my Wiltshire near-neighbour, for her powerful speech representing the many thousands of people who supported the petition.
I pay tribute to our visitors in the Public Gallery, many of whom I detect might qualify as WASPI women. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) about the power of this campaign, which demonstrates what people power can do to get the attention of Parliament. I hope they feel that this debate has advanced their cause—we will hear from the Minister shortly about whether that has happened.
I also pay tribute to hon. Members across the Chamber for their speeches. I agree with those of them who pointed out the cross-party nature of our efforts. It has been very powerful to see, in particular, the friendship between the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), which is a moving sight. They are the conscience and soul of their respective parties, and I hope that the Minister will listen to his hon. Friend just as I listen to my right hon. Friend.
I recognise that the question is a complex one and the Government have had a difficult time in thinking about what to do. It is true, as the ombudsman’s report pointed out, that there was no direct loss of income to women from the maladministration. However, it is also true that the bad communication of the policy change led directly to people’s income being impacted negatively and to their making decisions in the absence of full information from Government about their future income, as many hon. Members have powerfully expressed on behalf of individual constituents.
It is also true that the question of how to communicate with individual members of the public is a fraught one, but it is simply not credible to say that the communications with this group were adequate. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) powerfully pointed out, if the Government also say that there is very little point in sending letters because people do not open them, then what is the point in the Government communicating with the public in that way on any topic?
It is also true—this is the final defence of the Government, as it were—that dealing with 3.5 million people, all of whom have difference circumstances, is a complex matter. I recognise how difficult that is, and how enormous the potential bill for the taxpayer could have been if every single one of those women received the maximum compensation.
I have said that this issue is very complicated, but it is also fundamentally very simple. Other hon. Members have made this point more powerfully than I can, but the fact is that Labour MPs campaigned to fix this problem, right the wrongs that had been done to the WASPI women and, if they won the election, see justice done. That has not happened. As hon. Members have said very powerfully, our democracy depends on us MPs fulfilling the promises that we make when we stand for election. If we do not do that, we will have a bigger problem than the injustice done to the WASPI women; indeed, our whole democracy will be in crisis.
I recognise that more could have been done by the last Conservative Government before the election. However, we were waiting for the ombudsman’s report and the suggestion that we kicked it into the long grass is a little unfair. The fact is that the ombudsman’s report arrived a matter of weeks before the general election was called. I am confident—my party made clear pledges to this effect—that we would have fulfilled our commitment to the WASPI women in light of the ombudsman’s report. Exactly what we would have done, I cannot say. Sadly, no one will ever know because the public took a different view about who should take the matter forward. Nevertheless, I can say with absolute candour and confidence that we would have done more than nothing, which is what the Labour Government have done.
Leaving party politics out of it, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who said that this is a matter for Parliament. The report came from a parliamentary ombudsman and it is Parliament that decides on these matters. Like her, I take hope in the many excellent, powerful and brave speeches made by Labour Members here in Westminster Hall today, and by many other Members who have stood in public and pledged their opposition to the decision made by their own party leadership. I honour them for the commitment they are making to honour the pledges they made when they stood as candidates, and I very much hope that the Minister is listening to them.
Jim Shannon
I have been a Back Bencher all my parliamentary career; I have no wish to be anything other than a Back Bencher. I am very happy in the role that I play. The Government Back Benchers in Westminster Hall today are playing an absolutely magnificent role; they should be congratulated and they should be very proud of the stance they are taking. Every one of them has spoken in support of the WASPI women and we thank them for that—and more Members than those Back Benchers are committed to doing the same. I look to the Minister here today. I have seen him nodding in support of them; his head went up and down, so I think he was agreeing with what they were saying. If that is the case, does he agree that he can only do one thing—meet the WASPI women before the judicial review makes him do something that he may end up deciding he should have done long ago?
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is without a doubt the greatest Back Bencher in the House of Commons, and I very much agree with what he is saying. I reiterate my appreciation of and respect for colleagues across the House and particularly those Labour Members who have spoken today and in other places in support of the WASPI women.
Let me finish by putting a specific question to the Minister. When we were here in Westminster Hall a couple of months ago to debate this issue, it was his first day in the job. By the way, we should not be blaming him for coming up with this policy; he was a Back Bencher when it was conceived and he just had to come out and defend it, which he did. On that day, during the last debate on this topic, he said:
“We will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations.” —[Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 157WH.]
I would be grateful if he told us what progress has been made on this matter and what action plan we can expect. What update can he provide? As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just said, I very much hope that he will work closely with the WASPI women themselves and their representatives to develop that action plan.
This battle is not over; as we have just heard, there is a case in the High Court about it. However, Parliament remains powerful enough, and has the authority and the ability, to right the injustice that has been done over so many years to these women. I very much hope that the Minister—who, as I say, cannot be blamed for conceiving of this policy—having heard the powerful speeches from parties across the House and being aware of the strength of feeling in our constituencies, will feed back to his colleagues in the Government that a mistake has been made and that the opportunity still remains to right this injustice.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Stringer, and I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for leading today’s debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I look forward to hearing her closing remarks.
Questions about when each of us can draw our pension are hugely important and so are related questions about how we spend our latter years, including when we can retire. Therefore, it not surprising that this petition has garnered so many signatures, nor that this debate has brought so many spectators and hon. Members to Westminster Hall today. Of course, none of us needs to come here to have those conversations. We have them every week precisely because they matter so much.
I have declared an interest on this issue before: my aunt in Aberystwyth sees herself as a WASPI woman. Just two weeks ago, I met Georgina Kettleborough at Burlais primary school. She has supported children for over three decades in the canteen and throughout the school and is about to retire at the age of 69. I hope we can all join in congratulating her on that milestone, as we join my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) in congratulating his mother on her birthday.
Georgina’s retirement comes several years after she was entitled to her state pension because working in the school is such a big part of her life. People will not be surprised to know, however, that she would have preferred to receive her pension earlier. Everyone will understand that. Who would not feel that way—especially women from a generation that suffered such significant disadvantage in the labour market and elsewhere, as the hon. Members for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) and for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) spelled out?
However, the ombudsman did not investigate the decision of the Conservative Government to increase the state pension age for women in 1995 or that of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government to accelerate those increases in 2011. I make that point because several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), have referred to the desirability of those original decisions. That is not to downplay the significance of those decisions —far from it. SPA equalisation was a very large and important change, and the acceleration was opposed by my party for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson). But the ombudsman did not investigate the legality or merits of those decisions. Instead—I should note that the WASPI campaign is clear on this point—the sole focus was on how those changes were communicated by the Department for Work and Pensions.
The ombudsman looked at six cases that it said reflected the range of issues and the injustices raised. It concluded that the DWP provided adequate and accurate information on changes to the state pension age between 1995 and 2004. However, it also found that decisions made between 2005 and 2007 led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters to women born in the 1950s. The ombudsman says that those delays were maladministration, as almost every hon. Member who spoke today reiterated.
We respect the work of the ombudsman, its independence and the work it does, a point many hon. Members have raised. In this case, we agree that the letters should have been sent sooner. We have apologised and we will learn the lessons. However, as everyone in this room is well aware, we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy. Many hon. Members have asked whether that invalidates the role of the ombudsman, including my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey). My strong view is that it does not. It is, rightly, rare, but not unprecedented, for a Government to take that view.
Two important considerations when making that decision were that the evidence shows that sending people unsolicited letters can be ineffective, which is why it is part of a wider communication campaign on every issue where it is used today, and that the majority of 1950s-born women were aware of the fact that the state pension age was changing, if not of their specific state pension age. The ombudsman assumed that sending letters earlier would have changed what women knew and how they acted.
Seamus Logan
Can the Minister explain his assertion that the majority of women were aware of these changes?
Torsten Bell
I will come to exactly that point shortly.
The 2014 research was not properly considered by the ombudsman. The same research is now the subject of live litigation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) noted. In addition, there was considerable awareness that the state pension age was increasing. Research from 2004 used by the ombudsman shows that 73% of people then aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was going up. Further research from 2006 reinforced that finding and was given to and used by the ombudsman. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) focused on the widely used 43% figure, but that figure refers to all women, including some aged 16 at the time of the survey, not just those who were affected by the state pension age changes.
Christine Jardine
I take on board what the Minister says about the research, but the fact that 73% of people knew that there were would be changes to the pension age does not tell us that 73% of women, or any percentage, knew that it would affect them. That is not what the evidence tells us.
Torsten Bell
The fact that people were widely aware that the state pension age was rising is indicative that it was not news to most people, even if they had not got the details on their specific circumstances. The 2006 research is now also the subject of live litigation, so I will resist the temptation to dive into the details, beyond directly addressing the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on the sample sized used in that survey. Returning to my old expertise in this area, the confidence intervals provided in that survey are certainly small enough to make it clear that a clear majority were aware that the state pension age was changing, so I do not think it is right to cast aspersions on that survey.
Rebecca Long Bailey
One of the datasets that the Government rely on to make their assertions, specifically the 90% figure, actually includes women who were not born in the 1950s. Can the Minister give us an exact figure as to how many women in that 90% category responded to the survey?
Torsten Bell
The 90% figure refers to the age group that best overlaps with women born in the 1950s, so that is the best available figure from that survey.
Torsten Bell
I will make some progress because I have given the best answer that I can to my hon. Friend’s question.
The ombudsman is clear that redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact, but it also acknowledges the challenges of assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women, as recognised by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) a few moments ago. It took the ombudsman nearly six years to look at just six cases; doing so for millions would take years and thousands of DWP staff.
In answer my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), we considered a range of compensation options for women who lost opportunities as a result of the delay in sending letters. For example, we considered rules-based schemes, such as that which the Work and Pensions Committee suggested, and we also considered the possibility of paying limited compensation to a smaller group of women—for example, those on pension credit, as suggested by the hon. Member for Eastleigh.
However, many of those schemes would mean compensating women who were aware that the state pension age was increasing. Payments would not relate directly to the injustice in question but to benefit entitlement or the timeline for the policy change. Paying a flat rate to all 3.5 million women, regardless of whether they suffered injustice, would be neither fair nor proportionate. It would also not be affordable, as such compensation schemes would cost up to £10.5 billion. To directly address the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), the Government’s decision was not driven purely by cost.
Andy McDonald
The Minister has listed a whole host of alternatives, but is it fair to ignore the ombudsman’s clear conclusion that compensation ought to be paid? Is it fair to do nothing?
Torsten Bell
The Government have not ignored the ombudsman’s report or its judgment. We have just come to a different conclusion for the detailed reasons—[Interruption.] I appreciate that I am not going to persuade many Members in the Chamber for the very reason that they have chosen to come today, but on the direct question asked by my hon. Friend, the Government did not ignore the ombudsman’s report. We have come to a different view for the reasons that I have set out, on the basis of the research that I have mentioned.
I have set out the grounds for the Government’s decision. I appreciate that none of that is likely to change the minds of many Members here, or of the campaigners whose tenacity no one disputes, and to which the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) paid tribute. I fully recognise the challenges that this cohort of women have faced: working hard in sexist workplaces and often balancing that with raising a family. We have a responsibility to listen to their concerns. That is why my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), was the first Minister in eight years to meet the WASPI campaign.
Steve Darling
Has the Minister had a conversation with the ombudsman on what a just compensation system would look like?
Torsten Bell
My predecessor, who I just mentioned, did meet the ombudsman prior to the decision being announced by the Government. Parliament has been very engaged in this issue, as demonstrated today and in January’s debate led by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). The Government have made their decision and it is right that hon. Members hold us accountable for it, as they have done powerfully today.
Jim Shannon
The judicial review is pending. It is like the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the Government. Does the Minister fear the judicial review that will, perhaps, force the Government to give WASPI women the compensation and justice they deserve?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I suspect that was a statement rather than a question. He knows that the Government will not comment on a live litigation. In answer to questions asked by other Members, I will, of course, be happy to meet with the chairs of the APPG, subject to the constraints of that live legal case. As a Department, we must and will learn the lessons from this case.
Christine Jardine
The Minister says that the Department will learn the lessons of this case. Does he accept that the whole point of this debate was not, as he said, to change the minds of Members who have spoken or the women who have come to watch the debate, but to change the mind of the Government? That is the lesson we would like him to learn.
Torsten Bell
I fully understand the motivation of those who have come here today. Members are not just keeping their constituents happy in making their cases, but I have set out why the Government have come to a different view. That is the nature of a Government making a decision and then rightly being held to account for it. That is what hon. Members have done today and what I have endeavoured to engage in, which I think is the right way forward.
Dr Savage
It has been an honour to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. This issue affects women from across the country, and the debate has been enormously encouraging. I hope I speak on behalf of the WASPI women in commending Members from the length and breadth of the United Kingdom and from all parties for speaking out with one voice today. We have unanimously called on the Government to do the right thing morally, and what may turn out to be legally, in compensating the WASPI women for the injustice they have suffered. I commiserate with the Minister, who has been sent out to defend the indefensible and to put the Secretary of State in the best possible light. I applaud his efforts.
I want to finish today’s debate by thanking the petitioners, as we are here today on their behalf. Without them, this powerful campaign would not have gained such widespread public support. I hope that today’s debate has shown the WASPI women that they have the support of many Members from both sides of the House. We are committed to supporting them beyond this debate—until justice is done and seen to be done.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 700765 relating to compensation for women affected by state pension changes.