Pension Schemes Bill

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There needs to be some sort of plan, and sooner rather than later.

The Government appear to recognise the injustice and are proposing to use surplus funds in the PPF to provide inflation increases on some pre-1997 pensions. Why are we not seeking to resolve the same issue for company defined-benefit pension schemes? Many of these pension schemes have a funding surplus but choose not to use it to support their former employees, despite often being asked to do so by trustees who are ignored by foreign-based employers. Surely that cannot be right.

Research by the Pensions Regulator has revealed that even among schemes whose rules allow for discretionary benefits, less than a third had provided those benefits in the previous three years. Employer discretion has failed in practice and will continue to fail unless Parliament acts. The Pension Schemes Bill fails to address this issue.

Only by amending the original legislation can we ensure fairness for those with pre-1997 service. The Society of Pension Professionals argues that legislation on pre-1997 benefits is unnecessary, but the evidence is clear: discretion, more often than not, is exercised to the detriment of pensioners. As I have said, trustees lack the authority to act and pensioners are left behind. The problem appears to be concentrated in a small number of large companies. They were meant to provide long-term financial security for their employees. We must remember that all defined-benefit schemes paid levies into the PPF, creating a surplus that now funds indexation. If pensioners in the PPF deserve protection, so do those in live schemes who helped build the surplus in those schemes.

The Government have taken the first step by restoring indexation for some. They must now take the logical next step by extending inflation protection to all pre-1997 pensioners in live schemes. I believe that pre-1997 pension service should receive inflation protection on the same statutory basis as post-1997 service. This is about fairness, dignity and justice for those who worked hard, paid into schemes, were made promises, and now deserve security in retirement. Pensioners affected by this injustice live in every constituency, and they deserve the support of this House of Commons and the Government. Our constituents affected by these injustices simply ask for fairness, and hopefully the Minister will make sure that it happens soon.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I hope to devote a large portion of my speech to new clause 36, which stands in my name, but let me first swiftly acknowledge the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) and the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith).

While pension fund managers should no doubt ensure that they deliver sufficient returns to their clients, they must also reflect on the duties that they have not only to those who make contributions, but to society at large. That means not using public money to prop up industries that rail against our primary objectives, be they preventing violations of human rights, upholding our commitment to net zero or delivering unfettered justice for those who have been wronged, as in the case of those whose pension contributions made before 1997 have not risen with inflation. I wholeheartedly align myself with the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on the need for ethical parameters.

In tabling new clause 36, I hoped to bring a focus to the practices relating to pension funds that fall under the local government pension scheme—those that make provision for the employees of schools, universities, local authorities and police forces, to name just a few. Those pension fund managers preside over £390 billion in assets, under the management of members of the investment banking sector. Given that much, if not all, of the funding that flows from our schools, councils and the like comes from taxpayers’ money, we have a right to ensure that none of it is being put to waste. I regret to report, however, that these local government pension funds are heading for an absolute embarrassment of riches. While public money sits idle in a vault, lining the pockets of the investment bankers who manage the funds, we are experiencing deep funding crises in our schools, our universities and our local councils.

Year after year, since the moment when these pension funds were established, we have seen the same tactics deployed by those who preside over them. Councils, schools and others end up putting too much of their budgets towards employer contributions, leaving them with less money to spend on the things that matter, while obscene amounts of money are left to be used as a lucrative plaything for the investment banking sector.

When calculating the money that councils, schools and the like must pay into their employees’ pensions, the pension fund managers first estimate the annual rate of return that they expect to get from their assets. To do that, they enlist the work of an actuary firm—usually one of the “big four”—which takes into account market conditions and various risk factors in order to come up with a figure. The work of these actuaries is incredibly precise, yet every year they end up drastically underestimating the amount by which the local government pension funds will grow over the next year. Why? Because the local pension boards set the assumptions and parameters on the basis of which they make such calculations, often with the intention of overstating elements that may hit the fund’s assets, such as market volatility and uncertainty. From there, by default, they then skim a substantial percentage off the fund’s assets, usually about 0.5%. While that may not seem a lot, given that, for example, West Midlands Pension Fund holds £21.2 billion-worth of assets, it means that at least £1 billion is being scraped off the top every year.

When a highly conservative estimate for growth is combined with lofty management expenses, the result is one thing, and one thing only: our councils, schools and key institutions end up putting more than they need into the banking sector, under the guise of securing their employees a comfortable retirement. Then, once they get to the end of the year and have mysteriously exceeded their artificially conservative projections for growth, the pension fund managers are left with an even bigger pot of money, from which they take their mandatory percentage fee.

It is this repeated cycle of grossly inflating the contributions of our state institutions that is resulting in more and more taxpayer money being used not to fix our crumbling public services that benefit society as a whole, but for city bankers to make big bets on the market and make profits. It is the equivalent of pension funds setting the rules of the game, marking their own homework and keeping the proceeds for themselves, rather than refunding those who put into the system. It has got to the point that even the LGPS Scheme Advisory Board, which advises local pension boards, has said that they need to stop overcharging their clients and underestimating their growth. Unfortunately, however, all the power lies in the hands of the Secretary of State to make the changes that would put much-needed investment back into our schools, councils and the like.

I will give an example. Research by David Bailey, of the University of Birmingham, and John Clancy, of Birmingham City University, has shown that Birmingham city council has handed over £1.2 billion in employer contributions to the West Midlands Pension Fund in the past 10 years. By 2022 the council was being asked to pay an extra 37% on top of its standard bill, whereas the nine other core city councils in the UK were asked to pay an average of around 17%. Birmingham city council is calculated to have overpaid the West Midlands Pension Fund by roughly £547 million. In 2023 the council declared section 114 bankruptcy, and this year it has approved council tax rises of 21% and £300 million in cuts to vital services.

Hypothetically, had that payment never been made, Birmingham city council would have needed neither to declare bankruptcy, nor to approve budget cuts that reduced its offer to bare-bones skeleton services. The implications that clamping down on the excesses of local pension boards would have for local councils, schools and universities, and for the British taxpayer, are truly incomprehensible, yet as things stand we are shying away from rebalancing the books and from deploying as much of the Government’s investment into public services as we can.

That leads me to my new clause 36, which would put a cap on the investment expenses that can be claimed on LGPS pension funds. In the case of the West Midlands Pension Fund, the management expenses that are charged amount to an increase of four percentage points in employer contributions. Because the fund charges 60 basis points in management fees, Birmingham council tax payers are paying £13.4 million to the investment managers, which works out at £50 on every band D council tax payer’s bill. However, if new clause 36 were to be put in place, only £3.30 would be charged to every council tax payer’s bill. In the same period, the pension fund has consistently failed to report where the investment management expenses that it charges go, and whom they benefit.

As I say, my new clause 36 would implement a cap on the fees that investment bankers can take from pension funds. While that would certainly mark a great step forward in ensuring that excessive wealth gets put into the hands of the private sector, we must also do more to ensure that our schools and councils pay no more in employer contributions than they must, so that they can put more investment into things that really matter—whether that is local government funding for adult social care or for schoolchildren with special education needs, or being able to put more teaching staff in our classrooms.

[Torsten Bell]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to as many of the points raised as I can manage.

I thank hon. Members for their speeches today. They have shown not only the depth of knowledge in this House, but the breadth of pensions issues that matter to all of us and to our constituents. I start by thanking those who have welcomed some of the changes that we have introduced and set out today. My hon. Friends the Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) spoke about the PPF, and I appreciate their remarks. On the changes we have set out on the statutory guidance for trustees, the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) is much appreciated, as is that from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman).

Welfare Spending

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree. It is important that we get people into work so that they can look after their families and make the right decisions for them.

Shifting the financial responsibility of children on to the state risks not only entrenching inequality, but opening the floodgates to unsustainable dependency, encouraging parents to have children beyond their means under the assumption that the state will bear the cost. It is neither equitable nor responsible for the state to incentivise larger families through an open-ended benefits system. That is especially true as the cost of our welfare bill and its burden on the taxpayer continues to rise. The fiscal reality must not be ignored.

Projections from the Child Poverty Action Group and the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimate that removing the cap would create an additional £1 billion annual cost to the public finances. As we grapple with considerable economic pressures, such a policy shift is simply not affordable. Removing the cap would force the Government to raise taxes further, borrow even more money—when borrowing is already out of control—or divert public funding away from other stretched public services. The Government have lost control of the public finances, and working families cannot afford to take another hit.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned raising taxes, but does he accept that there are many ways to do that? One way is to look at large corporations and people who have far more money than they will ever use.

[Blake Stephenson]

I certainly accept that there are many ways to raise taxes, but my constituents and businesses in my constituency are paying far too much tax as it is. We cannot continue to squeeze corporations, businesses and hard-working people further to achieve the hon. Gentleman’s aims.

The Government have lost control of public finances. Working families cannot afford to take another hit. I recognise the sensitivity of the debate. It is crucial that we support those in genuine need, and we must work towards ending child poverty. The state, however, simply cannot afford to subsidise unlimited family expansion on the backs of working people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I find it deeply shameful that we must see our constituents suffer under the cruelty of the two-child benefit cap. It is a policy that punishes children for the circumstances of their birth, and it has no place in a civilised society. Outside the walls of the Treasury building, in Birmingham Perry Barr I receive testimonies from the families who must live with the reality of the two-child benefit cap, and 53% of children in my constituency live in poverty, which is more than 3,000 impacted by this cap.

These are not just statistics; they are lives. In Birmingham Perry Barr, I constantly receive heartbreaking testimonies from families living with the consequences of this callous measure. Let me tell the House what that means in real life. It means a mother skipping meals so that her children can eat. It means children sharing a bed in a cold, damp flat because the heating bill must come second to food. It means school uniforms being bought two sizes too big because they need to last for years. At a time when food prices are soaring, with energy bills spiralling out of control, rent being unaffordable and council tax rising, this Government have actively chosen to make life harder for struggling families. No child’s future, no child’s health and no child’s dignity should depend on how many siblings they have, yet under this Labour Administration that is exactly the situation we have created.

This is not just an economic failure; it is a moral one. Working families—and more than 50% are working while relying on some benefits—and those doing everything asked of them are being abandoned in their hour of need, and it is happening under Labour’s watch. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has stated outright that scrapping the cap would bring nearly half a million children out of poverty. Ending this policy would not just relieve families, but ease the pressure on food banks, schools and charities—the organisations that have been forced to pick up the slack where the Government have abdicated responsibility.

Despite all this evidence and all the human suffering, this Labour Government refuse to act. Time and again, they have shown where their priorities lie: protecting billionaires and large corporations from paying their fair share, while children go to bed cold and hungry. The Government say that they are committed to solving the issue, but they continue to fail the British public at every turn. At current projections, they are on track to be the only Labour Administration in living memory to oversee an increase in child poverty rates. It would be a shameful legacy to leave behind and the deepest betrayal of our future generations, so I urge the Government and Ministers to change their stance, stand on the side of British families and end the two-child limit. We face a child poverty emergency, and it is up to us to respond with the urgency it demands.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week’s chaos and climbdown has been overshadowed by events of the last 48 hours. The impact assessment published last night shows that £2 billion is still to be stripped from up to three quarters of a million sick and disabled people by 2029-30 through the slashing of the health element of universal credit in two. By the end of this Parliament, some people will lose around £3,000 a year because of these reforms, including those with fluctuating conditions.

If that was not bad enough, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has waded in to protect disabled people where this Labour Government have not. I believe that international laws and conventions must be upheld, but this Government are now under investigation for breaches. No matter what the spin is, passing the Bill tonight will leave such a stain on our great party, which was founded on values of equality and justice. The only way out is to withdraw clauses 2 and 3 so that breaches of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities are not upheld.

The UN’s contention is my contention; sick and disabled people have not been consulted. If someone with a fluctuating physical or mental health condition such as multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis or a recurring musculoskeletal condition had a period of remission and worked but then relapsed and returned to universal credit, unless unequivocally stated otherwise in the Bill, they would return on to the pittance of £50 a week for their health element.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates at 17%, and many of my constituents receive the universal credit health element. Does the hon. Member agree that if they were to be stripped of financial support, that may have an enormous impact on their mental health, which would cause a further drain on the NHS?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We know that when people’s mental health declines because of stresses and strains, it pushes them further away from the labour market, which is not the objective of “Pathways to Work” or this Government. It would be detrimental to people and our ambition.

That pittance of £50 a week will hit the budgets of individuals who have so little given that we have rising energy and food prices and housing costs. This is the difference between struggling and surviving. All they could expect is poverty to bite harder, stress to spread wider and hope to fade faster. For many with fluctuating conditions, stress exacerbates symptoms. What a way to live.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

This Government’s Bill is not just flawed, but morally indefensible. From the outset, we need to be honest about what this Bill represents. It is not a reform; it is a calculated assault on some of the most marginalised people in our society—people with disabilities, people with complex mental health conditions and people already struggling under the weight of austerity and neglect. This Bill continues a pattern we have seen too many times, with cuts dressed up as reform and cruelty wrapped in the language of efficiency. The Department’s own assessment confirms the truth: 150,000 people will be pushed into poverty, approximately 20,000 of them children, if the Bill passes. That is not a side effect but the outcome, and the Government know it.

This Bill targets those with fluctuating, invisible or mental health conditions—the very people who already face systemic injustice. It imposes narrow functional descriptors that do not reflect the real-world barriers people face. It punishes people not for being unwilling to work, but for not fitting neatly into bureaucratic tick boxes. Worse still, there has been no meaningful consultation with disabled people or carers, and no engagement with those who live this reality every single day. The Government are making policy about disabled people without disabled people. That is not just neglect; it is offensive. The evidence is clear: the Government are looking to make savings by depriving thousands of their means to live while telling them that the planned changes will empower them.

According to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, one in five people in receipt of PIP are already in paid employment and working to the limits that their condition allows. Of those, 60% will lose their PIP. These people are already in work. What more do the Government want? Why are they punishing them? In my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr, 9,000 people rely on this vital payment, but nearly 4,000 are set to lose out entirely, including 630 people currently in work. What do the Government say to my constituents who will lose the income required to live with their condition? What do they say to the millions of families who will have to tighten their purse strings so they can pay for the basic needs of loved ones?

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Ayoub Khan]

Worse still, just a year ago, when this Labour Government came to power, the people were promised change. The Prime Minister said on the campaign trail that those with the broadest shoulders should pay their fair share, yet only one year in this Government are stripping income from those who are most in need by telling disabled people that they are not impaired enough to earn state support.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Ayoub Khan]

This is nothing short of shameful, and if the Bill passes, it will be a national disgrace. The welfare state was built on the principles of solidarity, dignity and security, and this Bill tramples on those values. It will strip away independence, force people into deeper hardship and leave many with no safety net at all.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I just make the point to the hon. Member that the hon. Gentleman is clearly not going to give way, which is in his gift.

[Ayoub Khan]

I say to the Ministers and hon. Members who claim that these changes are needed to preserve the welfare state that the welfare state was built on the idea that everyone would receive state support for things that were out of their control, no matter what. Passing this Bill will not preserve the welfare state but dismantle it, and I urge every Member of this House to reject it. We can and must do better than this. The people we represent deserve far better.

Disabled People in Poverty

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

We absolutely have to look at our taxation system and ensure that those with the broadest shoulders carry the biggest burden, rather than saving money on the back of disabled people.

Even the Government’s own assessment shows that the changes are likely to have a significant financial impact on claimants. For example, tightening the eligibility criteria for personal independence payment so that individuals will be required to score four points in at least one category will mean that 800,000 people lose the daily living element of PIP, with an average loss of £4,500 a year. The points system is already deeply flawed, especially for those with dynamic disabilities such as multiple sclerosis or myalgic encephalomyelitis. The domino effect of tightening PIP eligibility will be severe, because it acts as a passport to other support—150,000 people are set to lose their carer’s allowance if someone they care for no longer qualifies. That could mean a loss to a household of £10,000 a year.

We know that having a disability is expensive: on average, households that have someone with a disability need over £1,000 a month more to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. The proposed changes to the health element of universal credit will freeze the benefits of over 2 million people, and an estimated 730,000 new claimants will get a lower rate of £50 a week.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the sensitivities involved in considering, discussing and voting on such a serious matter require, at the very minimum, an equality impact assessment? It is only through such assessments that we can understand the impact on residents up and down the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend raises an important manifesto commitment. I will relay her request to the Minister for Disability, who I am sure will update her.

We are anxious to get on with it. As many Members have said, it is important to reset some of the assumptions that employers have about the capabilities of disabled people, and the assumptions about whether disabled people should be included in our economy like everybody else.

On how many people will be affected by this, I point out that all the numbers that have been mentioned, including the numbers we have published on the poverty impact of the policy change, are static. They assume that nothing else changes by 2030.

While I understand the very correct concern that the employment support system this Government inherited was nowhere near what it should be, I can reassure Members that change is already happening. We are already getting on with Connect to Work and building a new jobs and careers service. I currently spend half my life with frontline work coaches in jobcentres, including disability employment advisers who are anxious to do better and are moving forward with a changed system. We are not waiting to get on with the change; the change is already happening.

[Ayoub Khan]

On the £5 billion cut to PIP, does the Minister agree that it is not just a lifeline for the most vulnerable in our society but is £5 billion that ends up in the economy? For that reason, does she not agree that a holistic impact assessment needs to be done? It ought not to be rushed, so that Members can review it and come to a sensible conclusion.

Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ms Abbott]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government insist that the rising disability benefits bill means that something must be done, but in a recent report, the New Economics Foundation revealed that the disability benefits bill has risen because there has been a rise in the number of disabled people and a rise in deprivation. But, as we learned from David Cameron’s round of austerity, cuts have consequences that severely limit, or even eliminate, their supposed savings.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

In my Birmingham Perry Barr constituency, notwithstanding these forecasted cuts, people are already suffering because the Department for Work and Pensions—or perhaps His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—is trying to clamp down and suspend benefits such as PIP. That is causing immense anxiety for disabled and vulnerable adults, who are now having to seek an appeal while their benefits are being cut. Does the right hon. Member agree that an equality impact assessment needs to be conducted now, as opposed to simply cutting £5 billion in the near future?

[Ms Abbott]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need an equality impact assessment now, and I cannot understand why the Government are introducing these random welfare benefit cuts without allowing MPs to understand fully what the consequences will be. The fact that the proposed welfare cuts come on top of the cut to the winter fuel allowance and the failure to raise the child benefit ceiling makes everything worse.

The furious response to their proposed welfare cuts, particularly the cuts to personal independence payments, seems to have come as a surprise to the Government. PIP is a benefit intended to help people who have a health condition or disability with the extra costs of living. Unfortunately, some people, including some Ministers, talk about it as if it were a handout.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I extend my extreme gratitude to the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for bringing forward this debate. Thousands in my constituency will be affected by the proposed cuts to PIP and to wider benefits. That is about not just numbers on a balance sheet, but the daily lives of real people.

PIP is a vital lifeline for those living with disabilities and long-term health conditions. It helps to cover the extra costs that many of us never have to think about: mobility aids, transport and specialist care. Cutting that support does not just tighten budgets; it strips away independence and, more importantly, dignity.

We must ask ourselves what kind of society we want to be: one that turns away from its most vulnerable, or one that lifts them up, ensuring that disability does not mean poverty, isolation or fear. Behind every efficiency saving is a person: a mother skipping meals so her disabled son can get to an appointment; a veteran left waiting months for a reassessment; or a young woman terrified of losing the support she needs to work part time and stay independent.

This is about not just fairness but justice, compassion and basic human rights. I ask the Minister to halt these proposed cuts, to review PIP with empathy and not austerity, and to build a system that supports not punishes the most needy in our society.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for tabling his amendments. We have the finest legal system in the world, and one of its principles is the presumption of innocence. As drafted, the Bill undermines that fundamental principle, which will raise stress and anxiety and undermine vulnerable people in our society. Does the hon. Member agree that that is the current position with the Bill?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Yes, and I am going to address that point shortly.

It is not the purpose of banks to act as an arm of the state, and compelling them to do so sets a very dangerous precedent that we in this House need to be aware of. We also know that organised crime groups, which are responsible for more than £7 billion of large-scale fraud, will evade detection by spreading funds across multiple accounts, beyond the reach of the algorithmic scanning that will be used to flag overpayments. It will be welfare recipients who are caught up in the net of bank surveillance, regardless of whether they are suspected of fraudulent activity.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes]

There are several arguments used by those who do not want to get it right, to use my hon. Friend’s term. One is that the public do not care, although all the survey evidence suggests the opposite: that 75% of people think that WASPI women should be treated fairly. Another argument is that it will be too expensive. I could make all kinds of rather spiteful remarks about the Government’s decisions about public sector pay, but I will let them stand as a contradiction, without adding to them.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He makes a very eloquent and persuasive statement. The current Government use compensation as an excuse, saying it is too expensive, but we have seen, for example, train drivers being given an additional £600 a day. We have seen Government intervene on the Post Office scandal. Does the right hon. Member agree that the argument can be easily disabused by looking at the track record on assistance for those who have found themselves at the forefront of injustice?

[Sir John Hayes]

I had alluded a moment ago to the choices that Government make about how they spend money. Of course it is true that Government priorities will determine where money is spent. The issue is clearly not a priority for the Government. It is difficult, of course: Governments face all sorts of challenges that require investment, and this Government have chosen not to invest in this area. Frankly, it is as plain as that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this important debate. I will not repeat what so many Members have already said—repetition never makes any argument more persuasive—but the stark fact raised by the right hon. Member is that a WASPI woman dies every 12 minutes, so we will have lost five or six by the time the debate finishes.

As politicians, we have a responsibility and an obligation to act urgently to establish a comprehensive compensation scheme that can be tailored over time. We do not have to raise hundreds of millions of pounds straightaway; that could be done over the lifetime of this Parliament. Such a scheme would recognise the important contribution made by women born in the 1950s, and support the impartial, independent role of the ombudsman, thereby giving it the credence it deserves.

As representatives of the public, we must ensure the principles of transparency, accountability and fair treatment that underpin our democracy. It is time we stood up for this deserving group of women across the country and specifically the hundreds and hundreds from Birmingham Perry Barr who have written to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I will make some progress and give way later on. There has also been, as has been raised, the opportunity for all parties to call for more time and for votes in the main Chamber. I am sure the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will take that up with his party in the months ahead. I will make some progress and take more interventions as we proceed.

The ombudsman’s investigation concerned the more specific question of how changes in the state pension age were communicated to women, like my aunt, born in the 1950s. The Government started sending personalised letters in April 2009, but the ombudsman concluded we should have started 28 months earlier. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has apologised for that delay. We are determined to learn the lessons so that we avoid similar mistakes happening again. First, we will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan, identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations. Secondly, we are committed to providing clear and sufficient notice of any changes in the state pension age so that people can plan for their retirement. Thirdly, the Secretary of State has directed the Department to develop a clear and transparent communication strategy for state pension changes; work on that has already begun. This will build on changes that are already under way, such as our online “Check your State Pension forecast” service, which provides a forecast of the level of state pension, but also information about when people can take it.

The ombudsman looked at six cases and concluded that DWP provided adequate and accurate information on changes to the state pension age between 1995 and 2004. However, they 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, many of whom are here with us today. The ombudsman said that those delays did not result in women suffering from direct financial loss, but that there was maladministration, and we agree.

[Ayoub Khan]

In spite of what the ombudsman has recommended, it is clear that the current Prime Minister recognised and advocated throughout the country that WASPI women were dealt an enormous injustice. It is a principle of democracy where we advocate for something when we want power, we ought to deliver once we get power to maintain trust and confidence. In spite of what the ombudsman recommends, does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister should honour what he advocated?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The Labour party did oppose the acceleration of the state pension age in the early part of the last decade, but he and many other Members will have noticed very viscerally that the Labour party lost many elections since then. Parliament made a decision and the courts have since endorsed that decision. There was maladministration and we must learn the lessons.