Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDouglas McAllister
Main Page: Douglas McAllister (Labour - West Dunbartonshire)Department Debates - View all Douglas McAllister's debates with the Department for Work and Pensions
(4 days, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
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.