Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report

George Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I, too, thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling the debate to take place. I suppose that I should congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on her opening speech, and I do, but I caution her that using it to promote division in the House of Commons is not the way to advance the issue. If she is serious about it, and if she has listened to all the speeches that have been made so far, she will know that there is consensus in the House. Our efforts need to be put into finding a way to move that forward.

I will be brief. The case for righting this injustice is convincing. Although the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s inquiry noted that,

“timely and accurate information was available about changes to the number of qualifying years needed for a full State Pension as a result of the 2014 Pensions Act”,

it did find,

“maladministration in DWP’s communication about the 1995 Pensions Act”.

In addition, the report found that,

“maladministration in DWP’s complaint handling caused complainants unnecessary stress and anxiety and meant an opportunity to lessen their distress was lost. For some complainants, it also caused unnecessary worry and confusion.”

That is pretty clear about the extent of the maladministration. In the context of this debate, the ombudsman stated:

“Given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, we are taking the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene.”

I stress the use of the word “urgent”, which I will return to and on which several hon. Members have already commented.

I will first say a few words about the women who have been affected by this wholly unfair and unacceptable matter. We need to remind ourselves that the women born in the 1950s did everything required of them to ensure that reliable arrangements were in place when they reached pensionable age. That is the crux of the matter. I strongly believe that we as Members of this House have a responsibility to accept our duty to remedy the situation.

To return to the ombudsman’s emphasis on the word “urgent”, my fear is that we will not deal with the situation urgently. Let me be clear: I do not believe that allowing the clock to run down to the forthcoming general election is an acceptable option. My fear was confirmed yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions when, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), the Prime Minister said:

“Following the ombudsman’s multi-year investigation, it is imperative that we take the time to review the findings thoroughly.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 255.]

The problem with that is the facts are already well known, and it certainly does not reflect the ombudsman’s conclusion about the urgency of the issue.

I will make a suggestion that I urge both Front-Bench spokespeople to adopt. I believe that we could do the right thing in this Parliament if the Government and Opposition parties held talks, convened and chaired by Mr Speaker, with a view to putting a Bill before the House as speedily as possible. I am mindful and supportive of the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) that we could do something seriously before the summer recess.

As other hon. Members mentioned, every generation experiences injustices. In my time in the House, they have included the thalidomide victims, Hillsborough, Primodos, contaminated blood and, most recently, the Horizon scandal. For me, they are all debts of honour that we have a duty to redeem. I suspect that a majority of Members of the House would agree, so please let us have the opportunity to do so.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

I am grateful for that contribution. I heard the hon. Gentleman make those comments in his speech as well. I am trying to remember the precise figures, but I cannot, so I will write to him. More generally—this point is often made to me by pension experts—the international numbers are not directly comparable because each welfare system is entirely different, particularly in the public-private split in how pension systems are funded. To say that one percentage is generous while another percentage is not generous is not quite the point. I shall write to him none the less, because I think that he will find the fine print useful for his future contributions.

[Sir George Howarth]

The Minister said that the Government are to give the ombudsman’s report serious consideration before they decide what to do. How long does he think that process will take?

[Paul Maynard]

If I may, I will answer that in a moment, because I will now turn back to the report. In laying the report before Parliament, the ombudsman brought matters to the House’s attention, making it clear that Parliament has a role in responding to the report. The Government intend to engage fully and constructively with Parliament. I view this debate as a crucial part of that process.

I remind the House about what the ombudsman’s report says—and indeed does not say. The ombudsman has looked not at the decision to equalise the state pension age but rather at how that decision was communicated by the DWP. That is important to understand, as the motion calls on the Government to

“deliver prompt compensation to women born in the 1950s who had their State Pension age raised.”

Importantly, the ombudsman’s report hinted at the Department’s decisions over a narrow period between 2005 and 2007, and their effect on individual notifications. The ombudsman has not found that women have directly lost out financially as a result DWP actions. The report stated:

“We do not find that it”—

the DWP’s communication—

“resulted in them suffering direct financial loss.”

The final report does not say that all women born in the 1950s will have been adversely impacted, as many women were aware that the state pension age had changed. The stage 1 report found that between 1995 and 2004, the DWP’s communication of changes to the state pension age reflected the standards that the ombudsman would expect it to meet. That report also confirmed that accurate information about changes to the state pension age was publicly available in leaflets, through the DWP pension education campaigns and DWP agencies and on its website. However, when considering the Department’s actions between August 2005 and December 2007, the ombudsman came to the view that they resulted in 1950s-born women receiving individual notice later than they might have done had different decisions been made.

I welcome the wide-ranging contributions from Members on behalf of their constituents.