Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I certainly agree that at the heart of this matter is the issue of trust. As people throughout society lose trust in the institutions of government and the state, we will find increasing chaos and instability. Stability comes from trusting the institutions to deliver, and that trust is a two-way process. I thank him for his intervention.

The principle matters, not just to Equitable Life policyholders but, as we have just been saying, to wider public confidence in Government and the regulatory institutions upon which we all rely, as we have heard.

Aside from looking at full redress, I urge the Government to consider another issue. EMAG has calculated that, as of 31 May 2025, approximately £171 million of money already allocated for compensation had been held back by the Treasury rather than being paid to policyholders. This is not new money; it is money that had already been allocated. This situation deserves serious attention. It must surely be right that at least the value of all the money actually allocated for compensation as far back as 2010—16 years ago—should reach those affected.

It is important to understand the figures and what policyholders fear is the Treasury’s plan. Of the £1.5 billion allocated in 2010, £625 million was assigned to compensate with-profits annuitants; £100 million was retained as a contingency against the possibility that those annuitants would live longer than expected; and £775 million was allocated to the remaining eligible policyholders. Importantly, the £625 million allocated to annuitants was a discounted figure, reflecting the value at the time of future payments. The forecast cash cost of those annual payments was £836 million through to 2050, which is still a long way ahead of us. The forecast total cash spend of the compensation scheme as a whole was £1.7 billion—I hope everybody is following these figures.

According to the figures compiled by EMAG, actual payments to with-profits annuitants were around £599 million by 30 May 2025—just over a year ago—compared with forecast expenditure of approximately £646 million. That represents a difference of £47 million. And of the £775 million allocated to other policyholders, approximately £751 million had been paid out, leaving £24 million unspent. Together with the £100 million contingency, which EMAG argues is no longer required for its stated purpose, the total underspend as of May 2025 was said to be approximately £171 million. I will make sure the Minister gets those figures later; of course, they will all be in Hansard.

I recognise that the Minister may wish to examine or even dispute those figures and the assumptions behind them, but I think we can agree that it is in everybody’s interests that there is absolute clarity around this. I hope that the Government will provide that clarity. If funds have been allocated but are not needed to meet the liabilities for which they are intended, they should be used to compensate people who have still not received their full redress. Those people are already known and their losses have been calculated. There is therefore a strong case that additional payments could be administered without much cost and complexity. Releasing those funds would not address the issue of the full outstanding debt still owed, but it would be a positive step forward in this long-running saga.

There is a group of people whose position deserves particular attention and for whom an underspend could be used: around 10,000 with-profits annuitants were excluded from the compensation scheme because they bought their annuities before September 1992. When the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill came before Parliament in 2010 and 2011, I tabled an amendment to bring those 10,000 pre-1992 with-profits annuitants into the scheme, but it was sadly lost.

The argument for excluding those annuitants was that they could not have known about the true parlous state of Equitable Life at the time, but that does not take away the financial losses that they too suffered. They were affected by the same underlying regulatory maladministration and the near collapse of the society. They have seen their annuity payments drastically reduced just as other annuitants have. The ombudsman’s findings and recommendations did not distinguish between those who had taken out annuities before and after September 1992; that distinction was a construct of the Treasury, not the ombudsman or the society.

Those annuitants are, of course, among the oldest and most vulnerable victims of the scandal. Many will now be at a very advanced age, and many more have sadly died already. Every year that passes reduces the opportunity for them to receive the redress that they have long sought. Justice delayed is justice denied, but it has a particularly cruel consequence when the people waiting for it may not even live to see it delivered.

The Government should therefore examine how the underspend could be used to bring those annuitants into the scheme. EMAG has suggested that payments could be distributed in proportion to their current annual annuity payments, avoiding the need for individual actuarial calculations. The ex gratia payments made to them in 2013 following representations by MPs, including me, and EMAG could be offset against any additional payments, because they will be recorded. I urge the Minister to look closely at what can be done for the surviving pre-1992 annuitants—there are not that many of them.

An important core principle is at stake here. The Government, on behalf of the Crown in Parliament, have accepted the ombudsman’s findings and acknowledged £4.1 billion in losses attributable to maladministration. They have also calculated the specific losses suffered by individual policyholders. When the state accepts responsibility for a mistake and identifies the financial harm caused, it should be prepared to provide proper redress. The Government should not be exempt from the principles of accountability and fairness they expect others to observe.

Fuller compensation would also recognise the importance of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to our unwritten constitutional system. Independent investigations and formal findings of maladministration must surely mean something. If those findings are accepted but the recommended redress is not delivered, public confidence in the system risks being further weakened, as has already been said.

I would also suggest that further compensation would not be money spent to no positive effect—quite the opposite, in fact. Additional compensation would help people to meet the costs of care and everyday living, support their families and contribute to local businesses and communities, and I have absolutely no doubt that a significant part would return to the Exchequer through taxation, so it is not all losses. More importantly, it would give people back some of the financial security that was taken from them through failures for which the Government have accepted responsibility. I will conclude by asking the Minister to address four specific questions. I apologise for the lengthy nature of my introductory remarks, but those points had to be made.

First, does the Minister believe that, in cases where the state has accepted responsibility for a failure leading to financial loss for individuals, and that loss has been calculated by it, the default position should be to provide full redress?

Secondly, can the Minister confirm that total cash expenditure on with-profit annuitants was forecast to be £836 million, that that figure was discounted to arrive at the £625 million allocation for those annuitants, and that actual payments to date are below forecast?

Thirdly, I will be grateful if the Government will confirm whether the £100 million contingency fund remains necessary to cover the risk that with-profits annuitants live longer than expected. If that contingency is no longer required for its stated purpose, will the Minister commit to considering its use for further compensation?

Finally, will the Minister agree to carefully examine the possibility of including the surviving pre-September 1992 annuitants who were excluded from the compensation scheme? The victims of this scandal have waited long enough. That is why there are so many colleagues in the room today. The victims did not create the regulatory failures that damaged their retirement savings. They followed the advice to save responsibly, trusted the system established by Parliament and were let down by the institutions charged with protecting them.

The Government have acknowledged the wrongdoing and losses and established a compensation scheme, but that scheme left the overwhelming majority of affected policyholders with only a small proportion of what they lost. Clearly, we cannot undo what has happened, but we can decide whether to leave this long-standing injustice unresolved or to take practical steps towards putting it properly right.

The Government should review the unspent compensation funds, reconsider the exclusion of the pre-1992 annuitants and set out a path towards full and fair redress. Those who lost their savings deserve more than just our sympathy. They deserve fairness and justice now through action by the Government, not more empty words.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

Order. The winding-up speeches will begin at 2.38 pm, so I am restricting the time to five minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s last question towards the end of my remarks, but on his first point he is absolutely right to say that the then Government’s key consideration—when I referenced taxpayers—was the public finances. That is the point being made. That was the key driver in the decision by the then Government about how much money to allocate, rather than trying some kind of specific accounting for the impact of the maladministration per se.

Ministers at the time also noted the consistency of their decision with the ombudsman’s report—we have discussed a bit of that today—and the ombudsman subsequently wrote on this issue to the all-party parliamentary group, which I think several hon. Members present have been part of, confirming that the then Government’s decisions

“cannot be said to be incompatible with the report.”

As hon. Members know, following representations from groups such as the Equitable Members Action Group, the Government prioritised those acknowledged by all parties to be the most vulnerable—the with-profit annuitants. They received 100% of their losses. That meant that, of the £1.5 billion, £725 million was allocated to with-profit annuitants, to be paid annually over the duration of the annuity, which continues to this day. That included the £100 million contingency fund—that is the answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—to ensure that the provision for the annuitants, should they live longer than expected, was there. That is obviously a standard actuarial process; it is what sits behind the regulation of the insurance sector when annuities are being sold. The remaining £775 million was allocated to be paid as lump sums to with-profits non-annuitants holding other products.

As for the details of how much has been spent, I can provide answers to the questions put by several hon. Members. As of 30 September 2026, the total value of payments made by the scheme was almost exactly £1.4 billion—it is just short of that figure—and that is an increase on the previous figure that the hon. Member for Christchurch cited.

I note the references in this debate to the pre-1992 with-profit annuity holders. The coalition Government excluded them from the scheme, not because they had not suffered real impacts from the collapse of Equitable Life—I think the then Government recognised that they had suffered real impacts—but because their purchase of those annuities, which is the point at which someone locks into the decision in the case of an annuity, was outside the period of maladministration, so the Government would have struggled to find a locus to make a payment in the terms of a scheme, because there was no maladministration to tie a payment to. Again, it is not for me to defend that Government. However, if they were here today, that is how they would explain the decision that was taken. That is why the 2013 decision, which was referenced by the then Government, to provide separate, tax-free ex gratia payments was the way in which the previous Government chose to proceed.

The scheme has now been fully wound down; it was closed in 2016 by the then Conservative Government. That is now over a decade ago. I suspect that hon. Members know that I cannot give all of them, or indeed all the impressive campaigners on this issue, the answer that they would like—a straight “more compensation”. I suspect that hon. Members know that that is the case. However, I want to give them what I think is the next best thing, which is a straight answer, and it is the direct answer to the question put by the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the Opposition spokesperson. It is that there are no plans to reopen the previous policy decisions taken by the previous Government. The previous Government made decisions given the public finances at the time. Those decisions were debated by that Parliament—some Members present were part of that Parliament, and the rest of us respect the decisions of that House.

The only part of the payment scheme in operation is the annual payments made to eligible annuitants. The scheme is on track to distribute the remainder of the funds allocated, as planned, on that basis. The right thing for this Government to do is to ensure that the ongoing payments to those eligible with-profit annuity holders—the group recognised, I think by all of us, to be the most vulnerable—continue to be made. I will finish by assuring them that the funding for those payments remains protected and again thanking all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

Fabian Hamilton, you have two minutes in which to respond to the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to tackle pensioner poverty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

To tackle pensioner poverty, we are both increasing the state pension and running the biggest ever pension credit take-up campaign. Raising the new state pension in line with the triple lock over this Parliament is set to increase it by over £2,000 a year, while 60,000 extra pension credit awards were made in the year to July compared with the previous 12 months.

[Gill Furniss]

More than a quarter of a million pensioners received compensation from the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme, but those who accrued their income before 1997 have suffered a real-terms cut of 24% in the past five years alone. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to provide indexation on these accruals, but many of those who will benefit are elderly and in ill health. Can the Minister confirm that he will implement this much-welcomed change as quickly as possible?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. I, like her, have met and listened to lots of those affected by the lack of indexation on pre-1997 accruals within the PPF and the FAS. I can assure her that, assuming the Pension Schemes Bill receives Royal Assent, the uprating will take place at the next PPF uprating, which means January 2027 on current estimates.

World Menopause Day

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am not a Health Minister, but a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions. I take the point, however, and I will raise it with my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I will also raise the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East highlighted about looking at the health of women throughout their whole career in employment, including when women have children and when they are pregnant, and how we can best fit that together. That is a very important point that I will take forward.

I want to go through a few of the things that I think it is important to refer to today. Our Employment Rights Bill marks the biggest update in employment rights for a generation. For the first time, employers with more than 250 staff will have to produce menopause action plans setting out exactly how they will support women going through the menopause. The action plans will be published, so that employers can be held to account for the actions that they take. Our experience with gender pay gap reporting shows that such things are not just treated as formalities. They have the power to drive businesses’ behaviour and bring about real change. Menopause Friendly UK has said that the provisions mark “real progress” and are a

“sign that menopause in the workplace is finally being recognised as the serious issue it is.”

It is really good to hear about the work that employers such as Tesco and trade unions such as USDAW and the GMB are already doing.

Smaller employers, which some Members are concerned about, will be given guidance on how to help women experiencing the menopause, from changing the office temperature—Westminster Hall today has certainly had the thermostat set at menopause temperature—to providing fans, making changes to uniforms, allowing regular breaks and flexible working. I also take the point about the need to evaluate the policy.

Secondly, on the last World Menopause Day almost a year ago, the Government appointed Mariella Frostrup, the broadcaster, women’s rights campaigner and menopause champion, as the Government menopause employment ambassador. Her role is to work with employers nationwide to raise awareness of menopause in the workplace and improve workplace support. She has been hard at work and has already engaged with over 300 employers to raise awareness. In April, she chaired the first meeting of the independent menopause advisory group, bringing together some amazing expertise from leaders across a range of sectors, including business, media, energy, education and the law. They will draw on their real and vast experience to create practical advice on supporting women going through menopause in the workplace. As Mariella said at the time, midlife is a time when women are often balancing many other responsibilities. It is only right that they are supported themselves when they are in work. I very much look forward to working with Mariella and to meeting her soon.

Thirdly, I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East said about the need for support for women in the workplace, which will be key to helping them stay in work and thrive, or return to work and thrive. Good occupational health can be a route to achieving that. However, we need to improve the scope, coverage and quality of the support offered for all in the workplace. That is why the Government commissioned the Keep Britain Working review, led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, which is exploring the employer’s role in creating healthy and inclusive workplaces, and the support that can help them achieve this. We look forward to receiving his recommendations from the review shortly. I am pleased to note that Sir Charlie spoke to Mariella and received input on the importance of considering women’s health during the engagement for that review.

Many hon. Members raised issues relating to healthcare and support, so I want to refer to some of the work going on across Government, both in health and in education. We are updating the 2022 women’s health strategy to assess the progress that has been made and to continue delivering for women. Where shortages in vital hormone replacement therapy products have occurred, we have worked extensively with suppliers to expedite deliveries and resolve supply issues, and we have issued management guidance for healthcare professionals and serious shortage protocols to make sure that patients can get alternatives quickly and easily without needing to get a new prescription.

In November last year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published updated guidelines on the menopause. NHS England has created a menopause self-care fact sheet, and the General Medical Council has introduced the medical licensing assessment for all doctors starting work in the UK, which includes knowledge of the menopause and building better understanding in new doctors and the profession at large.

In education, we know that taboos and stigma will end only with greater understanding. That is why the Department for Education’s revised statutory guidance, released on 15 July, on relationships, sex and health education emphasises the need for all primary and secondary pupils to have a full understanding of women’s health, including menopause.

I see that you are giving me a look, Ms Furniss. Do you want me to conclude?

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

Yes, please.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Okay. Although the action that the Government are taking, and the work of so many—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East—show our commitment to this issue, we are also making huge strides in society in our understanding and acceptance of the menopause. That, in turn, will make a real difference to the lives of many women. But we cannot stop here while so many women still need support.

I want to finish with Mary Wollstonecraft’s famous words:

“The beginning is always today.”

There is more to do, and we will continue to work to make sure women have that support.

Income Tax (Charge)

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Back in July Britain voted to turn the corner on 14 years of failure at the hands of the Conservative party: 14 years of unfunded tax cuts for the wealthiest, 14 years of austerity that left working people to pick up the bill and 14 years of our public services crumbling. This Budget is a breath of fresh air that delivers on what people voted for, with £1.4 billion to rebuild schools, £30 million for breakfast clubs and an extra 2 million NHS appointments.

Today I want to speak about an issue that is very close to my heart: further education. Before entering Parliament, I worked in further education and saw at first hand the transformational impact it can have. I have seen adults of all ages, some of whom have struggled with even basic literacy and numeracy, make major strides forward and go on to university and high-quality jobs. A thriving FE sector is also vital to meet the challenges of the future. Decarbonisation and new technologies, like AI, are already revolutionising our workforce, and the CBI has found that nine in 10 people will need to reskill in this decade alone. We are in the midst of a skills shortage, with businesses struggling to fill highly skilled positions and instead recruiting from abroad. These are no longer the skills of the future but the skills of today, and we already have the infrastructure ready to go to meet the challenge, with hundreds of colleges filled with thousands of experts teaching countless subjects.

My constituency is home to two exemplary FE institutions: the Sheffield college and Longley Park sixth form. I pay tribute to all their staff, who go above and beyond to give students the best support possible. There are exciting developments happening in Sheffield. The Sheffield college will soon open its new advanced technology centre—a state-of-the-art facility that will play a key role in meeting the skills needs of employers, accelerating our green skills strategy, and supporting growth in the local and regional economy. The success of the sector is all the more impressive when we consider the funding challenges it has endured. On the last Government’s watch, spending per college student fell by 5% in real terms, but this Government have shown that they understand their value, and I am so pleased to see in the Budget the commitment of an extra £300 million for further education.

This Government are filled with expertise in further education. I am delighted to see Baroness Smith of Malvern appointed as Minister for Skills. Her wealth of knowledge and experience means that she will be a strong voice for the value of further education in the skills agenda. I also welcome the steps that the Government are taking to deliver on our manifesto commitment to create a flexible growth and skills levy; the investment of £40 million will help to ensure that apprenticeships, with decent employment at the end, are available for people of all skillsets.

Employers have long called for reform of the apprenticeship levy, which many have found to be inflexible and unfit for purpose. We need a new system that works for employers and workers alike, and which has further education at its heart. I am pleased that this Government are taking immediate action in this area and backing it up with real investment. This will be a major step forward in a new relationship between employers, the workforce and further education—all working together to build a workforce that is fit for the future.

This Government’s steadfast focus is delivering economic growth in every corner of the country—something that has been lacking in my constituency for far too long. I look forward to the establishment of Skills England to help upskill the workforce nationwide, working alongside our fantastic further education sector to succeed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Time and again, pensioners have been let down by this Government. They suspended the triple lock, breaking a key manifesto promise; their disastrous mini-Budget knocked hundreds of billions of pounds from pension pots; and their failure to get a grip on the cost of living means that pensioners are mainly living in cold homes over the winter and have a choice between heating or eating. Against this backdrop, is the Minister at all surprised that almost one in five pensioners are now living in poverty?

[Paul Maynard]

It is as if the shadow Minister has not noticed the almost £900 of cost of living payments made to pension credit recipients across the country over the last year. I know the Opposition have relied on last week’s Resolution Foundation report to criticise what we are doing, but this is what the report actually says:

“‘Pensioners used to be by far the most likely to be in poverty…now they are the least likely.’ This change in the relationship between old age and low income is one of the most profound social and economic changes this country has seen”.

We achieved that under this Government, not under our failed Labour predecessors.

Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding and Investment Strategy and Amendment) Regulations 2024

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 General Committees

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Maria.

The regulations will place additional duties on the trustees of defined-benefit pension schemes to help ensure good practice. As the Minister pointed out, the vast majority of those schemes are already well run by dedicated trustees who want to do right by their members, but we know that that is not universal and we support measures to ensure that people’s money is well looked after.

The defined-benefit pensions sector is an evolving industry. As has been highlighted, the last significant legislation relating to it dates back to 2004-05, a time when many defined-benefit schemes were open. The landscape has changed significantly, and it is vital that regulation keeps up. For instance, research shows that many large schemes are yet to set long-term objectives. The requirements in the regulations should, I hope, help to fix that.

Turning to the consultation, I am aware that, while many stakeholders were supportive of the objectives of the regulations, concerns have been raised about the extra administrative burden that they may incur. I am also concerned that underfunding could be a risk to scheme members and pension protection funds, and I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance on that point. Will he outline what discussions he has had with the Pensions Regulator on its implementation of the flexibility that it may well be awarded? Could we please have more guidance on what exactly will be required from each DB scheme?

We will not oppose the regulations and we hope that they are successful in promoting good practice across the sector. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the changes, and I look forward to his answers about extra guidance for affected schemes and to the questions that I have just raised.

State Pension Changes: Women

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir Gary.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for raising this debate. He was kind enough to participate in my recent Westminster Hall debate on school libraries, and I am delighted to return the pleasure by attending his debate and responding for the Opposition. I also thank the many Members who have turned out today and spoken so eloquently, demonstrating so much understanding of this long-standing issue. I have to declare an interest because I too am a WASPI woman in my 50s. I put that on the record.

As we all know, many women get a rough deal from their pension. Women live around seven years longer than men, meaning our pension wealth needs to go further, yet on average we retire with pension savings of only £69,000 compared with £205,000 for men. Pensions were introduced at a time when the workforce was predominantly composed of men as the primary or sole breadwinner, with women expected to rely on their husbands’ pensions for an income in retirement. We were systematically denied the opportunity to achieve our own economic independence and security. Thankfully, legislation and societal attitudes have come a long way since the 1970s, but the impact of those historical practices continues to affect women’s economic status in retirement. Even today, women’s average pay is equivalent to 75% of a man’s and a lower salary will inevitably result in lower pension contributions and worse retirement outcomes.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and also congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on bringing the debate. On the inequalities the hon. Lady talked about, although many of us are not directly affected, there cannot be a family in this country that does not have a woman or a close relative who has been affected. Does she think that perhaps the Government need to reexamine whether they fully appreciate the scale of the problem and that they should listen to those of us who have been fighting this cause since the day we were elected, which is many years now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss]

Yes, I absolutely agree with the hon. Member and certainly we are aware of the gender pay gap, which is getting bigger and bigger. I have referred to the fact that women generally live longer than men, so they lose out at that end as well, in that they get only half a pension if they are widowed.

Many of us have taken extended maternity leave to be with our children during their formative years, and we shoulder a disproportionate burden of care. By the time they are 46, half of all women will have taken time out of the workplace for care purposes, including stepping up to look after elderly relatives, meaning they will miss out on vital contributions to their workplace pension. Even if they are one of the three quarters of working-age women in employment, there is a 33% chance they are in part-time employment, increasing the likelihood that they will miss out on the benefits of auto-enrolment under the current regulations.

Under the last Labour Government, pensioner poverty halved. Yet on this Government’s watch it has risen so that one in five pensioners now live in poverty. That is scandalous.

[Gavin Newlands]

The hon. Member has made some strong points so far. She is talking about the last Labour Government. The last Labour manifesto promised £58 billion over the course of the next Parliament to give compensation to WASPI women. Will that be in the upcoming manifesto for the next election?

[Gill Furniss]

I am not here today to announce our manifesto or any of our manifesto commitments.

[Gavin Newlands]

I thought the hon. Member might say that.

[Gill Furniss]

However, I can say that I have been meeting the WASPI women regularly since I took this role just a few months ago. I am honoured to be in what I believe is a friendly and honest dialogue with them, and I will continue to do that throughout the coming months and beyond, should I be in the same position.

[Alan Brown]

If the hon. Member’s dialogue is a friendly and honest one, she should be able to say whether the Labour party agrees with the principle of compensation for the WASPI women.

[Gill Furniss]

I believe I have already answered that. I am not here to announce our manifesto. I am here to debate like those who have already and I am here to listen, but I cannot announce our manifesto.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she has been very generous. I just want to ask her on a personal level—forget the Labour party, forget the Government, forget all of that—

[Gill Furniss]

Oh yes, that is going to happen.

[Patricia Gibson]

On a personal level, does she think that WASPI women should receive the full compensation they are due?

[Gill Furniss]

As I said, I am not going to announce our manifesto commitment. Like the hon. Lady, I am here to press the Government who are now in power and have the ability to act. [Interruption.] As a WASPI woman, the hon. Lady would probably be able to guess, would she not? That is all I will say on that subject at the moment.

Two thirds of pensioners living in poverty are women. For many of us, a lifetime of inequalities will continue into retirement. The sadness of the situation lies in how many WASPI women have lost their lives during the time the Government have wasted not doing what they should do. Many women left their careers to look after elderly relatives or to cope after years of manual work, safe in the knowledge that they could get by on their savings for a handful of years until they reached their state pension on turning 60, but found to their horror that their state pension had changed, seemingly without warning.

Over the years, I have heard harrowing stories from both constituents and friends who are truly struggling, torn between whether to heat or to eat and unable to cope with the costs of their mortgage or rent. Pensioners are among those hit hardest by the cost of living crisis, and the Government’s failure to get a grip on the situation has led to rampant inflation and food prices spiralling out of control.

Although I support the policy of state pension age equalisation, it is painfully clear that the way in which it was carried out was shambolic at best. Groups such as WASPI were formed not to reverse the policy of state pension age equalisation, but to mitigate its effects. I commend the group for its work in securing an investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and its subsequent legal victories, including securing changes to the report. As we speak, the PHSO is still investigating actively. Although I do not wish to speculate on what their findings might be, it is a fact that they found that the DWP committed maladministration in how it decided to inform 1950s-born women of the changes.

I will always listen to and engage respectfully with campaigners fighting to right historical injustices, from WASPI women to the Allied Steel and Wire workers. Although I have not been in my role long, I have met representatives of the 1950s-born women on multiple occasions, and I had already met them at previous Labour party conferences. I will be honoured to continue going forward with them and keeping that dialogue open over the coming months and beyond.

I know that the Minister, like me, has been in his role for only several months, but I am sure it is apparent to him that the injustice these women have faced is clear. The poverty that many of them continue to face is also clear. These women desperately need a resolution to the maladministration to which they have been subjected. I therefore urge the Minister to act now to put that injustice right as quickly as possible, and I look forward to continuing the dialogue with the WASPI women going forward.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister to leave at least two minutes for Jim Shannon to have the final say.

Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 General Committees

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

As usual, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Harris. The Minister has covered all the technical details, so I will not repeat them, even though they are important to why we will not be opposing the draft instrument.

As we have heard, the instrument makes technical amendments to clarify two areas of regulations relating to collective defined contribution pension schemes. The first is to mitigate the impact on members when reductions to benefits need to be made. The second is to provide clarity on the categories of flexi-access drawdown fund to which accrued rights in a CDC scheme that is being wound down can be transferred.

We will not be opposing the measure, and we hope that it represents a step forward in getting CDC schemes up and running. To date, only one pension scheme has been granted CDC authorisation—the Royal Mail collective pension plan, which my former colleague Jack Dromey worked very hard to secure. The journey up to this point has been challenging, and I commend those in Royal Mail and the union representatives who were able to reach that milestone agreement. It is important that the remaining regulatory hurdles are cleared as soon as possible so that they can actually launch the CDC scheme. I welcome recent progress in that area, particularly from the Department for Work and Pensions side. However, I understand that new tax legislation and guidance is still outstanding. I hope that will be resolved in the upcoming Budget. From his conversations with colleagues in the Treasury, could the Minister confirm whether that is the case?

To conclude, we support efforts to get CDC schemes off the ground as soon as possible, so, as I have said, we will not oppose the draft instrument. I know that many in the pension sector are eagerly awaiting the launch of the Royal Mail scheme; I hope that that is now in the very near future, and I look forward to seeing its progress.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The good news is that Mrs Shannon is still giving him advice. I call the shadow Minister.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

One of the simplest ways to get people saving for the future is by ensuring that they are enrolled in a pension scheme, but all too many are currently excluded from auto-enrolment, particularly women, who are twice as likely to miss out. The Government have known about this problem for years. They first proposed widening the criteria in 2017. Last year, thanks to a private Member’s Bill, the Minister was given the power to do just that, but still we have seen no update on when this will be implemented. Can the Secretary of State shed light on when these vital changes will take place?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady draws attention to savings for women. I have already stated that 40% of women invested in workplace pensions back in 2012, and that has skyrocketed to 86% today. There are now 2.3 million employers providing pensions through the auto-enrolment route, and there is £29 billion more in workplace pensions in 2024 than was the case in 2012. The hon. Lady refers, I think, to the 2017 review, which I have already referred to. That is currently under review.

Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Amendment) (Equal Treatment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023 Draft Pensions (Pension Protection Fund Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023 Draft Pensions Act 2004 (Amendment) (Pension Protection Fund Compensation) Regulations 2023 Draft Pensions Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Equal Treatment by Occupational Pension Schemes) Regulations 2023

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 General Committees

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir George. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the statutory instruments and welcome him to his place. I look forward to working collaboratively with him on issues where there is cross-party consensus, and I believe there is much we will agree on in regard to pensions.

Today’s statutory instruments are wholly necessary to maintain the same legislative framework following the expiry of certain EU laws on 31 December, so we will not oppose them and my speech will be short. Action is needed given that, under section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the principles of EU law will sunset at the end of this year. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that the effects of the Hampshire and Hughes judgments will be preserved in domestic legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the regulations are intended to ensure only that everything stays in its current state after the relevant EU laws are sunsetted. Will any businesses need to make any adjustments?

I also want to note some concern that the regulations are being brought forward only weeks away from 31 December, when the relevant EU laws cease to apply. Has all the necessary EU legislation within the Minister’s brief now been enacted in domestic law ahead of that deadline?

As I said at the outset, the regulations are necessary and we will not oppose them. It is my understanding that they ensure simply that there is no ambiguity in this area when the equivalent EU laws are sunsetted at the end of this year. However, I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the specific points I have raised.