Pension Schemes Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for taking my intervention and for the very helpful letter he sent me on 30 June about schemes of this sort, and in particular the ExxonMobil pension scheme. His letter encouragingly states:

“Following our reforms, trustees will continue to consider the correct balance of interest between members and the sponsoring employer when making decisions about the release of surplus funds. Trustees will be responsible for determining how members may benefit from any release of surplus…and have a suite of options to choose from—for example, through discretionary benefit increases.”

The trouble is that these pensioners have received a letter from the trustees of the ExxonMobil pension fund stating:

“The power to award discretionary increases is held by Esso Petroleum Company Limited (the “Company”). Whether or not any discretionary increase is provided is for the Company to determine: the Trustee has no power to award discretionary increases itself.”

This may be a loophole that the Minister needs to address. If the trustees cannot award the surplus as benefits and the company says no, that is not going to benefit my constituents.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising that specific case. I will look at it in more detail for him as he has kindly raised it here, but he has raised a point that will have more general application, which is that lots of different schemes, particularly DB schemes, will have a wide range of scheme rules. He has raised one of those, which is about discretionary increases. One thing that is consistent across all the schemes, with the legislation we are bringing in today, is that trustees must agree for any surplus to be released. It may be the case that the employer, in the details of those scheme rules, is required to agree to a discretionary increase, but the trustees are perfectly within their rights to request that that is part of an agreement that leads to a surplus release.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

What if it is the other way round?

[Torsten Bell]

In any circumstances, the trustees would need to agree to a surplus release, so they are welcome to say to their employer: we are only going to agree to it on the basis of a change to something that the employer holds the cards over. I am happy to discuss that with the right hon. Member further, and there may be other schemes that are in a similar situation.

Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is often said in times of financial crisis that some institutions are too big to fail. Unfortunately, in this case it is a question of some campaigns being seen as being too big to succeed. I am quite sure that the real reason why the Department for Work and Pensions is so resistant to this cause is not that it does not recognise the justice of the WASPI women’s cause, so eloquently set out by the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), who has given excellent leadership on this cause through the all-party parliamentary group. Rather, behind the scenes— I do not know this, but I am sure that I am right—it is putting forward arguments along these lines: “There are so many of them; the bill will simply be too great. What’s more, they’re only going to get between £1,000 and £3,000 each, which won’t be anything like full financial compensation, so what’s the point in giving in to this demand?” I am quite sure that if the numbers were fewer and the overall bill was not so significant, we would not see this resistance to an obviously valid and viable cause.

[Tom Gordon]

Does the right hon. Member agree that we cannot put a price on justice?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I do indeed. Of course, in any event, the women realise that they will not get anything like full compensation, but they want the symbolic acceptance and acknowledgement of the injustice that they have received. As we have heard from those on both sides of the House, this resistance puts at stake the credibility of the ombudsman system itself. Undermining that will have a knock-on effect: in many future cases, the bill for implementing an ombudsman’s recommendations and findings will not be anything like as large, but people and institutions will be emboldened to defy the ombudsman.

One of the best short summaries of the case was put forward in a previous Labour manifesto, which said:

“a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age changed without fair notification. This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans—with sometimes devastating personal consequences.

Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered.”

Admittedly, that was the 2019 manifesto, and Labour at that time was led by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but that does not mean that the manifesto was wrong in what it said. It was absolutely right in its summary and its recognition that something must be done.

Indeed, when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was in opposition in the last Parliament, she was cautious in what she said about the ombudsman’s report, but she did acknowledge the following:

“we will take time to give the report proper consideration too, and continue to listen respectfully to those involved, as we have done from the start.”

She added:

“we won’t be able to right every wrong overnight.”

That would have been the basis for at least an attempt to give the symbolic redress and acknowledgement that I think most fair-minded people agree is due.

If the Government had come back and said, “We can’t implement the ombudsman’s recommendations in full at the moment, but we shall try and do it in stages, or over a period, or will at least go some way towards a symbolic acceptance of the wrong that has been done,” I think most reasonable people would have understood the situation and have been willing to at least consider some sort of compromise.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Member agree that this is an issue of not just policy, but dignity? These women’s voices must be heard, and the Government have a responsibility to honour commitments made, to give fair treatment, and to ensure that something is done.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Yes. In a way, the Government have fallen between two stools. The report, as we have heard, anticipated that the Government would be reluctant to the right the wrong done to so many people at once, but nevertheless the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman felt that justice required compensation to be paid. It knew that there would be this Government resistance, so it must have meant a lot to the ombudsman to still go down this highly unusual route of trying to present its report directly to Parliament, because it felt it would not get far by dealing with the Government directly.

One might have expected the Government to offer a scheme that fell some way short of the ombudsman’s recommendation, but their outright rejection of any restitution at all is rather insulting to the women whose complaint was upheld by the ombudsman. As we have heard, despite the DWP claiming to accept the findings, and even apologising for its maladministration, it is not offering a penny in restitution, and is relying in its response on a deeply unconvincing polling exercise that supposedly found that nine out of 10 of the affected women knew in advance that their state pension age was going to change. If that was the case, why did so many of them carry on as if nothing was going to change at all? A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) asked about the nature of the sampling that was done; only some 200 women born in the 1950s were included in the sample of nearly 2,000 people surveyed, which led to that misleading result.

I know the Minister has a great deal of expertise and a strong track record on issues of this sort from his former career, before he came to this House. I therefore appeal to him to at least reach out the hand of negotiation and discussion; to accept the offer that reasonable people are making to the Government; and to sit down and talk to them, and not to let the whole thing go through the courts, which would lead to an adversarial deepening of hostility and, inevitably, a less desirable outcome for everyone concerned.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Brian Leishman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Gentleman is welcome to choose his tone; I will continue to the end of my comments. My job is to come and explain the Government’s decision, and to be held accountable for it. That is what I am doing today, and what I will continue to do over the course of my remarks. It is right that the Government are then asked questions about their decision; that is the nature of this democracy, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said.

An important consideration in the Government making this decision was that evidence showed that sending people unsolicited letters is unlikely to affect what they know. That is why letters are sent only as part of wider communication campaigns. This evidence was not properly considered by the ombudsman. Another consideration was that the great majority of 1950s-born women were aware of the state pension age changing, if not of a change in their specific state pension age, as several hon. Members have pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned the statistic of 43%, referring to the 2024 rather than 2023 survey. However, as she will know, that refers to all women, including some women as young as 16; if we look at the cohort of women born in the 1950s, the figure is far, far higher. On those and other grounds, we rejected the ombudsman’s approach to injustice and remedy.

Members will be aware that litigation is live, so I will not go into lots more detail on the research evidence, which is the core of that litigation. I will just say two things: first, our decision was based on published research reports, which were robust and met professional standards; secondly, the same awareness research, which the right hon. Member for New Forest East disparaged, was used by the ombudsman.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister explain to the House why not one single speech in this debate until his has taken the line that he is taking? Everyone who has spoken in this debate believes that some compensation, at least symbolically, should be paid.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I am a liberal man. People will come to different views on the evidence. There are many Members in the House who have campaigned powerfully on this issue over many years, and I respect the work they have done on that. I am setting out a different view from the one that the right hon. Member has taken. That is the nature of policy choice, the nature of accountability, and the nature of this debate.

The ombudsman is clear that redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact, as it did in the case of the Equitable Life compensation scheme that an hon. Member mentioned. And they spell out the challenges of assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women, not least given that it took the ombudsman nearly six years to look at just six cases. The reality is that assessing them would take thousands of staff very many years. We gave detailed thought to whether we could design a fair and feasible compensation scheme. However, most of the schemes that were suggested would not focus on women who lost opportunities as a result of the delay in sending letters. Rule-based schemes, such as that suggested by the Work and Pensions Committee, would make payments on the basis of the likes of age rather than injustice. Simply playing a flat rate to all 3.5 million women born in the 1950s, irrespective of any injustice, is also hard to justify.

Fundamentally, though, our decision was not only driven by cost—to answer directly the question of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank)—but by the fact that we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy for the reasons that I have set out. Indeed, our commitment to pensioners can be seen in the significant fiscal investments that we are making in our priorities for pensioners, including raising the state pension and rescuing the NHS.

Welfare Reform

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend is a huge champion of these issues, and I have long championed what unpaid family carers do. As she says, many do not even think they are a carer; they are just a husband, wife, son, daughter, mum or dad looking after the person they love. I want to reassure her, as I said in my statement, that existing PIP claimants and all those who get passported benefits, like carers, will be protected as a result of the changes we have made. Indeed, I know my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary wants to do far more to support family carers in future because without them, our NHS would collapse.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that, while necessary at the time of covid, the removal of the requirement for face-to-face assessments was an opening of the door to potential abuse? If so, will she commit in principle to the reinstatement of face-to-face assessments?

[Liz Kendall]

That is exactly what we committed to in our Green Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am looking forward to answering questions about these matters in front of the Committee on Wednesday morning. We are working very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the health and care needs of people who lose benefits as a result of this process are met.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Do Ministers agree with the Trussell Trust’s recent estimate that the weekly cost of basic essentials is £120 for a single person and £205 for a couple?

[Alison McGovern]

Through the child poverty taskforce, we have been looking at the issue of incomes versus expenditures. We are taking steps urgently where we are able, but we will have more to say about that issue shortly.

Mansion House Accord

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for Leeds and for Britain every single week in this Chamber, and everything she said is completely right. The job of the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank is to work with our nations and regions to ensure that projects can be de-risked and supported and that a wide range of private investors can come in behind that and make sure change actually happens, so that this becomes a country that invests in its future once again.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

At a time when we have been commemorating a significant anniversary of VE Day, does the Minister share my concern that certain large pension firms are refusing to invest in profitable defence industries on spurious ethical grounds? Is that something that his pensions investment review might care to investigate?

[Torsten Bell]

I hear the point the right hon. Gentleman raises, and we have had those debates in this Chamber in recent months. The UK Government are doing what they need to do to invest in our security and defence and to support our defence industry more generally. We have made it very clear that private investment in those sectors is the right thing to do for our national security and our national economic growth. So far today, there have been calls for mandation and calls to oppose any mandation. There are choices available within pension funds for savers. The vast majority of funds—I think it is 99% within the National Employment Savings Trust, for example—invest in the broad defaults and do invest in the likes of defence companies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising her constituents’ concerns and say to them that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the beginning of this session, we have this week announced a broader review of the PIP assessment process that I hope in due course, and by working with stakeholders, will be able to give my hon. Friend’s constituents and stakeholder organisations considerable reassurance.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Can the Minister explain why it appears that telephone assessments for PIP have a significantly higher success rate in applications than face-to-face applications?

[Andrew Western]

I am not able to explain the reason for that difference, but I am able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are looking to move away from telephone appointments and return as quickly as possible to assessments made face to face wherever we are able to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend’s important point, which to some extent has already been raised, shows how the health and disability benefits system needs to be reformed. Disabled people should have the same right to work and the same opportunities and chances as everybody else. Many disabled people like Jim want the chance to work, but they face barriers, including in the benefits system, that make it very difficult for them to do so. We are determined to change the system to get over those barriers.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am sure that the Minister appreciates the important role of learning disability nurses in maximising the potential of people with learning disabilities. Will he therefore have a word with his Treasury colleagues about the differential effect of the rise in national insurance contributions? Learning disability nurses who work directly for the NHS are exempt; those who work for agencies contracted by the NHS are not exempt. That is an anomaly, and I would be grateful if the Minister considered talking to his colleagues about it.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am sure that the right hon. Member will raise that concern with the appropriate colleagues of mine. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the value of the work of learning disability nurses, whoever their employer is. We are determined that they should have better support to enable people with learning disabilities who want to work to do so.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

At a rough count, there are in excess of 50 colleagues here from a range of parties. I hope every one of them pledges to join the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women, ably led by the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey).

This boils down to a question of credibility and respect. What credibility and respect can there be for ombudsmen’s reports if they are ignored? What credibility and respect can there be for Members of Parliament, ranging from the now Prime Minister to foot soldiers such as me, who parade with placards saying we will fight and campaign on behalf of the WASPI women, if we do not follow through on those commitments?

I want to raise one particular point that bothers me, and then I will let others continue the debate. In trying to justify their policy of inaction, the Government seem to be oscillating between two positions: on the one hand, they keep suggesting that they simply cannot afford to give any compensation at all, but in the next breath they seem almost to be challenging the contents of the ombudsman’s report, relying on a dodgy poll that suggests that 90% of the affected women knew about the changes. Well, if the Government can rely on dodgy polls, so can I. I happen to be married to a WASPI woman, and on a dodgy poll of one I can tell the Government that she did not know and did not get a letter, and she has no particular motivation for claiming otherwise, given that it would not have affected her career choices. The Minister needs to be clear when he sums up: do the Government accept that there was maladministration, as the report sets out, or are they trying to deny that fact?

In paragraph 20 of the report, the ombudsman says:

“While it is unusual for organisations we investigate not to accept and act on our recommendations, we have no powers to compel them to comply. When an organisation does not comply with our recommendations, we can lay a report before Parliament so that Parliament can act to protect citizens’ rights.”

That is what the ombudsman expects, and that is what the WASPI women have every right to expect too.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, which is that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work—even if it ever did. We need to provide tailored information in an accessible way—in an easily understood and available format. We will work extremely closely with all the necessary groups to develop that information, and, crucially, give sufficient notice. The ombudsman’s report deals with the decisions made between 2004 and 2007, but what greatly concerned many women and led to the original WASPI campaign was the decision in 2011 to accelerate and bring forward increases in the state pension age. Therefore, that other commitment to give sufficient and timely notice so that people can properly plan for their retirement is extremely important.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Secretary of State says in her statement: “Research given to the ombudsman shows only around a quarter of people who are sent unsolicited letters actually remember receiving and reading them.” I would like to know the terms of that research. Did it, for example, say on the envelope, “Important financial information affecting your pension”? If something like that were on an envelope, I think that there would be a very different response rate. Given that she is having trouble accepting that people look at serious letters that really affect them, perhaps the Chancellor could use some of her ability to get these messages across, as was so successful in the case of advising pensioners that they would be losing the winter fuel allowance.

[Liz Kendall]

I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman about this research and its findings, which are robust. I reflect on the fact that three of the sample cases that the ombudsman looked into had received a letter, but I am more than happy to provide him with the details of that research.

Disability History Month

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing the debate and leading it with such a wealth of knowledge and experience? I think we all benefited greatly from her presentation. This is a slightly unusual debate, because it is the first one that I can recall in recent times when the splendid hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was the first Back Bencher to be called; that is a little bit of an in-joke, but most people familiar with his wonderful but very frequent contributions will understand what I mean.

I was encouraged to take part in this debate by the fine example of the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who chairs the APPG on eye health and visual impairment. I know she is very disappointed that she cannot be here today, but I understand that there is a visitation in her constituency of the sort that no MP can refuse to attend. I should like to record my gratitude to her pleasant and dedicated team for supplying me with some very helpful information, which I now intend to deploy. According to the charity Scope, there are well over 16,000 people living with a disability in my constituency of New Forest East, and I should like to say a few words to honour their efforts to work and live well despite the challenges that they face.

Disability History Month is now an annual event celebrating the history, contributions and struggles of disabled people. A motion that marked the first Disability History Month was tabled in the Commons in November 2010, signed by 79 hon. and right hon. Members, including the former Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley, and my late, great friend, Sir David Amess. Among other things, the motion called upon schools, colleges, universities, local authorities, employers, the public and the media to recognise and celebrate UK Disability History Month, and encouraged them to campaign to improve the then—and still, sadly—unequal position of disabled people in society by working towards greater equality and inclusion.

That cause has certainly been taken up by a good number of people and organisations. I am particularly lucky to have in my constituency the Minstead Trust, which works to support people with learning disabilities. It is no exaggeration to say that it is a jewel in the crown of the New Forest. I was very interested in some earlier comments by hon. Members about the importance of the work ethic for disabled people, because the Minstead Trust has acquired the wonderful Hanger Farm Arts Centre, which is a terrific facility with a tremendous programme of visiting artists and performers. It also gives work experience opportunities to the people who benefit directly from the trust, and is an outlet for some of the goods that they manufacture under the auspices of the trust. It is a terrific facility for the community as well, so there are big wins all around from that wonderful project—long may it continue.

The Minstead Trust also encourages workplaces to be inclusive in their recruitment practices, so that they can enjoy the benefits that people with learning disabilities can bring to the businesses that take them on. That is important because, as we have heard, this year’s UK Disability History Month theme is indeed livelihood and employment. We know that there are all types of benefits to working, including social benefits. Doing something that one enjoys can quell loneliness, create important social bonds and give one a sense of purpose. The benefits of including disabled people in our workplaces really are enormous.

There are many other realms, however, where inclusion could be better. The former Minister of State for the Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), understood this. She led the disability champions work across Government, where each Department of State had one Minister who was a disability champion, with a personal commitment to championing accessibility and opportunity for disabled people within their Department’s policies. The ministerial disability champions met regularly to discuss plans, such as the disability action plan, as well as the impact of the high cost of living on disabled people. I am certainly pleased that the new Government are continuing in the same vein with their disability leads in each Department.

The same former Minister also recognised that some disabled people have significant extra costs relating to expensive equipment, home adaptations and so forth that they need in order to get by. The previous Conservative Government provided a substantial cost of living support package. Nevertheless, according to the charity Scope, the disability price tag—the extra money needed by a disabled household to have the same standard of living as a non-disabled household—in my constituency is well over £900.

We all know that it is not just extra financial costs that disabled people face. Almost three quarters of disabled people in my constituency are estimated to have experienced negative attitudes. Although a great many people in local schools, health providers, businesses and community centres are knowledgeable and respectful of the challenges facing the disabled community, it is also true that when we look at the national picture, outdated attitudes towards disabled people sometimes spill over into harassment and abuse. Disabled people are more likely to be the victims of crime and are twice as likely to experience harassment than non-disabled people. Disabled women are more than three times as likely to experience domestic abuse. I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members are united on the need to end that, and I look forward to seeing what the Minister will do to work with his colleagues to ensure that the police and other services take a comprehensive and informed view when tackling abuse against disabled people.

It is not a simple subject. Victims of disability hate crime, discrimination, or sexual violence can have their experiences compounded by the double or triple discrimination that they face as women, as people of colour or for some other identifying factor, but there are charities led by disabled people who can provide expert advice and information about how better to support disabled people who are at risk of harm. I hope the Minister will say something about how his Government will work with such specialist charities.

I would like to pay personal tribute to those Members of Parliament who are living with disabilities. It was significant to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) explain the extra burden, in addition to the normal burdens of being an assiduous Member of Parliament, her hearing loss has caused. I said at the beginning that I was encouraged to take part in this debate by the hon. Member for Battersea, who I regard as a personal friend. I find the way that she copes with her eye disability absolutely inspiring.

I speak from a little personal knowledge, because when I was an undergraduate I lost 18 months after a severe allergic reaction to some eyedrops, which prevented my being able to read. When one is a student at university that is a bit of a problem—

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Order. We are running over and need to get other speakers in.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Sorry. I remember once, before I knew it would come right—as it finally did—walking past the Palace of Westminster and thinking ruefully, “To think I thought I would ever get to be a Member of Parliament!” I got over that problem, and I did get to be a Member of Parliament. I take off my hat to those MPs with far worse disabilities—permanent disabilities—who nevertheless have joined this place and contribute so much to its proceedings.