Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Debate between Liz Kendall and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into the way that changes in the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s.

The state pension is the foundation for a secure retirement. That is why this Government are committed to the pensions triple lock, which will increase the new state pension by more than £470 a year from this April and deliver an additional £31 billion of spending over the course of this Parliament, and it is why Governments of all colours have a responsibility to ensure that changes to the state pension age are properly communicated so that people can plan for their retirement.

Before I turn to the Government’s response to the ombudsman’s report, I want to be clear about what this report investigated, and what it did not. The report is not an investigation into the actual decision to increase the state pension age for women in 1995 or to accelerate that increase in 2011—a decision that the then Conservative Chancellor George Osborne said

“probably saved more money than anything else we’ve done”.

That comment understandably angered many women and sparked the original Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. The ombudsman is clear that policy decisions to increase the state pension age in 1995 and since were taken by Parliament and considered lawful by the courts. This investigation was about how changes in the state pension age were communicated by the Department for Work and Pensions, and the impact this may have had on the ability of women born in the 1950s to plan for their retirement.

I know that this is an issue of huge concern to many women that has spanned multiple Parliaments. Like so many other problems that we have inherited from the Conservatives, this is something that the previous Government should have dealt with. Instead, they kicked the can down the road and left us to pick up the pieces, but today we deal with it head-on. The Pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds)—and I have given the ombudsman’s report serious consideration and looked in detail at the findings, and at information and advice provided by the Department that was not available to us before coming into Government.

The then ombudsman looked at six cases. He found that the Department provided adequate and accurate information on changes to the state pension age between 1995 and 2004, including through leaflets and pensions education campaigns and on its website. However, decisions made between 2005 and 2007 led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters to women born in the 1950s. The ombudsman says that these delays did not result in the women suffering direct financial loss but that they were maladministration.

We accept that the 28-month delay in sending out letters was maladministration, and on behalf of the Government, I apologise. This Government are determined to learn all the lessons from what went wrong, and I will say more about that in a moment. We also agree that the women suffered no direct financial loss because of the maladministration. However, we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy, and I want to spell out why.

First, the report does not properly take into account research showing that there was actually considerable awareness that the state pension age was increasing. It references research from 2004 showing that 43% of women aged over 16 were aware of their state pension age, but it does not sufficiently recognise evidence from the same research that 73% of women aged 45 to 54—the very group that covers women born in the 1950s—were aware that the state pension age was increasing, or research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing.

Secondly, the report says that if letters had been sent out earlier, it would have affected what women knew about the state pension age. However, we do not agree that sending letters earlier would have had the impact that the ombudsman says. Research given to the ombudsman shows that only around a quarter of people who are sent unsolicited letters actually remember receiving them or reading them, so we cannot accept that, in the great majority of cases, sending a letter earlier would have affected whether women knew that their state pension age was rising or increased their opportunity to make informed decisions.

These two facts—that most women knew the state pension age was increasing and that letters are not as significant as the ombudsman says—as well as other reasons, have informed our conclusion that there should be no scheme of financial compensation to 1950s-born women in response to the ombudsman’s report.

The ombudsman says that, as a matter of principle, redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact. However, the report itself acknowledges that assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women born in the 1950s would have a significant cost and administrative burden. It has taken the ombudsman nearly six years to investigate the circumstances of six sample complaints. For the DWP to set up a scheme and invite 3.5 million women to set out their detailed personal circumstances would take thousands of staff years to process.

Even if there were a scheme in which women could self-certify that they were not aware of changes to their state pension age and that they had suffered as a result, it would be impossible to verify the information provided. The alternative put forward in the report is a flat-rate compensation scheme at level 4 of the ombudsman’s scale of injustice. This would provide £1,000 to £2,950 per person, at a total cost of between £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion.

Given that the vast majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing, the Government do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women, at a cost of up to £10.5 billion, would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money, not least when the previous Government failed to set aside a single penny for any compensation scheme and left us a £22 billion black hole in the public finances.

This has been an extremely difficult decision to take, but we believe it is the right course of action, and we are determined to learn all the lessons to ensure that this type of maladministration never happens again. First, we want to work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan out of the report, so that every and all lessons are learned. Secondly, we are committed to setting clear and sufficient notice of any changes in the state pension age, so that people can properly plan for their retirement. Thirdly, I have tasked officials to develop a strategy for effective, timely and modern communication on the state pension that uses the most up-to-date methods, building on changes that have already been made, such as the online “check your state pension” service that gives a personal forecast of a person’s state pension, including when they can take it, because one size rarely fits all.

As I said, we have not taken this decision lightly, but we believe it is the right decision because the great majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing, because sending letters earlier would not have made a difference for most, and because the proposed compensation scheme is not fair or value for taxpayers’ money.

I know there are women born in the 1950s who want and deserve a better life. They have worked hard in paid jobs and in bringing up their families. Many are struggling financially with the cost of living and fewer savings to fall back on. They worry about their health and how their children and grandchildren will get on.

To those women I say: this Government will protect the pensions triple lock, so your state pension will increase by up to £1,900 a year by the end of this Parliament; we will drive down waiting lists, so you get the treatment you need, with an extra £22 billion of funding for the NHS this year and next; and we will deliver the jobs, homes and opportunities your families need to build a better life. I know that many 1950s-born women will be disappointed about this specific decision, but we believe it is the right decision and the fair decision. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I can assure my hon. Friend’s constituents in Clwyd North that we want to learn all the lessons from the maladministration that we accept took place. We have to get people timely, effective and personal communication, and not just about their state pension age but about all aspects of pensions, so that they can properly plan for their retirement. The Pensions Minister and I will go through that with a fine-toothed comb to do everything possible to make sure it does not happen again.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

First, and for the record, the Liberal Democrats played a significant part in government in introducing the triple lock for our pensioners—it is important that people acknowledge that.

The Government’s decision is nothing short of a betrayal of WASPI women. I know that, as in my constituency of Torbay, across the United Kingdom there will be millions of women who are shocked and horrified at that decision. That the Government have inherited an awful state for our economy is no excuse. That the women are being hit by the mistakes of the Tories and that the Labour Government are now using that as a shield is utterly wrong-headed. Will the Secretary of State reflect on the decision?

The matter went to the ombudsman for its considered review, and the Liberal Democrats have long supported the ombudsman’s findings. I am shocked that the Government are taking a pick-and-mix approach to those findings, and we therefore ask the Secretary of State to seriously reconsider the decision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liz Kendall and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

If you can work, you must work, and if you repeatedly refuse to, sanctions will remain, but I know from young people in my constituency that they are desperate to get the skills and opportunities that they need. Unlike the Conservative party, that is what our youth guarantee will deliver.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is good to hear Front-Benchers being so positive about their White Paper, much of which we are pretty familiar with. Let us look through some of the measures. The integration of employment and health support—we were doing that when we were in government. It was called WorkWell. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) led on it. What is the youth guarantee that we have been hearing about? According to the White Paper, it

“brings together a range of existing entitlements”.

It is a very familiar set of policies. The fact is that the Government’s White Paper is just a rehash of existing support, and a bit of money with no strings attached. There is, however, one thing that the last Government were doing that this Government are not: strengthening the conditionality for benefits. The Secretary of State says that she will continue the existing sanctions, but what new measures will she introduce to ensure that people who can work will work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Member is laughing at his own chutzpah. I am happy to talk about the past 14 years, but the work capability assessment is not working. It needs to be reformed or replaced. That is what we said in our manifesto, and we will bring forward our proposals in a Green Paper in the spring. That has to be part of a bigger programme to help people with long-term health conditions and disabilities into work. That is what our “Get Britain Working” White Paper does, and I am happy to discuss it with him more in future.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I hope the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating Chris McCausland and Dianne Buswell on their victory on “Strictly” this weekend. In the light of that victory, how does she plan to make the Access to Work scheme more fit for purpose, so that it can help more people with disabilities reach their full potential?

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

The “Get Britain Working” White Paper rightly says that

“people deserve the opportunity to thrive and that sports, arts and culture are crucial to achieving this goal”,

especially for those with disabilities. The Sovereign centre in Eastbourne, where I learned to swim, provides vital sports and leisure opportunities that will help serve that aim. With the future of two of its pools being considered, does the Minister agree that to best honour the aims of the White Paper, Eastbourne borough council should engage with all interested providers who may be able to protect our fun and training pools at the centre before making any final decisions on the next steps?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not sure that was a relevant question, as well as the hon. Member shoehorned it in. Secretary of State, do you want to answer? It is up to you.

[Liz Kendall]

I believe that sport, as well as art and culture, can play a huge role in engaging and inspiring people, helping them on the pathway to skills, confidence and jobs. I want to see that provision enhanced in future, because we are determined to have that at the national partnership level, and it needs to happen locally, too, to get people working and earning again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liz Kendall and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Just last week I visited a very large employer in my constituency, Tesco, and saw the fantastic work that it is doing with the King’s Trust to ensure that more people get into work and stay in work. It is determined to work with us and our local schools, and employment and other providers, because they know that rather than writing off nearly a million young people, which led to the situation that we inherited, this new Government have a plan to get people into work, enable them to get on in work, and ensure that every young person has the chance in life that he or she deserves.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the new shadow Secretary of State, and welcome her to her post.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

May I say how nice it is to be sitting opposite the right hon. Lady again, albeit, regrettably, having swapped places with her? I enjoyed our exchanges on social care during the last Parliament, and appreciated our constructive conversations during the pandemic, although, given how well she knows the care brief, I suspect that she was gutted, as I was, to see the incoming Government abandon the care cap and scrap more than £50 million of funding for social care training. The consistent feedback from jobcentres was that the biggest barrier to young people taking up job opportunities in social care was lack of career progression, hence our reforms to create a career path for care workers and investment in training. Has the right hon. Lady spoken to her counterpart in the Department of Health and Social Care about the impact of those social care cuts on her ambitions to get more young people working or learning?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did make the suggestion that you might come to the end of your question, but you decided to carry on reading, so I will have to stop you. I call the Secretary of State.

[Liz Kendall]

I am very proud of a Budget that invests in the long-term growth that this country needs, that gives a pay rise to the 3 million lowest-paid workers, and that invests in the NHS so that people can get back to health and back to work. That is the change that this country desperately needs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Liz Kendall and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has focused over many years on health and healthcare issues, and I would say to him that we are in this situation because his Government left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. Unlike Conservative Members, we take our responsibilities seriously, and I would urge him to work with his councils—they have received £7.1 million in Hampshire and £5.3 million in Surrey from the household support fund—to make sure that all pensioners get the money they are entitled to.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I welcome the work that my right hon. Friend is doing in ensuring that the uptake of pension credit is increased, but there are genuine concerns about people who are just above that threshold who will remain in poverty—just under a quarter of a million in the north-west alone. In addition to the fantastic commitment there has been through the household support fund, will my right hon. Friend be undertaking any other mitigations to ensure that those pensioners living in poverty, particularly disabled pensioners, will not fall foul of this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I would urge all hon. Members in this House to work with their local councils, as I am doing, to make sure that those on housing benefit and other pensioners know what they are entitled to, and to make sure that their councils know that the household support fund—the £421 million we have set aside this year, despite all the problems we face—is also available to those pensioners just above the pension credit level.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

There are 200,000 more pensioners in poverty, and I am happy to put those figures into the public domain to set the record straight. The savings we have put forward take into account the increase in uptake that we foresee. Unlike Conservative Members, we are determined and will do everything possible—they should perhaps ask themselves why they first announced the merger of pension credit and housing benefit in 2012 and then put it off until 2028—to change things and get people the money they are entitled to. We will bring that forward to ensure that all the poorest pensioners get what they are entitled to.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson Steve Darling.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

There are 2.7 million pensioners over the age of 80 who would have benefited from the £300 winter fuel allowance. They are among the most vulnerable in our society. The right hon. Lady is right to say that the previous Government let them down, but let us not add insult to injury and have the new Government let them down. Can she reassure the House that she will reverse the regressive approach that she has taken to the winter fuel allowance, and not hit the most vulnerable people who are over 80?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I met representatives of the WASPI campaign before this Government were elected. My hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions was the first Minister to meet them in eight years. It really is a serious report that requires serious consideration. We will do everything possible to get this issue resolved as soon as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

On 10 September, two days before recess, I led a debate in this Chamber, secured by the Conservative party, on the winter fuel allowance. The right hon. Lady spoke just now about transparency, but there was no equality impact assessment made available for that debate. Indeed, on 30 August, by way of a written question, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) established that the Government had no intention of publishing that particular report. Yet on 13 September—two days after the debate and the vote, and one day after Parliament had risen—the report was made available. It was clearly, in my opinion, deliberately withheld. Does the right hon. Lady agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are topical questions, so please can we keep them short? I have to try and get through the list to help others.

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend has raised these issues with me before, and I will absolutely meet children, families and child poverty organisations from her constituency. We aim to visit every region and every devolved nation as part of that strategy, and I look forward to meeting her and her constituents then.