Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Debate between Liz Kendall and Melanie Onn

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I hate to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I did not say it was only about there being no money. I said it was because we do not agree that if we had sent those letters earlier, it would have made the difference that he says, and because, when 90% of women aged 45 to 54 knew the state pension age was increasing, we do not believe a flat rate is pertinent. I say this to him: we do take the public finances seriously. We have to make difficult decisions, and we cannot spend more than we have. We will continue with that approach, but based on our values. We do not believe that what has been set out is the right or fair way forward. I have come to the House honestly to make that decision plain, but I would be happy to talk to him in more detail if he would like.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says the report is about the way this was communicated to those 1950s-born women and that earlier letters would not have made a difference, but they would have made a difference to individuals’ financial planning, their retirement dates, the notice they gave to their jobs, and the wider family arrangements and commitments they had made. There have undoubtedly been losses for those 1950s-born women. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) just gave the Government an opportunity to reconsider that at some point in the future. Is she sure that she will not take that offer?

[Liz Kendall]

I know my hon. Friend cares passionately about this issue and many other issues related to pensioners. I repeat what I said in my statement and, indeed, what the ombudsman said, which is there was no direct financial loss for the women. This is not about the increase in the state pension age; it is about how it was communicated. The research shows that only one in four people who get an unsolicited letter remember receiving or reading it, so sending those letters out earlier would not have made the difference. We cannot justify a flat-rate compensation scheme or, indeed, an individualised compensation scheme on that basis.