Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her passionate speech. My friend, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), made a very pertinent point earlier: the fundamental issue here is Government accountability—the ability of this place and citizens to hold the Government to account when they get something wrong. What we are seeing today is that accountability mechanism—that framework —being demolished before our very eyes. If the mechanisms that have been developed to hold Government to account are rendered impotent, which is what has happened to the ombudsman, that damages the very heart of democracy itself. That is how important this issue is.

The ombudsman was clear: these women suffered injustice, and compensation was owed to them. It was also clear that the Government should act on that, and it made the very rare decision to place its report, not before the Department for Work and Pensions, but before this place. It did that because it felt that the Department—under all Governments, not just this Government—was not capable of delivering justice for the women affected. And it was right, because what we have seen is a complete dismissal of the injustice that these women have suffered. Now, I do not believe that that is the intention of the Minister or of the Government, but they have the opportunity now to change course.

There is a very real prospect of a High Court judicial review. That will result in significant legal costs on the part of the Government—legal costs that they will have to justify to the taxpayer, given that the ombudsman’s report was very clear that compensation was owed. So will the Minister now look again at the case for compensation?

[Graham Stringer in the Chair]

[Sir John Hayes]

I rise for two purposes. The first is to put it on the record that the hon. Lady, alongside others, has made an outstanding contribution to this campaign; she has been a notable figure in this process. The second is to make a suggestion that she might put to the Government: why do the Government not meet a small delegation of MPs from all parties with a group of WASPI women? Let us see if we can thrash this out in a way that allows the Government to get off the hook and allows the WASPI women to receive the satisfaction they so richly deserve.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I completely agree with the right hon. Member. The all-party parliamentary group on this issue has extended an invitation to the Minister. We will of course widen the invitation to include women’s groups in accordance with the right hon. Member’s suggestion. The invitation is there. That would be a very good starting place because ultimately the only justice that can be secured is justice that involves the women themselves. To listen to what they want to propose to the Government would be a good starting place.

I want to ask the Minister a few questions. Given the prospect of a High Court judicial review, presumably when issuing the decision not to compensate, the Government must have carried out, if they were acting diligently, a legal risk assessment of the prospect of the success of potential future legal action. If that is the case, will the Minister place before the House a copy of that legal advice so that we can see what the Government considered at the time? Does he accept the ombudsman’s proposal that Ministers and MPs intervene to ensure justice is delivered, and does he agree that it would be prudent for the Government to make time for a parliamentary debate so that MPs across this House can have a vote on the issue on a non-partisan basis, as was intimated by the ombudsman?

Finally, will the Minister look again at the case for compensation? As I have stressed, I do not believe it is his intention to undermine democracy; nor is that the intention of the Government. Given the prospect of legal action, now would be an opportune time for the Minister to meet the groups that are campaigning on behalf of women and look at the different compensation mechanisms and mediation proposals that have been suggested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

The fact that people were widely aware that the state pension age was rising is indicative that it was not news to most people, even if they had not got the details on their specific circumstances. The 2006 research is now also the subject of live litigation, so I will resist the temptation to dive into the details, beyond directly addressing the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) on the sample sized used in that survey. Returning to my old expertise in this area, the confidence intervals provided in that survey are certainly small enough to make it clear that a clear majority were aware that the state pension age was changing, so I do not think it is right to cast aspersions on that survey.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

One of the datasets that the Government rely on to make their assertions, specifically the 90% figure, actually includes women who were not born in the 1950s. Can the Minister give us an exact figure as to how many women in that 90% category responded to the survey?

[Torsten Bell]

The 90% figure refers to the age group that best overlaps with women born in the 1950s, so that is the best available figure from that survey.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Torsten Bell]

I will make some progress because I have given the best answer that I can to my hon. Friend’s question.

The ombudsman is clear that redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact, but it also acknowledges the challenges of assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women, as recognised by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) a few moments ago. It took the ombudsman nearly six years to look at just six cases; doing so for millions would take years and thousands of DWP staff.

In answer my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), we considered a range of compensation options for women who lost opportunities as a result of the delay in sending letters. For example, we considered rules-based schemes, such as that which the Work and Pensions Committee suggested, and we also considered the possibility of paying limited compensation to a smaller group of women—for example, those on pension credit, as suggested by the hon. Member for Eastleigh.

However, many of those schemes would mean compensating women who were aware that the state pension age was increasing. Payments would not relate directly to the injustice in question but to benefit entitlement or the timeline for the policy change. Paying a flat rate to all 3.5 million women, regardless of whether they suffered injustice, would be neither fair nor proportionate. It would also not be affordable, as such compensation schemes would cost up to £10.5 billion. To directly address the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), the Government’s decision was not driven purely by cost.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who—as I know from working with him on other campaigns—is quite the social justice warrior, contrary to popular belief. I fully align myself with the comments he has made. I also welcome the new Minister to his position. We have high hopes for him in this place.

When the ombudsman finally confirmed last year that the Department for Work and Pensions was guilty of maladministration, that these woman had suffered injustice and that they were entitled to compensation, we thought that was it—case closed; the next step would be what a redress mechanism would look like. Of course, many felt that the ombudsman’s report had not gone far enough, but we had the firm expectancy that the previous Government, and later this one, would at the very least act on the ombudsman’s recommendations, as would be the usual course of action.

So when the Government finally issued their response, it was met with shock—shock that despite the clear findings of state-level injustice, these women were to be denied justice; shock that the ombudsman’s findings that too many people did not understand their own situations was ignored by the Government; and shock that while, on the one hand, maladministration was accepted, the recommendations of the ombudsman were rejected in full, without alternative proposals being set out or there being an opportunity to vote or debate the matter in Parliament, as the ombudsman intimated.

There were also fears, as colleagues have stated, that a precedent might now be set on observing an ombudsman’s proposals. Usually, when a state-level injustice is found, a Government of the time will act on an ombudsman’s proposals or outline their own alternative ones.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

The work the Government are doing to improve transparency and accountability contrasts with what happened under the previous Administration, but does the hon. Lady agree that if they ignore an independent ombudsman’s report, it just looks like more of the same to people in my constituency?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

It is incredibly worrying.

I do not want to test your patience, Dr Murrison, so I will draw my comments to a close by saying this to the Minister. He must be aware that the ombudsman made the rare choice to lay this report before Parliament because it was not reassured that the Department for Work and Pensions would act on its recommendations, and it was right to have that fear. The Minister must understand that although many of us in this place wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s apology to the impacted women and acknowledge the difficult financial landscape the Government find themselves in, state-level injustice is state-level injustice. It cannot be ignored, and an apology alone is not sufficient. A remedy must be forthcoming to address the clear and apparent injustice that these women have faced.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I met the WASPI campaign in opposition when I was appointed shadow Work and Pensions Minister. The Minister for Pensions was the first of her kind to meet the WASPI campaign for eight years, and she is happy to meet them again. I say to the hon. Lady, who feels very deeply about the issue, that we will learn all the lessons from what went wrong with the delay in sending the letters out, but we do not agree that even if we had done that, they would have made the difference that the ombudsman claims. This is not about the matter being too complicated; we do not believe that, when 90% of women aged 45 to 54 knew the state pension age was increasing, a flat-rate compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)]

The all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality has found that huge numbers of women have suffered significant financial hardship; many have even lost their homes. The Secretary of State must realise that her apology is welcome, but that it is not enough for them. Frankly, it is unprecedented for a Government to agree with the findings of an ombudsman on the one hand, but, on the other, to refuse to initiate redress when clear injustice has occurred. What will the Secretary of State say to reassure those women who have lost everything?

[Liz Kendall]

I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend raises, but I reiterate the findings from the ombudsman’s report that there was no direct financial loss. We agree that those letters should have been sent out earlier. We will learn all the lessons needed to put that right. I am more than happy to discuss precisely how we will do that with the all-party parliamentary group, so that that kind of maladministration of sending out letters never happens again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western]

I would very much welcome such an initiative being brought forward in the hon. Member’s constituency of Newbury. He may also be pleased to know that there is the potential for a youth hub to open in Newbury, similar to that in Oxford, which was grant funded and is already in operation.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)]

8. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of levels of pension contributions for auto-enrolled pensions for lower earners.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)]

Due to the introduction of auto-enrolment, which is at least one policy that has cross-party support—it was legislated for by the last Labour Government and was taken forward by the coalition Government—there has been a 92% increase in the number of employees saving into a workplace pension scheme since 2012, which is over 10 million people saving for a pension who were not saving previously.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The Minister will be aware that around 10% of people automatically enrolled into workplace pension schemes choose to opt out, often due to low pay and cost of living pressures, leaving them losing out not only on building up their contributions, but on the top-ups of their employers. Would the Minister consider a simple tweak and allow employer contributions, which would have been due in any event, to continue in such opt-out circumstances?

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which is indeed an interesting idea. It is one that was put forward recently by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and I will consider it. In the pension schemes Bill, which we will introduce next year, low earners with multiple small pots will have those pots consolidated, so that the money works better for them and gives them a better retirement in the future.

Food Banks

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for his passionate and articulate contribution.

In Salford, we have some amazing and dedicated people running food banks and networks, but they should not need to exist. Charities and good people should not have to step in to provide for the most fundamental human need in one of the richest economies in the world. We know the cause of this crisis: 14 years of austerity-driven spending cuts, labour market casualisation and welfare reform, hammering the poorest and most vulnerable. Today, there are millions of children across our country who are going to bed hungry.

A previous Chancellor, Gordon Brown, who championed the eradication of child poverty, understood the policy-driven agenda of the previous Government. He said:

Since 2010, you’ve had the two-child rule. You’ve had the benefit cap. You’ve had Housing Benefit limits imposed. You’ve had this series of deductions which have become very widespread so that half of the people receiving benefits were having deductions. So, at every point, plus the freezing of benefits including child benefit, you’ve got people being made worse off.

During his time in government, ending child poverty was a key mission. He believed that it was possible in his lifetime, and frankly it still is. I welcome the Minister’s hard work on this issue and I know she agrees wholeheartedly. The Government’s child poverty taskforce is welcome and so too is the strengthening of workplace and trade union rights. These initiatives will take time, and there are immediate actions that charities are strongly encouraging the Government to take. That includes ending the two-child limit and developing a long-term scheme and funding settlement for local crisis support after the current household support fund ends. It also includes implementing an essentials guarantee that would introduce a protected minimum floor in universal credit, to ensure that families facing hardship do not go without essentials such as food and fuel. It includes extending free school meals to all primary-school children and setting out plans to address holiday hunger after the latest funding for the holiday activities and food programme ends. Ultimately, we need to recognise that regular daily access to affordable, safe and nutritious food should neither be a charitable act nor a luxury but a basic right.

Carer’s Allowance

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)]

I very much welcome the Minister’s opening comments. It is clear that she is fully cognisant of many of the issues that I am about to raise. I also welcome the announcement of the independent Government review of carer’s allowance overpayments, which I hope will be carried out urgently. I hope it will consider writing off substantial overpayments, where it is clear that carers should have been notified sooner.

On the wider issues faced by unpaid carers, I start by reading out an email from a constituent:

“I cared for my mother, who had Alzheimer’s and vascular dementia plus severe osteoarthritis, for several years. At the time of this, if the person requiring care was deemed capable of performing any self-care tasks, only part of the Carer’s Allowance was paid. My mother would, occasionally, wipe a flannel over her face and was therefore deemed to be capable of self-care, despite all other evidence.

Caring for someone is not a 9 to 5 job, it is often a 24 hour job, as in my case, with no break for the carer (as few are ever told about respite care). Those who manage employment outside the home are also overburdened, as they have no time to decompress from their paid employment before having to spend their time at home caring for someone.

Due to the nature of being a carer, the carer’s physical and mental health often declines and goes untreated as they often have no help with their situation from the Authorities or, should they have them, siblings. That alone can impact the carer’s own physical and mental health, but carers go unnoticed until there is a crisis.

To only receive the paltry current Carer’s Allowance, which will barely cover utilities and Council Tax, ignoring food and clothing, is an insult to people who are working far harder than most but remain unseen as it is not deemed to be a ‘real job’ and is considered ‘easy.’ Only those who have cared for another adult know this is blatantly untrue.”

Sadly, my constituent’s feelings are not rare. Many people care for their loved ones out of love and, all too often, it impacts on their ability to work, resulting in many living in poverty. A new report from Carers UK and WPI Economics found that 1.2 million unpaid carers are living in poverty, while one in 10 of all carers are in deep poverty. It is not hard to understand why, as carer’s allowance is the lowest benefit of its kind—currently, just £81.90 a week—and it is available only to carers who can prove that they provide more than 35 hours of unpaid care a week.

[Nesil Caliskan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the evidence shows that it is disproportionately women who are carers, and therefore women who experience those levels of poverty because of the low figure she mentioned?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and I agree with them.

To solve the crisis, Care UK’s modelling suggests that an immediate uplift, an increase in the earnings limit and an earnings taper would lift huge numbers out of poverty. However, a number of brutal loopholes, already highlighted by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), need to be addressed urgently, including the rules on young carers and students. Many people do not know that carer’s allowance is not paid to those studying for more than 21 hours a week. A number of young carers in Salford have told me that that means they are often excluded from any support. The pressures on them to study and care for their loved ones are immense, all while often living in extreme poverty. Sadly, many feel they have no option but to leave education aged 16.

Further, if a carer is looking after more than one person for a cumulative amount of 35 hours a week, the carer is not eligible to receive carer’s allowance. If two people share the care, each providing 35 hours a week, only one person can claim carer’s allowance.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I support the sentiment that we need more funding and support for carers—more finance, more money—but the email the hon. Lady read out powerfully showed that it is not just money that carers need. They need much broader support to give respite and relief, and to allow them to address their own mental health concerns that arise from their job, as well as support to stay in education longer, as she mentioned. Although money is important, does she agree that carers need the much wider community support that charities and other local groups can give?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Unfortunately, the ability of local authorities to reach out to carers who are struggling and directly offer them the respite care they should be entitled to has been hampered, certainly in the past 10 to 14 years. The burden of stepping in has been left to many charities. For those who live in an area with a large charitable presence, that is fantastic, but unfortunately not a lot of unpaid carers live in such areas. That is an issue that the Government must grapple with.

Another brutal issue, which is relatively unknown, is that of pensions. As far as I am aware, carer’s allowance does not get paid to those in receipt of the state pension, unless the state pension amount is lower than the weekly value of carer’s allowance. As with the pension credit threshold, at the moment a huge number of people are just over the cusp of eligibility; they live in poverty but cannot access the help they need.

There is another brutal loophole for pensioners receiving care. The Government website currently states:

“When you get Carer’s Allowance, the person you care for will usually stop getting: a severe disability premium paid with their benefits”

or

“an extra amount for severe disability paid with Pension Credit”.

That left one of my constituents, whose daughter provides care but does not live with her, in a situation where she is not entitled to the top-up in pension credit that she should be entitled to, which she needs to survive and to deal with her daily living costs as a severely disabled person.

I wanted to highlight those points, but I will bring my comments to a close as many colleagues want to speak. I welcome the encouraging comments made by my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. I encourage them to address the loopholes that have been mentioned urgently and, as I am sure they are doing already, to encourage action from the Chancellor at the upcoming Budget, so that we can provide the financial and social support our unpaid carers desperately need.

[Several hon. Members rose—]