Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) report on Women’s State Pension Age, HC 638, published in March 2024, which found that maladministration in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) communication about the Pensions Act 1995 resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control; further notes that there will likely be a significant number of women born in the 1950s who have suffered injustice because of maladministration in DWP’s communication about the Pensions Act 1995; and also notes that, given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, the PHSO took the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene, laying their report before Parliament under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and asked Parliament to identify a mechanism for providing appropriate remedy for those who have suffered injustice.

Following last night’s horrific news, I just want to send my deepest condolences to the family of Diogo Jota and his brother, and to the city of Liverpool.

I would like to pay tribute to the thousands of fearless women who have been campaigning relentlessly to secure justice on this matter for decades now, and to remember all those women who have died waiting for justice. My personal thanks go to the campaign groups who have provided briefings to the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women, including CASPI, WASPI, WASPI 2018, CEDAWinLAW, Pension Partners 4 Justice, Pension United, WASPI Scotland and 1950s Women of Wales, as well as many individuals who have been in touch. My thanks also go to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, and to numerous colleagues across the House who have been instrumental in campaigning for the women and in securing today’s debate.

As Lord Bryn Davies, co-chair of the APPG and a pensions expert, stated:

“The UK’s pension system was designed for men, by men. It systematically favoured men, with the result that they received higher state pensions and even higher private pensions. Hence, the gender pensions gap. The only feature that favoured women was that the National Insurance pension was paid to women from aged 60, whereas it was paid to men from aged 65.”

But in 2010, that single advantage was taken away, without consultation and without regard to the other factors that meant women of that era were worse off financially and ended up with worse pensions. That was bad enough. What was worse, though, is that they were not even told about it. Many women were left destitute; some even lost their homes.

These women were already disadvantaged and discriminated against. They began work in an era when it was legal to pay female workers less than men, and often stepped out of the workforce to raise families or look after loved ones because there was no wraparound care, losing out on not only paying stamps but paying into a private pension. Overnight, these disgraceful changes were dumped on them without their knowledge. Many had already handed in their notice at work, and in many cases they were forced to exist on meagre welfare benefits that left them living a hand-to-mouth existence.

Hundreds of women began to raise the alarm. When the previous Government failed to take action, they escalated their complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which began a lengthy investigation spanning years, although it chose to focus on a sample of only six cases. Its report, published in March last year, uncovered internal Department for Work and Pensions memos from 2005 showing that officials knew that considerable numbers of women were unaware of the planned changes. While many women feel that the report did not go far enough on suggested redress, and that it was too limited in the cases that it assessed, it confirmed what the women already knew: that they had suffered injustice, that the DWP was guilty of maladministration in failing to properly communicate changes, and that redress was duly owed.

When the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions responded to the report in December, there was genuine hope that the scandal would finally end—it was there, in black and white. Sadly, it did not, and women were left shocked and angry. While the Government agreed with the finding of maladministration and apologised, no redress would be forthcoming. Further, contrary to the ombudsman, they actually felt that the majority of women did know about changes to their pension age, based on Department for Work and Pensions research, and that sending the women letters would not have been effective, which I am sure most people would agree is bizarre. It is pretty effective when people receive a bill addressed to them through their door, or a letter about a hospital appointment. It is also pretty effective on the very rare but joyous occasion that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs gives people a tax rebate cheque. So, honestly, why would 1950s-born women have actively refused to open letters with their name on from the DWP? It makes no sense.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. What she says reflects some of the conversations I have had with WASPI women in my constituency about not only the distress this has caused them, but how so many of them simply did not receive the correspondence that they have been told they did receive over the years about the financial situation that was coming down the track. The hon. Lady pointed out that the PHSO report found maladministration, and that despite promising to address it in all their communications before the general election, the Government said that it was too burdensome to compensate on a flat scale. When that announcement was made, I asked the Secretary of State what else could be done to support these women, many of whom have really struggled as a result of this decision. I did not receive a particularly forthcoming response, so I wonder whether the hon. Lady has had any more joy in finding out what the Government are going to do to support these women if they cannot bring forward the financial support on which so many of them have missed out.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Lady has been a formidable campaigner for these women. In answer to her question, no, I have not had any joyous information from the Government as of yet, which is why we are here today. I will outline why I think the Government’s statement and response to the ombudsman’s report was misinformed. While I understand the financial difficulties the Government face, options are available, and cost should never be a barrier to addressing injustice.

Many of the campaign groups are clear that the statistics used by Government to justify no redress are misquoted and misinformed, painting a picture that is completely at odds with the experiences of thousands of impacted women, as the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) has outlined, the ombudsman’s findings and the results of independent research. Research by the Department for Work and Pensions in 2003 showed that only 43% of all women affected by the changes knew that their state pension age was changing. The research itself even comments that:

“This low figure provides cause for concern and shows that information about the increase in SPA is not reaching the group of individuals who arguably have the greatest need to be informed.”

Independent research, including a focus group study by Age UK from as late as 2011, has also found that many women believed that they were still going to retire with a state pension at 60.

Further, the ombudsman’s report also focused on the continued failure of the DWP to recognise and respond to this research and feedback. Indeed, this point was flagged by the Work and Pensions Committee in 2013 and the National Audit Office in 2016, but the DWP still failed to take any meaningful action.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her leadership of this campaign. The situation is worse still than she paints it to be, for the ombudsman made clear that the

“DWP has clearly indicated that it will refuse to comply”

with the ombudsman’s recommendations, inviting Parliament to step in to resolve the matter. This is officialdom closing ranks, is it not?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The right hon. Gentleman has been a formidable campaigner for the women affected and an ally in the campaign in this House. He is correct. I will explain in a moment how unprecedented it is for a Government to reject the ombudsman’s recommendations in this way, and how dangerous it is, in fact, for our democracy and for citizens’ ability to hold their Governments to account.

I will turn back to the statistics that the Government relied on in their response to the ombudsman’s report. Instead of the clear findings that I have outlined, the Government relied on abstract figures from research carried out in 2004 and 2006 by the Department for Work and Pensions, which suggested that 73% and 90%, respectively, of women born in the 1950s knew that their own state pension age was increasing, but that is not correct. I must flag this with the Minister for clarity: the question asked in the surveys was crucial. It was, “Do you know that the broad state pension age is due to increase at some point in the future?”. It was not, “Do you know that your own state pension age is going to increase?”. It is wrong, in my view, to make the assertion that 73% and 90% of women knew that their state pension age was changing, because the facts prove that they simply did not.

Next, when an ombudsman makes recommendations to Government, as the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has alluded to, the usual course of action is for the Government to accept them. Further, on this occasion, the ombudsman made the incredibly rare decision to lodge its report before Parliament, not before the Department for Work and Pensions, which it did because, based on its dealings with the DWP, it already feared and knew that the report would be ignored. It is clear that the ombudsman realised this was an important issue, and that it wanted Government to listen.

There have been only eight other occasions where the ombudsman has felt the need to put down a special report in this way, the first being in 1978. All resulted in the full implementation of the recommendations save one, the Earl report. In that case, the Environment Agency still complied with three out of the four recommendations, and on the fourth implemented an alternative compensation offer.

I cannot stress enough that the decision to reject the ombudsman’s recommendations in full is unprecedented, and is, in fact, dangerous, as it sets a precedent that regardless of what an independent adjudicator recommends concerning state-level injustice, the Government can now ignore them. It strips away one of the only levers that citizens have to hold the Government of the time to account.

All the amazing campaign groups that we in this House work with are clear: this has been a state injustice. It has caused significant harm to these women, and while welcome, a limited Government apology is, without any material redress, not acceptable for a grave injustice that has driven so many into debt or poverty.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate her on securing this debate today. She has been a very powerful advocate for the WASPI campaigners not just in England and Wales, but in Scotland, too, and that is recognised by them. Does she agree that over recent weeks we have seen that where there is a will, there is way? If her colleagues on the Labour Benches were to use their new-found power, perhaps we could find a way of getting the Government to right this historic and grievous wrong.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his suggestion. He is a fantastic campaigner for 1950s women in Scotland and has done an enormous amount of work in this House to support their cause.

As I said earlier, we all recognise the difficulties that the Government face. They inherited a difficult financial situation, but that is no excuse to deny these women justice. Financial options are available, some of which I shall outline, and some of which my colleagues will outline, too.

As well as refuting the findings of the ombudsman, the Government cite cost and administrative burdens as barriers, but it is important to stress that there have been other large-scale compensation schemes created in response to DWP maladministration. The Equitable Life Compensation Scheme is a key example.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady profoundly on securing this much-needed debate. Does she agree that it is shameful that Labour made personal pledges to WASPI women over social media as a vehicle to get elected, but then tossed aside those promises and turned its back on more than 7,000 women, including Gill in Tiverton and Helen in Bampton in my constituency, as well as those across the length and breadth of the country? Does she recognise, as I do, that 74% of the British public support fair compensation for WASPI women?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Lady has been a fantastic campaigner for her constituents during her time in this House. I say in response that this issue unites the House; we are all angry about the injustice that these women have faced, and we want the Government to take action. Spanning various Governments and various Administrations, these women have had to fight relentlessly just for what they are owed, and that is not acceptable. I have no doubt that there are numerous colleagues at Cabinet level who agree with the women’s cause. They may be struggling to find options and answers, and that is what we are here today to provide. I hope that they are listened to and acted on, because injustice is injustice. If we are saying that victims of one injustice can be compensated by the Government, but that victims of another are not so deserving, we are travelling down a very dangerous path. There are options to cover the cost and ensure that there is no heavy administrative burden, and I will give a few of them.

The ombudsman’s guidance on financial remedy sets out its suggestion at level four on the severity of injustice scale, and it estimates that such remedy would involve public spending of between £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion. Campaigners have suggested that an earlier stage—level five—was under consideration, and that would cost between £10 billion and £31 billion. In both cases, as Lord Bryn Davies of Brixton has highlighted, that recommendation and, indeed, any other scheme would not preclude tapering the amount paid, which would bring down costs considerably.

WASPI and its sister campaigns suggest a bell curve model. They have highlighted the fact that other large compensation schemes for DWP maladministration have been viable, and proposed that any financial remedy could allocate the most compensation to those who have had the shortest notice of the longest delay to their state pension age—in other words, supporting those most heavily impacted in a bell curve model. They state that redress must be speedy, simple and sensitive, and they want to avoid legal action. They have asked the Government to enter into talks to address this very issue.

The WASPI group proposes that this remedy could take the form of a one-off payment that fairly takes that into account, but that level four should not be a ceiling, given that not all circumstances are identical to the six sample claimants. WASPI Scotland has also highlighted how a scheme could be operated relatively easily, using DWP records of dates of birth or national insurance prefixes, on either an opt-in or an opt-out basis. That information is readily available and would not require complex application systems or the processing of such applications.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The hon. Lady is making an extremely powerful case about this long-standing injustice. As she has pointed out, the WASPI campaigners are making really constructive suggestions to resolve the matter, offering to reach out and sit around the table with the Government. Does she share my frustration that the Government are refusing to do so, effectively forcing a court process, which is just leading to longer and longer delays, when there is such a clear injustice and an unprecedented rejection of the PHSO’s recommendation.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Lady is right. She, too, is a fantastic advocate for the women in her constituency. These women should not be forced to go through lengthy court battles, and the Government must recognise the cost of having to undertake those court battles versus the amount that they would actually pay through a redress scheme. Ultimately, the court is likely to find in favour of these women based on the facts that we have been presented with as parliamentarians. Indeed, CEDAWinLAW and 1950s Women of Wales both strongly support a mediation route towards redress, via an early neutral evaluation of groups’ asks towards mediation with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions via mediators. More broadly, they raise concerns that discrimination needs to be factored into any redress mechanism, stating that the roll-out of state pension ages potentially conflicts with the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women—CEDAW—treaty, which the UK signed in 1981. As such, the Government should implement a temporary special measure to guarantee an adequate, non-discriminatory pension.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

One of the first constituents who came to me eight years ago was a WASPI woman. Does the hon. Lady agree that, after so many years, so much compromise and so much willingness to talk to the Government, one of the things that matters most to these women is not so much the amount of money but the actuality and significance of being compensated?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Lady is spot on. The women have suffered an injustice, and they have been ignored. They should not have had to fight for so long. The sad fact is that already so many women have died waiting to see justice. What will it take to fix this? Will it take an ITV drama to shine a light on what has happened before everybody gets angry enough to do something about it? I do not know the answer to that, but what I do know is that the facts are clear. Even the ombudsman’s report sets that out, and the Government need to act urgently. The hon. Lady has been a fantastic campaigner in this House over the years. and I am sure the women are truly thankful for her support.

The 1950s Women of Wales propose, in line with CEDAWinLAW, that redress could be an initial lump sum to allow swift financial relief, with additional payments over a five-year period. Even the previous Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee suggested a scheme. He wrote to the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to suggest that a rules-based scheme be considered. The letter describes a system where payments are adjusted within a range, based on the ombudsman’s severity of injustice scale, to reflect the extent of change in the individual state pension age and the notice of the change the individual received. It would be quick to administer, he said, and inexpensive compared with a more bespoke scheme. He further suggested that there should also be flexibility for individuals to make a case for additional compensation for direct loss. And that Select Committee Chair is now a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions! Who knew? Perhaps the Minister could sit down and have a cup of tea with himself to discuss the plans he had before he entered office.

Any scheme must be responsible and financially sustainable, so let us have a look at some options on that, too.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

There are 77,000 WASPI women in Northern Ireland, 7,000 of them in Strangford. Does the hon. Lady appreciate their palpable anger about how they have been mistreated and about the injustice that they wish to see addressed? On behalf of those 7,000 constituents of mine, I seek the same thing as the hon. Lady and all of us in this Chamber today.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman is a powerful advocate for women in Northern Ireland. He is right: what has happened is wrong, plain and simple. We need to see action today. I promise I am coming to the end, Madam Deputy Speaker—I do not want to try your patience.

There are options to make sure that schemes are financially sustainable. WASPI has calculated that HM Treasury has saved a whopping £181 billion by increasing the state pension age alone. Other options include applying a 1% to 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, which would raise up to £22 billion a year, or equalising capital gains tax with income tax rates, which would raise £15.2 billion a year. Applying national insurance to investment income would raise £8.6 billion a year. Ending stealth subsidies on banks could raise up to £55 billion over the next five years—something even Gordon Brown has advocated.

Cost does not need to be, and should not be, a barrier to justice. In January the Deputy Ombudsman told the Work and Pensions Committee that the DWP at the time knew that the women did not know, and that they failed to act. He said:

“if you accept this maladministration and you accept people were affected by that maladministration, there is a conversation about how you factor cost into the need to do justice.”

The trauma, hardship, poverty and sheer stress that these women have been put through for a decade must make justice for them a matter of urgency.

I have a lot of time for the Minister. I call on him to get round the table with these women and to listen to them. I ask him to listen to the evidence, put considerations of financial redress for 1950s-born women who have suffered back on the table and allow full and adequate parliamentary scrutiny for any proposal, as the ombudsman intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I want to thank the whole range of colleagues who have spoken today. It has been a fantastic collegiate debate that has shown the House at its best. For those outside of the Chamber who are watching, the campaign continues. It is a campaign that brings so many of us together, and there are so many formidable campaigners in this Chamber who need to be celebrated.

I know that the Minister is in a difficult position, and I have a lot of time for him, as I say. I know that he is bound by the Government’s current position on this issue, but I want to pick up on some of the information he gave in his speech. He said that I referred to a piece of research from 2024, but it was actually from 2003, and it is research that the ombudsman itself relies on in saying that 43% of women did not know that the state pension age was increasing. The Minister again made the point about letters being ineffective, but he must understand that to people watching this debate, that is an absurd thing to say. I know that he says that DWP research states that, but the research is absurd and does not really have any basis in reality.

I do not want the Minister to go down in history as the man who denied justice for the 1950s-born women— I honestly do not. I want to see action on this, and I want him to go down as the person who finally managed to award these women justice. He has to understand that the arguments being put forward by the Government are absurd to say the least. In fact, in denying the ombudsman’s report, the argument is akin to arguing that the world is flat.

[John McDonnell]

It is certainly not an argument that the Resolution Foundation would have put forward when the Minister was director of it.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The right hon. Gentleman is right; it is not. That is why I place so much hope in the Minister to take action on this.

To conclude, there were two statements made by colleagues that stood out for me. The first was from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who said that in the name of decency, justice must be done. The Minister must recognise that, so I urge him to get round the table with the women and present a package before Parliament that we can all support and celebrate. As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, we are not going to give up until justice is done, and neither are the women.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) report on Women’s State Pension Age, HC 638, published in March 2024, which found that maladministration in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) communication about the Pensions Act 1995 resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control; further notes that there will likely be a significant number of women born in the 1950s who have suffered injustice because of maladministration in DWP’s communication about the Pensions Act 1995; and also notes that, given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, the PHSO took the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene, laying their report before Parliament under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and asked Parliament to identify a mechanism for providing appropriate remedy for those who have suffered injustice.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

We all know the famous quote:

“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”

It is a litmus test for the morality and integrity of our country’s values. In recent years, the United Nations has twice reported on the conditions for disabled people in the UK, finding that there were “grave and systematic violations” of human rights. Sadly, the Bill as it stands will worsen this situation.

Despite concessions, and even excluding existing claimants, brutal cuts will still push hundreds of thousands of vulnerable, sick and disabled people into poverty. Existing claimants will live in fear that if their situation changes and they are reassessed, they could lose everything under the new system. Disabled children will look to the future with trepidation, knowing that in adulthood the support that would have helped them to live a full and fruitful life might not be there.

I truly welcome the proposals to support with a little help those who could work, but according to the Learning and Work Institute, the number of people who will be helped is nominal, at between 1% and 3%—a finding echoed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which concludes that we might expect increases in employment in only the tens of thousands.

Although the concessions made over the weekend are welcome, they create a two-tier system, as the amount of support that someone receives will now depend on when they made their claim. That is simply not fair, especially as those who require help need this support through no fault of their own.

Yes, it is clear that our punitive and broken welfare system needs reform—it drives disabled people into poverty. However, there should have been proper consultation with those most directly affected in order to build a system that truly nurtures, but that has not happened. The Government should have published assessments on the impact of these updated proposals on the poverty of future claimants, those undergoing reassessments and their carers, but they have not. The Government should have assessed the knock-on impact on local authorities, the NHS and the charity sector and the scope for non-payment of household debts as people pushed into poverty desperately seek help elsewhere, but they have not. We are being asked today to vote on a Bill and rush it through without consultation or knowing the full picture, and that cannot be right.

If this is about cost, I recognise the financial challenges facing the Government—challenges that are a direct result of 14 years of mismanagement and under-investment by the previous Government—but the sad thing is that there are alternatives. The Government could introduce higher taxes on extreme wealth, end the stealth subsidies for banks and tax gambling fairly and properly. The list of alternatives is endless.

Every single disability organisation is against this brutal Bill. If we ignore them and say that it is okay to treat one group of people as lesser than another and okay to neglect the vulnerable, undermine their rights and dignity and push them into poverty, what does that honestly say about the true measure of our society? I say to my colleagues on the Front Bench: please pull back from the brink now, before it is too late, and withdraw this Bill.

Disabled People in Poverty

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

In my constituency, 10,000 people are in receipt of PIP or the health element of universal credit, and they are frankly terrified. Already more than 6.3 million people with a disabled family member live in poverty, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that the full impact of the Government’s measures could push an extra 400,000 people into poverty.

It is also important to stress that, although the Government’s package of employment support is welcome, the number of people back in work will be nominal. The Learning and Work Institute estimates that only 1% to 3% of people who have their benefits cut will be helped back into work.

While I recognise the dire financial situation that the Government inherited, balancing the books on the backs of the most vulnerable is not morally right when options such as taxing wealth more fairly are available. I should stress that that particular option has widespread public support, and indeed support from many millionaires themselves. I ask the Government to please do the right thing and scrap these cuts.

Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme: Capital Disregard

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liam Conlon]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for being the constituency MP of the real-life Philomena, whom I know she has been supporting. She is right that for many of these survivors, the clock is running.

Broadly speaking, impacted survivors now find themselves in one of three situations. Some accepted compensation before realising the negative impact that it could have. Other survivors have received an offer of compensation, but they have delayed accepting it because of the uncertainty around how their benefits or social care might be impacted. Finally, there are survivors who are not making an application at all until the picture becomes clearer.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on this important issue alongside Irish community groups here in the UK. As he will know, thousands of survivors left Ireland for Britain, with huge numbers of them settling in the north-west. They were scarred by the physical and emotional abuse that they had faced, but they were also disturbed by the ease with which powerful institutions could abuse their power without question. Does he agree that more needs to be done to reassure survivors that those administering the scheme will be trauma-informed and act solely in the interests of survivors, and that those who apply for compensation will suffer no detriment to their current entitlements?

[Liam Conlon]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. I know that she is a tireless advocate of the Irish community in Salford, of which she is part. She is absolutely right, and I discussed this issue with Patricia Carey, the survivors’ advocate, in Dublin over Easter.

There are survivors who will not make an application at all until the picture becomes clearer, and that is contributing to the incredibly low take-up of the scheme by eligible survivors in Britain. At just 5%, the take-up rate here falls far behind that in Ireland. Unfortunately, the age profile of many eligible applicants means that delays in making applications or accepting offers risk people not living long enough to benefit from the compensation that they are due.

Let me give just one recent example. A man who was born into a mother and baby home became so concerned about the impact that any compensation would have on his benefits that he held off making a decision for as long as possible. Sadly, after finally accepting the offer, he passed away within a matter of months, unable to benefit from the compensation that he was due. I think we can all agree that the situation is unjust.

Winter Fuel Payment

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

That is an important question. There is always a judgment in choosing a threshold for any means-tested benefit, and I want to be completely straight with the House about that. We have chosen a threshold that is well above the income level of pensioners in poverty, and it will ensure that more than three-quarters of pensioners receive the benefit of the winter fuel payment in England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is currently in line with average earnings. It is important to have clarity for pensioners—a point that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), just made. We will leave the £35,000 at the current level, as all thresholds in the income tax system are frozen for the coming year, so that pensioners know that that is the threshold and there are no surprises. Decisions about future uprating will be for future Budgets.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Minister’s statement today—it is the right thing to do to lift pensioners out of poverty. I am sure that both he and the Chancellor also agree that it is right to lift children out of poverty, so can he reassure this House that he and the Chancellor are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible?

[Torsten Bell]

As my hon. Friend knows, we have said clearly that all levers to reduce child poverty are on the table. The child poverty strategy will be published in the autumn, but we are not waiting for that—as I said earlier, we have already seen action on free school meals. It is another reason why we need to see more support for energy bills, and for insulating homes in particular, because it is younger families with children who are struggling most and having to turn off their heating. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, which is one of the core purposes of this Government. We cannot carry on with a situation in which huge percentages of large families are in poverty.

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.