Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report
Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Paul Maynard(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Chamberlain
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I absolutely agree with her. We have had the report for some time, and I think the Government should be making a statement to say that they support it. It is quite clear that plenty of work has been done by both the APPG and the ombudsman to outline what a compensation scheme should look like.
My hon. Friend is right about the mental impact. I met a constituent of mine, Heather, several weeks ago. She is a single woman, so she does not have a partner’s or spouse’s income—that is the assumption made about women—to rely on. She has had to give up work as a teacher earlier than expected due to ill health, and feels that the injustice is compounded by the Government not having yet acknowledged the ombudsman’s report properly.
The DWP has had full notice of the investigation by the PHSO and its findings, and I would argue that they should therefore have had the opportunity to plan accordingly. With regard to the infected blood scandal, the Government have said that when the report is finally published on Monday, they will make a statement on what they will do very quickly thereafter. I feel, therefore, unmoved by the argument that they need more time to respond to the ombudsman’s report, when they have known for some time that it was coming. The first report on maladministration was published almost three years ago, so I just do not accept that the Government and the DWP have not had the time to consider the likely outcome of the findings. We knew that a recommendation for compensation was likely, so I would have expected the DWP to have started making plans for administering it.
While sitting in the Chamber, I have been notified by my researcher that I have had a response to a written parliamentary question, which states that the Department did not have sight of a draft copy of the PHSO’s report at the end of last year. My researcher has also confirmed with the WASPI campaign—I have met Angela Madden and others several times—who say that that is not the case, and that the Government did have sight of the draft report. I would be grateful for clarity from the Minister on that. I am happy to give way to him now—[Interruption] —or perhaps he can comment on that written response to the parliamentary question in his closing remarks. Is it correct that the Government did not have sight of the draft report at the end of last year?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members are complaining about the fact that I dip my head in order to listen, and suggest that is somehow evidence of me not listening. I take exception to their criticism of my body position.
Paul Maynard
I recognise that there will be an appetite from some Opposition Members for the Government to respond item by item to different parts of the ombudsman’s report, but the Government wish to respond in full when they have reached a conclusion from their deliberations. I will not go down the path that the hon. Gentleman seeks to take me along.
Some of the detailed commentary from Members today illustrates the interlocking considerations at play, depending on how each Member of Parliament responds to the report. The fact that so many have spoken today demonstrates the importance of this issue. Many parliamentary activities are worth noting to understand how they fit in. The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), mentioned the evidence session held last week and the recommendation that he has made to the Department, which I read after he mentioned it, so I have only just seen it.
Late last month I was able to meet the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), the chair and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group, to discuss our initial views of the report and what steps they intended to pursue to take further evidence. I am looking forward to seeing what they have to say. I have noted the evidence given last week to the Select Committee. I also took careful note of what occurred in the Scottish Parliament. The many views expressed so far provide valuable input to the ongoing deliberations.
Let me come to the question from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) about the written answer she received. I will take my glasses off to read this, because the print is very small and not clear: in November 2023, alongside other interested parties, the DWP received a copy of the PHSO’s revised provisional views on injustice, which was stage two of the inquiry, and remedies, which were stage three, for comment. The DWP responded with its comments in January 2024. The Department was notified by the PHSO on 19 March that the final report would be received on 21 March 2024, at a meeting between the permanent secretary and the ombudsman. I note that the hon. Lady’s written question was about the final report as opposed to the preliminary report.
Paul Maynard
Members raised questions about changes to the state pension age. As I said, the ombudsman’s report is clear that it cannot consider the impact of changes in the law on state pension age. The changes are set out in primary legislation and, as such, were agreed by Parliament. The announcement in 1993 of the equalisation of the state pension age addressed a long-standing inequality between men and women. The changes were also about maintaining the right balance between the sustainability of the state pension, fairness between generations and ensuring a dignified retirement.
Changes to the state pension age were made in a series of Acts by successive Governments from 1995 onwards, following public consultations and extensive debates in both Houses of Parliament. From the 1940s until April 2010, the state pension age was 60 for women and 65 for men. The decision to equalise the state pension age for men and women dates back to 1995. It was right to address a long-standing inequality between men’s and women’s state pension age. The report of the Pensions Commission in 2005 recommended that the state pension age should increase in a staged way to 68 in the three decades following the completion of equalisation in 2020. A broad consensus on that was achieved largely due to the commission’s evidence base, which showed that state pension age should follow increases in life expectancy to help ensure the affordability and sustainability of the state pension.
Legislation passed in 2007 introduced a series of increases, starting with a state pension age of 66 between 2024 and 2026, and ending with an increase to 68 between 2044 and 2046. As has been observed, the Pensions Act 2011 accelerated the equalisation of women’s state pension age by 18 months and brought forward the increase in men’s and women’s state pension age to 66 by five and a half years, relative to the previous timetables. The changes in the 2011 Act occurred following a public call for evidence and extensive debates in Parliament. During the passage of the Act, Parliament legislated for a concession worth £1.1 billion. The concession reduced the proposed increase in state pension age for more than 450,000 men and women, and meant that no woman saw their state pension age change by more than 18 months relative to the timetable set by the Pensions Act 1995.