Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Roz Savage

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Now I will make some progress.

As a result of the changes, between 6% and 15% of affected women have fallen into poverty. Recent surveys show that 84% worry about energy bills, 76% worry about their financial future and, tragically, 71% avoid leaving their home to save money. I want to highlight the case of Marion Bond, one of my constituents in South Cotswolds. During a lifetime spent as a teacher, Marion made many sacrifices, including turning down promotions and working part time to care for her children while her husband worked long hours. Despite supporting his career, her divorce settlement was based on the assumption that she would receive her pension at 60. Instead, she unexpectedly faced a delay, losing six years of pension. The small compensation recommended by the ombudsman is a fraction of the £40,000 that she calculates she lost as a result of the lack of communication.

Marion’s story is not unique. A survey on Facebook that asked “What would you have done differently?” yielded over 1,500 heartrending stories as women shared how their lives would have been different with proper notification. The stories include escaping abusive relationships, continuing with much-loved careers rather than taking voluntary redundancy, and fulfilling care responsibilities for grandchildren or other relatives. Although men and women should have equal retirement ages, that is not the issue here. The issue is the communication failure. The mishandled roll-out of the change left many women stranded, facing unemployment and reliant on benefits. That in turn affected their mental and physical health and placed financial strain on their families, impacting childcare and the social and healthcare sectors.

There is a fundamental question about how we value women in our society. We must recognise that women face invisible financial penalties due to gender, including pay gaps and unpaid labour burdens.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is giving a powerful opening speech. She mentioned the gender pay gap, which is why we have a gender pension gap of almost 40%. Does she agree that that is another reason for looking again at WASPI women? The lack of notification that they had means that the money means so much to so many of them.

[Dr Savage]

I thank my hon. Friend for a good point very well made. Women such as Marion and the rest of the WASPI women have devoted their lives to raising the next generation, contributing significantly to our economy. Ministers’ claims that women experienced no financial loss are false. Women lost the opportunity to make informed decisions, leading to significant material losses. The compensation sought is not a benefits payment, but redress for an injustice. It should not be means-tested, following precedents set by other Government compensation schemes such as those for the Windrush generation and Post Office sub-postmasters.

This debate centres on a core principle of good governance. When a Department fails to fulfil its own policy, it has an obligation to those affected. The DWP’s refusal to engage with victims or to even consider compensation violates that principle. The DWP has not even provided a reason for refusing compensation, demonstrating a deeply offensive lack of accountability. For many years, the Liberal Democrats have pushed the Government to fairly compensate WASPI women in line with the ombudsman’s recommendations. I know that WASPI will continue to take all actions necessary to help 1950s-born women to achieve justice through compensation, but only Parliament can make that happen.

As we debate this petition, we must consider the role that the Government play in providing a safety net for the most vulnerable members of our society. I am sure we will hear many stories today of inspirational women who have served their community, family and country, and then been fundamentally let down by the British Government. The clock is ticking. More than 300,000 women born in the 1950s have died since this campaign began, with another passing away every 13 minutes on average. The solution is clear: the Government must act now to compensate WASPI women fairly and swiftly. These women have served their community, family and country, and it is time that we served them.

Income tax (charge)

Debate between Wendy Chamberlain and Roz Savage

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

One thing that we always feel after a Budget is a sense of relief, because we at least know that we are going to get some answers. It feels that when we are talking, campaigning and raising issues, we are always told to wait for the Budget. I was additionally relieved yesterday because my son managed to pass his driving test theory. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you.

I do not think the Government need any help in talking about the economic legacy left by the previous Government, but we do have to acknowledge that the funding structures put in place by the previous Government have created a legacy, as well as expectations. I want to talk about those that most directly impact North East Fife, starting with infrastructure funding.

I was pleased to hear the city deal announcement in relation to Argyll and Bute, given that I have an Argyllshire father, but I want to highlight the opportunities within existing city deals to add value and to make up some of the increased costs we have seen in recent years. The town of Newburgh in North East Fife has been cut off from the railway for almost 70 years. It has a line running through it that transports 38 trains a day and for the last 13 years there has been a campaign to rebuild a train station and reconnect it to the line. That makes sense from a number of perspectives: a train station takes cars off the road; it allows investment into the town; it can bring tourists to places such as the Lindores Abbey distillery; and it shortens journey times for those travelling beyond for NHS or other treatments. However, the only mention of railway infrastructure is in relation to the city region sustainable transport settlements, which are for England only. I acknowledge that transport is devolved, but there are ways in which the UK Government could look to work with the Scottish Government in order to help those communities where additional funding could make a difference.

The other element of transport infrastructure is Access for All, which is a UK scheme although the Scottish Government play a part in determining which stations receive support. I want to make an additional call for funding for Leuchars station, which serves St Andrews—although it is one of the best-known parts of my constituency, it does not have a station. It sometimes feels that we have fallen into the cracks between Westminster and Holyrood on that. On disability and on Access for All, we need to do more at all levels to ensure that we deliver the funding.

Returning to the impact of the different funds and schemes that were put in place post following our departure from the EU, and the need to replace EU structural funding, I want to touch on the community ownership fund and the shared prosperity fund. I and other Fife MPs—I see two of them in their places—recently met Fife council to talk about the future of the shared prosperity fund, which is due to end in March 2025. I am pleased by the commitment to continue it for another year, although we need to move away from year-to-year funding. I am sure we all meet third-sector organisations and others who talk about the uncertainty that short-term funding brings to the services that they provide. We also have to acknowledge that the Budget— the relevant passage is very short—will mean that Fife council, for example, will see a cut of about a third in shared prosperity funding, which has delivered programmes such as Kingdom Works, an employability service that has supported over 8,000 people. The Government said in the Budget that they want to reform funding, and I urge them to do so quickly so that we get certainty.

The Liberal Democrats have talked a lot about health and social care. Others have spoken about the fact that we need to focus on social care, because without fixing it, we will not fix the NHS. Again, the NHS is devolved in Scotland. I welcome the significant increase in funding for Scotland; it is now over to the SNP-led Scottish Government to deliver on that. I am pleased, too, that we will see support for public sector organisations in relation to the national insurance increase. However, there is no doubt that the NHS in Scotland is in a dire state. In Fife, there is no NHS dentist currently taking patients, and in my constituency we are seeing further cuts and closures in dental services.

The other thing that I want to say about what I think the Scottish Government should be doing relates to the business rates changes that the UK Government have brought forward. Let me quote one of my constituents, who was reported in today’s Courier newspaper saying about rates relief:

“We don’t have the cliff edge in Scotland. We’ve been paying full rates ever since last summer.”

I accept that that potentially is not covered by the block grant, but given that the whole UK is a tourism destination, the Scottish Government need to look at how they best support hospitality and tourism, because there is a real difference between what is happening in other parts of the UK and what is happening in Scotland.

I should declare an interest at this point: I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Scotch whisky and worked for Diageo for four years before my election. At the start of the debate, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster talked about choices. For me, the other aspect of choices is managing expectations. That is where the real issues that I have with the Budget come to the fore.

Mark Kent, the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association, said in The Scotsman today that the decision to increase rates on Scotch whisky

“not only flies in the face of the commitment to back the industry as a core element of the government’s ‘Brand Scotland’ concept, it also serves no economic purpose.”

The Conservatives’ 10.1% increase in alcohol duty was deeply damaging to the whisky industry. In the 12 months since it came into force, revenues from the tax have actually fallen by £298 million, so it is clearly not delivering increased revenue to the Treasury. What we saw from the Government yesterday will continue to hurt the industry, which is so important for Scotland. The Chancellor offered support to breweries through the cut in duty on draught products, but that will do nothing to support responsible drinking. Taxing based on strength of alcohol is not the right way to go about it; it is about alcohol being alcohol and how it is consumed. I might not represent the most whisky distilleries in Scotland by number, but I probably do by volume, with the Diageo distillery and bottling plant in Leven.

Returning to the point about promises and expectations, we come to farming and the issue of the inheritance tax changes. The National Farmers Union Scotland said on its blog today that it is pleased to see the roll-over of the agricultural funding, although that has gone into the Scottish Government’s block grant, so, again, it is over to the Scottish Government to ensure that they deliver for farmers. We need farmers for our food production and security, for our climate and nature recovery, which is more vital than ever, and for rural growth and support.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

The Budget is subtitled “Fixing the foundations” but I was saddened that it contained no mention of the most important foundation of everything in Britain: our natural world. Does she agree that more resources need to be dedicated to the restoration of nature and to supporting our farmers, both of which are crucial to food security?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I absolutely agree. Whenever I have that discussion with farmers, they want to support climate and nature—they want to do the right thing—but they need support to do so.

As I say, the overall funding envelope for farmers is for the Scottish Government to deliver, and I am confident that my Scottish Liberal Democrat colleagues in Holyrood will be making the case for them to do so. In his intervention on the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) talked about how the number of farms affected will be small, but the issue is that the Government promised last year not to do anything in relation to agricultural property relief, yet that is what is happening. I am already being contacted by local farmers who fear that this will be the death of their and other families’ farms. It is important that we remember that it is not just about those farmers; it is also about the infrastructure and the wider communities that they support, such as vets and other facilities.

We should not forget tenant farmers, either, because they are some of our most vulnerable. I know that because I worked with some of them prior to the election in relation to the roll-out of universal credit. That system is not fit for purpose for farmers. The Work and Pensions Secretary is no longer in her place, but I will be coming back to her on that issue. We need to ensure that we provide that support.

Until very recently, I wore multiple hats, because I had far fewer colleagues. Now that I have more of them, I have given up my Department for Work and Pensions hat, but I welcome the changes to carer’s allowance. I would like some clarity about the carer support payment in Scotland, which is a devolved benefit that is currently being rolled out. I have not seen it in the notes that I have looked at so far, but perhaps it will become clear in the coming days whether that is included in the block grant that is coming to Scotland, or whether there will be additional consequentials.

To conclude, there are things in this Budget that I absolutely welcome, but, as always, there are unintended consequences, on which I hope the Government will listen to us.