- As the Secretary of State will explain, he has come to the House to update us at the earliest possible moment, for which I thank him. I understand that there will be further updates in the future, when more is known. We have an important and well-subscribed debate later this afternoon, and a further important statement to come before that. In the light of that, and as there is such a limited amount of information available today, I am going to restrict this proceeding so that only a couple of Members can ask questions after the statement. I want to ensure that people are aware of that; it is not that I am ignoring them. I am sure that the Secretary of State will explain—not that I want to put words in his mouth—that he will come back at the earliest possible moment. This matter involves a court case and other issues. Members will not gain anything by standing to catch my eye.
- 4:51 pm
- I would like to make a statement on the investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into the way state pension ages were communicated to 1950s-born women.The background to this issue is well known to the House. It arises from how decisions to equalise and raise the state pension age were communicated over a number of years, and the impact that that may have had on the ability of 1950s-born women to plan for their retirement. It stems from the communication of changes in the Pensions Act 1995, which gradually increased the state pension age for women from the age of 60 to 65 to bring it in line with that of men. The Pensions Act 2011, introduced under the coalition Government, then brought forward the timetable for equalisation, and the rise to age 66 for both men and women. It is important to be clear that the ombudsman was not looking at those policy changes to the state pension age, but between 2018 and 2024, it investigated complaints from 1950s-born women about the communication of changes to the state pension age.In March last year, following a lengthy investigation lasting six years, the ombudsman published its final report. In December last year, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), provided the Government’s response to the House. In coming to this decision, she gave the ombudsman’s report full consideration, and looked in detail at the findings, reviewing all the information and advice provided to her at the time by the Department for Work and Pensions. She did her job thoroughly and professionally in weighing up all the information before her, coming to a conclusion and informing Parliament.Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. That was a DWP evaluation of the effectiveness of automatic pension forecast letters. Had this report been provided to my right hon. Friend, she would of course have considered it alongside all other relevant evidence and material. In the light of this, and in the interests of fairness and transparency, I have concluded that the Government should now consider this evidence. That means we will retake the decision made last December as it relates to the communications on state pension age.As the House will be aware, the decision announced last December has been the subject of Court action in recent months, and we have today informed the Court of the action we now intend to take. In retaking the decision, we will review the evidence from 2007 alongside evidence previously considered. I have of course asked the Department whether there is any further survey material or other evidence that should be brought to my attention as part of this process.I understand that people are impatient for this matter to be finally resolved, with the ombudsman’s investigation having taken six years before reporting last year, but it is important that we give this full and proper consideration. We will approach this in a transparent and fair manner. However, retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that Government will necessarily decide that they should award financial redress.
- I call the shadow Minister.
- 4:56 pm
- I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. As he rightly says, this is an important, albeit technical, statement, and we in the Opposition certainly accept the contents and the spirit in which it is given. It is about a legal process, and we respect that.This relates to a matter of keen interest to many of our constituents: those women who have been affected by the changes in retirement age. Known as WASPI, the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign have probably met with all of us here in one way or another, and they will be looking at the point made by the Secretary of State late in his statement:“retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that Government will necessarily decide that they should award financial redress.”The WASPI women are rightly angry with this Government. In opposition, shadow Ministers and Labour MPs stood alongside these women, as the Secretary of State did, campaigning for“a better deal for WASPI women.”However, when the Labour party won the general election, they quickly apparently U-turned on that position, blaming the fiscal situation they were left with. Indeed, in December last year, the Government made a statement confirming their about-turn on supporting WASPI women. If I may, Mr Speaker, I would like to quote the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who said in response to that statement:“But let us be clear: the decision to provide no compensation is the Government’s decision, and they need to own it. I am not going to let them get away with saying that there is no compensation because of a fictional black hole in the public finances… Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.]
- I am grateful to the hon. Member for at least some of his response. I cannot pre-empt the conclusion of the process that I set out in my statement, because I want it to be undertaken fairly and transparently. I have to say to him that his own Government had many years to consider the matter and did not come to a conclusion, so I take his comments urging us to go more quickly with a little pinch of salt.The hon. Member referred to pensioners. We said that we would maintain the triple lock, and we have kept to that commitment. That will mean an increase of some £1,900 a year in the basic state pension over the course of this Parliament. We remain committed to the publication of the action plan to which he referred.He is right that the previous Minister for Pensions met the WASPI campaigners, but he was a little more coy about the last time a Conservative Minister met the WASPI campaigners. Perhaps a Conservative Member can tell us when that was? I believe it was many years before that and that our Minister was the first to meet the WASPI campaigners for some time.Finally, on the broader economic record, he failed to join me in welcoming the UK having the fastest growth in the G7 for the first half of this year.
- I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement—I appreciate its technical nature. Clearly, it is a concern that this evidence was not made available to our right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) last year and I know that he will investigate that. I appreciate that he will not be able to give a specific date as to when he may be able to decide what this evidence means for his final conclusions, but is he able to give a timeframe for when he will be able to report back to the House?
- I am grateful to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee for her question; I know that she has taken a long and keen interest in the matter. On timescales, when people hear this statement, I appreciate that they will want to know when the conclusion will happen, but it is right and proper that I look at all the available evidence. As I said in the statement, I have asked the Department if there is any other survey evidence or other kinds of evidence that should be brought to my attention. With that proviso, I can assure my hon. Friend that I will come to a conclusion and report to the House as soon as possible.
- I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- I apologise for inadvertently using the word “you” the last time that I spoke, Mr Speaker.Clearly, the clock is ticking for WASPI women. There are 3.6 million WASPI women across the United Kingdom, which is half a million more than the population of Wales. Sadly, a WASPI woman dies every 13 minutes.I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. When we have explored this subject in recent months, I have found it extremely disturbing how the ombudsman failed to engage with the previous Conservative Government because they knew that there would not be a deal to make around what the relevant approach would be on compensation for WASPI women. I plead with the Secretary of State to revisit that; after all, Government Members are on record as supporting WASPI women for many years. Will he look to meet with them and ensure that there is a fair deal? There is due to be a High Court hearing next month, and I implore him to engage positively and to get a fair deal for WASPI women.
- The hon. Member is right; this issue has gone on for a long time. I took the view that, in the light of the evidence being cited, the right thing to do was to look again at it and at the decision in the round. I cannot speak for the previous Government’s failure to engage with the ombudsman—that is a matter for them—but I can tell the hon. Member that this Government are engaged with the ombudsman on the action plan discussed earlier, and we will continue to be engaged. As I said, I will come to a conclusion and report to the House as soon as possible.
- The Secretary of State said that as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. Who cited that evidence? Was it the Department for Work and Pensions or the Government, or was it the people opposing the Government in the court case? If it came from Government sources or from within the DWP, why was it not uncovered before? Can he give us every assurance that he is doing everything he can to ensure that all relevant evidence is uncovered in advance of the next decision being taken?
- The hon. Lady asks about the nature of this evidence. It is a report from 2007 and, as I said, it is a DWP evaluation. The survey was not drawn to the attention of the previous Secretary of State because its potential relevance to the making of her decision was not evident at the time. I will consider this survey and any other relevant evidence in the process to which I referred in my statement.
- Order. I am going to suspend the House until 5.15 pm due to the late notice of the next statement.
- 5:07 pm
- Sitting suspended.