Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

In November, I informed the House that the Government would make a new decision in response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report into the way changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. This followed relevant evidence coming to light as part of legal proceedings challenging the original decision announced by my predecessor in December 2024. We have now concluded the process to make a new decision and are placing copies of the Government’s full response in the Libraries of both Houses.

Before I turn to the substance, I think it is important to be clear what this decision and statement is about, and what it is not about. There are legitimate and sincerely held views about whether it was wise to increase the state pension age, and in particular whether the decision taken in 2011 by the coalition Government to accelerate equalisation and the rise to the age of 66 was the right thing to do. But the issue we are discussing today is not the merits or otherwise of past policy decisions about the state pension age. What the ombudsman investigated was how changes to the state pension age were communicated and whether within a specific and narrow time period there was maladministration and injustice—and if so, whether that warrants compensation.

In March 2024, the ombudsman published its final report. As with so many other issues, the previous Government left the report on their desks, issued no response, took no decision, and left it to this Government to respond. In December 2024, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), set out the Government’s response, having considered all the information provided to her.

However, given that relevant research from 2007 about the effectiveness of sending letters subsequently emerged that had not been provided to my right hon. Friend, I wanted to ensure that the right and proper process was followed to take account of this alongside the information previously considered. Of course, I asked the Department not just to consider the 2007 report, but to undertake new searches as part of an extensive review of relevant historical documents to help inform the new decision.

We accept that individual letters about changes to the state pension age could have been sent earlier. For that, I want to repeat the apology that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West gave on behalf of the Government. I am sorry those letters were not sent sooner. We also agree with the ombudsman that women did not suffer any direct financial loss from the delay.

However, the question is about the impact of the delay in sending those letters. The evidence taken as a whole, including that from 2007, suggests that the majority of 1950s-born women would not have read and recalled the contents of an unsolicited pensions letter, even if it had been sent earlier. Furthermore, the evidence also suggests that those less knowledgeable about pensions—the very women who most needed to engage with a letter, and for whom it might have made a difference—were the least likely to read it. An earlier letter would therefore have been unlikely to make a difference to what the majority of women knew about their own state pension age. Indeed, the 2007 report concluded that automatic pension forecast letters had only a negligible impact on pensions knowledge and planning, and the Department stopped sending them.

The evidence shows that the vast majority of 1950s-born women already knew that the state pension age was increasing thanks to a wide-range of public information, including leaflets, education campaigns, information in GP surgeries, and information on TV and radio, in cinemas and online. To specifically compensate only the women who suffered injustice would require a scheme that could reliably verify the individual circumstances of millions of women, including whether someone genuinely did not know that their state pension age was changing and whether they would have read and remembered a letter from many years ago and acted differently. It would not be practical to set up a compensation scheme to assess the answers to those questions conclusively.

A flat-rate scheme would cost up to £10.3 billion and would simply not be right or fair, given that it would also be paid to the vast majority who were aware of the changes. I have heard calls for compensation aimed at lower-income pensioners, and we have focused in the past 12 months on raising pension credit uptake, but in the context of this decision, a scheme focused on any single income group still would not specify who may or may not have suffered injustice. That is why, in taking this new decision, we have come to the same conclusion on compensation as that announced by my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State in December 2024.

I know that many people feel that the state pension age should not have gone up in the way that it did; indeed, Labour argued against the 2011 policy decision put in place by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition that accelerated the increase. However, I repeat what I said at the start of my statement: that is a different issue to the one the ombudsman investigated and that I am responding to today, which relates to the communication of changes in the state pension age and, narrowly, to a delay in sending letters over a relatively short period.

The changes from 2011 underline the importance that decisions on the state pension age carry and the impact they have on people’s lives, and I take seriously the need to weigh carefully any future changes. That is why, together with the ombudsman, the Department has been developing an action plan for the future. Work on that had stopped pending today’s decision, but I can confirm that it will now resume.

It also underlines why we are determined to ensure that all pensioners on lower incomes, the majority of whom are women, have a better life in retirement, just as Labour has done in the past—from the Wilson Government, who first formally linked the uprating of pensions to the higher of earnings or prices, to the previous Labour Government, who lifted 1 million pensioners out of poverty. Labour introduced pension credit, which is vital in topping up the incomes of the poorest pensioners, with women consistently making up the majority of those benefiting since we first introduced it in 2003. This Government are ensuring that more pensioners get that extra income with the biggest ever campaign to increase take-up, which saw tens of thousands more pension credit awards in the year up to November than in the previous year.

In addition, our commitment to the triple lock for this Parliament means that women will see their state pension rise by up to £575 this year, with incomes up to £2,100 a year higher by the end of the Parliament. Indeed, overall spending on the state pension is set to be more than £30 billion higher a year by the end of this Parliament than in 2024-25. We are also putting record investment into the NHS, meaning that thousands more pensioners are getting the operations and treatment that they need, rather than being left in pain on waiting lists. This is the positive difference our Government are making.

I believe it was right to review the evidence and that, having done so, we have made the right decision based on due process and the body of evidence. At the same time, looking to the future, we are taking important steps to support women in retirement and help them to build a better life for themselves and their families. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

As constituency MPs, we will all have met many campaigners from the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign group—the WASPI women. I am sure that many Members will have received a large amount of correspondence on this matter recently. If they are anything like me—I have had 150 emails recently about it—they will really feel the strength of opinion out there. It is safe to say that both our constituents and us as Members of Parliament have been left wanting by this Government.

In December 2024, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), told this House that the Government would not compensate these women. Let me remind colleagues what her rationale was. She said that

“the Government do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women, at a cost of up to £10.5 billion, would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 168.]

She also tried to argue that they could not afford it because of holes in the Government finances. However, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rightly said:

“Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.]

Before getting into government, it seems that Labour MPs did think that an injustice had been done. Let us remind our colleagues of what members of this Government have said in the past. The Prime Minister himself called this situation “a huge injustice”. The Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary slammed the “cliff edge” that he said faced WASPI women. The Foreign Secretary said that she was

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s questions. He is right that there has been a forceful and energetic campaign, which has resulted in lots of emails and contact with Members across the House, but his Government had this report from the ombudsman. They could have taken a decision before the election, but they chose not to, as with so many other issues. And perhaps the ombudsman had an inkling of how unlikely it would be to get a decision from the previous Government, because the ombudsman made the recommendations on remedy to Parliament rather than to his Government.

The hon. Gentleman refers to Labour, to me and to other MPs on this side of the House, and I remind him that we voted against the acceleration in the rise of the state pension age that was put through by the coalition Government.

On re-examining the decision, I thought it was right to do so, to make absolutely sure that we got this right, considering not just the 2007 report but a whole range of evidence and documents. I have repeated my predecessor’s apology for the maladministration found by the ombudsman. There is no change in our position on the triple lock, and the figures quoted reflect the estimates of the Office for Budget Responsibility throughout the Parliament.

I am sure my right hon. Friend appreciates the enormous disappointment on this side of the House. Only two years before the general election, our now Prime Minister spoke in favour of a just settlement for WASPI women. I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend says that this was not in the manifesto on which we all stood, and that we did not make that promise, but he will recognise the real sense that an injustice has been done to these women. Today has not remediated that.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, and I understand what he says, but it is also important to consider exactly what is at issue here. Many people are unhappy with the rise in the state pension age and the decision to equalise it, and this decision does not deal with that. The decision deals with the specific issue of how it was communicated over a specific period of time. It is really important to separate those two things. I believe that, on that ground, we have considered it very carefully—not just once but twice—and given it due and proper process. It is right to apologise for the maladministration, but I believe the decision we have taken on remedy and compensation is the correct one.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I met the Secretary of State a few weeks ago, and we reflected on his being a fan of Celtic and Bruce Springsteen, but I was not aware that he is also a member of the Magic Circle. He is clearly trying to set up a number of illusions by saying that this is to do with particular issues and comments, but it is actually about whether these women were communicated with adequately.

I reflect on what other colleagues have said, and it is about injustice. Being elected as an MP—though, as a Liberal Democrat, I was somewhat disappointed not to be a member of the Government—is about seeking out and tackling injustice, yet the Secretary of State is putting this in the “too hard to do” file. The more than 3.6 million WASPI women across the UK will feel this as if it were a punch in the stomach. They will feel utterly betrayed, because false hope was given to them in the autumn. That hope has been dashed.

I thank the more than 100 MPs from across the United Kingdom who supported the letter I co-ordinated calling for justice for WASPI women, but sadly it fell on stony ground. What engagement did the Secretary of State have with the ombudsman before coming to his final conclusions, and will he please explain further why he has chosen to ignore the ombudsman’s recommendation to give justice to WASPI women and pay compensation?

The hon. Member is certainly right about my allegiance to both Celtic and Bruce Springsteen, but there is no illusion about the position of the Liberal Democrats. He says, with a tinge of regret, that he wishes that they were in government, but they were in government —and that is the point. In 2011, they took the decision to accelerate the equalisation and raising of the state pension age, so they were in a position to take decisions on it.

At the heart of this issue is something different: how the decisions were communicated and whether people could have done something differently. The hon. Gentleman asks about engagement with the ombudsman. I have, of course, looked at the report, and the current ombudsman recently met the permanent secretary. As I said in my statement, we will pick up the work that was paused on the action plan so that in future when we consider the state pension age we fully consider not only the policy but all aspects of communication and the period of warning—things which were distinctly not done when the decision to accelerate the state pension age was taken by the coalition Government.

The Secretary of State knows just how disappointing many will find this statement, particularly the WASPI women who feel so strongly the injustice that they have suffered. I appreciate that the he has set out the reasons in principle and in practice and explained how the Labour Government will support low-income pensioners, but I want to talk about the personal aspect. I suspect that the Secretary of State, like me and many other Members, started full-time work in his twenties that was not physically arduous. I think of a constituent of mine who started work aged 15—hard, physical work—and found herself required to continue working many years after she expected to have retired and as her health deteriorated. What help and support can the Secretary of State offer her?

My hon. Friend is right to say that as the state pension age has gone up, the way people have been affected is influenced by the kind of lives they have led and the toughness of the work that they have done. But that argument is about the raising of the state pension age, and while I appreciate that a lot of the correspondence has been about that, it is a different issue from the one that the ombudsman was looking at. In terms of our policy, the exactly reason why we have pension credit is to help lower-income pensioners; it is why we put it in place in 2003, and it is why we have put extra effort into making sure that the benefit is taken up by those who are entitled to it.

The Secretary of State is a fellow west midlands Member of Parliament, and he will know Shropshire very well. Many WASPI women born in the 1950s from my constituency will be very disappointed by today’s announcement. He talks about miscommunication and maladministration but, of course, says little about compensation, which means that the injustice continues. Could he give a little more detail on how the action plan will assuage some of the anger that will no doubt have come about as a result of this disappointing non-announcement? What real help can be given to WASPI women in different ways, including those who do not qualify for and are not entitled to pension credit?

I am grateful to my west midlands colleague for his question. He talks about disappointment. The shadow Minister could have, in the time allocated to him, promised to take a different decision were the Conservatives ever to return to power. They had the chance to take a different decision when they were in power, but they chose to not even respond to the report let alone outline what the decision might be.

On the action plan and specifically what it will cover, two things are at the heart of it: communications and the handling of complaints. If we are to raise the state pension age in the country over time, it is important that we get the communications right. That is what we want to do, and I will work with the ombudsman going forward.

There are 300,000 WASPI women in Yorkshire and 6,500 in my constituency. In Yorkshire we believe that politicians should say what they mean and mean what they say. Labour opposed the proposal when it was first introduced. Our leading spokesman continued to say that Labour wanted to and would deliver justice to the WASPI women. This is not justice.

For the many women in my constituency and elsewhere who I have met and discussed this issue with, the idea that there would be an accelerated process of getting to a higher pension age came like a bolt out of the blue. They had no idea that it was coming so quickly. It disrupted families’ plans and the financial structures of their lives. It was a disgrace, and it was introduced by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The Government still have a chance to put this right, and I say this to the Minister: he has not heard the end of this problem or of the voices of the WASPI women.

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that we were opposed to the acceleration. We voted against it and opposed many policies of the coalition Government and the Tory Governments who were in power over the past 14 years. He is also right to say that five years’ notice was not enough; that is why we voted to oppose it, and when it comes to our responsibilities now, it is why we have put such stress on looking after pensions properly and maintaining the value of the basic state pension. I outlined what that would mean for this Parliament in my statement. For poorer pensioners, we are making sure that there is maximum take-up of pension credit so that people can access the benefits to which they are entitled.

I welcome the Government’s apology for the maladministration and the Minister’s clarity today, but many Salisbury WASPI women will be very disappointed by the decision. Could the Secretary of State say a little more about what options he looked at to compensate the poorest, most vulnerable of the WASPI women? I recognise that the enormous cost would be too much overall, but what options did he pursue? When I was in government, the option to withdraw the winter fuel payment was one that I resisted, because of the impracticalities of doing it fairly. What options were put to him, and could he not have compensated the poorest? I think many would have been sympathetic to that.