Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

Order. Before Mr Shannon intervenes, may I respectfully ask the hon. Lady to consider truncating her speech a little, as a number of colleagues will want to speak this afternoon?

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.

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.

It is a pleasure to be called to speak so early in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing this debate. There is not much more that can be said, as she has put the case so eloquently, but there is one key point I want to get on the record: broadly speaking, as the hon. Lady eloquently said, this issue crosses the House and there is a broad understanding that there has been an injustice. For me, this is about fairness and what will happen going forward if people lose faith in organisations such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing this debate, and I thank her for her work. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about trust in Government and a betrayal of trust for all of us who stood there with placards saying, “I support the WASPI women”? They should be following that up.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. At a time when trust in Government and politicians is so low, it is imperative that we do all we can in this place to right that wrong.

To get an idea of the level of support across the House, I would like to see a vote in Parliament about whether we should have a fair compensation scheme. Whenever I speak to WASPI women in my constituency or elsewhere, the main thing they want is to be listened to. The key thread that resonates with all these women is that they feel completely sidelined and ignored. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) made the point earlier that parties of all persuasions have held placards and made promises and pledges—and the Liberal Democrats know all too well about the danger of making promises that cannot be delivered on. I would like all parties and all politicians to be held accountable for the promises that they failed to deliver on.

I represent a place that is broadly characterised as fairly affluent and wealthy, but there are real issues with poverty in Harrogate and Knaresborough, though it is often hidden. The hon. Member for Salford eloquently made the point that when WASPI women were growing up and working, they were already disadvantaged, and this is a further disadvantage. It is incumbent on us all to right that wrong.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an issue not only of justice, but of equality between men and women? If this Government are serious about tackling inequality at all levels, they must surely listen to the women in all our constituencies on this issue. I have been inundated with correspondence from constituents about this, and the Government must tackle it.

I completely agree. I do not intend to speak for much longer, so I will wrap up. For me, this represents a fundamental flaw in the system. It is a complete failure of the ombudsman if, after there has been maladministration, it cannot get us in this place to push for the change that it has outlined. That maladministration is not up for debate; it was a finding of the report. We hear harrowing stories from women who have lost houses, ended up in debt and faced horrendous situations as a result of something that they did not know about. This is about fixing that problem and righting that wrong.

First, I thank the many women across Falkirk who have taken the time to campaign on this issue, and to discuss the injustice done to women affected by state pension age changes and the lack of notification about those changes. I am here on their behalf.

Both the ombudsman and the Secretary of State in her statement back in December were clear that there is an injustice in the way that women impacted by state pension age changes were notified. I invited WASPI women in Falkirk to meet me in December after the Secretary of State’s statement, and what I took from that meeting is that if we in this place believed that there was no injustice, compensation would never have been paid, regardless of fiscal circumstances. If we recognise that there has been an injustice—as the Secretary of State and the ombudsman do—we are justified in expecting that we will deliver, in some form, the redress recommended in the ombudsman’s findings.

On behalf of the WASPI women in Falkirk who raised and continue to raise these questions with me, I will use this opportunity to ask again some of the questions I have previously raised with the Minister. I would welcome him addressing them when he sums up. Why can the Government choose when to implement ombudsman recommendations, and when not to? Is the 90% awareness figure used by the Government derived from a study specific to women who have been impacted by the pension age changes, and is the decision based on cost or genuine disagreement with the findings of the ombudsman?

It is often said in times of financial crisis that some institutions are too big to fail. Unfortunately, in this case it is a question of some campaigns being seen as being too big to succeed. I am quite sure that the real reason why the Department for Work and Pensions is so resistant to this cause is not that it does not recognise the justice of the WASPI women’s cause, so eloquently set out by the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), who has given excellent leadership on this cause through the all-party parliamentary group. Rather, behind the scenes— I do not know this, but I am sure that I am right—it is putting forward arguments along these lines: “There are so many of them; the bill will simply be too great. What’s more, they’re only going to get between £1,000 and £3,000 each, which won’t be anything like full financial compensation, so what’s the point in giving in to this demand?” I am quite sure that if the numbers were fewer and the overall bill was not so significant, we would not see this resistance to an obviously valid and viable cause.

Does the right hon. Member agree that we cannot put a price on justice?

I do indeed. Of course, in any event, the women realise that they will not get anything like full compensation, but they want the symbolic acceptance and acknowledgement of the injustice that they have received. As we have heard from those on both sides of the House, this resistance puts at stake the credibility of the ombudsman system itself. Undermining that will have a knock-on effect: in many future cases, the bill for implementing an ombudsman’s recommendations and findings will not be anything like as large, but people and institutions will be emboldened to defy the ombudsman.

One of the best short summaries of the case was put forward in a previous Labour manifesto, which said:

“a generation of women born in the 1950s have had their pension age changed without fair notification. This betrayal left millions of women with no time to make alternative plans—with sometimes devastating personal consequences.

Labour recognises this injustice, and will work with these women to design a system of recompense for the losses and insecurity they have suffered.”

Admittedly, that was the 2019 manifesto, and Labour at that time was led by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but that does not mean that the manifesto was wrong in what it said. It was absolutely right in its summary and its recognition that something must be done.

Indeed, when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was in opposition in the last Parliament, she was cautious in what she said about the ombudsman’s report, but she did acknowledge the following:

“we will take time to give the report proper consideration too, and continue to listen respectfully to those involved, as we have done from the start.”

She added:

“we won’t be able to right every wrong overnight.”

That would have been the basis for at least an attempt to give the symbolic redress and acknowledgement that I think most fair-minded people agree is due.

Does the right hon. Member agree that this is an issue of not just policy, but dignity? These women’s voices must be heard, and the Government have a responsibility to honour commitments made, to give fair treatment, and to ensure that something is done.

Yes. In a way, the Government have fallen between two stools. The report, as we have heard, anticipated that the Government would be reluctant to the right the wrong done to so many people at once, but nevertheless the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman felt that justice required compensation to be paid. It knew that there would be this Government resistance, so it must have meant a lot to the ombudsman to still go down this highly unusual route of trying to present its report directly to Parliament, because it felt it would not get far by dealing with the Government directly.

One might have expected the Government to offer a scheme that fell some way short of the ombudsman’s recommendation, but their outright rejection of any restitution at all is rather insulting to the women whose complaint was upheld by the ombudsman. As we have heard, despite the DWP claiming to accept the findings, and even apologising for its maladministration, it is not offering a penny in restitution, and is relying in its response on a deeply unconvincing polling exercise that supposedly found that nine out of 10 of the affected women knew in advance that their state pension age was going to change. If that was the case, why did so many of them carry on as if nothing was going to change at all? A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) asked about the nature of the sampling that was done; only some 200 women born in the 1950s were included in the sample of nearly 2,000 people surveyed, which led to that misleading result.

I know the Minister has a great deal of expertise and a strong track record on issues of this sort from his former career, before he came to this House. I therefore appeal to him to at least reach out the hand of negotiation and discussion; to accept the offer that reasonable people are making to the Government; and to sit down and talk to them, and not to let the whole thing go through the courts, which would lead to an adversarial deepening of hostility and, inevitably, a less desirable outcome for everyone concerned.

With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Brian Leishman.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for bringing forward this debate, and for her contribution, which was excellent, as usual. It was quite the sight yesterday to see female parliamentarians don green, white and purple sashes in commemoration of 97 years since women won the vote. It seems unthinkable that women were denied political representation; but then again, women have been the victims of inequality for centuries. The pension inequality that women born in the 1950s suffer from shows that the political battle may have somewhat changed, but prejudice and unfairness still exist.

Some colleagues may feel somewhat uncomfortable with what I am about to say, but I believe that it needs to be said. Someone who supports campaigns on WASPI, nuclear test victims or the Hillsborough law while in opposition should, when they find themselves in a Front- Bench role in Government, do everything they can to deliver justice, as they said they would while holding a placard or a banner. Support and solidarity for people like the WASPI women is not transactional; solidarity is not a campaigning tool. I have campaigned for justice for WASPI women, and that is why I co-sponsored the ten-minute rule Bill for compensation in January.

For years, Governments have refused to deliver justice to WASPI women. That is wrong. Not delivering that justice seems like one of those “tough decisions” that politicians have to take, but the truth is that this was a choice, and it always seems to be working-class people who are on the wrong end of these choices. A Labour Government should make different choices, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford. Like many, I believe that the Labour party is the vehicle for social, political and economic change. A year ago tomorrow, people voted for change—a change from austerity and its social consequences, and from a Government who denied fairness to victims of many scandals and injustices.

I want to mention the ladies from the Falkirk WASPI branch. We met in my constituency office. We sat; they spoke; and I listened to their legitimate anger about the Secretary of State’s announcement last December. Their hurt today is as palpable as it was when we met in the new year. I urge the Government to do the right thing.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing this debate, and on being such a champion of this cause for many years. Indeed, we have had to debate this injustice in this House for too many years, whether on these green Benches or in other Chambers on the estate. It is a point of great sorrow for me personally that one of my first speeches as a Member of Parliament back in 2017 was on this injustice, and little could I have imagined back then that I would be a little older, three elections down, and still having to debate the injustice that has befallen so many 1950s-born women.

The hon. Lady covered the entire injustice so eloquently that I only want to emphasise a few points. First, we are talking of a generation of women that I highly admire. They were women who suffered injustice and great disadvantages throughout their working lives. They were often not paid in line with their male colleagues. They were not entitled to the same opportunities when it came to private pensions, for example. That injustice itself is important to highlight because it bears relevance on what we are talking about.

We are of course aware of the challenges initiated by the two pension Acts that caused the change in the state pension age for 1950s-born women. After this injustice was brought to us, Members of Parliament from across the island of Great Britain and Northern Ireland asked many women in our constituencies to organise and to campaign. We asked them to diligently undertake the various processes that were available to them to right this wrong, and it all culminated in the ombudsman process. The ombudsman, as we have heard, found that there had been maladministration and an injustice and that far too many 1950s-born women have suffered as a consequence. It is therefore absolutely outrageous that we have a Government not only disregarding the recommendations in part or trying to water them down, but dismissing them outright. As other hon. and right hon. Members have eloquently said, this goes to the heart of our democracy and, indeed, faith in the administrations and institutions of the state to right these terrible wrongs.

I want to put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for this campaign. Reference has been made to the manifesto in 2019. She and I wrote that section. We worked with WASPI and all the campaigns and with Lord Bryn Davies. We, in the modern language, “co-produced” a scheme at that point. We looked at how much these women had lost—how much they had been robbed—which was about £200 million, and they asked for 25% back, just a quarter. It was expensive—of course it was—but there was a window of opportunity because we said that we would borrow that and pay it out over a five-year period. At that point in time, interest rates were so low, and in fact some went into negative interest rates, that we could afford it. We have lost that window of opportunity, and I am angry that that happened. I am angry because I do not know any MP, exactly as has been said, who was not photographed behind a poster supporting the campaign. I pay tribute to the campaign. A lot of those ladies have been patronised over the years. It was a terrific campaign. In fact, it was so terrific that under this Government, it would most probably be proscribed, but there we are.

We all recognise now that there is an injustice—we all accept that. We all know that the DWP operated essentially a sexist policy; it admits that now. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said it is a matter of principle. I do not think it is a matter of principle; it is a matter of hard cash as well, because large numbers of people are still suffering poverty as a result of what has gone on. All I want is a fair settlement, and that is all they are asking for. They are not going away—well, some of them have, because they have died—and this campaign is not going away. We will not let it go away until we get justice for these women.

What the ombudsperson has done is put the matter back to this House. We in this House should be demanding that this House determines the scheme itself and is allowed to vote on that scheme. A Budget is coming up in November. A number of us will not support that Budget unless there is something in it for these women. Why should we? Why should we let this go on for another year, while people suffer and the injustice goes unremedied?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing this debate and on her tremendously eloquent speech, which removed much of what I had to say. In all honesty, though, eloquent speeches are just not going to cut it; they simply will not do the trick. We need action.

I note, with the exception of those present, the absence of so many Labour MPs who, as others have said, stood holding placards in support of the WASPI case. Where are they today? Do they not understand the sense of betrayal, the sense of breach of promise and the breakdown of trust? That is a problem that many of them will face in due course. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) spoke of accountability. Well, there is accountability, and it will come at the next election, when people have a chance to pass their verdict.

I will not repeat many of the things the right hon. Lady said, but I do want to highlight a couple of points. The PHSO said:

“some women lost opportunities to make informed decisions about their finances.”

The ombudsman also said that Parliament should

“identify a mechanism for providing appropriate remedy for those who have suffered injustice”.

When the Budget was announced, there were great expectations that there would be something in it for the WASPI women. There was nothing—nothing—even though the DWP accepted the PHSO’s findings and apologised not once, but twice. If someone takes my wallet and I discover that and I come to them, does anyone think an apology will suffice? No. I want my wallet back. That is the point: an apology just will not cut it.

A great number of women affected by this mal-administration are my constituents and there are many thousands across Scotland. I participated in the debate on 17 March—in fact, I mentioned the WASPI women’s case in my maiden speech. I believe the hon. Member for Salford spoke straight after me, and that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) was also present. Many others have a much longer record than I do of campaigning on this issue.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for securing this debate from the Backbench Business Committee, of which I am a member, and for her eloquent and informative speech.

Financial security is something we endeavour to secure for our families and for ourselves. Many 1950s-born women worked their whole lives with the goal of financial security in their mind’s eye, only for it to be affected through no fault of their own. I will not rehearse the ombudsman’s judgment, which stands as clear as day. We have heard those words time and again specifically because this has not been appropriately remedied.

What never fails to shock are the lived experiences. The testimonies of 1950s-born women are so important because the impact of their stories never diminishes. This is about real women. My constituent, Ann, is just one of the many 1950s-born women who will not accept that finding a remedy to the DWP’s maladministration is

“neither fair nor feasible and would not represent good value for taxpayers.”

When Ann was 57, she applied for a pension forecast. Upon receiving it, Ann discovered that her retirement age was 66, rather than 60. Not long before that shocking news, she went from working five days a week to three. How was she to know that she had to work and plan for retirement over a further six years? She was never informed. Because she was now working part time, it was not possible for her to substantially increase her pension contributions. In 2020, at the age of 63, Ann was made redundant. She had to make her small redundancy payment last her until she retired three years later.

Life has been tough for these women. Events like the pandemic, when Ann lost her job, shook us all, but events where the state has made people’s lives more difficult just because of the day they were born, have a particular degree of unfairness to them. Given the ombudsman’s significant concerns that the DWP would fail to remedy the injustice, it deliberately laid its report before Parliament. When the Government announced their position in relation to the findings—incredibly, without recourse to Parliament—this reaffirmed the ombudsman’s concerns, and sets a worrying precedent for the future.

The purpose of this place is, of course, to make laws, to amend them and sometimes, if we are in opposition, to stop laws being made. But it has another purpose: to hold those with power to account. We do that as individual constituency MPs all the time, taking up cases on behalf of constituents, but this case not only affects the WASPI women in my constituency; I take it up for all the WASPI women, inspired by the leadership of my friend, the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), and others across the House.

It is unusual in this place for Government Members of Parliament and the official Opposition—Labour MPs and Conservatives—the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the DUP and Plaid Cymru to all come together in common cause. That speaks volumes. It says that we recognise that these women were unjustly treated. But it is not just our recognition that counts; the ombudsman too recognised exactly that. When an ombudsman states that maladministration in DWP’s communication about the Pensions Act 1995 resulted in the complainants losing

“opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently”,

and that that diminished their “sense of personal autonomy” and financial control—and that is just one of its findings; maladministration, inappropriate communications and the failure to deal with complaints punctuate the ombudsman’s findings—for a Government not to respond to the ombudsman is frankly unacceptable.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that taking this step to ignore the findings of an ombudsman sets a really dangerous precedent that could be exploited by private companies and by Departments?

I do agree with that. It was a case powerfully made by the hon. Member for Salford that this case is very much about the relationship between the ombudsman and Government, and between this House and Government. That connection between independent scrutiny by the ombudsman and our ability as a House to hold the Government to account lies at the heart of this issue, and that is exactly what I was about to say.

This question is about the WASPI women, but it is also about something still more profound. I hope the Minister will recognise that, in the decisions he takes, he will set an important precedent—a precedent that will affect exactly those kinds of relationships.

I will reveal to the House what the Minister already knows: when this matter was considered by Ministers, a submission would have come forward from officials. I have no doubt at all that it would have offered several options. Option A might have been to satisfy the WASPI women in full; option B might have been to come to a partial settlement, which they perhaps would have accepted; option C would have been to do nothing. The Government chose—despite all the pledges in opposition by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Prime Minister himself—to take that final option of doing nothing.

I find that very surprising. Knowing how reasonable the campaigners are, I suspect that, had a partial settlement been offered, they might well have met the Government halfway. They might have understood that the cost was substantial and that they had to compromise to some degree—although let us just explode one myth: that all these women are privileged and advantaged. Many were not. Many, when they faced a longer period before they could retire, were in ill health. Many had caring responsibilities. Many were hard up. In campaigning for those women, mindful of those disadvantages, we are speaking for people who otherwise would be powerless. Minister, it is not too late to get this right. For the WASPI women have a just cause, and surely, in the name of decency as well as in the name of good democracy, justice must be done.

I fully understand that the Government decision announced in December last year was not about the changes to state pension age from 1995 onwards, but rather about how decisions made by the Department between 2005 and 2007 led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters to people affected by those changes. In March 2024, the PHSO’s stage 2 and 3 reports found clear maladministration in the way the DWP communicated state pension age changes. That fact cannot be disputed. As a direct result, many women born in the 1950s were left with little or no time to make alternative plans and therefore suffered injustice. Again, that is clear and obvious, I would suggest, to all.

Figures from Age Scotland suggest that around 336,000 women were impacted in Scotland, and over 5,000 of those were in my West Dumbartonshire constituency—my WASPI women—including Elizabeth Daly, Elaine Newfeld and Maureen McGrath. I could list hundreds who have contacted me to share their personal stories, to help me understand that this is not just about figures or statistics. They include Liz, who cared for her desperately ill husband, her retirement plan wrecked and their lives destroyed by years of suffering, and Maureen, penalised because she retired at the age of 60 to care for her elderly mother, who lost out on accessing a full state retirement pension. All my WASPI women tell me that, at this stage, it is not about the level of need or the amount of compensation, but about justice.

The UK Government were right to recognise the injustice suffered by WASPI women in the statement to the House on 17 December, and to apologise for the maladministration that affected women across the UK. Of course, the steps set out by the Government to ensure this does not happen again are welcome, but we must learn the lessons and always set a clear timetable for notice of any future state pension age changes. However, an apology is not enough. I urge my Government colleagues to look again at the ombudsman’s report and all its recommendations.

Ignoring key elements of the report, by refusing to comply with its instructions and refusing to set up a compensation scheme for maladministration, not only undermines its role and function, but is unprecedented and sets us on a very dangerous path. For any Government to reject the recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is extremely rare. Between 2018 and 2021, the PHSO made a total of 811 compensation recommendations—only one was not complied with and 99.9% were accepted. Therefore this is highly unusual and, in my opinion, corrosive.

I rise to speak on behalf of the 5,180 women in my constituency of Eastleigh who are impacted by state pension age inequality, and the thousands of women across the country who were victims of Department for Work and Pensions maladministration. As I said in the debate in Westminster Hall in March:

“We know that the Government are facing incredibly difficult challenges, but ignoring the voices of thousands of women is a huge mistake. This issue is not going to go away.”—[Official Report, 17 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 11WH.]

My constituent, Chrissy, received her state-pension six years later than she was expecting. She told me:

“Those lost years weren’t just numbers — they were years of struggle, uncertainty, and hardship. The silence from the government is a cruel erasure of our lives. The government says it’s too expensive to compensate us. But it was never too expensive for us—yet we had to live with the cost and the hardship every single day’’.

Many of the women in my constituency who were impacted were left with very little to live on, blindsided by the sudden loss of income. They were forced to return to work in low-paid jobs to get by and, in some cases, had to use food banks. The toll on their lives, and those of their families, should not be underestimated. These women spent decades working, raising families and often taking on unpaid care-giving roles. Many continue to shoulder caring responsibilities today. The way that they have been treated by successive Governments is nothing short of disgraceful.

My constituents’ stories are echoed across the country. The WASPI campaign estimates that 3.8 million women have been affected—women who have been treated appallingly, and feel that they do not matter and are invisible. I urge the Government to stop gaslighting them and start listening—really listening—to the pain, injustice and betrayal they have endured. The refusal to provide compensation not only is morally indefensible, but sets a dangerous precedent, as the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) said. If Departments can accept maladministration yet ignore the ombudsman’s remedy, the entire purpose of independent oversight collapses.

I thank the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for championing the cause of WASPI women, who have been utterly failed by successive Governments. I will not repeat what others have said, but it is clear that the Government should act on the ombudsman’s report after the maladministration of the DWP.

I have spoken to women in my constituency, WASPI Scotland and across the UK. These are women who historically have faced systemic inequalities, lower wages and difficulty accessing the same work opportunities as men. They have disproportionately shouldered caring responsibilities as primary carers for children and, later, they frequently cared for elderly relatives and loved ones with disabilities. They continue to give their unpaid labour without acknowledgment, which significantly reduces pressures and costs on our NHS and social care services.

I am one of those women myself. After a family illness, my life changed in an instant. I had to stop working and become a carer, and I had to be at home. If I was not fortunate enough to still have my health and strength to become a councillor later in life, when my caring responsibilities allowed, and now an MP, I would have been reliant on my state pension and a very small private pension due to circumstances totally outwith my control.

The reality is that I am far from being alone in finding myself with caring responsibilities or ill health, and many of my counterparts are not in my fortunate position. WASPI women like myself worked hard, paid into the system and looked forward to their retirement, based on their understanding of the system at the time. At times when others were planning their pensions, these women were in low-paid jobs that were flexible enough to allow them to continue with family commitments.

When it became clear that corrective action was necessary, the Government first exploited the plight of these women for political gain. Once they were in power, they then ignored the promises they had made to win their seats. Most troubling is the Government’s continued refusal to act, despite the ombudsman’s extraordinary call for parliamentary intervention. Rather than providing decisive leadership and delivering justice, the Government have delayed, deflected and evaded accountability.

I stand here in support of the 6,020 WASPI women in my constituency and every single WASPI woman across the UK. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing this crucial debate. I also thank her for her powerful and compelling speech, which clearly presented the case and evidence as well as the injustice that these women have suffered and the clear need to address it through the payment of compensation by implementing the recommendations of the ombudsman.

Without wanting to repeat any of the points that have been made, I will read out some specific comments from my constituents in Dewsbury and Batley. Virginia, a constituent of mine, wrote to me just after I was elected:

“I am absolutely devastated and I feel betrayed. For years, senior Labour representatives and even the Prime Minister himself pledged to deliver fair compensation to those impacted. They have now made a political choice to break that promise and to ignore the findings of an independent watchdog…The DWP got it wrong, and they cannot simply adopt a ‘pick and mix’ approach to which elements of an independent ombudsman’s conclusions they find convenient.”

She went on to say:

“Furthermore, in recent months, all pensioners losing their Winter Fuel Allowance have been written to directly. Why does the Government not feel this would have made a difference for WASPI women?”

Another constituent, Ann, wrote:

“I need to vent my frustration and anger at the Government’s announcement yesterday that they will not accept the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pay WASPI women some compensation for maladministration. They were in support of this whilst they were in opposition.”

This decision is a complete betrayal and a breach of trust between this place and the people we represent, and it must be reversed. Ann went on to say:

“The people making these decisions are in fortunate positions themselves but I was relying on their understanding and compassion for others who were less able to make up the c£48k which I reckon to have ‘lost’.”

I thank the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for securing this debate. She spoke superbly and with great passion on the subject.

December last year marked a shameful day for this Government, when millions of women born in the 1950s—women who have given a lifetime of service, hard work and care to their families, communities and country—were utterly betrayed. As ever, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) gave a superb speech, but I take slight issue with one thing he said, which was that the Government did nothing. If only they had done nothing, we would be in a better situation. Instead, despite the clear evidence from the parliamentary ombudsman of maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions, the Government decided that there would be no financial compensation— no justice, only betrayal. That was a choice that the Government made on behalf of these women—women who faced significant hardship because they were not properly informed about changes to the state pension age. An apology, while necessary, is simply not enough. A Government cannot apologise for maladministration and then refuse to put things right. It is disgraceful to acknowledge an injustice, but refuse to fix it. These women deserve fairness, they deserve dignity, and they deserve compensation.

As other hon. Members have mentioned, we know exactly why the Government will not act. It comes down to money. For years, the Liberal Democrats have championed the cause of WASPI women, among others. We have consistently called for fair and proper compensation, in line with the ombudsman’s recommendations.

In my constituency, I have seen at first hand how deeply this injustice has affected women’s lives. They have worked hard, planned carefully and trusted this Government to keep their promises, only to be badly let down. I will quickly share the story of my constituent, Helen from Seaford, who is part of my local WASPI group. She was shocked to hear about the changes in 2012, in a letter informing her that the age at which she was due to retire would rise from 60 to 65. Unbelievably, that was only two and a half years before she was due to retire, and it meant she had to work an extra six years to be able to support her daughter properly. Helen spent 50 years paying national insurance as a single parent, and she told me she was so angry that what she had worked for had been taken away from her. I am sure the House would agree that Helen’s resilience and determination are inspiring, but she should never have been placed in that position.

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. First, I thank the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for setting the scene so incredibly well and all the hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed fantastically, putting across the demands of their constituents.

This is not a new issue, and we know that. I do not think I have missed a WASPI debate. Indeed, I do not think the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has missed one either in the time I have been here. This week in this House has given me hope that perhaps the Government can acknowledge when we are moving in the wrong direction. The Government need to correct the wrong steps taken and follow through on the recommendations in the ombudsman’s report.

Northern Ireland has some 77,000 WASPI women, of whom 7,000 are my constituents. I do not know all 7,000 personally—I have not done that roll-call—but those who have come to me have told me their stories. In many cases, they are ladies who have cleaned floors or cleaned offices or been classroom assistants or teachers. Age catches up with us all, and it catches up with me, too. It catches up with them, and their knees are not as strong as they used to be. They planned their pensions in accordance with the timescale, and then it was taken away from them. That is the concern I have. They had planned for their life, and then they were deprived of that.

The report rightly found that some WASPI women were not informed about the changes to their pensions and had made long-term financial plans based on the assumption that they would receive their state pension at 60. All their financial planning was in place, and then it was just taken away. That meant that when the WASPI women lost their pensions, they lost all sources of income and met unexpected financial insecurity. The insufficient information was not only negligent, but deeply unjust, and the Government have acknowledged that to be the case, so there is a precedent. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) was right to say that the process was backed away from.

I refuse to believe that age is catching up with the hon. Gentleman. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing the debate, on campaigning on this issue, and on making sure that this debate came to the main Chamber. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. As well as hearing the very strong and powerful case around this particular issue, we have heard personal examples. Whether it is Gill from Tiverton, Ann from Newcastle, Helen from Seaford or Paula from Dewsbury, we have heard that many women rightly feel a sense of raw injustice, and the Government must act.

I have met WASPI women many times in Parliament, but I have also met them in my constituency. A couple of years before I was elected, I met a group of 30 WASPI women. I regret that I cannot recall the name of the woman whose case I remember, but her circumstances stuck with me. She was quietly spoken, and I could tell that she had real rage and fury inside her, but she was not prepared to show it. She just said, “I’ve spent my entire life working. I’ve raised a family. I’ve watched the pennies, and I was proud to stand on my own two feet. But at the end of my working life, I felt robbed of my money and robbed of my dignity. Even though I know this situation is not of my making and not my fault, I feel a tremendous sense of shame.”

That really stuck with me. Some 3.8 million women are affected by this issue, and many of them feel a sense of shame. They should not, but they do. It is really frustrating that the Government, notwithstanding the terrible inheritance that they received, have chosen to do nothing, and there are two problems facing them. The first is that an obvious injustice has been left unaddressed. The second is that, as so many Members from across the House have said, it sets a very dangerous precedent. For some women, an offer of an apology or a payment might be symbolic, but it is far more than that for many of them. It is about survival, and it would help them to get out of the struggle that they are now in.

On behalf of my party, I urge the Government please to reflect after this debate, and to go back to the drawing board and think about what can be done. At the very least, they should think of something to help those women who are struggling the most. Doing nothing is really not an option. If the rebellion earlier this week was for any reason at all, it was to send a message to this Government that their own party, this House and the British public want a Government who will stand up for the underdog—those who are hard done by in life, by the Government and by circumstances out of their control. I hope the Government listen today and act, because to govern is to choose. The Government must know that it is not too late to make a different choice.

I call the shadow Minister.

Let me start by giving credit to the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for her very powerful speech and for all the work that she has done on this campaign over the years, and to many other Labour Members who have spoken so well today, particularly the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who I always listen to with respect on this topic and, indeed, on some others.

It has been good to hear from Members. I particularly welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who is a great new addition to this place. We see here the true voice of the Labour party. It is the Labour movement at its best, and I pay tribute to Labour Members for their campaigning on this topic. They are the heroes of the movement. We also have the heroes of the Conservative party behind me—my good friends the knights of the shires—whom it is an honour to listen to. It is like listening to Edmund Burke when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) speaks about duty and responsibility.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings on their work together on this campaign, which, a few months ago, secured the very significant Westminster Hall debate that has been mentioned. On that day, as if the product of their work, out popped, fresh and pink, the new Minister, who was appointed to his role on that day, as if for the very purpose of answering the question of what should be done for the WASPI women. There was hope of great things from him, but I am afraid to say that we were disappointed on that day. He could offer no hope at all, yet since then we have seen a whole series of U-turns. They have become fashionable on the Government Front Bench, and who knows what we may hear the from Minister today.

I recognise, and I am sure the Minister will stress, how difficult it is to address the very complicated circumstances of the very many women caught up in the pension age changes. As I am sure he will say, the ombudsman has recognised that there was no direct impact on pensioners’ incomes from the maladministration and the miscommunication of which the DWP was guilty in the 2000s. However, as Members have said— I particularly recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—women made decisions about their future, and about their life, in ignorance of their true circumstances. The failure by the DWP to successfully and appropriately communicate with the women caused them to make decisions that directly disadvantaged them.

It is becoming a habit of mine to intervene on the hon. Member. He says that the report should be respected, but should not be binding, so what does he have in mind, and how would it look?

It is absolutely essential that the points made in the ombudsman’s report are fully acknowledged by the Government, and it is necessary, as I will explain, that some meaningful redress is made to the victims of the DWP’s maladministration.

The hon. Member for Salford suggested that there could be another review of the system by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, but I do not think that the magic words, “Timms review”, will get the Government out of this hole. He has enough on his hands sorting out the mess they have made on benefits, so this is a job for this Minister, who is a very clever man, and I have great confidence in him.

The suggestion made by some Members of mediation may be usefully taken forward. However, as my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, it is simply insulting of the Government to make absolutely no redress and no acknowledgement of the injustice that the WASPI women have endured, and it is appropriate for some meaningful acknowledgement to be made.

It is not for me to rescue the Government from the consequences of their own incontinence—their fiscal folly—which has got them into the mess they are in, but they have made several discretionary payments since they came to power. There were the salary increases for train drivers, without any improvement in productivity; the creation of a multibillion-pound energy company that makes no energy; our paying another country billions of pounds to take over sovereign territory belonging to the UK; and, of course, all the U-turns that have imposed significant new costs on the taxpayer, including those costing £5 billion this week alone. Obviously, Government can make discretionary payments if they want to; these are sovereign decisions that they can make.

Crucially, any such decision must be funded. We saw this week that the Government essentially fell apart as a consequence of a whole series of bad decisions made in the Treasury. Parliament rose up against the Treasury and demanded change. The decision making at the heart of the Government has been woeful for the past year since Labour has come to office. I pay tribute to the parliamentarians who resisted that this week. This is a new opportunity for the Government to put right a mistake, and I look forward to hearing how the Minister proposes to do that.

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken powerfully today, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for leading today’s debate on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. This is an important topic that she and I have discussed several times, both in public and in private. I look forward to her closing remarks.

When we retire, the question of how comfortable we will be in retirement and in the years leading up to it— ot least given the growth in pre-retirement poverty, partly due to ill health, as the hon. Member for Mid Dunbarton-shire (Susan Murray) set out—is crucial to all of us. We ask that question of ourselves, and of those we care about. As the debate has shown, many hon. Members rightly ask that about the country as a whole. We should expect people to have strong views on the state pension age. We all know women affected by the changes made, since 2010 in particular, that affect that age group—constituents, friends and family. I have declared a family interest on this front before, alongside my professional one.

I, too, have many constituents who are affected, and I have held up the banner saying, “I stand with WASPI women.” My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) laid out where we can find the money. Surely we can promise to revisit this when the public purse allows, rather than letting down these women who have been let down over and over again. Justice delayed is justice denied.

I always thank my hon. Friend for her contributions. She makes a powerful case. I will come on to the reasons why we do not agree with that case, but I understand her point.

This is a cohort of women who have too often faced discrimination in the world of work, with lasting effects on the value of their workplace pensions. They have borne the brunt of unequal caring responsibilities, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford set out, historically the genders have had very unequal state pensions. That, at least, has been addressed, but the workplace pension divide remains as big as ever.

I should declare that my mum is a WASPI woman. She would be disappointed if I was not here today, and there is nothing worse than your mum being disappointed in you. I also represent 6,030 other WASPI women in my constituency. I just wonder if the Minister really understands the discrimination faced by 1950s women, including sexism and a lot of discrimination in the workplace. They just feel let down. Does the Minister realise that, and that they absolutely deserve justice?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know, without having met her, that his mum will not be disappointed in him. Obviously, the point he makes is absolutely right; it is the point that I was just making. I think we are all aware of the experiences that this generation of women have had to face, not just in the labour market but much more broadly. He makes a powerful case, as always.

Now, there is broad political consensus that it is right to equalise the state pension age for men and women, but the acceleration of the state pension age increases by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition was more politically controversial. I was not going to mention it, but I will gently remind Liberal Democrat Members who have spoken today—the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) and for Lewes (James MacCleary) used particularly strong language on this point—that it was the choice made by their party. Not to mention that acceleration at all—[Interruption.] If Members are going to use strong language about difficult choices, then they need to reflect on the choices that led to that point. My party opposed those choices at the time.

However, neither the acceleration nor the longer planned increases to the SPA legislated for since 1995 were matters the ombudsman investigated. This matters, given that it is the desirability of the original policy decisions made by previous Governments that is most frequently referred to by campaigners and by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) today, who focus on the increases to the state pension age. In contrast, the ombudsman’s focus was on how those changes were communicated by the Department for Work and Pensions, as the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire very clearly pointed out.

As all hon. Members know, we carefully considered the ombudsman’s findings. We always will, given its important role, which was set out by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) today and in several debates that I have taken part in with him in recent months.

The Minister is right to say that no party—indeed, no previous Government—can be excused in this respect, because this matter covers the time in office of several Governments. The difference is that members of his party, in opposition, said,

“This injustice can’t go on. I have been a longstanding supporter of the WASPI campaign”,

and that Labour “will compensate” the WASPI women, as it is “their money”. That was said by the current Work and Pensions Secretary and the current Deputy Prime Minister.

The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for much longer than me, so he knows how this works. Parties set out their manifestos, and I am sure that if he looks at the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto, he will find there different words from the ones he has just shared with the House.

The Government agree that letters should have been sent sooner. We have apologised, and we will learn the lessons from that. However, as hon. Members and campaigners on this issue are well aware, we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or to remedy—and neither, reading carefully between the lines of the speech from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), do the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman spoke very eloquently, as always.

Let us look at what the ombudsman said when it made its decision to lay the report before Parliament. It was not looking ahead to what a future Government might do; it knew that the then Conservative Government would have come to a similar conclusion. Hon. Members should remember that the long debate over those years between the Government and the ombudsman was held in private, so the ombudsman was aware of the approach of the Government, to whom it was talking in a way that those of us outside Government at the time could not have known.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) asked about the decision not to accept an ombudsman’s findings. They are right to say that it is unusual, but it is definitely not unprecedented. I should spell out that the Government have accepted other ombudsman findings since, so it is not right to say that this is some kind of fundamental break in the approach by Government.

Earlier, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) warned us that we might simply see the Government Front Bencher regurgitation the Government’s views today. Can the Minister clarify whether he has been sent here to defend the indefensible, or will he give us something new today?

The hon. Gentleman is welcome to choose his tone; I will continue to the end of my comments. My job is to come and explain the Government’s decision, and to be held accountable for it. That is what I am doing today, and what I will continue to do over the course of my remarks. It is right that the Government are then asked questions about their decision; that is the nature of this democracy, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said.

An important consideration in the Government making this decision was that evidence showed that sending people unsolicited letters is unlikely to affect what they know. That is why letters are sent only as part of wider communication campaigns. This evidence was not properly considered by the ombudsman. Another consideration was that the great majority of 1950s-born women were aware of the state pension age changing, if not of a change in their specific state pension age, as several hon. Members have pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned the statistic of 43%, referring to the 2024 rather than 2023 survey. However, as she will know, that refers to all women, including some women as young as 16; if we look at the cohort of women born in the 1950s, the figure is far, far higher. On those and other grounds, we rejected the ombudsman’s approach to injustice and remedy.[Official Report, 1 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 3WC.] (Correction)

Members will be aware that litigation is live, so I will not go into lots more detail on the research evidence, which is the core of that litigation. I will just say two things: first, our decision was based on published research reports, which were robust and met professional standards; secondly, the same awareness research, which the right hon. Member for New Forest East disparaged, was used by the ombudsman.

Will the Minister explain to the House why not one single speech in this debate until his has taken the line that he is taking? Everyone who has spoken in this debate believes that some compensation, at least symbolically, should be paid.

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I am a liberal man. People will come to different views on the evidence. There are many Members in the House who have campaigned powerfully on this issue over many years, and I respect the work they have done on that. I am setting out a different view from the one that the right hon. Member has taken. That is the nature of policy choice, the nature of accountability, and the nature of this debate.

The ombudsman is clear that redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact, as it did in the case of the Equitable Life compensation scheme that an hon. Member mentioned. And they spell out the challenges of assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women, not least given that it took the ombudsman nearly six years to look at just six cases. The reality is that assessing them would take thousands of staff very many years. We gave detailed thought to whether we could design a fair and feasible compensation scheme. However, most of the schemes that were suggested would not focus on women who lost opportunities as a result of the delay in sending letters. Rule-based schemes, such as that suggested by the Work and Pensions Committee, would make payments on the basis of the likes of age rather than injustice. Simply playing a flat rate to all 3.5 million women born in the 1950s, irrespective of any injustice, is also hard to justify.

Fundamentally, though, our decision was not only driven by cost—to answer directly the question of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank)—but by the fact that we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy for the reasons that I have set out. Indeed, our commitment to pensioners can be seen in the significant fiscal investments that we are making in our priorities for pensioners, including raising the state pension and rescuing the NHS.

I have an awful lot of affection for the hon. Member. Is there any difference between this speech and the one that was made in Westminster Hall? As it does not look as though there is, he might as well just send us the tape of the last one.

Well, the right hon. Member has demonstrated more affection on previous occasions is what I would gently say to that. If he is asking me whether the Government’s position has changed, I am afraid that the answer, from his perspective, is no.

A few moments ago, the Minister said that the Government had concluded that it would not be appropriate to apply a flat rate to all 3.8 million women. Have the Government done any modelling on paying a flat rate to any other smaller cohorts within that 3.8 million women—for example, women on pension credit, or under a certain level of income or savings?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think we have discussed versions of this question before. Yes, there have been models that may have focused on a subset of women—for example, those on pension credit—but that still comes up against the fundamental challenge of payments based on some other qualifying condition, which in this case is income, and not the injustice that has been suffered. The ombudsman set out that compensation was due for the injustice, not just the virtue of being a woman born in the 1950s.

I will give way, but then I will wrap up before Madam Deputy Speaker loses her patience.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He will be aware that in other compensation schemes, there are often waves of compensation. The first wave of compensation can be on one indicator, with a second wave looking at other complicating factors. Have the Government looked at that model?

I refer the hon. Lady to our very detailed response, which was published in December. It runs over a number of pages, so I will send her the relevant extracts on the conclusions that we have considered. [Interruption.] I will have to conclude now because I am testing the patience of Madam Deputy Speaker.

I recognise that none of what I have said today is likely to change the minds of many Members here, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has kindly pointed out to me. I know that, not least because I see many familiar faces from similar debates in Westminster Hall, as the even more friendly right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has told me. The campaigners, too, are unlikely to be satisfied. Their tenacity has been clear for all to see and has been attested to sufficiently today. They are right to continue to point to the wider context, which is that society has been far from universally kind to women born in the 1950s, as they have wrestled with discrimination in the labour market and beyond, which is what the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) set out earlier. Nothing regarding the case I have set out today diminishes any of that. However, the Government have made their decision and we owe it to everybody to be clear about it. It is right that hon. Members hold us to account for it, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) has set out.

That has happened today and in other debates in the House, including Westminster Hall. As I have said before, there are lessons for the Department to learn, and learn them we will. We will also continue to support women born in the 1950s and pensioners generally, not least by raising the state pension and turning around our NHS. I know that they and hon. Members will expect nothing less.

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.

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

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.

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.